Human Beings Need Spiritual-Religious Orientation. Sci Rationalism is an Attempted Subtitute, and Not Sufficient

Utkarsh Srivastav Mark Rego Monteiro "So, if you can´t even distinguish Creationist literalists enough to recognize archeological legitimacy, that´s my focus." Except I am recognising archaeological legitimacy. What I am rejecting is supernatural embellishments. Your focus is a smokescreen for sneaking in the supernatural. "The "supernatural embellishments" then raises other issues, which you lump without acknowledging the power and importance of spiritual-religious experiences, which is often easier to begin grasping from anthropological insights." Again, I am doing no such thing. I never said a word about this topic. We can definitely say that there is a psychological impact of such beliefs and practices. We can discuss the psychological perspective of such beliefs and w can also discuss the anthropological perspective. None of them however leads us to the conclusion that the supernatural is real. "Your view is focused on the scientific, and neglects the archeological, as I pointed out, not to men tion the transpersonal-spiritual. " As if archaeological isn't scientific lol. I never denied the fact that there have been floods in human history. You seem unable to stick to a point. There is archaeological evidence of a local flood. There is no archeological evidence that the flood was global and resulted in death of all life. That is the only point I made. There is also no archeological evidence of anything spiritual or supernatural. "Noah´s covenant with God, Hebrew or pre-Hebrew, is a powerful testimony to chronology and continuity." This is a religious person talking, not an anthropologist. What god? How are you defining the god? Is it a testimony now? After we have agreed that it is not a factual representation of events but an exaggerated one? "Human beings need spiritual-religious orientation. scientific rationalism is a divergence and attempted substitute, but not sufficient." Do we really need that? What are you basing this conclusion on? Reply 5h Utkarsh Srivastav Derek Pignataro "But what about us, who aren't anthropologists?… See more Reply 5h Mark Rego Monteiro Ut Sri "'Human beings need spiritual-religious orientation. scientific rationalism is a divergence and attempted substitute, but not sufficient.' Do we really need that? What are you basing this conclusion on?" Indeed, excellent question. That final point is central. Even without addressing the full specifics of the powerful First Cause-Kalam Cosmological argument, you are demonstrating a major fallacy that is simply a knowledge domain fallacy, ie an epistemological fallacy, with phenomena, real world epistemics, in question. Assuming "science´s" ie natural philosophy´s, methodological naturalism, is a crass fallacy, rampant as it is and typical of ideologues in modern times. As widespread as sci-tech is, the attempt to DENY or INVALIDATE other phenomena and knowledge domains is a crass and badly misinformed, fallacy nonetheless. "Science´s´" popularity and widespread use does have interesting implications, in CORRECTING some kinds of errors, in religious doctrines, folk superstitions, etc. However, in changing the nature of reality and truth, "science" is only helping its own central discipline, PHILOSOPHy in full integrity of what that means, MULTIDISCIPLINARY PHILOSOPHICAL TRUtH(s) , not "science and naturalism is the best and only, and final word on truth." "Science" is a term that actually has degraded natural philosophy to a technicians´ task of filling in blanks in preformed equations, and mistaking "scientific theory" as all powerful technicians´ idea-making. As if it weren´t a revival of science as natural form of philosophical human logical reasoning in a full spectrum of philosophical disciplines. However, "science" as a label and technophile orientation never ended its philosophical nature, it just obscured it and mystified it. Developing new concepts like Dark Matter and Energy was like what Einstein classically demonstrated in his "theoretical" work, ie natural philosophical work. Einstein also showed nascent superficial insights by commenting on epistemology, acknowledging Jesus´ empirical quality, and showering admiration on Gandhi, "Who would believe....?!" A powerful introduction to the issue in the cauldron and midst of Descartes´ "mind-body split" legacy is G Vico´s observation from that time of "verum factum (we make the truth)." One part stated more precisely emerged in response to A Comte´s logical positivism, that "science" "describes, predicts, and controls." Social philosopher Max Weber et al finally responded adequately with antipositivism/interpretivism in the 1920s. That is, Human symbolic behavior requires understanding. That much you seem prepared to acknowledge. However, it has further implications. In brief reveiw, Philosophy´s role is primary, and the fallacy of overgeneralizing methodological naturalism beyond science. Human behavior requires a new level of complexity, including symbol use. The supernatural isn´t the only issue. When you say "Is it a testimony now? After we have agreed that it is not a factual representation of events but an exaggerated one?" you mistake Fundamentalists´ literalist plus kind of confusion for what I have taken pains to identify as a scholar, "science" as philosophical and limited, and the empirical reality of multiple disciplines, including transpersonal psy and spiritual-religious phenomena like the transcendental supernatural. Moses´ experiences including the Exodus are a clearer example, with impressive physical events combining with Moses´ spiritual-rel. visions. Returning to the modern angle and focus, in Jesus´ legacy to be clear, we can recognize human minds and personalities are actual multidisciplinary entities using symbols, and not merely "cognitive", nor even "ratio-emotive." And what of minds and the transpersonal/transcendental ie supernatural? The Catholic church has studied miracle healing claims with medical exams since the 1800s, at least. William James cited Christian Science and its descendent approaches for their healing testimonies, followed by BO Flowers´ even more detailed book. Modern media has made some records, with the category "medically attested, medically impossible healings with spiritual-religious testimony." All rich in material. Centrally, however, even without responding to your desire for specific responses, is the need to engage the appropriate knowledge domains, ie epistemological ones, including the philosophy of metaphysics. Methodological naturalism doesn´t define all of "love", nor the history of modern "Science" and certainly not the spiritual-religious phenomena that shamanism itself further anchors. You think tribal shamanism, eg Black Elk´s famous testimony, justifies ideological naturalism? Hardly. And that means it justifies spiritual-religious phenomena, and all that I´m beginning to refer to. You can say you´re not ready to get into those details, but you at least are faced with the limits in the kind of reasoning you´re trying to do in negating the supernatural, or call it the transcendental, or physicist David Bohm´s explicate reality. Denying and invalidating that category of empirical phenomena, philosophical disciplinary study for knowledge, and reality is a fallacy. Not just Black Elk, but Rasputin´s famous life in Czarist Russia after 1906, no less, like Catholic medical miracle exams, William James and BO Flowers´ Christian Science-type studies, OC Simonton MD´s Healing Journey account, and C Keener´s 2011 Miracles book are some significant references, among not a few others. This testimony of Marlene Klepees´ healing from cerebral palsy was recorded at the famous Mayo Clinic, with the testimony itself then a separate psychosocial empirical account. Medical protocol uses methodological naturalism, while psychosocial records are separate in themselves. The actual spiritual-religious phenomena would then require at least a Transpersonal Psychological, and comparative religious and metaphysical, disciplinary analysis to get beyond even conventional psychosocial empirical naturalism. Not just "science," nor just psychology, with classical philosophy, educational pstchology, and Systems Theory (physics) acknowledging diverse knowledge domains and epistemologies. And I want to acknowledge you as one of the most well-spoken and scholarly-minded people I have encountered so far, although acknowledging the full implications of multidisciplinary philosophical issues is a crucial dividing line itself. Utkarsh Srivastav