Politics, God and Religion vs. Science

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 18301 - 18320 of total 23145 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Dec 4, 2013 - 01:43am PT
PSP. Inviting people to pay attention to anything but their thinking is herein labeled a waste of time. What is lost is that folks have no real grasp of how their minds run mostly on auto-pilot. Twenty minutes of trying to follow their breath will provide clear proof that this is entirely impossible, that the discursive mind would carry them away like flotsam in a riptide. The amazing thing to some of us is that words like wuwu and magic are equated with mind training so the riptide of mind cannot carry us off, and that such a "state" is a case of the the brain being in neutral. The falseness of this view could be verified by the breath exercise - no one without training can even remotely hope to do it - but here, 20 minutes is too much to ask of ourselves.

JL
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Dec 4, 2013 - 09:59am PT
It's not that we HAVE to create mythologies, it's that we DO.

And I couldn't agree more: it can be limiting and that's my whole point.
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Dec 4, 2013 - 10:53am PT
As for creating mythologies, we DID in the past. We still cling to a few of their vestiges, but there are very few modern mythologies (that have any staying power).

That's in parentheses because despite creati....

and I see your point....

I guess we do create mythologies: in movies, in books, reconstructed histories, re-interpreted religious beliefs, but these get knocked down almost as quickly as they're built. Facts are quickly discovered and criticisms disseminated widely and at lightning speed.

One could take the long view and wonder why, for a given, population, a certain mythological flavor keeps resurfacing across generations over disparate mediums... what might that say about that culture's needs and fears? What might that say about their psychology and why it's been built that way?
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Dec 4, 2013 - 11:04am PT
Paul: . . . it can be limiting and that's my whole point.

Anything is limiting. Everything is limiting. Reason is limiting. Science is limiting. It's not until one gives up all those defining categorizations, labels, models, and abstractions (to include myth, magic, instincts, emotion) that one will begin to transcend any and all of those views.

A man or woman of reason who argues for their point of view to the exclusion of any other view is as biased as much as any one else with another view. Try no view.

These days we're trying to move away from ego-boosted goal-achievement, action / doing, rationality, alienation, hesitancy, responsibility, boundedness, control, intolerance, search for perfection, anxiety, exploitation, rigidity, knowledge, classifications, and doubt.

Instead, we're trying to move toward inclusion, empathy, tolerance, poise, life-as-play, participation, letting-be, immediacy, responsiveness, openness, fluency, service, wisdom, reverence, and being.

I suspect you'll say that religion and myth are things we're trying to move away from because they are so limiting. I agree inasmuch as they are single views, but I'm unwilling to throw them out willy-nilly only to elevate some other hegemonic perspective that puts a claim on everything else.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Dec 4, 2013 - 11:18am PT
the idea that we have to effectively create "mysteries" just to add spice to our lives.


This is scientism - the assumption being that "mysteries" do not relate to aspects of reality that cannot be measured, rather to the current lack of proper or adequate facts and figures. These facts and figures, scientifically culled, represent the truth, and as soon as the real numbers are in, myths and other primitive representations no longer serve a purpose, re, the primitive (myths) have been supplanted with the modern (measurements).

Of course this view is limited to what we do, not how we are. And when the human being aspects are looked at, a short evolutionary view is often sought to explain or furnish a "reason" that one could reverse engineer back to genetic causes for all myths to exist in the first place. And any view that does not sidle alongside the evolutionary one is immediately labeled a "God of the gaps" wuwu sham, waiting only for the gaps to be properly filled with - you guessed it: proper measurements. Then all those primitive myths and rituals can be done away with as our ignorant eyes open at last. . .

If there is a more profound misunderstanding of what existence is, I haven't seen it.

JL
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Dec 4, 2013 - 11:24am PT
"I suspect you'll say that religion and myth are things we're trying to move away from because they are so limiting. I agree inasmuch as they are single views, but I'm unwilling to throw them out willy-nilly only to elevate some other hegemonic perspective that puts a claim on everything else."

No, wouldn't say that. I just think that all myth is metaphor and should be understood as such. The real failure of understanding is to turn psychological metaphor into historical fact. In that act both are diminished.
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Dec 4, 2013 - 11:52am PT
If there is a more profound misunderstanding of what existence is, I haven't seen it.










Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Dec 4, 2013 - 02:00pm PT
Imo, science education in the basics - and kids imprinting on it - remains the number one way to reduce the size of the gulf between red and blue states.

I agree with this and I have never even watched one of your Sam Harris videos!

Guess I was imprinted successfully. I will never forget my 6th grade science teacher (in rural Tennessee where they read a daily 'devotion' over the intercom every morning before first class) explaining her fervent belief in god and that science was necessary but so was god. I was thinking what bullshit!

Parents and not just teachers, need to do that imprinting.

DMT
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Dec 4, 2013 - 03:10pm PT
I suspect you'll say that religion and myth are things we're trying to move away from because they are so limiting. I agree inasmuch as they are single views, but I'm unwilling to throw them out willy-nilly only to elevate some other hegemonic perspective that puts a claim on everything else.
-


Great observation, Mike. It is human nature to want a one-size-fits-all solution to truth. Some go with God; others, a slide rule. The psychological drivers are the same in both cases: the need to elevate a hegemonic perspective as the end-all. Offering "proof" of the claim.

An interesting thing some of us find - and which everyone finds in the their regular life - is that "everything" varies vastly per your perspective. Seen from the outside of the house (objective), so to speak, some feel they can explain life entirely, according to antecedent factors and influences. See from within the house, the subject material opens up in remarkable ways lost on us when we were looking on form the outside. Not
surprisingly, the man on the outside can only be convinced of what he is not seeing by going inside himself - a process some claim to be a waste of time. One wonders on what direct, first person experiences this opinion is based.

JL
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Dec 4, 2013 - 03:14pm PT
Do you believe in God?

Yes, or no?
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Dec 4, 2013 - 03:34pm PT
Of course this view is limited to what we do, not how we are. And when the human being aspects are looked at, a short evolutionary view is often sought to explain or furnish a "reason" that one could reverse engineer back to genetic causes for all myths to exist in the first place. And any view that does not sidle alongside the evolutionary one is immediately labeled a "God of the gaps" wuwu sham, waiting only for the gaps to be properly filled with - you guessed it: proper measurements. Then all those primitive myths and rituals can be done away with as our ignorant eyes open at last. . .

What is the alternative to understanding the physical world we live in other than the scientific method?
Answer: there is none. Just wu masters wringing their hands over "emptiness" while they utilize the products of the very thing they condemn.
Meanwhile science has done and continues to do a pretty damn good yeoman's job at unraveling the mysteries of the universe---and with more than just merely the pejorative "measurements". The proof is in the pudding.
The dancing wu masters have no proof, and no pudding. Just emptiness, by their own admission.
But don't tell them that---this faraway horizon of unmeasured reality, which only they can see --is not only chiefly characterized by nothing ,but it really can't be known. It is unknowable. It is what I want it to be. Today I want it to be unelaborated nothingness---an emptiness unprocessed by limiting measurements,and blissfully free of dastardly ideas and concepts.

A system of investigation and verification of the known universe that allows us to understand hitherto complex and putatively unsolvable mysteries, such as the origin of disease , the age of the universe, and the nature of relativity and time itself---all in just a few hundred years---doesn't need to be defended---it needs to be appreciated, especially by those who feel needlessly threatened by it , or whose " counter-claim of truth" has been revealed for what it is---a vast permanently unverifiable turf of subjective experience---the hallowed infinite domain of the chronic speculator, the madman, the nihilist, and the magical Chopra millionaire.

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Dec 4, 2013 - 03:42pm PT
Do you believe in God?

Yes, or no?


This question cannot be answered in the standard way that you answer questions about discrete things like cars and trees and vectors.

With boundless qualities - which sounds like blarney to our discursive minds - we cannot objectify and provide data as we would with, say, a belay anchor array. Rather we have to use our limitless tool (awareness) to probe the question.

In this light the question becomes: By what means might I find out for myself about "God?"

And that is a totally valid question providing that you do not demand that it be answered on your own terms. Such "questions" are rarely honest questions, but likely are what we call "set ups," meaning the questioner already has the "right" answer in their heads, and is setting up a subject to miss or fall short of meeting his criteria.

It rarely occurs to such people that the criteria by which they ask their questions is irrelevant to the very ground they are inquiring about, everything else being "a waste of time."

And Ward, those materialists rants are tedious. So long as you are objectifying, evaluating what is "out there," you do so at the exclusion of your own first person consciousness. And since we cannot experience - in real time - our first person life as a third person object (we cannot kiss our own face, so to speak), your methods miss the crux of the biscuit, the first person life you actually lead. If you're satisfied with a numerical representation of same, or cannot tell the difference between the two, you can hardly expect anyone with a wider view to take you seriously. And the wider view does not look at objectifying as something bad. That's ludicrous. It's just that we know objectifying has a limited field of play.

JL



Marlow

Sport climber
OSLO
Dec 4, 2013 - 03:48pm PT

Sinead O Connor - Queen of Denmark
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Dec 4, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
Do you believe in God?

Yes, or no?

This question cannot be answered in the standard way that you answer questions about discrete things like cars and trees and vectors.

In this light the question becomes: By what means might I find out for myself about "God?"

And that is a totally valid question providing that you do not demand that it be answered on your own terms.


I asked if you believe in God.... you returned: "By what means might I find out for myself about "God" on someone else's terms?"

I asked you chisel an answer into a block of stone. You chiseled it into water, said I couldn't read it, then complained it was a trick question. Is this the Zen mind at work?
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Dec 4, 2013 - 04:16pm PT
It's just that we know objectifying has a limited field of play.

The purveyors of "emptiness" deeming "objectifying" as limiting. Or, for that matter, a criticism of anything as "limiting"

In the deepest philosophical sense, is this not the penultimate irony?
I ask you.

Lol

So long as you are objectifying, evaluating what is "out there," you do so at the exclusion of your own first person consciousness.

Is this an epistemological,metaphysical, or a purely psychological penalty I have incurred?

And Ward, those materialists rants are tedious.

This reaction is proof that a sort of world-weary, jaded ,and exhausted mentality has taken root on this thread.
MikeL

climber
SANTA CLARA, CA
Dec 4, 2013 - 05:02pm PT
Do you believe in "X"? Substitutions are open to everything.

It usually happens afterwards, but it would be refreshing in such conversations if one were to say what "X" is.

(Where is locker and his dictionary when you need them?)

Yes, no, and neither of them.

Not existent and not non-existent.
Not existent or not non-existent.
Neither not existent nor not non-existent.

Everything.

Define anything completely, fully, and without exception or qualification. Anything.

It's not a trick.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Dec 4, 2013 - 05:29pm PT
So long as you are objectifying, evaluating what is "out there," you do so at the exclusion of your own first person consciousness.

Is this an epistemological,metaphysical, or a purely psychological penalty I have incurred?



Alright, Ward. I'll take you up on this.

How serious is your question, or are you just shooting off your pie hole? LOL and all that silly rabbit kind of glip hooey.

Do you want to find out the answer to that question, or do you simply want to be told what it is by someone else.

Are you really and truly interested in finding out how any of this actually works, sans juju and wuwu.

Or not.

JL

Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Dec 4, 2013 - 05:33pm PT
I asked you chisel an answer into a block of stone. You chiseled it into water, said I couldn't read it, then complained it was a trick question.


It is basically like this:

Asking, "Is there a God," is not a trick question. But what you want is a trick answer that no one can give you. The you blame "God" because he does not appear on a stone tablet for you to evaluate.

What you seem to want is for me or someone to reify "God" into a material thing (on a stone tablet) with aspects that you can evaluate as you would any other thing. If you are a proponent of scientism, believing as they do that all reality is material and all material is measurable, than God perforce must be explainable as a knowable thing (on that tablet or DVD) - or not. And if not, than there is no God because there is no materail trace or footprint so what the hell are we really talking about, anyway. Wuwu? No - thingness?

I am convinced that the only way for someone fused to discursive reasoning to get hold of what this is all about is to first look at how discursive evaluating works, in the most basic, fundamental way. The limitations are made clear in this process. And baring direct experince of how this process works, how we humans evaluate and discursive come to know this or that, I belive there is no foothold possible, no traction to be gotten for those asking the big questions.

JL
jstan

climber
Dec 4, 2013 - 05:47pm PT
This reaction is proof that a sort of world-weary, jaded ,and exhausted mentality has taken root on this thread.
Ward

Wonderful! We are nearing a truth.

It is posed above that absent experience in the scientific domains, theism is the only other way of learning how to think. Note DMT says he knew it was BS while still in Tennessee. So I have a question.

If you are a youngster who spends half your waking hours punching your iphone or ipad, and figuring out how to get those devices and applications to work, will you still be tempted to believe the touchy feely mind melt seen both in theism and on this thread? Eventually this thread will require us to use Latin you know. Only a matter of time.
Ward Trotter

Trad climber
Dec 4, 2013 - 05:50pm PT
Alright, Ward. I'll take you up on this.

Please do. I guess the rest of your post was setting the table for some kind of minor sh#t show serving up more of the same Dinty Moore.

Largo ,you have become such a one-note Johnny on this unwavering subject that by now you ought to have a lot of your responses stored and ready to just be pasted.
Save yourself a lot of work!!


If you are a youngster who spends half your waking hours punching your iphone or ipad, and figuring out how to get those devices and applications to work, will you still be tempted to believe the touchy feely mind melt seen both in theism and on this thread? Eventually this thread will require us to use Latin you know. Only a matter of time.

That's funny JStan ,but in a good way.

Animadvertisine, ubicumque stes, fumum recta in faciem ferri?

Or better yet:

Antiquis temporibus, nati tibi similes in rupibus vntosissimis exponebantur ad necem

Messages 18301 - 18320 of total 23145 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews