Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2019 - 12:17pm PT
|
I call them sacred texts because that's what those who venerate same call them. They do so to distinguish a "kind" of text from other texts: those that are not considered sacred. For me the term simply distinguishes one from another. They are not sacred to me but they are sacred texts. Frankly, I don't see much of an issue here.
I am fascinated by the disconnect between science and the wisdom literature that permeates every social construction throughout history (sacred texts) and that that literature offers real and sometimes startling insight into the human condition. I think it's a shame because each has something to offer the other. Yes, there are disturbing aspects of the Old Testament, but
Everybody makes mistakes.
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2019 - 01:01pm PT
|
I will always respect your right to your opinion, irrelevant if I disagree or not.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2019 - 01:23pm PT
|
Antichrist -- ".... while others just make unsupported claims ....."
Just see the brainwashed nutcase now masquerading himself as ultimate authority again and again.
No one can know anything until the brainwashed nutcase authorizes it .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2019 - 04:49pm PT
|
...Ed takes time to explain details of the "science" side...
I don't consider it "us" vs. "them"
also Largo has an awesome car pool which he represents from time and again to explain science (albeit filtered through Largo, though he does send them links to my explanations for them to critique).
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2019 - 05:03pm PT
|
I just think if you are going to claim something contains astounding insights you should at least attempt to explain what those insights are and why they are astounding. Otherwise you are just another idiot claiming you have "insights, astounding insights, some of the best insights. Believe me, these insights are astoundung. Am I right? Astounding."
--
A while back I cited the Mary's Room thought experiment, offering one of my own: A topo map (with all relevant data), and Ed's experience of climbing the route on said topo. This helped make clear that A) both the data on the topo, and Ed's experience were "real" and true, B) the data on the topo was catagorically different then Ed's experience, and C) Ed's experience could not be accessed from the data on the topo, though it might be imagined or implied so long as you or I had previous exoeriences on a route similiar to the one Ed climbed.
So when you ask for an "explanation" of the insights Ed might have had during his climb (so to speak), we can count on Ed giving some information germane for a topo (physical data). However with some experiences, those not involving a physical task which lends itself to qantifications (the crack was so wide, the pitch so long, the grade this hard, the rock this quality, etc), we are not dealing with data that is not observable in the physical world, at least not directly. Meaning if you are asking for a physical explanation you are asking the wrong question.
However you are quite within your rights to be curious about the nuances of any insight, knowing as we've just seen that we are not asking a linear/causal question about the physical world. That's not to say some explanation is impossible, rather that you are looking at a situation in some ways similar to any climber looking at a topo and trying to imagine what the climb will "be like" once you rope up. Unless you have climbed similar routes and have a stockpile of similar experiences, your understanding will be limited to imagining or dreaming.
Again, that's not at all to say that we can't go into great detail about any insight, but it will make better sense if you have some experience to contrast with Ed's experience on the climb, so to speak.
The problem here, or rather the trap, is to insist that the data and information from insight should be a direct comment on the physical world, and if it's not, "you only think that is so." Or the black hole of mind studies, believing Ed's experience and the topo are identical, or even wonkier, Ed's experience is only a shadow projection of the data on the topo, and if we only had a sufficiently detailed topo, Ed's experience could be "explaiend" in whole.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2019 - 10:45pm PT
|
"Lowest ranked countries in the world for gender equality & women's empowerment: Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco, Jordan, Oman, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mali, Congo, Chad, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, & Yemen. I'm trying to identify a common link but nothing comes to mind. Suggestions?" -Gad Saad
These seem like the oppressive patriarchies we hear so much about... -Jordan Peterson
...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
https://youtu.be/oo13WCT6G20
If you don't want to think about "moving on" for America's sake, then how about for women's sake in the Arab and Persian worlds? Or is that asking too much of Sapiens? even though the planet's globalized now... and globalizing still more, more and more every week.
This week's story worth researching.
Once again, we witness the power of twitter and social media - despite all its destabilizing attributes.
https://twitter.com/rahaf84427714
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/12/world/americas/saudi-teenager-fleeing-family-arrives-safely-in-canada.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
Nice work, Canada!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2019 - 11:15pm PT
|
Biannual reminder...
this is the Science versus Religion thread. Anyone who would like to celebrate their compatibility, their e pluribus unum, their mutual love, etc.... or else meet up to share their stories of loving both or paying homage to both is welcome at any time to start a Science AND Religion Together thread.
Religion shouldn't get any kind of free pass from criticism just because it is religion. (Yes this IS breaking with tradition and yes, this is a good thing and not a bad thing in this day and age, and I hope everyone here can recognize / acknowledge this.) Its worldviews runs counter to the worldview of science in respects too numerous to count, esp in regards to so-called truth-claims and these differences are most worthy of discussion. This is the justification for this thread, at least as many see it.
Folks should be able to criticize, debate, exchange ideas and views and so forth regarding S vs R just as they do as a matter of course in other arenas or venues, e.g., EV vs ICE, Sport vs Trad. It's an important way our species advances.
...
So note Paul Roehl has acknowledged along these many pages that he is (a) an athiest and (b) not a supernaturalist, thus in fencing with Paul (or any like-minded others) there is no worry of "hurting grandma" or "hurting grandma's feelings" that need to be taken into account insofar as any argument or debate ensues and no need thusly to pull our punches. Not in my view, at least. In the end it's but an intellectual discussion*** in the hope of advancing our insights and such in these important if not fun subjects.
***More or less, excepting the ad hominems of mostly one.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 12, 2019 - 11:52pm PT
|
I think Largo is making the case for what he calls the "subjective adventure" and points out that our "experience" cannot be "objectified"
He's not arguing about religion, but the validity of our personal experiences.
However, this from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Thus those who wish to use a strong in principle gap claim to refute physicalism must find independent grounds to support it."
Here the "in principle gap" is that we cannot, in principle, know what it is like to be anything but ourselves, to broaden the generality. Nagel would argue we cannot know what it is like to be a bat, why stop there?
But what is lacking is any independent supporting idea. Panpsychism is the proposal... but that begs the question: how does that work?
The details are lacking. If everything has some element of consciousness, how does this consciousness come together as we observe it in ourselves? does having more things imply that that conglomerate has more consciousness? Does a whale have more than a human? A planet? A star? etc...
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 03:01am PT
|
In over 1500 posts to the thread to-date, Largo has steadfastly refused to own Panpsychism or a fundamental consciousness in any explicit way, so what are the odds at this point he'll ever say in clear terms what he does believe. We have a pretty good idea what he doesn't believe, but that's about it as far as consciousness and mind goes.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 05:14am PT
|
^ I notice there are a number of Yosemite routes named after Castaneda books. Be aware that instead of jumping off a cliff and transcending into the Nagual, he died of cirrhosis of the liver. He'd been married to a groupie whom he originally adopted as his child as a minor. If he hadn't created such a freaky cult he might have mystified even more people with his books. A seriously disturbed individual trapped by a fake PhD thesis.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 06:36am PT
|
I have just read an interesting book called Faith Styles: Ways People Believe by John Mabry who is part of an interfaith chaplaincy in Berkeley. In it, he identifies six styles of believing that spiritual counselors will encounter (he does not include fundamentalists whom he doesn't even try to counsel). These six styles (I would prefer ways of being) are:
Traditional Believers
Liberal Believers
Religious Agnostics
Spiritual Eclectics
Ethical Humanists
Jack Believers
I do not think we have any traditional or liberal believers on this thread but do have the latter four categories.
Religious agnostics are people who participate in religion including many religious leaders, without knowing or believing that the tenets of that religion are true, yet find it worth participating in because of the sense of community and the activism and good works it does.
Spiritual eclectics think there is value in the wisdom traditions of various religions and construct their own belief systems and life values accordingly, often from an agnostic position. They often value contradictory views.
Ethical Humanists is the term he uses to describe atheists who are mostly science oriented. As a religious man, he makes an extremely good case for this position putting forth many of the same arguments as this thread, but I felt, more sympathetically than they often portray themselves, particularly if they came to this position as a jack believer.
Jack believers, also known as backsliders and apostates, are the most tormented group as they still believe to varying degrees in the theology they have rejected or more commonly, been expelled from, for marrying an outsider, expressing doubts, violating a moral precept etc. The only relief offered to this group is to turn against religion altogether and stop believing any of it. Usually this takes the form of becoming an ethical humanist, often one who is extremely critical of all religion.
As an anthropologist I look at religion as a functionalist, so I found this classification very helpful in understanding the various psychological adaptations to the great existential questions of humanity.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 11:02am PT
|
Faith Styles: Ways People Believe
https://www.amazon.com/Faith-Styles-Spiritual-Directors-International-ebook/dp/B00DE0WWB8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1547406033&sr=8-1&keywords=faith+styles%3A+way+people+believe
Curious, Jan, so what is your "faith style"?
...
As an anthropologist I look at religion as a functionalist, so I found this classification very helpful in understanding the various psychological adaptations to the great existential questions of humanity. -Jan
Compare:
As a religious critic (in TBD), I look at religion as a functionalist-performance analyst and think current and future generations can - and WILL - do a lot better in TBD -apart from religion - esp in regard to (a) truth-claims; (b) community; (c) guidance strategies for living and counseling for living; (d) its relationship to science; (e) efforts to unify and make safer our Earth Island Spaceship. -hfcs
...
Religion declining in importance for many Americans, especially for Millennials...
Nones are now 35% of the population.
https://religionnews.com/2018/12/10/religion-declining-in-importance-for-many-americans-especially-for-millennials/
When we see these trends and these numbers in the middle east (e.g., Pakistan, KSA, Iran), then this is going to be a huge step-change in improvement. Imo.
...
Michael Shermer makes the case for scientific humanism...
permit me to reflect on what I think science brings to the human project of which we are all a part...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-for-scientific-humanism/
This is his final column at Scientific American. He now has his own podcast called Science Salon.
"The goal of scientific humanism is not utopia but protopia—incremental improvements in understanding and beneficence as we move ever further into the open-ended frontiers of knowledge and wisdom. Per aspera ad astra." -Michael Shermer, 2019
More here...
Michael Shermer and Joe Rogan...
https://youtu.be/-p5D-pN8tQw
...
scientific naturalism: the belief that the world is governed by natural laws and forces that are knowable, that all phenomena are part of nature and can be explained by natural causes, and that human cognitive, social and moral phenomena are no less a part of that comprehensible world.
Enlightenment humanism: a cosmopolitan worldview that esteems science and reason, eschews magic and the supernatural, rejects dogma and authority, and seeks to understand how the world works.
scientific humanism: the blending of scientific naturalism and Enlightenment humanism.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 12:56pm PT
|
My faith style - hmmm. I would say my primary style is spiritual eclectic with secular humanism one of the ways of being that I incorporate to a large extent, at the same time I have a strong mystical bent. My foundational ethics are Quaker because of close relatives and childhood training, although I have never been to a Quaker meeting. I was raised with no formal religious background. In the past I have been a religious agnostic participating in Greek Orthodox, Hindu and Buddhist communities. I still participate in Tibetan Buddhist ceremonies with my Sherpa friends and I find Buddhist ethics to be an extension of Quaker ethics, particularly regarding the natural world and animals. My questions at the present time involve my many mystical experiences and what they signify - mere biochemical reactions or something more universal. I feel quite sure it is a question that I will die with unsolved.
As for religion, I think that more and more people (stats bear this up) are leaving traditional religion in the scientifically educated world. They have both gained a lot and lost a lot in my estimation. As an anthropologist looking back at human history, I think the coming belief system in modern advanced societies will be nature and ecology and evolution based with a new ethical system founded on that. Unless the secular/ethical humanists provide a sense of community and engage in philanthropy however, I imagine there will be many like me who continue to borrow individually what they feel is best from traditional religions and ethical systems. It also seems likely given the wealth of human religions through time, that secular humanists will come up with their own versions of religion similar to the Unitarian Universalists or probably new forms not yet imagined. The Orthodox of all religions will persist from Hassids in New York to Amish in Pennsylvania to polygynists in Utah and flying saucer believers in Area 51.
Edit: Just because someone says they have no religion does not mean that they have no inner life of the spirit. It just means they have rejected formal institutions. So far, "Spiritual but not religious" is reported as the most common response of those saying they have no religion.
As for scientific humanism, I think that is way too intellectual and rational and demanding of advanced education for the average person.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 01:03pm PT
|
This means many adherents of religions don't actually believe in them, and have some complex denial mechanism or justification for going along with it. Whatever they may think, the real reason they believe in impossible things is that they were brainwashed as children and will never overcome that their entire lives. Reason #2 is social pressure, family pressure, and so on. On one level they know it's all bullsh#t, but it's not worth fighting over. The way to break the cycle isn't to try to convince adults with reason. It's to stop them from brainwashing children.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 01:11pm PT
|
Yes, I think unless you have been thoroughly burned by a fundamentalist type religion as several on this thread have been, then you are unlikely to disrupt your family and community over the issue, especially if they are supportive. The easiest thing is just to move away as some on this thread have done. When they do go home, if they are psychologically and socially mature, they let crazy right wing uncle Ned rant at Thanksgiving and don't argue with him, and they don't put forth their own beliefs either. They'll probably go to church with their mom to please her and enjoy the free potluck as well.
As for stopping people who believe from brain washing their children, I'd love to hear how you think that can be done? The only way I can see for helping the situation is to provide alternative viewpoints as a teacher and let them make up their own minds - which increasing numbers are doing.
|
|
Don Paul
Social climber
Washington DC
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 01:35pm PT
|
I'm a lawyer, so my first idea is always to sue someone. The only kind of case that could work would be against some really strange cult, like a Carlos Castaneda or David Koresh cult, and a victim who was permanently messed up. (of course, raped Altar Boys can sue for that, and this has a positive effect, but this may only apply to the Catholic Church)
I have always advocated passing laws recognizing the rights of children and limiting the rights of parents to do this to their children. It's child abuse. Maybe unrealistic in the US, but there are secular countries like China and Russia that could do it. That said, my all time favorite book was written by a Christian missionary in China 100 years ago. (the Good Earth by Pearl S Buck, Blackstone Audio version)
Paul (below) - I am not trying to convince anyone and don't think it's wise to try to do that. It's a lost cause, but the children are not.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 01:42pm PT
|
The real reason people have faith is because it helps them. Religion, the spiritual, these are systems of reconciliation to being. Until you science guys begin to understand that you will never convince folks their faith is false.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 01:44pm PT
|
Jan, thanks for the reply. That was a very clear post and you made a number of important points. If there were less fundamentalist belief in the world it would be less fractured and maybe even this thread wouldn't exist. Maybe next year, eh? if trends esp amongst the youngsters continue. Have a good one!
Perhaps Paul should turn his lens on the fundamentalists who seem to be the troublemakers in the bunch.
Continued education both in science all-around and in general living all-around will solve the "child abuse" problem, it seems to me.
In part, a reason fundamentalism is a core problem is that it only takes a tiny percentage, even one, to make a lot of noise and upset things. Of course we see this throughout sociopolitics as well.
Paul, Choose the battles that count.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 02:21pm PT
|
Until you science guys begin to understand that you will never convince folks their faith is false.
I think the "science guys" understand this, people loose their faith for a number of reasons, and while there may be comfort in that it doesn't necessarily sustain them, praying to win a lottery ticket isn't going to get you very far, going to school and being educated would probably work better, a door to working in the modern economy.
The interesting statistic in the NYTimes business page
What if Cities Are No Longer the Land of Opportunity for Low-Skilled Workers?
shows the huge disparity in incomes for those with college education vs. those with no college.
It would seem that investing in education in such a way that increases the possibility of a college education would be a very good one for the country.
This was once the genius of public education, yet it now seems that privatizing education will exacerbate the gap, especially in small communities which are generally unattractive markets for private education and lower financial ability of those communities, private education is about making a profit.
Oddly, American education confronts the "Religion vs. Science" issue directly. Parents will often not allow educators to teach a curriculum they find contrary to their beliefs. Students educated without a solid basis in the "standard curriculum" start out with a large handicap when competing with those that have as they move up the educational ladder.
Perhaps having faith that the outcome will be different from reality makes you feel good. It doesn't change the reality.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2019 - 04:48pm PT
|
Good point. Every other advanced society has a standard k-12 curriculum so that a person knows what another person with a certain level of education has been exposed to and mastered to one degree or another. A fresh high school graduate in the U.S. can be anything from very advanced to practically illiterate. More and more university professor's time is spent weeding the illiterates out.
Perhaps it was always so. At the University of Colorado in the 1960's, there were three freshmen dorms for every one combined sophomore, junior, and senior dorm. Good thing we have smart foreign students and immigrants to make up the difference.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!