God Talk
Belief in science could be more superstitious than belief in religion.

The reviewer makes Eagleton sound a lot like the leaders of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

You mean with statements like this?



Talk about a raving fundamentalist!

Seriously, how can you base this statement of yours on anything in this review? Comparing him to Al Qaeda and the Taliban is beyond absurd.

Now I am sure that one could pose a coherent rebuttal to Eagleton in terms of what is said of his book in the review. But it is almost as though you find Eagleton's case as threatening, and I don't mean that he is promoting things equivalent to flying planes into buildings, setting off bombs among civilians and slitting the throats of people who would oppose one's rule.

That's what the Democrats in Congress always say, "We're trying."

You mean you were trying to think of a good rebuttal to Eagleton but just couldn't, so you decided to make make absurd, baseless attributions about him instead?

Personally I thought that Eagleton seems to have some interesting ideas, although I don't know if all of his reasoning pans out well. (But these are difficult things to noodle through.) But to associate him with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? One might as well oppose Obama by associating him with Al Capone. They are both associated with Chicago, after all.

Talk about a raving fundamentalist!

Seriously, how can you base this statement of yours on anything in this review? Comparing him to Al Qaeda and the Taliban is beyond absurd.

Now I am sure that one could pose a coherent rebuttal to Eagleton in terms of what is said of his book in the review. But it is almost as though you find Eagleton's case as threatening, and I don't mean that he is promoting things equivalent to flying planes into buildings, setting off bombs among civilians and slitting the throats of people who would oppose one's rule.
[/quote]

That's what the Democrats in Congress always say, "We're trying."
[/quote]
You mean you were trying to think of a good rebuttal to Eagleton but just couldn't, so you decided to make make absurd, baseless attributions about him instead?

Personally I thought that Eagleton seems to have some interesting ideas, although I don't know if all of his reasoning pans out well. (But these are difficult things to noodle through.) But to associate him with Al Qaeda and the Taliban? One might as well oppose Obama by associating him with Al Capone. They are both associated with Chicago, after all.
[/quote]

I'll have to look at Eagleton's work before I have too much more to say about it. I reject out of hand what seems to be his assumption that only Religion has the wherewithall to examine the most basic questions about human existence...

The only thing that religion offers that science, reason, and secular governing can't offer is hope in and fear of supernatural myths. I'm not denying that hope in and fear of supernatural myths may be a more powerful motivator than what can ever be discovered by science, reason, and secular governing. But we should at least be honest about what we are dealing with. And as long as we are not all believing the same supernatural myths, the effort from those motives seem to be wasted in the process of competing with each other over who's myth should we believe.

I wouldn't restrict our tool box to science, reason and secular governing. I would at least include experiential learning which utilizes science and reasoning but is not a synonym of either.

I was using the broader definition of science which includes both social science and natural science.

I understand. However, I tend to associate experiential learning also with the Spiritual domain with no necessary relation with Religion...its effects can be studied with the scientific method and certainly has a part-whole relation with the social and behavioral sciences...it also has a part-whole relation to Spirituality. Spirituality may eventually be subsumed under the social and behavioral sciences but I don't think we're there yet. (The longer I talk here, the more ambigous I sound because this gets into the I don't know category.)

Okay Rla, at least that is a reasonable statement. I for one think religion (at its best, that is) has the best wherewithall for that, but I understand that you and many others would challenge that (and quite reasonably).

Science is essential, but it can only deal with so much. Science (including social science) can help us establish facts about and understand the world. But it cannot answer questions about things like the meaning and purpose of life and how we ought to conduct ourselves. Not that it cannot ever help in such a quest, but we need other tools for that. Tools that are not pure reason, but involve things like myth, or at least faith. Now such tools don't necessarily require belief in the divine or supernatural, but many have taken that approach.

That's why I mentioned reason and secular governing, in addition to science on the first post of the thread. Those 3 combined cover everything but faith and fear in supernatural myths.

I regard faith as confidence in one's assumptions that one has not yet established empirically. Thus I see faith as
an essential element for practical living and as a foundation for acquiring knowledge...persons may apply this faith to
supernatural myths, which would be a first step for fearing them but there is no necessity for doing so...

I agree that faith is not exclusive to religion. I think you misunderstood my statement. To clarify, I meant science, reason, and secular governing cover everything but faith in supernatural myths and fear of supernatural myths.

That seems reasonable.

I find faith and hope and a firmer belief in god due to science.

The bible I see as analytical stories on how to live.

( can you tell I saw the new star trek Friday! Wonderful!)

Where would faith (in other than the supernatural) fit in with those three? I don't think that faith, even religious faith (with the supernatural and everything) must contradict any of those three, but I don't see where it fits in with any of them.