h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Truth and Tolerance – Integrating Faith and Reason (Part 2) - A15985182
Author: Pilgrim4Truth - U5734655

This is part 2 following on from the part 1 that is currently in Writing Workshop - thanks

>>From the definition we see a process of integration and centering (an understanding of core principles), this need not be an irrational process. Indeed for the traditional mainstream faiths (that we shall be mostly focusing on) they claim that such reasoning is a crucial part of their tradition (leading to that part of philosophy known as metaphysics).<<

maybe it's because I'm tired and my eyes hurt, but this paragraph is too difficult to understand. Pretend your explaining it to my little sister. it usually helps when you get rid of all those parentheses.

>>As discussed in Part 1 different faith based traditions have different perspectives on the issue of a Diety (concerning issues such as; plural, singular, personal, immanent and transcendent aspects).<<

I don't think you can refer to part one like that. even though its laelled part one two and three theys till have o stand independently. So you should either skip 'as said' or say it again. Better.

Syncretic adoption:

I have a strong feeling that you could take the entire section and cut it down by half, while simplifying it at hte same time.



nevermind. this isn't working. I'll try again a different time.

OK - I'll look into it today

>>A criticism of this defintion is that it explictly does not talk about the faith position on the belief in God proposition. Different faith based traditions have varied perspectives on the issue of a Diety (concerning issues such as; plural, singular, personal, immanent and transcendent aspects). For our purposes let's proceed with this aspect as being part of that sense of relatedness to a larger frame of reference.<<

- For simplicity I'd say change the opening sentence to "A problem with this definition"...

- what do you mean by 'the faith position on the belif in God proposition'? Its a lot of words, but I can't with confidence say what they mean.

-The parenthetic statement about the characterisitics of a Diety - maybe you can just say 'the diety's characterisitics' or else come up with less abstract words, because I'm not sure what 'immanent' means in this context.

-The last sentence I don't understand at all.

OK thanks - try this

>>Though it is implied in that a persons sense<<

- person's


>> of a Diety can be the larger frame of reference... that gives a... quality of ultimacy in their life.<<

-this is a fragmented sentence. That is, it starts, but doesn't finish. Is the italicized part a quote? If so, use "quotation marks."

>>We have to proceed with care though as <<

- We have to proceed with care, though, as

>>different faith based traditions have varied perspectives on the issue of the Diety's characterisitics (if indeed there is a role for a Diety at all).<<

- leave out parentheses. Honestly, it just makes things complicated.

>>The interpretations of faiths evolve as they dialog with other traditions.<<

- can you just say that religions get influenced by the beleif systems/traditions/cultures they come in contact with?


>>In this respect a common absorption or syncretic3 adoption was of the Greek philosophical reason based traditions of Plato and Aristotle, the so called the 'Hellenization' of worldviews.4<<

-Do you ever say was 'syncretic' means?
- reason-based traditions.

- maybe leave out the hellenization and put instead a brief explanation of reason-based tradtions

>>The central idea for philosophers being confronted with the truth found by reason, rationality and science was that they could not be at odds with truth by faith. Any contradiction being seen as a sign of error in one aspect or the other. This lead to a reconciliation process to ensure any contradiction was resolved adequately, a kind of conflict resolution process.<<

Can you rewrite this paragraph like you're explaining it to my little sister?

Over to you.

OK done two - will do the rest after a while.

OK this is now done - lets get this part 2 done then we will close to finishing! Thanks for the help

Corrected typos - awaiting input

Sorry for the absence, I'm back!

gives coherence and direction to persons lives, >> person's

A problem with this definition is that it explicitly does say anthing about the belief-in-God proposition >> do you mean 'does not say'? and it is 'anything'

proposition. Though it is >> proposition, although it is

Deity >> deity (in all cases where it occurs)

Faiths get influenced... they come in contact with >> Faith is influenced... a person comes in contact with

into the enlightenment age. Eg, the philosophy of; >> into the enlightenment age with the philosophies of:

providence, rather is one that is itself part of the deterministic system of which everything in nature is contained. >> providence but rather that it is itself part of the deterministic system containing the whole of nature.

Soren Kierkegaard who as a founding father of the Existential movement took >> Soren Kierkegaard who, as a founding father of the Existential movement, took

faith based >> faith-based (in fact whereever you say 'anything' based, insert a dash in between the words)

This lead to a reconciliation >> led

There's more but I will stop here for now.

W

This is just a bookmark to encourage me to get back to this some time.

I've just subscribed to the EGWW (<./>RF2</.&gt, and have not, up to now, spent much time here.

I've only glanced at this entry, and was interested to see the "Related BBC Links" at the bottom. Presumably you've seen this in other entries. In fact, this was something the editors used to stick on the end of entries, often including barely relevant links. They don't do it anymore and, indeed, on of the curators' jobs is to remove these sections, either dropping the links or moving them into references tags.

Curators
<./>GuideML-References</.>

TRiG.

Wilma- Done changes thanks a lot - bring em on!

Trig - Noted, I have referenced them as general references. Before going to PR I'll also drop the pictures.

I made a mistake - that should have been persons', not person's. Sorry, Pilgrim.

Here goes some more:

Some think that it will never be successful, it's for sure a hotly disputed claim, and you can find the heated debates on many a blog. >> Some think that it will never be successful. It is certainly a hotly disputed claim, as proven by the heated debates on many a blog.

And the process continues as new truths are constantly being discovered our revised about our reality. >> can't start a sentence with 'and' Other than that, though, there is something rather wrong with this sentence...

In some cases we find that they are consistent with a certain traditions faith-based truths, that is often taken to be a positive confirmation to the traditions, and everyone is happy (well sometimes!). >> I don't really understand what you are saying here. What is consistent with who?. Sentence is also quite long.

if overtime >> if over time,

in this area, Evolution vs Creationism >> in this area. Evolution vs Creationism

have truth and is belief >> have truth? and is belief

true for all or true for me >> I suggest this goes in a footnote (don't tell anyone I said that!)

The Question of the Meaning of Being >> I would italicise this.

analyze deeply the problems >> analyse deeply the problems,


W

Done - let's keep up this up, 'we are cooking on gas now' (does anyone remember that adverts catch phrase?)!

I have done as you say Wilma (as my wife has taught me well!). But the Economist style guide says starting sentences with 'And', whilst frowned on in the past, it's OK now!

It does? Okay den

well done, I think this one is ok now...

Part 3

Thanks

Suggest Flea Market