new thing to be mad about: people irresponsibly suggesting theological possibilities that they well know are already solved problems but which people without that education and training might take seriously and so be led astray
-
the points you're making don't prove what you seem to think they prove, and perhaps if you merely acquainted yourself with the perspectives of others it would be easier for you to recognize that your idea of adversarial (falsifying) examples don't apply to their system
I've read a lot of religious texts and listened to a moderate amount of people talking about them, I just don't think I know anything about theology because there's nothing there to know. If you want to present a "perspective" please do so concretely.
-
-
and that's not what I mean by adversarial example. I mean brain hacks. Just like AI recognizes upside down trashcans as gibbons or whatever, humans see God everywhere.
-
the distinction between legitimate knowledge and brain hackery is a theological one. what exactly is the difference between hearing words and being hit on the head with a hammer? Don't they both simply modify the configuration of the central nervous system?
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
tonight if I'm up to it (have a lot of coursework today) perhaps I shall write up a thread documenting how I ground my theology in tangible reality, so that you can see where I'm coming from on this we agree on many things, I think you'll sympathize with my account
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.