or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Business Casual Allen Edmonds - Park Ave too much?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Business Casual Allen Edmonds - Park Ave too much? - Page 3

post #31 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post



Jumping from the topic of PA's with Business Casual to this seems to be one of the most dramatic threadjacks in the history of SF!

Too be honest, this thread was asking for it.
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post


You seem like you'd be a most interesting chap to palaver with in real life. Anent the Puseyites, I think you sell them short. While Dr. Pusey remained absolutely conservative to his death, the next generation of "Puseyites," is probably best exemplified by Bishop Charles Gore, who early in his career was the first principal of Pusey House and who played a very active role in reconciling traditional Catholic Christianity with modern scholarship and scientific theory, with collections like the Lux Mundi and Essays Catholic and Critical.

It will have been 50 years this Michaelmas term since I went up to Oxford, so I have no idea what the status of religion at Oxford is at this time, but in my day it would certainly have been fallacious to have declared that Oxford had, collectively, forsaken traditional theistic religion in favor of what you call "naturalism." A goodly percentage of the dons, including some in the "hard" sciences, were active churchmen. When I was able to attend daily Mass at St. Mary Magdalen's, one of the most regular communicants was a physicist (not sure whether he was a professor or simply a don), and he was only one of many dons who were believers.

Jumping from the topic of PA's with Business Casual to this seems to be one of the most dramatic threadjacks in the history of SF!

 

Thank you.

 

The problem you state, or "reconciling traditional Catholic Christianity with modern scholarship and scientific theory", is just that, a problem because modern scholarship and scientific theory are built on a foundation of naturalism, or Creation without a Creator. It is therefore incapable of being reconciled with traditional Christian values based upon the foundation a Creator.

 

The only reason why reconciliation seems possible or reasonable, is because these men were all double minded due to their having internalized the conflict into their belief system.

 

Early scientists such as Issac Newton and René Descartes never tried to reconcile two conflicting worldviews such as those above and were therefore true scientists intent on describing the created universe from the empirical data as it was revealed. In contrast, contemporary scientists dogmatically filter all empirical data through the sieve of naturalism such that all data collected is interpreted in a way that it describes a universe at odds with the idea of a Creator, or a self actualized and self sustaining universe. Modern science is therefore science in name only since with the adoption of dogma, it is a false religion, or belief system with practices based upon those beliefs. and not real science. And the practice of this false religion, as stated above, is filtering all empirically derived knowledge or data through the sieve of naturalism, when they aren't using the sieve of humanism.

 

It is impossible for these self described Christian scientists to simultaneously hold two different truth sources, e.g., Creation and Creator, without being double minded or confused. While two conflicting truth sources can both be simultaneously false, they cannot both be simultaneously true.  The religious charlatans, who only hold onto their relative truths of a universe without a Creator, are at the very least not double minded, even if their truth source has not material reality. This leaves thees naturalistic pseudo scientist religious zealots in stronger position dogmatically, since they have not internalized the conflict and only hold to one side of the argument.

 

Instead, the Naturalists are subject to the class of logical fallacies that exist in a world of relative truths built upon a truth source of no-thing. This allows deep Naturalistic thinkers like Hawking and Dawkins to consider and hold in esteem ridiculous ideas such as Pan Spermia, while their double minded Christian counterparts are incapable of arguing effectively against such non-sense, since they have internalized at least at part of the Naturalist non-sense with no-thing as its truth source.

 

This is the problem at Oxford, elsewhere in the world. and in Christendom or the Church; too many are trying to reconcile incompatible ideas that are sourced from conflicting sources of truth. This leads to double minded thinkers who are confused and incapable of thinking clearly so that truth is revealed.

 

The best example of this is Christians, Catholic or other, who simultaneously hold to ideas that can only be true if there is a Creator from whom all real information was authored or authorized together with ideas that can only be true if there is no Creator, such as Evolution which can only be a true idea with material reality if real information can arise de novo from no-thing or without a Creator.

 

Truth is simply fidelity to a truth source. And one cannot simultaneously hold as truth ideas that are in conflict without being at risk for being deceived because then one has no practical ability to discern truth beyond that which is relative to their confused world view; i.e., to a mind confused by conflicting truth sources, nearly anything, true or otherwise will appear to be true.

 

And if one cannot discern truth, then they will become a slave to their emotions which are the products of their confused thinking.

 

Executive Summary: Opposing worldviews and sources of truth cannot be reconciled without creating confusion and operating in an emotional state which is the product of uncertainty, doubt, and ultimately fear. This will undermine the ability of one to effectively argue against false ideologies even when the ultimate truth source for the false ideology is no-thing. In principle, the argument is internalized, which is the only reason why reconciliation seems possible.

 

Cheers!

post #33 of 36
^Interesting, but all a bit much for a simple old soul like me to take in.

I note that you use the term "naturalist" to describe an intellectual or philosophic point of view. I had never heard the term used in that manner before. To me, a naturalist has always just been a guy who goes out and studies birds and frogs and trees and stuff like that, irrespective of his religious or philosophic views.
post #34 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post

^Interesting, but all a bit much for a simple old soul like me to take in.

I note that you use the term "naturalist" to describe an intellectual or philosophic point of view. I had never heard the term used in that manner before. To me, a naturalist has always just been a guy who goes out and studies birds and frogs and trees and stuff like that, irrespective of his religious or philosophic views.

 

Sorry for the blast. I doubt you are a simple old soul, as I have never met one yet

 

In principle; a religion is nothing more than a system of a belief and practices based on that belief. So, everyone practices religion whenever the act from belief or faith in some idea, whether the idea is true or false.

 

Religions are best and most clearly identified when you identify them using their ultimate truth source: e.g., Christianity, Naturalism, Humanism, Darwinism, etc. whose truth sources are Christ, Nature, Humans, and Darwin respectively.

 

People only get confused when they try to hold to multiple truth sources or analyze a something that has multiple truth sources; i.e., a Bible thumping, church going don that promotes Darwinism and Humanism in the classroom.

 

Naturalism is a religion, so is Communism. Think about it.

 

Cheers!

post #35 of 36
Thread Starter 

So I'm not really sure what was going on in those last few posts, but I wanted to update quick. It sounds like I made a bad call on the PA's based on what I need. I still want something versatile, so I searched around for thoughts on the Strand, McAllister, McTavish, and MacNeil.

 

I decided on the Strands in walnut because they look great. There are split opinions on whether they're strictly formal, but lots of people agree they even work with jeans... including AE's CEO as he shared in a reddit AMA

 

Quote:
I love its versatility from jeans to business suits and everything in between.

 

Thanks again everyone who replied.

post #36 of 36
Thread Starter 

 .


Edited by manny14 - 1/25/13 at 1:35pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Business Casual Allen Edmonds - Park Ave too much?