PERHAPS I SHOULD ALWAYS make a point of pointing out that I don't believe human beings are ever going to have a total and absolute knowledge of even the basic aspects of physical existence as a crudely abstract generalization whenever I bring up religion because religion is harder than physics and cosmology.* We will have no final answer on those questions, not in this life, maybe in the next one. Honest religion doesn't pretend we can. The crude assumption that I believe that the Roman Catholic Church does or ever did is based in a false and absurd stereotype that even most old-line Catholics outside of the most rigid hierarchs would have claimed to believe.
I have mocked the pretense of materialist-atheist-scientistic cosmologists and physicists that they are on the verge of their El Dorado, their (un)Holy Grail, THE Theory of Everything when one of their greatest discoveries in the 20th century was exactly that they will never have anything like complete needed knowledge of even one tiny particle in physical existence. Their claim is, on the basis of far sounder physics than they make recourse to, a philosophical absurdity. It's even more absurd when you treat it with common sense, which such pretensions don't even surpass. To believe otherwise you'd have to pretend that one of the major accomplishments of their science wasn't valid, which would call the rest of it into reasonable question.
I value good science a lot more highly, apparently.
And I have pointed out the limits of even what real methodologically sound as opposed to academically crowned (pseudo-)science does or likely will ever know about even human minds and their expressions in the world of behavior and socieities so many times that maybe I just assumed people would make the connection between that decisive admission of the modesty of the knowledge of each and every one of us and the even more obvious assumptions that when it's a question of God the Creator, The Redeemer and the Sanctifier, we are at infinitely more of a loss to have a complete and comprehensive knowledge, complete understanding, more than merely adequate application of that knowledge and understanding, emotional response and volitional inclinations to act and be from that. Jewish descended monotheism is intimately concerned with all of it because it addresses the lives of the human species in which none of that, the social, the individual, the mental, the physical, the cosmological, and other aspects which we have not even named are vitally relevant to it. Religion can't do what even real science does, radically segregate its field of interest to some of the simplest aspects of observable, measurable, analyzable physical phenomena which can honestly be treated with scientific method.
Perhaps that has something to do with both the reported polling of those in the social-"sciences," psychology, etc. as being not only most likely to be atheists but, in my observation, among the most hostile to religion because they pretend they can do with scientific method what religion attempts outside of it but, it being impossible to treat such questions with real scientific method, rigorously applied, they so notably fail so they take it out on their, at times, more successful rivals. I did find it rather funny that the old-time 'ligion of materialist-atheist-scientism as found in CSICOP (now CFI) was full of pseudo-scientists from that field who had no problem spouting some of the worst pseudo-science published in academic journals as they feverishly and successfully tried to shut down far more rigorous and modest science that violated their ideological faith.
I never claimed that any one understanding of these things is going to be THE correct one. The old Catholic claims in that regard, that the Catholic Church (meaning the Roman Catholich church) being THE ONE and complete source of something like that was never something I believed in. I never believed it and that was before I understood that it was an absurdity on the level of atheist cosmologists claiming they had the equivalent in their materialistic pretensions. It might be an interesting topic to pursue, the similarities between post-WWII materialist-atheist-scientism and the most rabidly annoying old-line Cathoic-Integralist liars because, thinking about your comment, I think I'd be able to find quit a list of those, leaving it to someone raised in Protestantism to find an equivalent list with the like in modern fundamentalism.
The accusation that I share in that annoying ancient political claim of Catholicism because I was raised a Catholic is baseless. I found it annoying myself and stifling and untrue based on Scripture and the history of the Catholic Church and the achievements of those outside of Catholicism and even Christianity in regard to sanctity and goodness. Vatican II happened sixty years ago, get with the times.
Nah, I'm as mystified as anyone as to those biggest and ultimate matters in this regard. I explore a little around the Scriptures because the deeper you get into those the more impressive they are for containing some very sophisticated and extraordinary insights into these things and are large enough to contain opposite and contending views of them. The next passage from where I left off in Luke Timothy Johnson's The Real Jesus, for example. Which I hope to get to soon.
I have always admitted that my wasted youth and middle-age ill-prepared me for it. Since when did that prevent someone writing about something and posting it online?
-------------------
I've never trusted Republicans. Not since I found out that there were Republicans when my Eleanor Roosevelt Democratic news junkie Mother introduced me to politics by osmosis.
Coming up with that title above will, certainly, mystify anyone much younger than I am because it references that corporate radio, then TV creepy guy, Art Linkletter who, believe it or not, provided one of my earliest clues into the depth of Hollywood-Republican, now Republican-fascist active collusion in the mid-1960s. I've had a really bad spring so far and it's not getting much better, thus the continuing days with no posts. I hate it when I can't research stuff enough to feel confident in what I post and don't want to repeat myself TOO much. As I recall Linkletter's parents were evangelical preachers, which certainly links into what I've said.
Maybe if things calm down here I'll get to researching that for a post or two.
As to the mystification of the even, now, middle-aged about who this Art Linkletter guy was, I'm glad that they don't know it. Nothing becomes more quickly useless and not worth knowing as pop-kulcha because it started out that way. Only the malignant aspects of it have durability in their effects. That's the only thing that is important about it, commercial pop-kulcha is a study in depravity as is the study of so much of alleged high-brow stuff. The academic explosion in writing absurd papers and books about it is an epic in the decadence of contemporary universities and their disgusting requirements of publishing any old shit to advance or even keep a job. They used to stress actual teaching but pop-kulcha addled students couldn't handle a really rigorous educational experience and instead of making up for that, they just pretend what they're doing is what academia is supposed to do.
Matthew 25: 31-46, that matters, that lasts. It will matter to lots of other People just as pop-kulcha doesn't even matter to those who work in it. The "kulcha" of it, the money is everything in it. It's got a lot in common with the industry in disposable paper products, since my trolls bring up "pulp."
To polish off another piece of hate-mail along with the one that gave me the first part of this.
* I minored in math and majored in music. Advanced math was hard, Beethoven and Schoenberg were a hell of a lot harder.
No comments:
Post a Comment