Vexen Crabtree 2015

vexen

Vexen Crabtree's Live Journal

Sociology, Theology, Anti-Religion and Exploration: Forcing Humanity Forwards


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Vexen Crabtree 2015
vexen

2008

I think 2008 is going to another year of continuance... there is a possibility that I will move back to the UK but I'm electing to stay in Germany for longer.

I'm off, again, to a hot and sandy country to do IT infrastructure stuff for a few months which will make the year pass as fast as 2007 did.

Apart from that, I foresee no changes in momentum, style, methodology or personality!

  • 1
i, on the otherhand, see a total and compleat change of pretty much all of the above andeverything else

but will be remaining in the UK with ocasional flutters to france for some gatherings of sorts

and i am looking faward to 2008. which, to me, is interesting

(Deleted comment)

Re: :) Read from your essays again

Heya there, happy new year!

Thanks for the comments!

Re: :) Read from your essays again

(Anonymous)
Have you noticed that when the ””scientific community”” leaves the realm of the empirical and moves into the ‘theoretical’, that they are really doing exactly what Paul (the Apostle) said we all do, in terms of observation: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made..." (Romans 1:20)

They are ”’looking at”’ (remember those words) what has been made, and extrapolating philosophically that which cannot be seen as yet empirically. Of course through a materialistic philosophical lens.

With me so far? If you don’t know this already, you’ll have to pay close attention…

What they are actually engaging in is theology and I must explain why.

My first clue to this was when I heard Paul Davies comment on ‘The Privileged Planet’ that science is absolutely ‘theo’ (theory / theology). Seems simple enough…

I then assumed (prematurely) the etymological connection and was dissapointed while debating with a fierce naturalist at an online forum.

From what I understand now, at their roots, ‘theo’ as we already know means God (Greek), while ‘theory’ unfortunately came from Thea (Latin) ’A view to see’ from the combination of ‘thea + horan’.

But there’s more going on here…

It is interesting that in the Greek, ‘Thea’ was the goddess of sight. And also that ‘thea’ (a view) in the Latin is where we also get the word ‘theatre’.

Even if there is not an etymological connection, there is a connection to the fact that ‘thea’ the Goddess of sight in the Greek, is so similar conceptually to ‘thea’ (a view) in the Latin.

What is it they are viewing?

The answer to that question is the connection that is cleverly hid behind a complex weave of fig leaves.

If one is going to have ‘a view to see’ (theory), one has to be having a view of something… in the case of the natural sciences, they are exalting ‘a view’ of Reality (ie. God). Afterall, they must presuppose philosophical constructs and human biased beliefs about the limitations of such.

I just find it very interesting… the naturalist is engaging in ‘theology’, but it’s really just ‘theatre'.

Re: :) Read from your essays again

Apart from acid-inspired theo-etymological masturbation, what is your point?

Re: :) Read from your essays again

(Anonymous)
I get the distinct impression that we are at odds... I have decided to respond though I think we both feel (as opposed to think) that it is of no real benefit.

You asked, "Apart from acid-inspired theo-etymological masturbation, what is your point"?

Wiping aside the intelligent remarks, do you really mean that you do not perceive it?

Seriously?

You talk of right and wrong as being human biased terminology, yet that judgement is indivisibly tied to your own philosophical constructs (human biased terminology).

You quote Richard Dawkins' essential and logical admission that life other than that known by our earthly experience could easily be unrecognizable or misunderstood to a high degree. And then you appearently censor a post inwhich I clearly remind you of the uncanny resemblance to the misunderstanding which led us to crucify Christ. We didn't recognize Him for who He was. And still don't in some cases.

Now perhaps that is just absurd to you? An insult? But for the record it was an observation of the association. And it was a reminder that words are powerful things and we must be careful where we point them. I have more holes in my feet than most, that's how I know.

You talk of religion as though it is some kind of plague, but do not understand that that is a religious position. What is your position on 'theo'? Are you a theist, atheist, polytheist, monotheist, pantheist et al? Even the agonostic can only be so relative to the question. There is no such thing as an agnostic apart from a knowledge of a concept of God.

It's all about 'theo'. What is the prime reality? What is the matrix if you will? It's all religion Vex, anti-God or pro-God. We just can't shake Him... he's too good a chess player.

Now if you can't see that, then yours is a self imposed blindness. But you cannot coherently argue otherwise without shooting your foot again.

My point, since you asked, is to remind you (because you have forgotton) that your belief in 'science' is founded not by observable evidence, but by the philosophical presupposition that our thinking is valid.

Only if our thinking is valid, is our philosophical construct known as 'methodological naturalism' anything other than human biased terminology. And we all believe that our thinking is valid because it often matches what is too often called 'the real emperical world'. But to make materialism an absolute is a mistake, because if we say that the only valid scientific explanations are 'material' explanations, then on what ground do we substanciate '''that''' proposition? At that level, it is purely philosophical and theoretical. It is a leap of faith. Leaps of faith are motivated by motive for what we want and hope that life ultimately is.

What is it that you want?

Nature does not speak of herself. She speaks of things like energy, gravity, and law which do not appear, other than by their effect upon that which is material. And she points to the unnerving fact that she is herself built upon such entities, and is only material from a very limited point of view. Matter is built upon this elusive building block called energy.

Can you tell me what energy is beyond the suprisingly abstract visions we get from measuring it's dance?

Certainly the empericists can give up the ghost and realize that the distinction between philsophy and theory is not to be found. We get the standard reply that energy is essentially 'the capacity to do work'.

Well isn't that strange... because I know someone (quite personally) who said that 'My Father is always working, as I too am working'.

I only wanted to say it... you do as you like, and believe as you like.














  • 1
?

Log in

No account? Create an account