You didn’t understand what I was trying to point out. Ambiguity, meaning here that in a piece of information can be taken into different meanings — the turf of artistic disciplines (music, fine arts, literature)is not taken up by science as a discipline because it relies on concepts — scientists cannot possibly establish findings if they are at least in agreement on the definition of concepts being used for a particular study or experiment.

Say, when Vincent Van Gogh painted Starry, Starry Night he did not explain its meaning, he just allowed or given us a vision of reality. Whereas, a scientist would explain the make-up, the distance of stars, how they came to be, etc. I am thankful for both.

Re: vision. I used it in a way that any singular piece of art/religion (meaning a set of beliefs) is complete when it provides a vision of reality. Note here — you diverged on the using the vision thing with regards to artistic disciples versus scientific disciples (instead you referred to the “vision of scientists”).

Seriously, DJB — I understand what you’re trying to drive at or advocating against — just please focus on your real enemy. A lot of us are with you on this.

But science revels in ambiguity too, because the essence of the scientific method is to try and falsify the reigning hypothesis. Of course whatever does not disprove the latter makes it stronger. But if there is a better hypothesis, yes, science does not hesitate to change its “current view”.

As for vision, I assure you, Scientists are great visionaries. They are ambitious big thinkers and are always in a hurry, in a tizzy, in a froth. For they know their time is strictly limited, and therefore, most precious indeed! There is no time to waste on false visions, which only lead to false hopes.

Only the Truth can console us, if we have the Courage to face it.

Ambiguity is different from vagueness. I said science cannot tolerate ambiguity, which is just as well because the nature of science is to have neat concepts — constructs for reality. The vision of reality of religion/arts is “complete” — not that it captures all aspects of reality — but it offers a vision. Science can never be complete in its vision — it is always tentative.

Now, when does a religion or any ideology for that matter become absolute and infallible as you assert? It when human beings who believe in them turn to dogmas or become raging dogmatists.

All ideas or religions have in their center of influence the tendency to become dogmatic or infallible. But the mainstream modern society has already learned that what’s dangerous is dogma – not religion or ideas per se. Dogmas are strewn everywhere in our conscious universe, forever festering in their little hells — and taking unaware human beings in their twisted logic.

That means my comments to that future post will be the same as the ones in this one. Haha. What a great time-saver. Seriously, you have expounded on your alleged basis in the comments section already. Is this absolutely necessary? What about Padre Damaso and the price of rice in Tuguegarao? ;)

But such moral/ethical assumptions must have a basis behind. Otherwise, having no foundation at all, they can not stand alone nor can withstand the raging tide of time as universal.

So, I am asking again DJB, (as I am already tired of asking what is your proof of your Inexistence of God theory, never mind which god’s name is, which you always dodge)what is the basis or foundation of this “thou shalt, thou shalt not…” of yours here?

Please tell me and I shall keep my silence afterward – even if you’ll say the basis of this morality of yours is Physics!

I thought the problems in Mindanao had to to with LAND, not religion.

Not just for the Moros, btw, but for all the other (animist) ethnic peoples.

To repeat the specific constitutional text in the Preamble you are referring to–“imploring the aid of Almighty God.”

So, the 1987 Constitution recognizes, after all, such a thing as the “Almighty God” of any religion (and not just that of the Catholic), which you now define as one representing the “code for the Good we believe is in human beings.”

Is this “code for the Good” not a religion by itself already?