I'm sure I'm not mistaken.

[floo]

Dear Blue,

I am not saying we have always gotten it right, as in the case of that poor woman Mother Theresa, one little woman who was given all that resposibility, one little woman who was given stupid rules by stupid people, we have the priviledge of hind sight, so if Shakers hero thinks that Mother Theresa was a lover of poverty I need to question that thought, one little woman who tried to change the world but was hampered by Church rules, rule of course she agreed with at the time, but that takes nothing away from all the positive that came out of her work.

But this thread gives me pause for thought, where you find the poor and needy, the uneducated you find the religious there to help.

Gonnagle.

By all accounts MT was no kind of saint. I met someone once who had worked with her and they didn't rate the woman at all.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Floo,

True, I read about and watched the documentary that thoroughly slated her, but she was one little woman who came into immense power, what does that do to a mind, a mind indoctrinated by RC belief, bad things were done, but the millions she helped, and out of her work are still being helped today.

Gonnagle.

[ippy]

I agree with you Hope.   

This is the oft repeated atheist view that religion and poverty are closely connected (directly proportional) .  And also that education and religion are   closely connected (inversely proportional).

This is just a way by which atheists choose to feel superior about themselves...(whenever they get overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the religious).   

I would even say that the more educated and intelligent people are ......'spirituality' and the inner quest become inevitable. Truly intelligent people with a broader vision of life cannot be satisfied with the narrow 'reality' that science shows them.

Look up quotes, the famous one of Mandy Rice Davies, says it all.

ippy

[L.A.]

which is why I included randomness. Makes no difference.

I don't think that reality at the quantum level is best described as simply 'random'

[L.A.]

I thought a world-view was more philosophical than that, which sounds more like representation.    I would say that a world-view is an interpretation, not a representation.

I agree that the expression is used rather loosely. I thing it is reasonable to use it to describe our internal representation of reality, which would include all philosophical and religious beliefs as well as the more tangible. Basically anything that can follow the phrase 'I believe' . . .

In the case of a society, it would apply to their common beliefs.

[ippy]

Dear ippy,

Another thought in your enquiry, Christianity ( probably most of the major religions ) speaks to the poor, it is all about helping the poor, I am sure that has a bearing.

Gonnagle.

So I'm told it's about 50 50 between religion based charities, Gonners and charities that have no connection to religion, what's that all about then, on the charity level no difference in the amount of effort.

Which shows that there is no extra effort needed, a place where stories don't give out any particularly special added edge.

The last thing I think of when giving to charity is anything to do with my liking or not liking of religiosity.

Nearly forgot, non-religious people that do charitable acts can't help but be more altruistic than anyone in whatever religions name they try to be charitable,(non-religious people do these deeds without the carrot and stick).

ippy   

[Nearly Sane]

I don't think that reality at the quantum level is best described as simply 'random'

I'm not summing up quantum as random, it may be caused in a way that we don't understand. That makes no difference either to the overall point.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.

Science is, the study of everything, me, you, nature, the world, the Universe, everything!!

Gonnagle.

It is the study of the falsifiable.

[Gordon]

It is the study of the falsifiable.

How would you go about studying the non-falsifiable?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So I'm told it's about 50 50 between religion based charities, Gonners and charities that have no connection to religion, what's that all about then, on the charity level no difference in the amount of effort.

Which shows that there is no extra effort needed, a place where stories don't give out any particularly special added edge.

The last thing I think of when giving to charity is anything to do with my liking or not liking of religiosity.

Nearly forgot, non-religious people that do charitable acts can't help but be more altruistic than anyone in whatever religions name they try to be charitable,(non-religious people do these deeds without the carrot and stick).

ippy

The secular world has made it's judgment on us all Ippy, we are on a scale of irreversible progress, so those secularists of 3016 will see us as scientifically, technologically and morally primitive.......so logically we must be.

Through our media we are constantly being told how inadequate we are, and our governments and monitoring bodies tell us how inadequate and indeed potentially dangerous we are to each other.

I think this is being hidden from you or you are deliberately failing to see it for yourself........

.....and if, with all of that you still think of yourself as adequate....in which case you should still be wearing flares...I bet you are able to real of a list of people who aren't. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How would you go about studying the non-falsifiable?

With the utmost academic interest for starters.

[Gordon]

With the utmost academic interest for starters.

Super - so what are the key elements in the methodology you'd use?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Super - so what are the key elements in the methodology you'd use?

What ever the methods of the domain or discipline are......

...Of course you can always take the Gordonian approach by censoring them.

[Gordon]

What ever the methods of the domain or discipline are......

...Of course you can always take the Gordonian approach by censoring them.

In other words: you don't know.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In other words: you don't know.

There are university courses on many things that are not science.
Are you suggesting there should only be university courses in science?
How would that go down with the majority who aren't scientific?

Unless you think the world should be dictated to by a scientific elite?

[Gordon]

There are university courses on many things that are not science.
Are you suggesting there should only be university courses in science?
How would that go down with the majority who aren't scientific?

Unless you think the world should be dictated to by a scientific elite?

I'm not suggesting anything - I just asked you what method you'd use to assess the non-falsifiable: and your approach would be?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not suggesting anything - I just asked you what method you'd use to assess the non-falsifiable: and your approach would be?

Assess the non falsifiable? Against what exactly?

[Gordon]

Assess the non falsifiable? Against what exactly?

Something falsifiable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Something falsifiable.

Well the nonfalsifiable assessed comprehensively against the falsifiable is going to come out as, er, unfalsifiable.

[Gordon]

Well the nonfalsifiable assessed comprehensively against the falsifiable is going to come out as, er, unfalsifiable.

Somewhat ungainly wriggling: even for you, Vlad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Somewhat ungainly wriggling: even for you, Vlad.

No, the problem is you trying to say that the unfalsifiable should not be debated or discussed philosophically or academically.

You say the unfalsifiable should be assessed against the falsifiable. Go ahead......and show your working out.

[Gordon]

No, the problem is you trying to say that the unfalsifiable should not be debated or discussed philosophically or academically.

You say the unfalsifiable should be assessed against the falsifiable. Go ahead......and show your working out.

I'm stating nothing: I simply asked you how you would study the non-falsifiable and you replied 'With the utmost academic interest for starters.'

So, let me ask again, how would you go about it - academically speaking?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm stating nothing:

You did.......reply#67

[Gordon]

You did.......reply#67

You sound desperate if this this is the best you can do:

You; 'Assess the non falsifiable? Against what exactly?'

Me; 'Something falsifiable'.

You're one who said you'd do so 'With the utmost academic interest' - so what do you propose? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You sound desperate if this this is the best you can do:

You; 'Assess the non falsifiable? Against what exactly?'

Me; 'Something falsifiable'.

You're one who said you'd do so 'With the utmost academic interest' - so what do you propose?

Well take Art for example or philosophy or sociology or theology and even history which deals with the unrepeatable and does not have methodologically the same predictive power of science.

These are all domains of study with their own methods.

Now assess the unfalsifiable against something falsifiable which you stated in reply#67 or we're done here.