The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The age of reason > Comments

The age of reason : Comments

By David Young, published 15/1/2009

Surely if we were in fact rational beings we would learn from each other and form a human paradigm?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All
This comment should be on the Hillsong site, but it is just as much at home here. Epiphany experiences shaped the world, when Saul who became Paul had one on the Road to Damascus, Jacob who became Israel had one at Penuel, and Moses had one at a burning bush. As they say at Hillsong, the Church is not peripheral to society it is central to it. The church of Jesus Christ, is probably the most widespread community based organization in Australia, and the Anglicans alone claim four million members.

Any debate about paradigms, must consider its influence. The King James Version of the Holy Bible is written in English, and brought about a veritable revolution in the Kingdom of England when between the time of its publication in 1610 and 1688, what is known as the Glorious Revolution, established Christianity as the guiding philosophy of the United Kingdom.

When people could read the Holy Bible for themselves, and not have its contents mangled and changed by Priests, they insisted upon the Good Government promised by its pages. The Official King James Version has little black stars, in the Old Testament, showing where promises were made, and kept in the New Testament. It would appear that Kevin Rudd had an epiphany experience some twelve or thirteen years ago, and has been made Prime Minister, so the Christian paradigm, enshrined in the Australian Constitution can be reestablished.

We do not know what brought Kevin Rudd to Almighty God but we do know what Almighty God has brought to Kevin Rudd. After sixty years of secularism, pushed by lawyers, we have a Christian Leader, with the intellect and integrity to lead the Commonwealth. His Party, the Labor Party is the natural party of Christianity.

Some of its past leaders have been less than Christian. By attending Church each Sunday, where possible Kevin Rudd is meeting with all comers, in the best possible grass roots environment. The 65% of Australians who claim Christianity are comfortable with that. The Power of One Christian Man, to serve Almighty God in the Christian paradigm, is enormous.
Posted by Peter the Believer, Monday, 19 January 2009 6:07:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan
My religious position is that of a Sheilaist. The definition I read of Sheilaism is that a woman named Sheila was filling a census form and when she came to the question of her religion called herself a 'Sheilaist' because she had her own religion of one. That basically is a position I take in all things, religious or otherwise.
You are correct in your comments that my understanding that paradigms limit our ability to think. In a religious context paradigms would be called dogma. They are the same non-thinking positions.
I am referring to the dogma of those who claim to be God's lawyers as the basis of their elevated judgmental position when I comment on making this a religious debate. To my understanding God does not need a lawyer so their dogma is irrelevant. 'Left' or 'right' in politics is only another form of Dogma. All dogma is a non-thinking position.
Kierkegaardean? I am comfortable with the philosophies along those lines.
Opinion to me requires sufficient knowledge of a subject to make that opinion reasoned and informed. This means that to have opinions we have to keep up to date on what is happening over a wide range and be willing to think about the issues. We also need to be flexible as our understanding increases. Without sufficient knowledge our 'opinion' is only dogma and bigotry. I think that the word bigotry is just another word for paradigm and dogma.
I do not see the exchange of ideas as conflict. I see the dogma as the conflict.
There is nothing that can be done about dogma because it has no base and can never be proved or disproved. Basically dogma is nothing but nothing can be done about nothing.
It is nice to be able to debate without descending into bigotry.
Posted by Daviy, Monday, 19 January 2009 7:01:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan
A Typo. It should have been Kierkegaardean? I am NOT comfortable with philosophies along those lines.
I have just wasted my second post.
Posted by Daviy, Monday, 19 January 2009 7:18:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David,
Do you think that paradigms are universal in the sense that they affect everybody? Everyone (more or less) interacts with others in their society or community, sharing a common language and way of thinking or perceiving. If we are all affected by paradigms, does that not also include yourself?

And if you are so negative about paradigms (equating them with bigotry), saying that they limit our ability to think, then would that not also reflection your own thought? Are you not also admitting that your thoughts are restricted, or have some somehow risen above these restrictive paradigms?

I am willing to admit that my thoughts are to an extent the result of those who have contributed to my history and my ideas. That is to say, I have a bias. But not all biases are wrong or false.

You say that reasoned and informed opinion requires sufficient and wide ranging knowledge. But you haven’t described how much is sufficient. And my view of wide ranging may be very different to yours. So in the end it could be simply a matter of my paradigm versus your paradigm, my bias versus your bias. Which is the best bias to be biased with?
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 6:21:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dan
I see paradigms as being universal in the sense we all have them, but not that there are universal paradigms. In our society there are many paradigms and many different languages even though the words sound the same.
As I see it as unlikely that any of us are free of paradigms and we are all limited in our thinking. The best I can see in the moment is developing the ability to question our decisions as we make them and accept that it is the best we can do for now.
The question for me is can a person accept that they are making the best decision they can for now with the acceptance that future information may cause a re-think. Rethinking a decision does not necessarily mean we will change it, and not every bias will be wrong or false. In the article I made that case that not everything about a paradigm was necessarily false and the new will probably be no better than the old. I favour evolution not revolution.
Sufficient information is basically as above. It is more an understanding that the knowledge we have is limited and retaining the ability to update opinions as we learn more. Dogma (paradigm) is not opinion because dogma cannot update. Dogma is the end of the line because nobody can learn if they know everything.
If it is simply my dogma versus your dogma there is nowhere to go. If opinion is real opinion then both can evolve.
This is an interesting line and if you would like to correspond on a one to one basis please send me an email through my website.
Posted by Daviy, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 10:27:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A paradigm is a pattern or an example, and it is by the study of patterns, and examples that we get to make informed decisions. For example since 1949, there has been a paradigm or pattern of ever increasing government interference in the private lives of individuals, and a dogma adopted that the State is Sovereign. A dogma is a principle or tenet, or doctrinal system, and this dogmatic insistence on State Sovereignty, is in direct contradiction of the paradigms established and adopted by the Australian people in the lead up to independence from Britain in 1900.

We now have a small but very influential minority of University graduates, in all walks of life, who subscribe to the doctrine of Secular State Sovereignty. The dogma of State Sovereignty is extremely destructive. The pursuit of education has coincided to a large degree in the rejection of dogma. At the same time, the dogma ( uninformed Christianity) rejected has been replaced with another even worse dogma; The fallacious dogma that the State will look after you, fed continuously by the media, seeking sensational news.

State Sovereignty as dogma enacted as the Australia Act 1986 is a direct contradiction of the paradigm, enacted in 1900, in S 116 Constitution. Like all dogma’s it is riven with contradictions. Even before the English could all read and write, their leaders realized that there was a paradigm in Christianity, that contradicted the dogma promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church.

The entire purpose and object of the life of Jesus Christ his resurrection, and the life of Saul who became Paul was to establish a paradigm of individuality, as opposed to tribalism. State Sovereignty is tribalism, and nine State tribes make laws in Australia. No matter where we come from or what race we are derived from, we are subject to the paradigm of a United Australia. The dogmatics won’t permit universal jury trials, and an unfair unjust Australia will continue until that right is reestablished, as the universal paradigm, that glued society together for 755 years. Until jury trials are restored we are tribally dogmatic
Posted by Peter the Believer, Wednesday, 21 January 2009 12:27:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy