₦airaland Forum

alimat 2:
Lets dicussion the issue on ground.To learn or not to learn!

Well, I didn't plan to stay up until now. Indeed I saw this thread earlier, but from the quote above I might as well hazard a response.

Sorry that I haven't read through every single post that followed; but going to the OP on page 1:

Xtians why dnt u learn the language called Hebrew for proper understanding of your religion cos i think i will help to know more about the truth in the bible.

That's a good suggestion. However, what makes you think that there are no Christians who are learning the Biblical language?

if every xtian can learn and understand the language there wont be problem of translation error.

That statement is not quite objective, for the following reasons:
1. Not "every Christian" is involved in translating the Biblical documents - or even any other document for that matter;
2. faith in God is not tied down to ONLY ONE language
3. translation errors abound in every worldview - Christian, Moslem, atheist, etc. Even in disciplined pursuits like sciences have occurences of translation errors.
4. inspite of all that, being 100% translation-accurate does not save anybody. One can know everything about Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Arabic and English and still be as LOST as 'lost' with a capital 'L'. So long as the essence of Biblical message is understood, communicated and received, the believer (in this case, the Christian) loses nothing for not understanding Hebrew or Greek.

What do you say?

Atheists:
Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color

Yea, we've all heard that silly ol' quip uncountable times. The best part is that it comes from atheist authors who acknowledge it in published sources (I gave an example).

Has anyone claimed that the modern world would "work" SOLELY on any singular basis?

Which one singular basis could you propose as the SOLE basis for the outworkings of the modern world?

Another problem is about the definition and aims of science that, in Philosophy you cannot just brashly state an 'aim' or 'objective' of science (unless, of course, you have a solid stomach for a good fight, lol). Philosophy (especially in the epistemological aspect) has some thinkers holding a realist aim of science. Briefly, this context posits that scientific realism views the aims of science as including the following:

>>> the aim of science is to give us empirically adequate theories; however, the emprical adequacy is NOT literal, rather it is only valid for the empirical component of a theory (this is commonly seen as the VFCE - the Van Fraassen's Constructive Empiricism).

>>> the instrumentalistic aim of science, which is that science aims to gie us "useful" theories in various forms

>>> the Naive Bayesianistic aim of science is to give us theories which are "most probable", given our total evidence;

>>> the verisimilitude aim of science is to give us theories that are as close to the truth as possible.

However, philosophers of science sweep all these high-sounding grammar aside and cut to the chase. An ready example is Karl Popper who noted that science aims at true explanatory theories, yet it can NEVER PROVE, or justify, any theory to be true, not even if it is a true theory. Science must continue to question and criticize all its theories, even those that happen to be true (see his "Realism and the Aim of Science".

Dear good people, those are my musings. After reading the comments of various contributors, I just felt that opinions do not come close to where science is today.

Well, huxley, you don't know what a theory is if that is how you are aiming to contribute to the discussion. I don't see how your comments have answered the highlighted part in your quote. Evolution has not disproved God, even though as a theory it is only concerned with a naturalistic worldview and not aimed at "proving" or "disproving" deities.

___________________________

Anyways, let me take a look at the other comments expressed:

The aim of science is not to investigate all reality, but rather to investigate those realities that are seen in the form of matter and energy.

compare with:

@Pastorjose
Your definition of science is slightly off, science deals with the quest for all knowledge and is not restricted to matter and energy,

First, I don't think the OP had even defined science, so it's actually a sad reply to note that the OP's definition was slightly off. It's clear that pastorjose only offered one possible view of the AIM of science among many other possible views.

Second, I have not come across any seasoned scientist who would claim that "science deals with the quest for ALL knowledge" - that simply gives science a bad name and is just a mere fantasy. This is why I would hoot for the previous quote, viz: "the aim of science is not to investigate all reality", for indeed science (as practiced today) may not have the tools to investigate all possible 'realities'.

However, here again is a huge problem. Before one could have a rounded statement on what science and what its aim(s) are, we need to hold a premise. In other words, context and perspectives are very, very important when holding discourses of this sort. Let me give you a few examples:

1. opinion A says:
"the aim of science is to formulate a theory which tells us how everything is governed"
  key words:
  (a) to formulate a theory
  (b) to tell us HOW
  (c)  how EVERYTHING is governed (or how they work)

2. opinion B says:
"the aim of science is to add to the body of available human knowledge so that, in the universe we live in, we may understand ourselves and phenomena"
  key words:
  (a) to add knowledge to existing knowledge
  (b) to understand ourselves - and phenomena

3. opnion C says:
science is "any fantasy" that one may dream about
   key word: fantasy
Actually, this one is my own 'theory' for statements that people make out of vacancy of thought (no disrespect intended).

There are a few good resources that spell out these issues, and one 'elementary' (though not so elementary) example is the University of Sussex' Sharon Sloman's "THE COMPUTER REVOLUTION IN PHILOSOPHY: Philosophy, science and models of mind." In chapter 2, she captures essentially these premises by noting that the aims of science could be neatly divided into:

   (a) factual aims
   (b) technological or practical aims
   (c) normative aims

You can see immediately that there's more than one aim of science, and for all that, it does not tell us that science has the grand aim of seeking ALL knowledge about ALL realities.

Perhaps this thread is why I decided to register and throw in a few lines.

First thing that struck me is that the OP (and several others who have posted replies) are all guilty of whatever they are complaining about. I don't mean to come across on the sharp end, but that's just plainly fact. Insults? That's a primer on Nairaland. Personal? Yea, blah, blah - so many who are complaining here have actually done that same thing.

Now, about this one from the OP that caught my attention:

Maybe the atheists are right after all. Religion does corrode the brain. At least the type of religion that Nairalanders practice.

Perhaps the OP needs to realize two things:
1. It's not all about "all this xtian versus moslem nonsense". Have atheists not done the very same thing with salutory nonsense? Perhaps it should have been 'xtian vs moslem vs atheists vs the onlookers vs (pick your poisoon)'. That said, there are always a few exceptions: some Christians, Moslems, atheists, and simple-minded folks have been cool-headed. While not naming names of some, I can't resist naming at least one atheist that has a good head: KAG.
2. atheism is ardently pursued as a religion and many people have come to realize this as fact. Certainly, not every atheist you meet on the street wears the same badge as others, but one cannot help wonder the level with which it is being pursued here on this forum as a religion. At one time, I was moved to register and say these same things, but then came another gentleman (buda atum) who noted just about the same things borne out in my concerns here.

Perhaps I should add one more: it's comical that some who deplore the very things being complained about are the same ones who would promote that same deplorable thing. Post #43 is classic. But there you go.

lol. There are some atheists authors (ala Michael Martin) who note that there are many atheist religions. So, the BS clap is as sure a spotlight on them.