dorbie 0
Recommended Posts
philh 0
"I do not use wikipedia, it is very unreliable."
So instead of addressing the issues wikipedia broght up you simply slag off the whole of wikipedia. That is what we call an ad hominen argument. Im sure Wikedia may have some unreliable entires, but to to automatically reject anyhting in it is quite frankly absurd. In the areas where I have post graduate qualification I find it remarakbly accurate. Of course I would certainly not rely on wikpedia exculsively , that is why youll note I provided two different sources.
But in case you didnt like my last two sources I will give you more:
This from Oxford Univeristy psychology dept:
"Psychology is a science in the sense that it seeks to understand mind behaviour through experimentation, observation and measurement. Insight and intuition can obviously help, but they are not sufficient"
This from Cambridge online dictionary
"the scientific study of the way the human mind works and how it influences behaviour, or the influence of a particular person's character on their behaviour:"
in contrast psycotherapy:
"the treatment of mental illness by discussing the problems which caused it with the sufferer, instead of using drugs or operations"
So there are some more definitions perhaps form sources you will find more reliable. In contrast you offer up yet again your own personal experience. But I have to point out your masters is not in psychology, its in counselling.They are not the same at all. Im sure being a counseller may have similarities to being a priest. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with sceintific method which real psychology relies upon. Whilst there is a sub set of psychologists who are clinical psychologists, this is not a definition of psychology.
Just in case you think things are different in the USA to the UK this is the definition of psychology from the American Psychologist Association:
"Psychology is the STUDY of the mind and behavior. The discipline embraces all aspects of the human experience — from the functions of the brain to the actions of nations, from child development to care for the aged. In every conceivable setting from scientific research centers to mental health care services, "the understanding of behavior" is the enterprise of psychologists. "
and at Stanford Univerisyt we have:
"The psychology major offers excellent training in how to understand human behavior using scientifically rigorous methods. "
Now maybe we are getting a little off topic here, but the point is Christian theology cannot try and up its respect by comparing itslef to a legitmate science.
Science is our best way of understanding the world around us, reading ancient books pales in comparison.
So instead of addressing the issues wikipedia broght up you simply slag off the whole of wikipedia. That is what we call an ad hominen argument. Im sure Wikedia may have some unreliable entires, but to to automatically reject anyhting in it is quite frankly absurd. In the areas where I have post graduate qualification I find it remarakbly accurate. Of course I would certainly not rely on wikpedia exculsively , that is why youll note I provided two different sources.
But in case you didnt like my last two sources I will give you more:
This from Oxford Univeristy psychology dept:
"Psychology is a science in the sense that it seeks to understand mind behaviour through experimentation, observation and measurement. Insight and intuition can obviously help, but they are not sufficient"
This from Cambridge online dictionary
"the scientific study of the way the human mind works and how it influences behaviour, or the influence of a particular person's character on their behaviour:"
in contrast psycotherapy:
"the treatment of mental illness by discussing the problems which caused it with the sufferer, instead of using drugs or operations"
So there are some more definitions perhaps form sources you will find more reliable. In contrast you offer up yet again your own personal experience. But I have to point out your masters is not in psychology, its in counselling.They are not the same at all. Im sure being a counseller may have similarities to being a priest. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with sceintific method which real psychology relies upon. Whilst there is a sub set of psychologists who are clinical psychologists, this is not a definition of psychology.
Just in case you think things are different in the USA to the UK this is the definition of psychology from the American Psychologist Association:
"Psychology is the STUDY of the mind and behavior. The discipline embraces all aspects of the human experience — from the functions of the brain to the actions of nations, from child development to care for the aged. In every conceivable setting from scientific research centers to mental health care services, "the understanding of behavior" is the enterprise of psychologists. "
and at Stanford Univerisyt we have:
"The psychology major offers excellent training in how to understand human behavior using scientifically rigorous methods. "
Now maybe we are getting a little off topic here, but the point is Christian theology cannot try and up its respect by comparing itslef to a legitmate science.
Science is our best way of understanding the world around us, reading ancient books pales in comparison.
QuoteAre you serious? This must be some form of theological McCarthyism designed to make atheists brains implode. But just in case you really aren't trying to make me burst a blood vessel and actually don't have a grasp on what reality is, try reading this.
Seriously, is this a joke?
Don't strain yourself. I was just asking how you'd define the word. That's OK, you don't have to.
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
JackC 0
QuoteDon't strain yourself. I was just asking how you'd define the word. That's OK, you don't have to.
I'd define it the same way most normal people would. Why wouldn't I?
I still can't believe you needed to ask.
philh 0
"He (Tacitus) lived in the generation that followed Christ. He would have been an adult around the time "Q" and Luke were written. That's like saying I cannot write about FDR's influence on social democracy of the 60s because FDR died 10 years before I was born."
Do you really think you can compare the two situations? We have access to information now that was unheard of then, the internet, video, newspapers, books... lots and lots and lots of sources of information that simply didnt exist then. There were few scribes, most of the population was probably illiterate and stories wouldd have been passed on most predominatley by oral tradition. That makes someone commenting on events decades after in the 1st century a whole lot les reliable than in the 20th century.
Eeven if Tacitus is 100% reliable all it proves was there were Chrsitians, it proves nothing about Christ.
The main point is there is no historical eye witness account of Christs, all the co called non biblical sources all lived after Christ so they are not eye witnesses and the gospels themsleves are written by unknown authors at an unknown time.
Do you really think you can compare the two situations? We have access to information now that was unheard of then, the internet, video, newspapers, books... lots and lots and lots of sources of information that simply didnt exist then. There were few scribes, most of the population was probably illiterate and stories wouldd have been passed on most predominatley by oral tradition. That makes someone commenting on events decades after in the 1st century a whole lot les reliable than in the 20th century.
Eeven if Tacitus is 100% reliable all it proves was there were Chrsitians, it proves nothing about Christ.
The main point is there is no historical eye witness account of Christs, all the co called non biblical sources all lived after Christ so they are not eye witnesses and the gospels themsleves are written by unknown authors at an unknown time.
Ha, and I can't believe you don't want to define it... but that's OK; forget it. 
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
JackC 0
QuoteHa, and I can't believe you don't want to define it... but that's OK; forget it.
I did define it. I posted a link which you obviously didn't read so here it is again.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=define%3Areality&btnG=Google&meta=
I'd make it bigger and blinking with buzzers and whistles so the reality challenged can't miss it but the forum wont let me.
Alternatively, look in a dictionary, it's what they are for.
dorbie 0
The definition is implicit, do you want to define every word you should know?
Despite your professed dispelief in reality he DID post a link to a very clear definition.
Despite your professed dispelief in reality he DID post a link to a very clear definition.
dorbie 0
... hmmmm your beat me to it, but your first link was originally to wikipedia.
.
JackC 0
Quote... hmmmm your beat me to it, but your first link was originally to wikipedia
True, but I thought that was way too technical for the purpose so I changed it. The Wiki article is just as good though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
QuoteJust in case you think things are different in the USA to the UK this is the definition of psychology from the American Psychologist Association:
I know, I am a member.
I wasn't debating your definition as much as your assertion all pyschologist do research and study. I'm saying most pyschologists in the USA do therapy. It is like most medical doctors practice medicine while some medical doctors perform resarch.
steveOrino
Quotebut the point is Christian theology cannot try and up its respect by comparing itslef to a legitmate science.
I have been stating theology should not be under the ruls of science for quite some time. You must have me confused with someone else.
steveOrino
Quote"He (Tacitus) lived in the generation that followed Christ. He would have been an adult around the time "Q" and Luke were written. That's like saying I cannot write about FDR's influence on social democracy of the 60s because FDR died 10 years before I was born."
Do you really think you can compare the two situations? We have access to information now that was unheard of then, the internet, video, newspapers, books... lots and lots and lots of sources of information that simply didnt exist then. There were few scribes, most of the population was probably illiterate and stories wouldd have been passed on most predominatley by oral tradition. That makes someone commenting on events decades after in the 1st century a whole lot les reliable than in the 20th century.
Eeven if Tacitus is 100% reliable all it proves was there were Chrsitians, it proves nothing about Christ.
The main point is there is no historical eye witness account of Christs, all the co called non biblical sources all lived after Christ so they are not eye witnesses and the gospels themsleves are written by unknown authors at an unknown time.
Tcitus, the Roman historian, was not an adult when Nero reigned so you are saying he was not a reliable historian for him?
steveOrino
JackC 0
QuoteI have been stating theology should not be under the ruls of science for quite some time. You must have me confused with someone else.
Apart from a vague comparison to psychology, you haven't posted the rules theology should come under. How do you measure your performance in the field of theology?
jakee 1,563
QuoteTcitus, the Roman historian, was not an adult when Nero reigned so you are saying he was not a reliable historian for him?
I'm going to mostly agree with you here Steve. In fact, I might go so far as to say that Tacitus, writing shortly after the fact, may even be a more reliable historian than one who wrote during Nero's rule. Writing truthfully about the 1stC emperors while they were still around was quite a dangerous business
I still wouldn't trust everything he says of course, and would also point out that while he is a good source for the existence of early organised christianity he doesn't really have anything to say about Jesus himself, except by exceptionally brief reference to second hand info.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
jakee 1,563
QuoteAlas no, post modern philosophy has well and truly climbed up its own arse, gotten lost and undermined the potential of millions through rampant deconstruction and post* bullshit. The direct impact you see in inane questions like "What is reality?", from people, truly out of their depth who think it's an intelligent contribution. Now in some sense this can be a profound and deep question, but in the post modern interpretation it is merely insipid relativism as a substitute for critical thinking. They should have stopped with Popper's falsifiability, instead they threw the tools of objectivity out the window. Like any metastasized cancer, it's a very sorry mess to witness.
Best. Rant. Ever.
Besides, everyone knows that reality is created by the constant state of flux of the different forms of fire - as it flows down to the world from holes in the firmament (sun, stars, moon), takes solid a liquid form in the world as we know it, and finally evaporates from the oceans to travel back into the firmament.
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
philh 0
"I wasn't debating your definition as much as your assertion all pyschologist do research and study...I have been stating theology should not be under the ruls of science for quite some time. You must have me confused with someone else."
I have not asserted that all psychologists do is study
, I made no assertions on what psychologists do. I made an assertion on what psychology is. What pyschology is, is a scientific study of mental processes. The reason this definition is important is because you compared theology with psychology to quote you:
"While I believe theology is a study that is unique in many ways it is similar to pyschology (maybe this is why I enjoy both) "
My point is that theology (at least Christian theology) does not follow the scientific method, whilst psychology does. Rather than getting bogged down in definitions and semantic arguments I think thisis the real point. Sceintific enquiry can give us high (although never 100%) confidence about the nature of the world around us. Theism cannot rival this sort of knowledge. Any conclusion reached by thiests that are not supported by scientific evidence should not be given much weight.
I have not asserted that all psychologists do is study
, I made no assertions on what psychologists do. I made an assertion on what psychology is. What pyschology is, is a scientific study of mental processes. The reason this definition is important is because you compared theology with psychology to quote you:
"While I believe theology is a study that is unique in many ways it is similar to pyschology (maybe this is why I enjoy both) "
My point is that theology (at least Christian theology) does not follow the scientific method, whilst psychology does. Rather than getting bogged down in definitions and semantic arguments I think thisis the real point. Sceintific enquiry can give us high (although never 100%) confidence about the nature of the world around us. Theism cannot rival this sort of knowledge. Any conclusion reached by thiests that are not supported by scientific evidence should not be given much weight.
QuoteQuoteI have been stating theology should not be under the ruls of science for quite some time. You must have me confused with someone else.
Apart from a vague comparison to psychology, you haven't posted the rules theology should come under. How do you measure your performance in the field of theology?
The distribution of Theology into didactic, polemic, and practical, is sufficiently known. Now, all didactic inculcation of truth is indirect refutation of the opposite error. Polemic Theology has been defined as direct refutation of error. The advantage of this has been supposed to be, that the way for easiest and most thorough refutation is to systematize the error, with reference to its first principle, or prwton yeudo". But the attempt to form a science of polemics, different from Didactic Theology fails; because error never has true method. Confusion is its characteristic. The system of discussion, formed on its false method, cannot be scientific. Hence, separate treatises on polemics have usually slidden into the methods of didactics; or they have been confused. Again: Indirect refutation is more effectual than direct. There is therefore, in this course, no separate polemic; but what is said against errors is divided between the historical and didactic
steveOrino
philh 0
"Tacitus, the Roman historian, was not an adult when Nero reigned so you are saying he was not a reliable historian for him?"
I would say Tacitus would have a lot more access to reliable information on Nero than he would have had on Christ so yet again you are making a false comparison. For Christ, he may have used Christians as his source and so was simply reporting on what they believed. We should also note that Tacitus histoires should definiltye be treated as less reliable than modern histories as we have a lot more resources than were available at the time. Ill ask you again do you seriously think that ancient historians who had a lot less resources than we do, can be considered as reliable as modern one's?
What I am saying re Tacitus is that his writings do not in any way back up the main claims of Christianity ie that Jesus was the Messiah and was ressurected from the dead. At best Tacitus shows us that there were Christians at the time he was writing (about 100ad) . But Im not disputing that there were Christians then, Im disputing the divintiy of Christ and his resurection. Im also disputing that there are any contemporary (of Jesus) evidence of the events of the crucial passages of the gospels. I am still waiting for a real eye witness to those events, so far we cant verify a single one, let alone the several it would take to give the story any credibility at all.
I would say Tacitus would have a lot more access to reliable information on Nero than he would have had on Christ so yet again you are making a false comparison. For Christ, he may have used Christians as his source and so was simply reporting on what they believed. We should also note that Tacitus histoires should definiltye be treated as less reliable than modern histories as we have a lot more resources than were available at the time. Ill ask you again do you seriously think that ancient historians who had a lot less resources than we do, can be considered as reliable as modern one's?
What I am saying re Tacitus is that his writings do not in any way back up the main claims of Christianity ie that Jesus was the Messiah and was ressurected from the dead. At best Tacitus shows us that there were Christians at the time he was writing (about 100ad) . But Im not disputing that there were Christians then, Im disputing the divintiy of Christ and his resurection. Im also disputing that there are any contemporary (of Jesus) evidence of the events of the crucial passages of the gospels. I am still waiting for a real eye witness to those events, so far we cant verify a single one, let alone the several it would take to give the story any credibility at all.
JackC 0
QuoteThe distribution of Theology into didactic, polemic, and practical, is sufficiently known. Now, all didactic inculcation of truth is indirect refutation of the opposite error. Polemic Theology has been defined as direct refutation of error. The advantage of this has been supposed to be, that the way for easiest and most thorough refutation is to systematize the error, with reference to its first principle, or prwton yeudo". But the attempt to form a science of polemics, different from Didactic Theology fails; because error never has true method. Confusion is its characteristic. The system of discussion, formed on its false method, cannot be scientific. Hence, separate treatises on polemics have usually slidden into the methods of didactics; or they have been confused. Again: Indirect refutation is more effectual than direct. There is therefore, in this course, no separate polemic; but what is said against errors is divided between the historical and didactic
Your mind tricks wont work on me Jedi.
Fetch me a dictionary!
Edit: Actually, scrap that. This is just a cut and paste job from here. Maybe you could translate it for me instead of just regurgitating unreferenced material (aka plagiarism).
beowulf 1
QuoteQuoteQuoteI have been stating theology should not be under the ruls of science for quite some time. You must have me confused with someone else.
Apart from a vague comparison to psychology, you haven't posted the rules theology should come under. How do you measure your performance in the field of theology?
The distribution of Theology into didactic, polemic, and practical, is sufficiently known. Now, all didactic inculcation of truth is indirect refutation of the opposite error. Polemic Theology has been defined as direct refutation of error. The advantage of this has been supposed to be, that the way for easiest and most thorough refutation is to systematize the error, with reference to its first principle, or prwton yeudo". But the attempt to form a science of polemics, different from Didactic Theology fails; because error never has true method. Confusion is its characteristic. The system of discussion, formed on its false method, cannot be scientific. Hence, separate treatises on polemics have usually slidden into the methods of didactics; or they have been confused. Again: Indirect refutation is more effectual than direct. There is therefore, in this course, no separate polemic; but what is said against errors is divided between the historical and didactic
I read through that carefully and I found no tangible rules there at all. Didactic refers to moral instruction and Polemic refers to contreversial arguement. It appears to me that all you are saying is that there is no rules and Theology can not be made into a science.
QuoteIt appears to me that all you are saying is that there is no rules and Theology can not be made into a science.
1/2 right. It has rules, but it is not a natural science.
steveOrino
beowulf 1
As far as I can tell there is no way for you or any religious person to know if you interpretation of the bible is correct or not. Each person that I have talked to about religion seems to have their own seperate set of beliefs and while they do have many similiaritys with others they are still unique. That leads me to think that spirtuality is nothing but imaginative conjecture based on the bible.
Alas no, post modern philosophy has well and truly climbed up its own arse, gotten lost and undermined the potential of millions through rampant deconstruction and post* bullshit. The direct impact you see in inane questions like "What is reality?", from people, truly out of their depth who think it's an intelligent contribution. Now in some sense this can be a profound and deep question, but in the post modern interpretation it is merely insipid relativism as a substitute for critical thinking. They should have stopped with Popper's falsifiability, instead they threw the tools of objectivity out the window. Like any metastasized cancer, it's a very sorry mess to witness.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites