Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2018 - 03:09pm PT
|
Anyone care to explain the Tower of Babel story to me?
The Tower of Babel story is, among other things, an etiological myth that explains the source of language. It's mythopoetic language describing the futility of seeking god on a materialistic level and in that sense rings true.
Problem with god's existence is that it seems implied in the material world insofar as consciousness/intelligence exist on a continuum,
and the implication is for an intelligence greater than our own,
and the limits of that intelligence are unknown,
and how much more intelligent than humanity does an entity have to be to be considered a
god?
Atheism seems a jump to a conclusion that doesn't fully appreciate the mystery we find ourselves in.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2018 - 07:44pm PT
|
Base104: Either you believe it, or if you call it allegory, you are an apostate.
What kind of logic and reasoning is this?
Your idea of God is an old man in a robe. (What would you know about it?)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2018 - 07:53pm PT
|
What kind of logic and reasoning is this?
LOL .... the gross materialists are always spouting off so proudly that they have logic and reason for knowledge.
But then their logic and reason go out the door immediately on sh!t they know nothing about yet masquerade themselves as knowledgeable.
They are actually insane ......
because these fools think there is no free will.
If you have no choice then you are a hostage .......
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2018 - 01:23pm PT
|
The question now is what further development of religion could likewise expand the worldview of large numbers of people in the information age? To me, it would have to be respect for the diversity of religions on the planet, not just the community of believers that agree with one's own beliefs, and for all life on the planet, but others might have different ideas.
i think there have been many inter-religious ecumenical movements in recent times with the intent of bridging inherent differences; but they usually don't amount to much.
It would be hard for me to envision a religious doctrine taking the central form of anything other than a charismatic leader claiming a direct prophetic authority, and a firm foundational text to detail such authority ( amounting to a sort of operating manual) . Interestingly, religious/spiritual traditions seem to be even more dependent upon foundational texts than to prophetic leaders-- as is the case with far eastern traditions.
Human beings, at least those prone to religious experience, at the end of the day seem to thirst after a more or less linear relationship to a God, accompanied by clear moral dimensions, ritual observance,and, what's more, an undisputed claim to truth forming an indispensable distinction with opposing claims to truth. Relationships with other competing religions can be thought of as more or less non-linear and are therefore absent the necessary dynamics, force, and energy -- rendering such relationships generally unavailable or unwanted to the religious-minded.
In the world of monotheism this seems to be inflexibly true. Major doctrinal changes are rarely introduced outside the dimensions I have mentioned; although they sometimes superficially appear so , as with the various Vatican counsels, or the appearance of a new Pope with a better crease in his robes.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2018 - 07:34am PT
|
Ward: i think there have been many inter-religious ecumenical movements in recent times with the intent of bridging inherent differences; but they usually don't amount to much.
Agreed, from the few people I know who are in organizations selling inter-faith conversations. They hold dear the idea of getting people’s intentions aligned. “If we could just talk and understand one another.” Management people (like me) tend to think there is much more needed than “intentions” to get people to play together fruitfully.
. . . those prone to religious experience, . . . thirst after a more or less linear relationship to a God . . . [especially] . . . in the world of monotheism . . . .
This is where I depart from your view.
Although not rampant, there would seem to be a growing tolerance among Christians and many Eastern religious traditions. That tolerance seems to be an expression of multiculturalism and pluralism. “Mono-anything” seems to be giving way to more openness. (Yeah, I know we’re talking minor trends here, but I’d be increasingly hesitant to argue that groups of people of any persuasion are absolutely catholic about anything.)
I’ve seen this in my students. I know that college students at large universities constitute a small (maybe elite) segment of the population.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2018 - 10:41am PT
|
Although not rampant, there would seem to be a growing tolerance among Christians and many Eastern religious traditions. That tolerance seems to be an expression of multiculturalism and pluralism. “Mono-anything” seems to be giving way to more openness. (Yeah, I know we’re talking minor trends here, but I’d be increasingly hesitant to argue that groups of people of any persuasion are absolutely catholic about anything.)
Yes, MikeL, largely true, and in some respects you may have been making my point for me. There are some fine distinctions on this subject-- this is sort of why I added the qualifier "...at the end of the day."
As regards your students I would hasten to add that there are generations who have been drilled in multiculturalism ( whatever its arguable merits) by strong elements within society grimly intent upon elevating raw indoctrination and inculcation as a means of fostering the desired and preferred conformity--above the virtues of independent thought and discovery and experience.
Nevertheless there are genuine voices extolling "pluralism" and I join that chorus.
( While keeping my good eye on whatever singularity may emerge within the local vicinity. Remember, today's pluralism is tomorrow's unchallengeable orthodoxy. )
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2018 - 05:35pm PT
|
In answer to both base 104 and Ward. There is no hope of changing the mind of a fundamentalist nor of the leaders of various religions. That's why the ecumenical movement hasn't gotten very far. The only place I've seen it work is among contemplatives and meditators. When Catholic monks and nuns get together with Buddhist monks and nuns, they have a common language based on their experiences, not their dogma. The can even joke sometimes about their dogmas.
The planetary tolerance will come from the folks with smart phones and computers, and televisions that show National Geographic and Discovery channels. I've seen a tremendous change in my students over the past 40 some years and it is because of the media and technology, not because of the leaders of religion.
As for base 104's either/ or outlook, I would say you need to spend more time outside of the Bible belt. Northern churches have by and large made their peace with evolution , the Big Bang and Genesis. Only an uninformed fool looking at our vast universe could be sure that Genesis meant seven earth rotations when it says the world was created in six days. Even the Old Testament later on says (Book of Isaiah) that God's ways are not mans ways, including the sense of time. By their literal interpretations, the fundamentalists themselves are actually being blasphemous against the idea of an infinite and eternal God.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2018 - 05:55pm PT
|
the idea of an infinite and eternal God.
God is NOt an idea and never ever was.
Only the clueless project ideas onto the absolute truth ......
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2018 - 06:12pm PT
|
I think infinity and eternity are pretty absolute?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2018 - 08:51am PT
|
Ward: As regards your students I would hasten to add that there are generations who have been drilled in multiculturalism ( whatever its arguable merits) by strong elements within society grimly intent upon elevating raw indoctrination and inculcation as a means of fostering the desired and preferred conformity--above the virtues of independent thought and discovery and experience.
I think this is almost hyperbolic, but there is surely some truth in it. The proof of your claim needs the evidence of doctrine. In agreement with the lovely Jan, students may be multiculturally open to other views without holding their view as doctrine. That, I did not see in the classroom. What I saw was more an increased human sensitivity to care and justice.
Perhaps only a hardcore postmodernist (me?) would argue from principle that openness is a more fruitful and appropriate view of anything. I know that looks like relativism. It can’t be helped.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2018 - 12:14pm PT
|
HFCS,
I'm a little confuse here on the Science versus Religion thread. About Elizabeth Holmes story, what is it that you want to add to the conversations here with this pointer?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2018 - 04:26pm PT
|
MikeL, think of it as intermission if you like.
Tags: 1 abuse of trust re science and technology 2 abuse of trust in science and medicine
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2018 - 05:57pm PT
|
If an intermission, then tell us that that’s what it is. (I’m sitting here thinking, “what don’t I understand about this comment?”)
Whose trust? Yours?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2018 - 04:45pm PT
|
I’m reading about anti-aesthetics, and I ran across this writing about civilizations and modernism. It made me think of some conversations here on this thread.
----
“The phenomenon of universalization, while being an advancement of mankind, at the same time constitutes a sort of subtle destruction, not only of traditional cultures, which might not be an irreparable wrong, but also of what I shall call for the time being the creative nucleus of great cultures, that nucleus on the basis of which we interpret life, what I shall call in advance the ethical and mythical nucleus of mankind. The conflict springs up from there.”
“We have the feeling that this single world civilization at the same time exerts a sort of attrition or wearing away at the expense of the cultural resources which have made the great civilizations of the past. This threat is expressed, among other disturbing effects, by the spreading before our eyes of a mediocre civilization which is the absurd counterpart of what I was just calling elementary culture. Everywhere throughout the world, one finds the same bad movie, the same slot machines, the same plastic or aluminum atrocities, the same twisting of language by propaganda, etc. It seems as if mankind, by approaching en masse a basic consumer culture, were also stopped en masse at a subcultural level.”
“Thus we come to the crucial problem confronting nations just rising from underdevelopment. In order to get on to the road toward modernization, is it necessary to jettison the old cultural past which has been the raison d'etre of a nation? . . . . the paradox: on the one hand, it has to root itself in the soil of its past, forge a national spirit, and unfurl this spiritual and cultural re-vindication before the colonialist's personality. But in order to take part in modern civilization, it is necessary at the same time to take part in scientific, technical, and political rationality, something which very often requires the pure and simple abandon of a whole cultural past. It is a fact: every culture cannot sustain and absorb the shock of modern civilization. There is the paradox: how to become modern and to return to sources; how to revive an old, dormant civilization and take part in universal civilization.”
(Paul Ricoeur. 2007. “History and Truth”)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2018 - 04:57pm PT
|
how to become modern and to return to sources;
The gross materialists can't do it,
because their motto is "there is no need for source"
The gross materialist's failed motto is "We will be the source".
Ever since they've continually been moving closer to making themselves extinct.
St00pid gross materialists ......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2018 - 08:17am PT
|
Thanks for the reminder, Norton.
That Wolpe Harris debate was a great one, I'm sure it changed a lot of minds.
PS The response in there from Michael Shermer at Caltec directed to Chopra was friggin perfect. :)
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!