Knowledge of a creator being

@fmf said
If there is a creator entity and the universe can rightfully be described as "creation", I think science can tell us more [and more and more as times passes] about that "creation" than, say, your Orthodox Catholic narratives and dogma can.

If God created the universe... Science will be able to tell us more about the universe than the Church.


Well, I hope so.

That's science's job.

My priest's job is providing us with the sacraments, edifying homilies, and Christian counsel.

@philokalia said
My priest's job is providing us with the sacraments, edifying homilies, and Christian counsel.

I don't think your priest knows or provides anything credible about a creator entity if there is one. I think whatever your priest is "providing" you with can be explained by sciences like anthropology and psychology.

@fmf said
I don't think your priest knows or provides anything credible about a creator entity if there is one. I think whatever your priest is "providing" you with can be explained by sciences like anthropology and psychology.

- I am not surprised to hear that you do not believe in my religious tradition's divine revelation.

- If you do not believe in this as a true, of course some guy providing observations about the content would have more meaning than untrue statements that aren't divine revelation.

@fmf said
a form of very religious thinking

I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there has been communication between human beings and their various God figures; I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there are instructions, promises, threats, and rewards that have been revealed to human beings.

If there is no God, there is no reason to believe in any kind of moral or spiritual truth.

@philokalia said
If there is no God, there is no reason to believe in any kind of moral or spiritual truth.

Utter nonsense.

There have been some great conversations about exactly this numerous times on this forum.

To my way of thinking, you'd have made a fool of yourself if this was the kind of contribution you'd have made.

@philokalia said
- I am not surprised to hear that you do not believe in my religious tradition's divine revelation.

It's not just your one.

@philokalia said
If there is no God, there is no reason to believe in any kind of moral or spiritual truth.

By the way, did you or didn't you agree with this:

"I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there has been communication between human beings and their various God figures; I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there are instructions, promises, threats, and rewards that have been revealed to human beings."

@fmf said
By the way, did you or didn't you agree with this:

"I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there has been communication between human beings and their various God figures; I see "religious thinking" as being the belief that there are instructions, promises, threats, and rewards that have been revealed to human beings."

I think religious thinking would involve any form of thought that is not materialist.

@fmf said
Utter nonsense.

There have been some great conversations about exactly this numerous times on this forum.

To my way of thinking, you'd have made a fool of yourself if this was the kind of contribution you'd have made.

If you believe there is only matter, how would there be spiritual or moral truth?

@philokalia said
If you believe there is only matter, how would there be spiritual or moral truth?

Hey, you asked me this before when we were having a kind of three-way chat with KellyJay about the basis and nature of morality. My stance has not changed. I refer you to that.

@philokalia said
I think religious thinking would involve any form of thought that is not materialist.

This would be too wishy-washy a definition for me. Perhaps by "any form of thought that is not materialist" you mean "spiritual thinking"? Any definition of "religion" or "religious thinking" that leaves out the worship of an ostensibly revealed superhuman or supernatural, controlling being, falls short to my way of thinking.

@fmf said
This would be too wishy-washy a definition for me. Perhaps by "any form of thought that is not materialist" you mean "spiritual thinking"?

Having said this, I have my own notion [and definition] of what "spiritual thinking" is, and it has been accused of being wishy-washy, so there you go.

@fmf said
Hey, you asked me this before when we were having a kind of three-way chat with KellyJay about the basis and nature of morality. My stance has not changed. I refer you to that.

OK, cool, not sure how to refer back to that.

We can end this line here, if you like.

@fmf said
This would be too wishy-washy a definition for me. Perhaps by "any form of thought that is not materialist" you mean "spiritual thinking"? Any definition of "religion" or "religious thinking" that leaves out the worship of an ostensibly revealed superhuman or supernatural, controlling being, falls short to my way of thinking.

It is possible to deny any personal god and still engage in what amounts to religious thinking. This would describe some schools of Buddhism.

@philokalia said
I think religious thinking would involve any form of thought that is not materialist.

Would listening to a YouTube soundtrack of the sea washing on the shore count while counting imaginary jumping fish be a “religious thinking” in your frame of reference?