BothAndBlog Forum

Malus Scientia

Even non-Christians know the rather tragic tale, The Fall Of Man. The story goes that Eve was enticed by Satan in serpent form to eat the forbidden fruit - — TheMadFool

As you implied, the Garden of Eden myth seems to be intended as a warning against "evil" Science, which trusts its sensory extensions and rational conclusions more than the absolute Word of God : "apple bad, trust me". That's also why the Bible repeatedly indicates that physical Flesh (including taste & touch) is corrupted, and only the non-physical Spirit is pure & good, and a direct link to God --- so, trust, and don't bother to verify..

Of course, in the Garden, those child-like humans had direct sensory experience with God, who walked in the garden, making sounds that frightened the babes-in-the-woods. Today, we are bereft of that intimate contact, and the original words of God, are now -- reportedly -- recorded in man-made books, after passing through the fallible minds of many generations of sinful fleshly humans. Therefore, it follows that the self-reliance of Science may be the product of a Satanic plot. Hence, your label "malus scientia" seems to be appropriate. Unless, human reason is the only remaining reliable Word (Logos) of the Creator.

Now you start to talk nonsense, fine, wikipedia definition of God is same as God described in the bible: — SpaceDweller
Nonsense from your POV. Calling something nonsense is usually done when the sense of the competing POV (mine) is in contradiction with the POV it contradicts. I merely use the vocabulary of infinite potentiality (be it moral, physical, or semantic) and make a kin of reductio ad absurdum to reveal the shortcomings the POV. That's all it is: a point of view. It's not mine though. — GraveItty

Pardon the intrusion, but I just copied this Dilbert cartoon from Steven Pinker's Rationality, and was looking for a place to put it. Just kidding! :joke:

Dilbert cartoon :
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... 0idiot.png

↪Gnomon
Except I didn't "label" Graveltty because of disagreement with me, but because of contradictory definition of a God. — SpaceDweller

I apologize, if the cartoon was not an accurate portrayal of the disagreement. As I said, I had just copied the Dilbert for future reference, since name-calling is common on this forum. I hadn't followed your dialog, but the "nonsense!" epithet was close-enough for me to use the 'toon as a "cool-down" warning.

FWIW, my own personal definition of "G*D" does not agree with Wiki for "God". But the Wiki def for PanEnDeism is close. And that's OK : there are dozens of variations on a definition of deity. Most ancient images of gods were un-apologetically anthro-morphic. And even modern Catholicism uses icons of humans & animals --- Jesus & Mary & Holy Spirit (e.g. dove) --- to represent different aspects of an otherwise inconceivable deity.

Therefore, on this forum, we need to address the proposed definition that is in question. We are not obligated to agree on a single interpretation, but we should only critique the one under consideration. It's par-for- the-course for one person's imaginary concept to sound like non-sense to another person. However, a philosophical discussion is supposed to accept each postulated opinon as fodder for rational discourse.

Universals are a class of mind-independent entities,
https://iep.utm.edu/universa/
Note -- "God" is typically assumed to be universal & singular. But "gods" are usually specific & multiple. Yet, my "G*D" may be considered a little bit of both : Pan + En + Deism.

Shirking responsibility, The Blamer
Cited humans as the culprits of his err,
And cast them out of Eden, to this day—
This evil being God’s own Original Sin. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. The "problem of evil" remains to this day the primary argument against the omnipotent & loving Bible God. Even so, I still infer, from the off-setting positive & negative values of Good/Evil, that the First Cause, whatever it might be, did not create an idyllic Garden of Eden, but something more like a Science experiment pitting Self-determination against Determinism;; Reason against Randomness ; and Virtue against Violence. The final outcome of this vital & volatile alchemy remains to be determined. But, we-here-now, must choose between the eye-opening Apple of Science, and obfuscated Obedience to Fate.


Like the winds of the sea
Are the waves of time,
As we journey along through life,
’Tis the set of the soul,
That determines the goal,
And not the calm or the strife.
___Ella Wheeler Wilcox (1850–1919)

Gnosticism was declared heresy by the church and stamped out therefore. — TheMadFool

Yes. But it was anathematized presumably, not because un-scriptural, but because It allowed direct contact with God, and bypassed the Church as mediator & translator. Later, the Protestants likewise claimed the right to know the written word of God in vernacular language. And at the same time, gave license to empirical scientists to consult the creation of God directly, Again, making an end run around the Holy Mother Church, with its ancient authorized scriptures, and again violently resisted. From then on, Catholic Mystics (closet Gnostics) tried to fly under-the-radar of the Inquisition, so they could have it both ways : direct divine visions and church sacraments.

↪Gnomon
This evil being God’s own Original Sin. — PoeticUniverse
Contradictory statement. — SpaceDweller

That was a poetic expression of the theological "Problem of Evil", not a statement of fact.

God knows good and evil so he's both of that. — SpaceDweller

I agree. That all-in-one understanding is the core concept of my personal BothAnd philosophy. The Creator is assumed to be Omnipotential, in addition to Omniscient. But not necessarily Omni-benevolent, since that is a matter of opinion for those affected by such super-human powers. Omnipotential includes the possibility of both Good and Evil.

That's why our temporal & relative world evolves along a Hegelian zig-zag path, alternating between extremes of Positive & Negative. But, fortunately for us, those oppositions tend to neutralize each other (Yin_Yang). So most of the time we are able to enjoy the sweet spot in the middle between demonic Bad and angelic Good. That's what we call "life in an imperfect world". Even when it's not ideal, it's not so bad.

BothAnd Principle :
G*D (All; BEING ; Cosmos ; Logos ; etc.) is the Eternal Necessary Whole of which our world, and ourselves, are Temporary Contingent Parts. Hence G*D is like the Yin/Yang symbol : both black and white.

Example of POSITIVE -- NEGATIVE DIALECTIC
https://theseventhelf.files.wordpress.c ... gelian.jpg

YIN YANG
https://www.logodesignlove.com/wp-conte ... -chaos.jpg