King James Bible, Chapter 12, Verse 54
“And he said also to the people, When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is. And when ye see the south wind blow, ye say, There will be heat; and it cometh to pass. Ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky and of the earth; but how is it that ye do not discern this time?”
My Comment
The notion that you could look at nature and “read” it is part of the so-called “hermetic” tradition of the West and very much a part of eastern religion (Buddhism, Hinduism) as well, from where they might have been derived partially. In the hermetic tradition, the world was conceived of as a complex fractal system in which each part reflected the whole in a succession of patterns that extended from the stars in the sky down to star fish in the ocean. This way of looking at nature holistically in symbolic terms is not necessarily diametrically opposed to the scientific method, a truth that is evident from the fact that leading scientists from the Renaissance to the twentieth century have managed to pursue impeccably empirical research, while holding beliefs that the intellectual class today would call obscurantist.
Yeah, methinks Jesus was a second rate actor dressed in a pink t-shirt and shorts, selling salvation to damsels in distress; yeah, and behold ye brothers, he hath a cellphone with which he called ambulances to send them to hospitals where they would have holy communion of the father, the son and the holy ghost, in medecines that would take them from this world to the other with great sacrifice. Amen! Halleluia!
Not sure what that means…
I was pointing out a religious text that suggests that the trend of events in the future can be understood.
The text put me in mind of liber naturalis….
.. the concept that the book of nature can be read…which runs through the romantic tradition in the west.
That has nothing to do with televangelists and their carnival pronouncements.
I often quote religious texts of different kinds…as well as philosophical texts. I have no idea why you should slight your own religious tradition in order to prove yourself an intellectual. Smacks of deep intellectual insecurity.
It is also the tradition ordinary people in this country most rely on.
The trouble is, quoting it can always be calculated to bring out people who equate religion with the road shows they see on TV. Maybe the answer is to switch off TV and actually study your own tradition.
I think reading the teachings of the great religious traditions which had an active part in shaping this country and building its wealth might be a lot better than spending your time fawning over gangster speculators only to find they’ve picked your pocket.
obscurantist – Fits so many people.
Trend follower, like a plant is trend follower of the seasons?
Or of religions before the Christians, the Buddists, or the Hindus? What was it called, I forget, the Sumarians maybe, or before them?
Lots more to what you wrote of course, but… I need caffene.
“but how is it that ye do not discern this time?”
Time.
I think a lot of people must have been brought up in terribly strict religious homes…maybe they were crippled by it.
That’s the only reason I can find for such vehement anger toward religion.
I was brought up very liberally and with no sense that religious truth was exclusive…or opposed to science.
They were just two different things.
Let’s see. I can accept gravity and calculus and still find Bach “beautiful” even though beauty can’t be proved in the way gravity can, right?
Similarly my “belief(s),” or lack thereof, are as certain as my apprehension of beauty.
The gospel is a work of art in the same way as Matthew’s Passion or the 9th symphony..
It doesn’t have to be opposed to science.
Calling religion unscientific is like saying cats aren’t dogs.
The correct response is,
Yes, of course, and your point?
I hadn’t thought of that before, not being able to prove beauty exists, like love, are there others? I can’t think of any.
Does the noise in the forest from when a tree falls count?
it’s a devaluation of subjective experience simply because its subjective.
But subjective things are not nearly as subjective as we assume they are. In fact, they can be quite objective. We can know when our feelings are not right or unacceptable by some standard.
I find somethings in music and literature boring which I know I should like and I will probably learn to like at some point. So I know there can be objective standard for feeling as well.
I know I ought to feel grateful or sad at certain moments and know that some feelings I have should be stronger or less strong…and I can be sure that others will agree about it.
That’s what that C. S. Lewis piece I posted was about.
The piece about education versus propaganda