nocturnus33 | (no subject)

About all these intelligent desing issue.

It amazed me how fundamentalism is spread in USA.

Some thoughts about all this. As you know I'm catholic, I do believe God created life. Intelligent desing vs. Evolution then? Nah.

Bible has different genders. Genesis has lots of myths in it. Myths not as in "lies" but as symbolic religious meanings. So we need an hermeneutic aproach to understand that meaning. The dificulty: We are a "text" in a "context" reading another "text" born in a diferent "context". But we can try. So Bible admits historical situated interpretation.

We can't aproched any sacred text biblecal or others, asking for scientifc answer.
Why not?. We can’t ask the Bible to use a scientific logic if science as a social construct appears during the last 4 or 3 centuries.

At the same time we can't seek our life meaning (?) in scientific facts, unless we take an step further and goes for philosophical consequences of scientific knowledge. Faith vs Science is only a problem when this two levels are confused and a fundamentalist approach is taken.

Science and theology has two different interests.

My daughter asks if Adam and Eve did exist. I told her they didn't, it doesn't threathen her faith. We talked about the meaning of that text.

In an age of pluralism, uncertainty could make people try to protect them self in rigid religious structures. Is a protection from anomie, a "fuga mundi".
Also, is a beautifull oportunity to make faith a free will option in critical dialogue with culture. That implies the risk/aceptance that you might be wrong.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

i am not an expert in religion, i don't practice a belief, but fundamentalism strikes me as something pre-religious and superstitious. and i agree with you that it is a protection mechanism against anomia. the interesting question is how the churches are dealing with it. take for a eexample a film like 'passion of christ'. to me this movie is not about religion. yet the catholic church was totally torn between promoting and supporting it and speaking out against it.
two years ago there was a really interesting meeting between habermas and ratzinger, unfortunately only a small selection of journalists were allowed and not recording exists. but you can find their initial speeches on the internet. i will send you the link, if i find it, there is an english abstract somewhere.

aaah... in spanish... here you go. enjoy:

http://www.avizora.com/publicaciones/filosofia/textos/0071_discusion_bases_morales_estado_liberal.htm

Thanks, will read it during the week.
And yes, we all seek for protection the point is not to develop a social neurosis. Don't you think?.
I don't like Ratzinger, I like Habermas.

Even if I don't agree with the actual Pope and mourn when they name it, at least he is a schollar, a conservative one but also an intelligent one.

Peter Berger has an article call pluralism and uncertainty dialectic (I'm translating from spanish title) Is very interesting, he writes there as a protestant sociologyst, and ask if it is posible to be a believer in this times. The dialectical tension is between fundamentalism and radical relativism.

We need you up here.

I'm to good to fight for my own good. USA would deport me in no time.

Do you mind if I link to this post on another forum I frequent? There's a discussion taking place there regarding Pennsylvania's Intelligent Design issue, and I think your comments are relevant. :)

No problem.

Thank you! :)