DJDrood "Well that seems sensible to me....science and historical facts are just opinions"
Could you expand on that DJ? I think everyone will agree on how the element of opinion in the form of subjective belief (or ulterior motives disguised as belief) has played a part in how historical facts have been recorded, reviewed and evaluated, but my impression of science is that it would seem to be all about the elimination of opinion or subjective belief in arriving at conclusions that result in repeatable outcomes not subject to interpretation, hence their usefulness. If opinion or subjective belief were to play any significant role in the scientific method, would not the whole construct immediately fail?
DJDrood "...and as I'm sure you are aware, all opinions are equally valid."
Don't you mean all "worldviews" are equally valid? I would agree philosophically that all worldviews are and must remain equally valid because of the extremely subjective nature of philosophy, and that no one worldview can ever really be said to be more or less valid than another since there is no way to show that conclusively. The validity of an opinion is somewhat different though, and its validity can often be measured (at least to a degree) by either testing or by observations made over time. For instance, lets say you are of the opinion that dropping an anvil on my hand will cause me distress, and I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that it will have no effect at all. We can test the veracity of our respective opinions by dropping an anvil on my hand, and I think afterward it would be obvious that your opinion, at least in this case, had greater validity than mine.
DJDrood "(Don't try to over-think druidry, Aemilius...or think it at all"
Too late, I've been thinking it pretty much all my life.
DJDrood "...I find it helps to try to feel it in my groin.)"
Hah! Not familiar with "Groin Druidry", but who knows? "The Sacred Grove of Groin Druids" could be a real hit in San Francisco!
DaRC "I think you'll find that this was a continued theme in the early church, I refer to the Council of Nicea and another example would would be the authorized King James version of the Bible. My point here is that all religions and philosophies develop over time."
Develop, or are corrupted?
DaRC "None of the classical writers are Druids and all have their own political agenda, some more than others (e.g. Caesar)."
Well, whatever their political agendas may have been, the excerpts I chose for the original post bear no hint of them, they do though all uniformly indicate a keen interest in science and an enthusiastic acceptance of Pythagorean doctrine.
DaRC "Just as an early Christian of the 2nd Century AD would probably have little relation to a modern Southern Baptist."
Perhaps, but there are two things which connect the ancient and modern Christians that they would still agree upon today (without getting into the truth of it), that Christ was the Messiah and only begotten Son of God, and that he was crucified to atone for the sin of man. Coincidently, there are two things that ancient and modern Druids would agree upon and that connects them to this day, an abiding reverence for the natural world, and an unquenchable thirst for knowledge of the universe and its workings.
DaRC "The question in my mind, with regards to this thread, is this - what is the real question you are driving at?"
That's fair, here's what I'm driving at then.... Can anyone give me one good reason for rejecting the writings of these men (besides vague references to political agendas) who may actually have met Druids or known people who did, and putting their faith in Emma Restall Orr instead?
Thanks for all your opinions, very informative.... Emile