Dawkins vs Pell

Originally posted by JS357
After my initial post I edited it because I question the value of debate in this. I question it because I believe the crux of the issue is what the two sides have in common, not what they differ about. I don't think it will help for me to lay out what I think that is. But it has to do with making an ontology out of what is at most, an epistemology. I will lay side wants to understand how the others minds work. And they work similarly. At the extremes.

Have to say, I'm having difficulty buying into this.

Isn't it more a question of reason vs faith?

Seems that with some issues, such as the existence of God, there is faith despite a lack of evidence.

While with other issues, such as the inerrancy of the Bible, there is faith despite the evidence against.

There really doesn't seem to be much in common in terms of approach.

Many of the issues go away if beliefs propped up by faith were presented as just that - instead of presenting the seeming neverending claims that they are propped up by reason.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That settles it. I'm moving to Australia. I'm so tired of all of my US politicians pretending to be religious to get votes here. 😞

Isn't that the truth.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I would imagine that the perceived shame of divorce for Biblical principle appliers would be so great that they would rather live in misery for the rest of their lives just to save face.

so this is your reason why those who apply Biblical principles have a higher marital
success rate than those that dont, not very scientific, given the data, me thinks!

Originally posted by sonhouse
Annulled for 2000 years. So why do you have an old testament then? It is not your god's word? Why don't you Paulists come right out and just throw it away, only use the NT?

because all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What you seem to fail to realize is that the OT comes in handy when promoting some beliefs. When it gets in the way of others, then the claim of Mosaic Law being annulled is invoked. It's really quite simple. I'm surprised you struggle with such simple concepts.

Sorry you fail to understand anything in this regard. The law was a tutor leading towards
Christ, thank God for Paul who explained many facets of the Jewish system and how it
relates to Christianity, indeed, you would do better if you understood the relationship,
clearly you dont.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sorry you fail to understand anything in this regard. The law was a tutor leading towards
Christ, thank God for Paul who explained many facets of the Jewish system and how it
relates to Christianity, indeed, you would do better if you understood the relationship,
clearly you dont.

As usual you either fail to understand the point or are being intentionally obtuse.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
As usual you either fail to understand the point or are being intentionally obtuse.

your point was easy understand, yet your ignorance of scripture and the Jewish system
of types and the antitypical representation in the Greek scriptures is profoundly
disturbing, for without Paul we would have little idea how they relate, that's why you,
through your rejection of Paul, know next to nothing about the correlation.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your point was easy understand, yet your ignorance of scripture and the Jewish system
of types and the antitypical representation in the Greek scriptures is profoundly
disturbing, for without Paul we would have little idea how they relate, that's why you,
through your rejection of Paul, know next to nothing about the correlation.

Like I said:
"As usual you either fail to understand the point or are being intentionally obtuse."

On the other hand, I have little doubt that SH will fail to understand the point.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Have to say, I'm having difficulty buying into this.

Isn't it more a question of reason vs faith?

Seems that with some issues, such as the existence of God, there is faith despite a lack of evidence.

While with other issues, such as the inerrancy of the Bible, there is faith despite the evidence against.

There really doesn't seem to be much ...[text shortened]... at - instead of presenting the seeming neverending claims that they are propped up by reason.

Both science and religion (can) depend on reasoning upon evidence in a certain realm of study, in keeping with certain principles. The realms, and principles of study, differ. Of course they should stay out of each others way and whichever one doesn't, needs to reconsider.

The common ground in terms of approach is that both sides have certain principles of thought that they apply using reason to come up with a story about how the world is.

Let's take one popular principle used in science. Occam's Razor. Occam said, do not multiply entities beyond necessity. It was advice about developing theories. He did not say, "The theory that calls for the fewest new entities is more likely to be true." There is no way to prove that. Every falling object could be guided by its own team of angels, for all science knows. But we don't need to invoke any angels to predict its speed profile. Science tells us the rules those angels are following, without having to ask them. 🙂

This might be contrasted with a principle of religion, which is that everything has a divine purpose and plan behind it, say, the "hand of God."

Maybe that gives you some idea of what I am getting at.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Like I said:
"As usual you either fail to understand the point or are being intentionally obtuse."

On the other hand, I have little doubt that SH will fail to understand the point.

yawn usual appeals to your own statements as some kind of justification for your
ignorance, primarily as a result of a rejection of Paul that has become your trademark!
So be it!

Originally posted by JS357
Both science and religion (can) depend on reasoning upon evidence in a certain realm of study, in keeping with certain principles. The realms, and principles of study, differ. Of course they should stay out of each others way and whichever one doesn't, needs to reconsider.

The common ground in terms of approach is that both sides have certain principles of ...[text shortened]... d it, say, the "hand of God."

Maybe that gives you some idea of what I am getting at.

Not entirely sure of what you're trying to get at. You seem to be trying to make the claim that both science and religion can be based in reason and that they are just different ways of explaining the "world" in which we live.

For one, it doesn't seem to make sense to carve it up into "science" and "religion". There is much more to what informs a secular point of view than "science".

For another, let's take a look at your example. On the religious side you say the following:
"This might be contrasted with a principle of religion, which is that everything has a divine purpose and plan behind it, say, the 'hand of God.'"

The above is based in "faith". No matter how much "reason" one places around "faith" it's still based in "faith" since "faith" is its foundation.