Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Pope warns: West seems 'tired' of faith

1…456810

Comments

  • #212
    yawha
    Closed Accounts Posts: 695 ✭✭✭yawha


    philologos wrote: »
    Morality? literature? philosophy (in part in Leaving Cert RE)? Rhetoric? Opinion?

    All of these things are unverifiable, so lets not pretend otherwise. Many things which aren't science or verified facts are taught in education and indeed need to be taught for a good education.
    I think he means we shouldn't teach unverifiable things as facts, or even potentially facts.


  • #213
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Morality? literature? philosophy (in part in Leaving Cert RE)? Rhetoric? Opinion?

    None of those things are unverifiable.
    philologos wrote: »
    All of these things are unverifiable, so lets not pretend otherwise.
    Lets.

    Morality is opinion and it is very easy to verify the opinion of someone.

    Literature, even more so (is it written in a book? Yes? Then it is literature)

    Opinion, well you just ask someone what their opinion is. Verified.

    The existence of God? No so much.

    I've no issue is someone wants to teach that some believe in God. But that is a different thing entirely.


  • #214
    Quo Vadis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭Quo Vadis


    Wicknight wrote: »
    None of those things are unverifiable.

    Really ? Cool, at last.

    Maybe you could verify the following for us then, with facts and no speculation please.

    What is the meaning of life?
    Does God exist?
    What is the ultimate purpose of the universe?
    Is the self identical with the body?
    What caused the big bang, and was that a caused cause, or an uncaused cause ?


  • #215
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Quo Vadis wrote: »
    Really ? Cool, at last.

    Maybe you could verify the following for us then, with facts and no speculation please.

    What is the meaning of life?
    Does God exist?
    What is the ultimate purpose of the universe?
    Is the self identical with the body?
    What caused the big bang, and was that a caused cause, or an uncaused cause ?

    Certainly.

    Question: what is the meaning of life.
    Answer: we don't know there is one, let alone what it is.
    Is this answer verifiable: Yes

    Question: Does God exist?
    Answer: We cannot determine this.
    Is this answer verifiable: Yes.

    The next two questions are just repeats.

    Question: what caused the big bang.
    Answer: we don't know.
    Is this answer verifiable: Yes

    Just because the answers are not what you want doesn't mean there are no answers.


  • #216
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    By verifiable, and I think this is the philosophical sense also I mean that truth values can be derived from them. Either true or false. One cannot derive truth or falsity from teaching in rhetorical skills.

    Edit: I should use unfalsifiable rather than unverifable. Perhaps that makes things better and it is more in keeping with Popper's argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_morality


  • #218
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    "We don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to a question. I think religious people need to be reminded of that more than most.


  • #219
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    "We don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to a question. I think religious people need to be reminded of that more than most.

    I never said it wasn't. I'm arguing against your position that only facts should be taught in education. I've pointed out that many other disciplines taught in schools aren't falsifiable.


  • #220
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    ....I'm arguing against your position that only facts should be taught in education....

    Why on earth would you do that? Except perhaps to preserve something within an education system that would die otherwise?


  • #221
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    There is more in a good education than simply learning facts. This is patently obvious to anyone.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    There is more in a good education than simply learning facts. This is patently obvious to anyone.

    I must be deficient then. From the beginning of my education to now I've been aggregating facts and trying to discard nonsense. You remind me of Charles Haughey when asked what blasphemy is, he responded by saying well everyone knows what blasphemy is.


  • #223
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I've explained it in previous posts if you just take the time to read them.


  • #224
    Jarndyce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 217 ✭✭Jarndyce


    philologos wrote: »
    One can provide reasons as to why Christianity is true.

    You dodged this question with the excuse of 'university exams', yet went on to write numerous additional posts.

    Can you please answer this, or at least link to the previous posts wherein you claim to have already provided such answers.


  • #225
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Jarndyce wrote: »
    You dodged this question with the excuse of 'university exams', yet went on to write numerous additional posts.

    Can you please answer this, or at least link to the previous posts wherein you claim to have already provided such answers.

    See here.
    Edit: I've done this many times on boards.ie before. I may do so again when I get time.


  • #226
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    See here.
    Edit: I've done this many times on boards.ie before. I may do so again when I get time.

    Ah you forgot about the rapture dude :P It's May 21st.


  • #227
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    I never said it wasn't. I'm arguing against your position that only facts should be taught in education. I've pointed out that many other disciplines taught in schools aren't falsifiable.

    As I already explained these other disciplines are not devoid of facts.

    The problem is that some people don't like the facts, they prefer to teach non-facts. This is nothing to do with the disciplines being taught.


  • #228
    Jarndyce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 217 ✭✭Jarndyce


    philologos wrote: »
    See here.
    Edit: I've done this many times on boards.ie before. I may do so again when I get time.

    That was just another link to the same excuse.

    I'm asking for your reasons as to why Christianity is true. You claim such reasons exist. If you can provide reasons other than the circular reasoning of 'it's true because the Bible says it's true', I am very much curious to hear them.


  • #229
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jarndyce wrote: »
    That was just another link to the same excuse.

    I'm asking for your reasons as to why Christianity is true. You claim such reasons exist. If you can provide reasons other than the circular reasoning of 'it's true because the Bible says it's true', I am very much curious to hear them.

    It basically boils down to him believing intuitions have value.


  • #230
    Jarndyce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 217 ✭✭Jarndyce


    Ah. That's what I thought.


  • #231
    Quo Vadis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭Quo Vadis


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Certainly.

    Question: what is the meaning of life.
    Answer: we don't know there is one, let alone what it is.
    Is this answer verifiable: Yes

    Question: Does God exist?
    Answer: We cannot determine this.
    Is this answer verifiable: Yes.

    The next two questions are just repeats.

    Question: what caused the big bang.
    Answer: we don't know.
    Is this answer verifiable: Yes

    Just because the answers are not what you want doesn't mean there are no answers.
    Wicknight wrote: »
    "We don't know" is a perfectly valid answer to a question. I think religious people need to be reminded of that more than most.

    Can you verify all these claims for us please


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    Quo Vadis
    Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭Quo Vadis


    Wicknight wrote: »
    As I already explained these other disciplines are not devoid of facts.

    The problem is that some people don't like the facts, they prefer to teach non-facts. This is nothing to do with the disciplines being taught.

    Can you give us a few examples of when you were taught something as fact when it was not a fact ?


  • #233
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Quo Vadis wrote: »
    Can you give us a few examples of when you were taught something as fact when it was not a fact ?

    Religion class, especially in primary school.


  • #234
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,641 ✭✭✭GarIT


    philologos wrote: »
    See here.
    Edit: I've done this many times on boards.ie before. I may do so again when I get time.

    I also completely smashed some of christanity's basic ideas to peices about 2 or 3 pages back and you chose to ignore them, change the topic and not reply.


  • #235
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ^^ I've posted about this subject plenty of times, I just don't have the time to do it justice. That's how it's going to be I'm afraid.

    Here's a post I did a few years ago. I may revise this if I get time.

    You haven't "smashed" anything.


  • #236
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,641 ✭✭✭GarIT


    philologos wrote: »
    You haven't "smashed" anything.

    So you believe that the bread and wine physically transforms to the body and blood of jeasus christ? Its been proven that it doesn't unless christ was made of bread. and don't say it represents anything because in a protestant church it is a representation but in a catholic church it is supposed to be the body of christ exactly as it was 2000 years ago.


  • #237
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    GarIT - I'm not a Roman Catholic, therefore I don't subscribe to transubstantiation. My denomination teaches that the Eucharist is a remembrance of the Last Supper and Jesus' death on the cross / resurrection. You need to be careful in distinguishing between what is a denominational teaching and what is taught universally in Christianity. Catholicism and Protestantism are denominational strands of Christianity. The vast majority of teachings are shared in common, some differ. Protestantism itself contains differing branches.


  • #238
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,641 ✭✭✭GarIT


    philologos wrote: »
    Here's a post I did a few years ago.

    In that post you just say things that supposedly happened, you don't actually back anything up with evidence. And you said the bible must be true because it is widely circulated Harry Potter is widely circulated too that doesn't make it real. You were referring to the bible being old so it must be true, the Quran is much older does that make it more true? Is their messiah the real one?


  • #239
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Quote the section you have issue with rather than paraphrasing. It may be useful for when I sit down to write a revised version after I finish up these pesky exams.*

    * Perhaps PM because this is taking the thread off-topic.


  • #240
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,641 ✭✭✭GarIT


    philologos wrote: »
    GarIT - I'm not a Roman Catholic, therefore I don't subscribe to transubstantiation. My denomination teaches that the Eucharist is a remembrance of the Last Supper and Jesus' death on the cross / resurrection. You need to be careful in distinguishing between what is a denominational teaching and what is taught universally in Christianity. Catholicism and Protestantism are denominational strands of Christianity. The vast majority of teachings are shared in common, some differ. Protestantism itself contains differing branches.

    What do you believe in then? do you believe in Jeasus walking on water? Do you believe in the original version of the first commandment where "god the creator" implies that all land and islands are floating on water? I thought the creator should have known that water was on land not land on water.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    GarIT
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,641 ✭✭✭GarIT


    philologos wrote: »
    Quote the section you have issue with rather than paraphrasing. It may be useful for when I sit down to write a revised version after I finish up these pesky exams.*

    * Perhaps PM because this is taking the thread off-topic.

    I'm not really bothered going through all of it but most of it lacks evidence especially section 7 about the bible


Advertisement