Comments on: Religion as Sacred and Science as Profane

By: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Scientism

Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog » Scientism — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:05:19 +0000

[...] Wesley J.Smith, author of several books including Consumer's Guide to a Brave New World, agrees with me in thinking that when science becomes scientism, it becomes very much like a religion. [...]

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." - Spock

This was said in ST VI:TUC. If you recall the early years of TOS, he did not make this conclusion. I think it was only after getting back his katra in ST III-IV and reevaluating himself could he come to this conclusion.

I remember in "The Galileo Seven" (Episode: #1.16 - 5 January 1967 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060028/guests ) when Spock only used his logic to command, he was ineffective. It was later, esp. seen in ST VI when he saw that logic was only the beginning of wisdom and was better as a Captain and a Vulcan.

-

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"This was said in ST VI:TUC."

I know. I acknowledged that.

"We learn in the next movie that Spock believes that 'logic is only the beginning of wisdom'.

I hadn't thought of the katra angle. Perhaps you could write a follow-up to this post focused on Spock's death and "resurrection" and how that affected his outlook on life. I'd be very interested to read such a piece.

By: Philip Shropshire

Philip Shropshire — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Gawd, there's so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.

First, you picked just a terrible Star Trek to talk about. Two, there is no cult of reason or science. Frankly, I wish there was. That's because rational people can admit that they might be wrong. If string theory doesn't hold up then dismiss and rethink the problem. This way you can't fool yourself into believing that infallible popes need immunity deals. Three, Christian philosophers aren't taken seriously because they start with the answers and don't fearlessly pursue the question. Frankly, I'll take Eric Drexler and his visions over any clergyman's or philospher's. A wiser person might conclude that infallible popes shouldn't need immunity deals and that perfect male clergy members shouldn't rape young boys…but you can't. And, yes, that's a kind of stupidity…

Philip Shropshire
http://www.threeriversonline.com

PS: I love Spock and the Vulcans and yes, to command humans, you need to know something about human emotion. Of course, if you watched the later Treks, it becomes clear that while Wulcan's can suppress their emotions they still express them. I'm thinking Tuvoc in Voyager.

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

The Shroppenator's back! Shrop, I missed you so!

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Shrop: "Christian philosophers aren't taken seriously"

Really? Ever hear of Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley, or Kant? (I'll give you a few hints: If you read the preface to the Meditations, Descartes leads off with the fact that his study is devoted to the evangelical work of the Fifth Lateran Council; he believed his was the only metaphysic that could maintain transubstantiation; and he influenced Queen Christina of Sweden to convert to Catholicism. Leibniz is a man looked upon as a theologian by Catholics. Berkeley was an Anglican bishop. Kant's ethics were based on the theology of his Protestant background.)

Eric: Why is it that you see the entire universe as sacred? It seems to me that if everything's sacred, nothing is. If you're saying that the entirety of Creation is on an ontologically elevated state, then it isn't elevated relative to anything; that statement effectively means nothing, if I'm reading you correctly.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I had a feeling if any post would draw Phil out of the woodwork, it'd be this one. Mind you, that wasn't my intention.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Why is it that you see the entire universe as sacred? It seems to me that if everything's sacred, nothing is. If you're saying that the entirety of Creation is on an ontologically elevated state, then it isn't elevated relative to anything; that statement effectively means nothing, if I'm reading you correctly."

So if man had never fallen, messing up Creation in the process, you wouldn't consider the universe that God called "very good" sacred?

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Hey, Phil, keep going with the election fraud stuff. I don't entirely agree with your Chicken Little attitude, but I find some of the stuff you link to educational. More citizens should make an effort to understand the electoral process.

By: gbm3

gbm3 — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Of course, if you watched the later Treks, it becomes clear that while Wulcan's can suppress their emotions they still express them. I'm thinking Tuvoc in Voyager." -Philip Shropshire 10.14.05 - 1:21 am

Yes, Vulcans have shown their emotions, but, from TOS, only in ritual (esp. in mating ritual).

Outside of this, they realize they have made an illogical response and suppress it.

I'm not sure about Tuvoc in Voyager since I did not waste my time watching many of the newer Treks (esp. Enterprise and the heavy reliance on sex). I wouldn't use an argument based on these shows.

At any rate, Spock can be cited as an example that "Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end." He started with logic and grew from there.

-