PhD vs. Objective Truth

[Mornac]

• Tweet

Know-it-All!	Small | Large

[johnhp]

Best case of "self-tackleization" i have seen in a while.  And he managed to drag assholes like you under the bus with him.

[ivanm]

Voris goes on about people with opinions.  What is religious faith anyway if it is not about opinions? 

When it comes to not advancing their understanding of Christianity, perhaps the Catholic "faith" is complicated to the point that it takes a lifetime of groping to understand it, but in other sects the basics can be learned quite well by the 14 year old teenager, who is more gullible than a thinking adult is.

The most basic premises of Christianity could be written on a match book cover, so anything more than that becomes dogma IMO.  And dogma is the stock and trade of Voris the spin doctor.  I guess he thinks that by keeping the peons confused and lost as to what he is talkiing about they will keep on coming back for more.

[johnhp]

Voris goes on about people with opinions.  What is religious faith anyway if it is not about opinions? 

This is where, i think, you and Vel and some others make the mistake of having discussions about religion with Mornac.  Vel has tried to argue with Mornac using a rather interesting version of contemporary theories of knowledge.  You are saying basically the same thing as Vel with your use of the term opinion here.  As i explained to Vel on another thread (the thread that caused Mornac to post this little clip), Mornac rejects that approach to knowledge.

What he is promoting is a cheap and easy version of Scholasticism.  The thread on truth is the perfect example of this.  Mornac believes that once a person acknowledges some sort of truth, even if it is about something as banal as having spilled coffee while sneezing, then they have bought into the idea of truth as an Objective reality in what philosophers call an ontological sense.  That is to say, Mornac is of the opinion that the statement "I spilled coffee on my slacks after sneezing...true story" can only be guaranteed to be true due to a larger and encompassing category called truth in which the statement, at some level, participates.

What he misses is that there is absolutely no reason to make that leap.  The larger category of Truth does not add anything to the statement: the statement either describes accurately what happened or it does not.  Nothing more is at stake with it.

When it comes to not advancing their understanding of Christianity, perhaps the Catholic "faith" is complicated to the point that it takes a lifetime of groping to understand it, but in other sects the basics can be learned quite well by the 14 year old teenager, who is more gullible than a thinking adult is.

Catholicism is rather easy to understand.  However, Voris and Mornac are not really about understanding Catholicism.  They are engaged in a cultural war and because they lack critical thinking skills, are on the wrong side of it.

[Coit]

This is rather interesting John.

It would seem that if you're correct about Mornac then he fancies himself to be a prophet.

Under his Scholastic approach that would be the only open avenue to truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

[johnhp]

This is rather interesting John.

It would seem that if you're correct about Mornac then he fancies himself to be a prophet.

Under his Scholastic approach that would be the only open avenue to truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation

Coit,

i think we need to make sure and to differentiate between Scholasticism, which, historically is interesting for several reasons (see Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd) and the cheap 4th grade version Mornac peddles.