Closed Mindedness

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A smiley-debater. Mark of a razor-sharp mind!

I'm hoping you'll go away
🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
I'm hoping you'll go away
🙂

Sorry to disappoint you. Look, I gave you something to engage with a page back -- something more interesting than our tepid little squabble.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Sorry to disappoint you. Look, I gave you something to engage with a page back -- something more interesting than our tepid little squabble.

You posted:
"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand"
with the intention (I suspect) of winning a point through equivocation.

Einstein also wrote:
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend personal God and avoid dogma and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description. If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism."

"You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man"

[in response to do you believe in God]
"I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

Here we see that the 'religion' Einstein discusses is not the happy clappy Christian variety or any other that is based on theistic dogma (which is the subject of this thread).

I can respect his opinion on that matter. I don't necessarily agree with him but he makes no claims that are above his station on such matters.
Whether there is some entity which exists in dimensions we'll never perceive I do not and cannot know, and choose not to create any image of such an entity in my own mind (since it will be surely false). I am quite sure in any case it isn't the Christian god however.

If you respond of course it will be with some insipid snipe shot to bolster your own ego...have fun
🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
You posted:
[b]"I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand" [/b]

You left out Einstein's closing remark in that quote:

"It seems to me that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead."

I think that describes a certain kind of close-mindedness quite well.

Thanks for clarifying the purpose of this thread, by the way -- another crack at the fundies, right? But aren't you doing yourself a disservice by limiting your critique to the views of a minority of Christians? I quite understand your aversion to the lunatic fringe, but I don't see how refusing to investigate the Good Book on that basis adds credibility to your position. After all, the majority of Christians in this world are Roman Catholic, with views far removed from the Bible-bashers you seem to detest. They can believe in evolution, for a start ...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I quite understand your aversion to the lunatic fringe, but I don't see how refusing to investigate the Good Book on that basis adds credibility to your position.

Not to mention that, apart from its religious content, some of the books in the bible are the best (or some of the best) literary work of mankind in ancient times.

Originally posted by Tatarana Crocodilo
Not to mention that, apart from its religious content, some of the books in the bible are the best (or some of the best) literary work of mankind in ancient times.

Unfortunately many of the books become lifeless if subjected to a literal reading. The tale of Eden can be seen as a profound spiritual allegory or a fairly absurd story about a man, a woman and a talking snake, with a divine VOICE OFF.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Unfortunately many of the books become lifeless if subjected to a literal reading. The tale of Eden can be seen as a profound spiritual allegory or a fairly absurd story about a man, a woman and a talking snake, with a divine VOICE OFF.

True. But even an atheist can achieve much more from reading the bible than Dan Brown.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You left out Einstein's closing remark in that quote:

"It seems to me that whoever doesn't wonder about the truth in religion and in science might as well be dead."

I think that describes a certain kind of close-mindedness quite well.

Thanks for clarifying the purpose of this thread, by the way -- another crack at the fundies, right? But from the Bible-bashers you seem to detest. They can believe in evolution, for a start ...

That omission was a mistake (I make such things from time to time), and it's inclusion after the fact changes nothing about the statement I made in response to what you quoted.
His notion of religion differs from that which you challenged(?) me with.

I found some spare time a while ago to read (closely) the OT, it bored and patronised me towards a retreat long before I reached the end. I expect the same with the NT or any other 'book of truth'

Saying I detest Bible bashers is making a statement about my disposition towards the people who follow the Bible. This is unjustified

Originally posted by Agerg
That omission was a mistake (I make such things from time to time), and it's inclusion after the fact changes nothing about the statement I made in response to what you quoted.
His notion of religion differs from that which you challenged(?) me with.

I found some spare time a while ago to read (closely) the OT, it bored and patronised me towards a retreat ment about my disposition towards [b]the people who follow the Bible. This is unjustified[/b]

Yes, Einstein's view of religion differs from fundamentalist Christianity. But I take him to mean that you should make an effort to investigate the truths of a religion. In the case of Christianity, such an effort would necessarily involve reading the Book -- not so?

It's too bad the OT bored you. A question of personal taste, I guess. Whether boredom is a valid reason to reject any given material is another matter. Good-bye, Immanuel Kant ... As for that Theory of Relativity ...

I'm sorry, your use of terms like 'fundie' gives the impression (I used the word 'seem'😉 that you look down on fundamentalist Christians from quite a height. Are you going to say now that you respect their views?

Originally posted by Tatarana Crocodilo
True. But even an atheist can achieve much more from reading the bible than Dan Brown.

Would Dan Brown be comprehensible without some cultural Christian background?

For me, the Bible is alive, much as the Norse myths are alive, although with a different quality of life.

Originally posted by hakima
I am open to perspectives about the nature of God that some call "the trinity" and other perspectives that I have not thought to ask after...

...as it is said, "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear."

ask him about the trinity😛

Originally posted by duecer
ask him about the trinity😛

Which one--

The Father, Son and Holy Ghost?

or

Maiden, Mother, Crone?

Since I believe in all of them, they are the Sacred Sextet.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
For me, the Bible is alive, much as the Norse myths are alive, although with a different quality of life.

I agree completely. (or at least I think I do, if i managed to understand you).

Originally posted by Tatarana Crocodilo
But even an atheist can achieve much more from reading the bible than Dan Brown.

I don't think so.

There are innumerables of weak formulations in the bible, paradoxes, and inconsistencies. In order to believe the bible, then you have to believe it in the first place, and then you don't have to read it. As many christians don't.

I enjoy more reading my dear 'Calculus A'. It doesn't bring up anything without carefully explain the underlying structure first. It brings beliefs by explaining it. Example: Without a profound explaination I cannot believe that sqrt(-1) can be dealt with.

The bible start explaining why there are sin, but doesn't explain sin. Sometimes it's a sin to kill, but still the bible shows many glorified wars, not to mention the global flood. Sometimes it's good to forgive your enemies, but homosexuals doesn't deserve to live.

The only importance to know the bible is that our culture and traditions are based upon the bible. It's as important to read the quaran if you live in Bagdad. But to expect to find The Divine Truth in the bible? No, that's futile.

Originally posted by Tatarana Crocodilo
True. But even an atheist can achieve much more from reading the bible than Dan Brown.

you could achieve much more from reading "the little engine that could" than dan brown.