RE: [Cor] Re: Allegiance Etc.

Science, as I understand it, goes something like this:

  1. 1. observe
  2. 2. theorize
  3. 3. predict
  4. 4. repeat

I would say that your theorize and predict statements oversimplify what is going on so as to completely strip away my argument, but essentially I agree with your grasp.

Could you say what you will add? I agree that the distinctions are not always clear. I was trying to define the idea of science; pure science if you will. Like most things though, the practice of science in the real world is not always pure. I agree that the lines between science and religion grow blurred in the ways that some people hold their scientific beliefs.

Science though is by its nature about hypothesis and open to revision in a way that religion is not. Religion evolves as well, but the process is more complex I think and as much about politics as truth. (I’m a little jaded though.) =)

Also, as Shawn said, the FFs were human. They had a say in how our country was shaped and they have important wisdom that we can still use. Our decisions today though have many contexts to be considered that the FFs did not have. We are making the decisions now and we can certainly weigh in historical perspectives, but we can’t relegate our authority to anyone.

Are you arguing from a personal or legal perspective? (I ask only beacuse Shawn asks a very legal question, which Frank did a much better job answering than me.) Personally, you can of course do whatever you want…. Legally you are tredding really thin ice, we cannot simply reinterpret the law to mean whatever we want.

Though I didn’t really give any indication of it, I was addressing the nature of the discussion about the FFs. That it is fine and good to think about their positions, but it cannot give us real answers about our questions today. That the burden of choice is something that each individual carries.

(It is an idea that I am still integrating the full extent of and it carries that special weight for me right now.) =)

I had originally not intended to get into whether or not the FF’s actually meant a secular or non-secular state, either on the list or personally. Yet, I had a good idea about how to widdle away some at the enorminity of the scholarly challenge to begin an answer for me.

It sounds like it would be an interesting read. Do you believe that the separation of church and state should exist?

The only advantage I see in it is the development of character. Giving people a structure with a moral basis by which to order their values systems. Something that has to be done, I think, even if it is only to leave it behind.

I respect that laws are what allow our society to function. I am not an especially legalistic person however and arguing the nuances has never been a favorite pastime. I think it is cool that some people have the knack for it.

On a related note, Fowler has an interesting section in Stages of Faith, it is an imaginary panel discussion with Piaget, Erikson and Kohlberg where they lay out a basic framework of interrelationships between their developmental models. Fowler, who is a friend of Kohlberg, I am thinking is going to build on top of this. It is a good insight into all of the models and worth a read.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *