Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 1050 of total 1050 in this topic |
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - May 23, 2017 - 01:27pm PT
|
I know that there are groups within religious organizations that do good work. Some provide food, clothing and shelter for the poor. That, I commend. Even so, those things are often offered with strings attached. They could be considered a subtle form of coercion, which doesn't seem to be a tenet of spirituality to me. But, other than charitable acts, I have to question whether the function of religion has jumped the shark.
Religion was designed, from inception, as a way to control people; what they think, how they behave, and how they interact with others. Sometimes those things deemed as pious were actually orders intended to strengthen and protect territory.
Do we really need, today, a set of rules as ordained by a particular sect which by nature sets itself apart from all other sentient beings, to respect and interact kindly or fairly with those others? Does a person require a commandment to know it is unhealthy to want the things our neighbor has but we as yet have not, to a point where that jealously affects our thinking in a negative way? Must we be told to be respectful of our parents, and further, why must we be compelled to do so, when that parent may be abusive to the point of causing emotional or physical harm? Is the use of religious affiliation to find friends to socialize with, partners to pair up with, mentors to show us a way to live really in our best interest?
For those who consider themselves religious – what differences would occur in your life if that affiliation to a specific religious sect were disintegrated? Would be identifying as a “spiritual” person be enough for you? Why, or why not?
I know our constitution holds religious freedom as a right, but frankly, I think that right has been abused to a point it has become a detriment to our society, and perhaps that right should remain as law so long as one person still practices a religious faith. Then again, people at one time had the “right” to disallow other types of people entrance into buildings, neighborhoods, jobs and even simple freedom of movement. This was, of course, at the expense of the basic rights of those people - something that should have been clear to any decent human being. Yet, they persisted in the behavior until they were encouraged to stop by way of law. We, as a nation, were smart enough to step back from those beliefs, even as portions of the population resisted and even do so to this very day.
Beyond our own country, if we look at religion as a worldwide “problem,” the issues broaden considerably. I'll leave that statement to stand alone, for those willing to ponder it to allow their minds to wander where they will.
Would you be willing to sacrifice “your” religion, if you believed it might reduce the conflicts which you may deem as unacceptable that are occurring within another religion? If only things were so simple, and of course they are not, but, for a moment pretend that they are. How would you answer that question: Would you be willing to walk away from all affiliation to your religion if you knew it would eventually bring about world peace, and why or why not?
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 01:49pm PT
|
Religion was designed, from inception, as a way to control people; what they think, how they behave, and how they interact with others.
Are you saying political parties are religions?
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 02:33pm PT
|
Since forever! The ideas that make up all religions have their roots in the means to control, deprive, segregate, the masses for the benifit of the few; (priests, medicine men, etc),
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 02:44pm PT
|
FSM "the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma"
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 02:57pm PT
|
The only church that illuminates is a burning church.
|
|
AP
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 03:05pm PT
|
WC Fields said something like "If I found a church that didn't believe in knocking all the other churches I might join it"
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 03:08pm PT
|
If it does harm it's NOT a religion and only masquerading as a religion.
Stoopid clueless people ......
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 03:09pm PT
|
you spelled Ideologies wrong.
I think ideologies allow for people to accept a pre-determined pattern of behavior that doens't allow for individualism. Group think in all it's forms is not good as a whole but can be amazing in a singular goal.
If you want to build the pyramids or explore the west or kill all the jews you almost NEED to have some kind of singular mentality. Just be super careful who is behind it.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 03:13pm PT
|
If it does harm it's NOT a religion and only masquerading as a religion.
Stoopid clueless people ......
Either you're wrong or we will argue semantics about definitions of words which doesn't sound too fun.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 03:16pm PT
|
You don't eevn know what religion really is.
You've never seen it yet.
All you've ever seen is dogma.
That's all you know ......
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 03:19pm PT
|
OK so the second one
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 04:39pm PT
|
"the only dogma allowed in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the rejection of dogma"
So... you are saying that Flying Spagetti monster worshippers are Quakers?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
May 23, 2017 - 04:44pm PT
|
Happie, have you read Kurt Gödel's Ontological Proof?
Get back to us when you have.
|
|
Reeotch
climber
4 Corners Area
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 05:16am PT
|
Yes it is.
I saw an eye opening documentary on Saudi Arabia the other day (its on netflix right now). Krakauer's "Under The Banner of Heaven" is a riveting account of the dangers of belief unhinged from rational thought.
Frankly, I feel betrayed by christians' silence, their virtual non-presence in the anti-war movement. It makes no sense to me. In fact, the more I learn about religions of any stripe, the less sense they make to me. They all seem to eventually turn back on themselves - like the ouroboros. It is mind boggling to me how so many millions of people can be duped into following such an obviously fraudulent ideology as Mormonism.
I think it is a symptom of some flaw in the human psyche - this compulsion towards authority. Do we really want to be free? Or, do we just want to be lead? Perhaps religion is a symptom of our refusal to grow up, as a species. We're still stuck in some Freudian parent fetish authoritarian nightmare. I don't think humanity will ever be free until we sever the chains of religious belief.
|
|
DanaB
climber
CT
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 06:31am PT
|
The great swami Sklar-al-andi said of religion: "Maybe if all sit here quietly, it will go away."
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 07:16am PT
|
Maybe when it leads to NO ACTION because prayer will get you there? Then it is doing nothing where taking action would help. Plus, you gotta love the COEXIST stickers on the 50k+ SUVs in the upscale sporto zones and I'm not talking ball sports.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 07:20am PT
|
The atheists worship money and power and control their people like slaves to further their money and power.
From that, they start perpetual wars to keep the money and power going.
The religion of America ......
|
|
Floyd Hayes
Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 07:33am PT
|
There are plenty of "religious" people who choose to believe in a supreme being AND wish to live in harmony with others, without imposing their views upon or controlling others in any coercive way. They are doing more good than harm, and disparaging them is doing more harm than good.
|
|
Moof
Big Wall climber
Orygun
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 07:36am PT
|
Skeptic, agnostic, athiest, and now full on anti-theist. My 40 years of experience being on this planet have lead me down a path to where I see religion as a net negative.
But religion is emergent from our innate tribalistic instincts. You can see the same sorts of evils and negatives pop up in fervent sports fans. Humans feel best when it is us vs. them; not having an adversary, real or imagined, is deeply unsettling. So people align themselves based on dumb sh#t like the team they like watching, skin color, state/town of birth, decade of birth, high school or college they went too, gender, or even the fictional deity they pay lip service to each Sunday.
So getting rid of religion will only take away one of our tribalistic clusterf*#ks. Folks will quickly find fresh excuses to hate and kill each other.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 07:39am PT
|
There is a small handful of evil people in the world working hard to ruin the word "Religion."
Why: Because religion does way more good than harm.
If you think religion is bad, go back to the words of the original prophet (if you can). They had exceptional enlightenment and wanted to help people get better. Every one of them offer a program to make the world a better place.
Sicko's then grabbed their work, twisted and distorted it, then tried to ram it down people's throats with force.
When you believe that all religion is bad, you have been successfully duped by the evil in the world.
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 07:45am PT
|
When you believe that all religion is bad, you have been successfully duped by the evil in the world.
The same argument exists over guns. In reality, neither are inherently good or bad--it all depends on what you're doing with them.
Curt
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 07:49am PT
|
I only see one religion causing worldwide problems today...
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 07:51am PT
|
So... you are saying that Flying Spagetti monster worshippers are Quakers?
I am smiling. As I began to read the OP, I was wondering where this discussion might go. Quakers tend to be spiritual anarchists, and of course we have no dogma, but strive to be kind and act from compassion. Growing up with strong Quaker values, as well as being a student of LaoTzu, I find almost all organized, corporate religion is generally about turf and control of others. And money, of course.
Werner is right: few people know about spiritual introspection, self-examination, or the process of approaching life from a center of peace and kindness rather than from the perspective of some exclusionary dogma that creates "us versus them" mentality, and historically, that has led to a lot of bloodshed and mayhem.
As someone said, "Religion gives G*d a bad name." Think of all the horrid stuff that has been and is done in the name of religion. I don't know any shamans or medicine workers who try to control anyone, but maybe some do. I don't know any shamans or medicine people who consider themselves leaders or priests, or who recruit followers. Maybe some of them do.
I know a lot of the hierarchy in religion is designed for job security—and that positions of power and influence attract individuals who like to have power and control over others. I think spirituality is a do-it-yourself job. I think we must lead ourselves, spiritually. Maybe we can check out some of the guidelines we humans seem to be given occasionally if it helps us to find our way, but self-responsibility is at the center of spirituality.
And that old quote, "We will have peace on the day that the last politician is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." pretty much sums up my sentiments about power-addicted people.
So, I go into the mountains, breathe, open up to the beauty of the Earth. Religion is, IMHO, is pretty much a do-it-yourself job.
ff
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 07:54am PT
|
I only see one religion causing worldwide problems today...
The Republican Party?
Curt
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 07:57am PT
|
Curt- you should read up on what Hirsi Ali has to say about Islam, the concept of dawa, and western liberalism.
|
|
Branscomb
Trad climber
Lander, WY
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 08:02am PT
|
I think it was James Joyce who said "I wish to awaken from the twin nightmares of religion and politics."
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 08:04am PT
|
happiegrrrl2: Religion was designed, from inception, as a way to control people; what they think, how they behave, and how they interact with others.
That’s one interpretation. There are others.
It might be interesting to note that all religions seem to have been spawned from the followers of masters that had wide-open and abiding mystical experiences. Those masters never wrote anything down but merely tried to point to what they were seeing to followers who were attracted to the masters’ charisma. Later, it was the followers who wrote things down (often decades after the master had passed), but arguably not really understanding what the masters saw themselves. (Even His Holiness the Dalai Lama admits he is not liberated.) Thus arose organizations, policies, declarations about what things really are, generating celebrations of past events, re-enacting those events or remembered words of the masters in rituals, and establishing practices they believed reflected what the masters preached. That which Man makes seems inherently human. Religion are man-made. Every organization has significant problems. Every organization presents a community with a culture.
What matters is not religion or even God—but the mystical experience (from which religions all sprang).
I suspect you’re actually railing against myths. Myths appear to be reflections of the soul. They bear the stamp of imagination. They are collective dreams of communities expressed in narratives.
Understanding or criticizing myths rationally is not relevant. All communities have myths, even the ones that claim to be rational.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 08:06am PT
|
"I only see one religion causing worldwide problems today..."
What a limited view of the world you have.
|
|
Adventurer
Mountain climber
Virginia
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 09:00am PT
|
No matter where we live or what we believe or don't believe, I think the words of Thomas Jefferson are appropriate:
" It does me no harm if my neighbor believes in a different god or in no god at all"
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
Fresno/Clovis, ca
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 10:12am PT
|
Religion was designed, from inception, as a way to control people
Happiegirl I strongly disagree with this thesis on all levels and would gladly share my thoughts as a Christian but the Supertopo forum has shown itself to be a fairly weak venue for true and healthy conversation when it comes to religion. I think I'll pass on this thread but I hope the best for you in your journey.
Scott
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 10:21am PT
|
Religion is just part of the ecology of our human belief creation processes. Sure it's had a good run, like our opposable thumbs.
Would it be better for us, as socially minded humans, to be over it yet? IMHO, probably not.
But each of us true believers is gonna believe that we're right about whatever it is that we believe, so knock yourself out.
Best to you!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 10:26am PT
|
1. Religion promotes tribalism.Infidel, heathen, heretic. Religion divides insiders from outsiders. Rather than assuming good intentions, adherents often are taught to treat outsiders with suspicion. “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers,” says the Christian Bible. “They wish that you disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them,” says the Koran (Sura 4:91).
2.Sacred texts including the Bible, Torah and Koran all preserve and protect fragments of Iron Age culture, putting a god’s name and endorsement on some of the very worst human impulses. Any believer looking to excuse his own temper, sense of superiority, warmongering, bigotry, or planetary destruction can find validation in writings that claim to be authored by God.
3.As science eats away at territory once held by religion, traditional religious beliefs require greater and greater mental defenses against threatening information. To stay strong, religion trains believers to practice self-deception, shut out contradictory evidence, and trust authorities rather than their own capacity to think. This approach seeps into other parts of life. Government, in particular, becomes a fight between competing ideologies rather than a quest to figure out practical, evidence-based solutions that promote wellbeing.
4. Besides exploiting positive moral energy like kindness or generosity, religion often redirects moral disgust and indignation, attaching these emotions to arbitrary religious rules rather than questions of real harm. Orthodox Jews spend money on wigs for women and double dishwashers. Evangelical parents, forced to choose between righteousness and love, kick queer teens out onto the street. Catholic bishops impose righteous rules on operating rooms.
5.Religion teaches helplessness. Que sera, sera—what will be will be. Let go and let God.We’ve all heard these phrases, but sometimes we don’t recognize the deep relationship between religiosity and resignation. In the most conservative sects of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, women are seen as more virtuous if they let God manage their family planning. Droughts, poverty and cancer get attributed to the will of God rather than bad decisions or bad systems; believers wait for God to solve problems they could solve themselves.
6.Religions seek power.Think corporate personhood. Religions are man-made institutions, just like for-profit corporations are. And like any corporation, to survive and grow a religion must find a way to build power and wealth and compete for market share. Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity—any large enduring religious institution is as expert at this as Coca-Cola or Chevron. And just like for-profit behemoths, they are willing to wield their power and wealth in the service of self-perpetuation, even it harms society at large.
In fact, unbeknown to religious practitioners, harming society may actually be part of religion’s survival strategy. In the words of sociologist Phil Zuckerman and researcher Gregory Paul, “Not a single advanced democracy that enjoys benign, progressive socio-economic conditions retains a high level of popular religiosity.” When people feel prosperous and secure, the hold of religion weakens.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/6-ways-religion-does-more-bad-good
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 24, 2017 - 10:36am PT
|
I suspect you’re actually railing against myths.
That may very well be. And it is why I asked if identifying as having "spirituality" would be enough, or one needed their "religion" to be okay.
I grew up going to a Catholic school and even considered becoming a sister throughout my life - even into my adulthood. Lest one think I was brainwashed or became disillusioned, I suppose the fact that I refused the Sacrament of Confirmation(yet considered the sisterhood for several years past that age) might be a sign that I was/am able to think and make decisions on my own accord. I appreciated some of the teachings I got, and enjoyed the pageantry of mass(though that was probably for the artistic aesthetic).
But when I hear legislators say things like "women can shut down a pregnancy from rape(paraphrase)," or turn on the radio to learn of a bombing that targeted young people to inflict a greater emotional pain(my assumption as to why the target at that concert n Manchester the other night), I seriously think "WTF? Where do these "good-willed" organizations go so, so so very, wrong, that people think they have God on their side in these matters?
I DO see gentle people, of many religious persuasions, and probably even more gentle people of no religious persuasions. I don't know that their personal religion is what makes them be so, and would argue they would likely be who they are no matter if affiliated with a religion or not. At least I would certainly hope so.
Edit: FWIW, I think Pope Francis rocks, and that the Catholic church should thank their lucky stars he is there.
|
|
Cragar
climber
MSLA - MT
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 11:05am PT
|
Hey Happie-
I too went to Catholic school and also chose to forego the confirmation. I went to a fairly liberal school and I was not treated differently for my choice and Sister Mary always said anytime I wanted to talk about she was available. I love my school for the work we did for the poor. We put on a number of events/auctions, etc as a school where all of the proceeds went to help those in need. Some of the $$ generated from these events would go towards tuition for those in need. Even though it was a private school, we had kids from the Barrio to the CountryClub and it made for a better/healthier environment.
I was an aid to our athletic director on Friday afternoons of my senior year; it was a privilege and I learned more about community and giving during that time than almost the rest of my life. The rest of life has only reinforced what I learned about giving to those in need and just giving in general. I still make donations to my old HS even though I am primarily an AgnosticAtheist recovering Catholic!!! I got the teachings of a liberal Jesus not the modern American Jesus and I am grateful.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 11:11am PT
|
Religions are not bad per se, they are bad when co-oped by the Authoritarians( right wing leaders)
They pervert Religions into their own Authoritarian Power Structure to control and fleece the duped followers
Christianity has taken a life of it's own by the American fundamentalist movement. They want power and control of this country, and they will use any evil means to achieve their goal
It has little to do with Christ's actual teaching, it's all about power and repressing freedoms so the rich can get richer.
They can't even see fit to feed the starving or provide medical care for the sick, they're policies are morally bankrupt and the opposite of what Christianity is supposed to be all about
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 11:20am PT
|
But religion is emergent from our innate tribalistic instincts. You can see the same sorts of evils and negatives pop up in fervent sports fans. Humans feel best when it is us vs. them; not having an adversary, real or imagined, is deeply unsettling. So people align themselves based on dumb sh#t like the team they like watching, skin color, state/town of birth, decade of birth, high school or college they went too, gender, or even the fictional deity they pay lip service to each Sunday.
So getting rid of religion will only take away one of our tribalistic clusterf*#ks. Folks will quickly find fresh excuses to hate and kill each other.
I agree that people have innate tribalistic instincts. Most groups of primates (including homo sapiens) for most of evolution have had a well grounded fear of being attacked by a hostile a group. Rallying around the "us" made a lot of sense and those groups that did, succeded better than those groups that didn't.
The relatively peaceful environment that most humans find themselves in today is very recent from an evolutionary perspective.
Sports have an element of vicarious warfare. Seems rather preferable to the real thing.
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 11:21am PT
|
The real question..... Is Happiegal doing more harm then good these days?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 11:25am PT
|
Religions are not bad per se, they are bad when co-oped by the Authoritarians( right wing leaders)
Religions get worse when co-opted by Authoritarians. But a religions basic tenets can be bad. Formalizing patriarchy and having women be the property of males is evil.
Telling people that they were born poor because they were evil in a previous life and that they deserve to suffer in their current life because of that is wrong.
Sacrificing teenagers to make it rain is wrong.
These are fundamental tenets of some bad religions.
|
|
drF
Trad climber
usa
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 11:34am PT
|
The real question..... Is Happiegal doing more harm then good these days?
Craig Fry is definitely doing more harm than good.
Constantly railing against anyone who opposes his viewpoint.
So much hate in that man's soul
The definition of bigotry
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 02:47pm PT
|
The people here are rock religion fanatics.
OMG they say every day, I must climb, If they missed a climbing day they break out in cold sweat.
Then zombie out staring at rocks all day.
OMG OMG OMG .... where are rocks ...... where where where ...... :-)
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 05:06pm PT
|
Ha ha
Says the guy who hasn't seen the outside of The Valley in 30 years...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 05:40pm PT
|
Well, look . . . many of us were raised in families that observed religious practices, and many of us became disillusioned with some thing or another about it.
It’s difficult to find something that one is not disillusioned by.
One can argue that would be a good thing . . . you know, . . . to become disillusioned.
Taking that notion to the end of the line means you must come to complete dis-illusion about EVERY THING. When you do, viola . . . liberation.
(I would hope we’re just not complaining because we don’t feel good.)
Be well.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 05:48pm PT
|
Lorenzo
I've been all over the world in some of the most remote places you'd never even be able to get to ......
|
|
i-b-goB
Social climber
Wise Acres
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 05:59pm PT
|
We are ALL beings made in God's image, and God is in everything and the cause of all things but it depends on how YOU look at things if you can see it!
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 08:41pm PT
|
Religions a good thing but the downside is that it attracts too many up-tight azzholes who want to control everyone ...
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 09:19pm PT
|
Religion was designed, from inception, as a way to control people
I heard someone once say that religion prevents people from living a happy life
edit: the problem with religion is that you have too many purveyors who actually don't believe in what they are selling.
|
|
nah000
climber
no/w/here
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 09:47pm PT
|
is the internet doing more harm than good these days?
couldn't personally say really.
does nuclear knowledge do more harm than good these days?
on a spiritual level: maybe?
is religion doing more harm than good these days?
non idee.
an, imesho, more important question: what difference would it make if any_one could actually know/say the answer to any of these types of questions?
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
Boulder climber
ne'er–do–well
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 09:51pm PT
|
Lorenzo
I've been all over the world in some of the most remote places you'd never even be able to get to ...... Shut down.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 09:57pm PT
|
^^^HHahHHhaaha
One can argue that would be a good thing . . . you know, . . . to become disillusioned.
That seems a bit,,, you know,,,, immature?
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
|
May 24, 2017 - 11:48pm PT
|
Religion was not created to control people anymore than corporations were.
I think people wanted answers and these things came about.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 05:38am PT
|
"Religion was not created to control people anymore than corporations were.
I think people wanted answers and these things came about."
Religion/mysticism doesn't answer questions...science does.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 05:53am PT
|
Science does not answer the questions of who we are, where we came from, or why we are here.
Another thing that has always baffled me is how people view science as being a human creation as opposed to a manifestation of god itself...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 06:21am PT
|
BB: That seems a bit,,, you know,,,, immature?
To be disillusioned is to be without illusions.
|
|
Reeotch
climber
4 Corners Area
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 06:33am PT
|
^^^^ Then I strive to be disillusioned
We've had the great enlightenment, now get ready for the "great disillusionment" . . .
|
|
Curt
climber
Gold Canyon, AZ
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 07:49am PT
|
Another thing that has always baffled me is how people view science as being a human creation as opposed to a manifestation of god itself...
Since there is zero scientific evidence that god exists, that isn't too baffling at all.
Curt
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 08:00am PT
|
"Science does not answer the questions of who we are, where we came from, or why we are here. "
You might want to take a freshmen level biology course.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 08:13am PT
|
Typical Bob making absolutes.
Bob never took modern science.
Modern science does not make absolutes.
Bob does not know his own science ....
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 08:19am PT
|
Anthropologically, I've found that gods seem to have been invented to explain the extraordinary, and even much of the ordinary in nature, in ways that were satisfactory at the time. Gods bring rain, cause thunder and lightning, determine the success of hunts, and even bring in the buffalo or fish or fruits on the trees. Later, I think some people began to feel that their actions could influence the gods. They made themselves into priests and rainmakers.
The codification of behaviors came later, I think, with the introduction of agriculture and the opportunity to store up "savings" in the form of surplus harvests. Agriculture allowed for permanent settlements and the hierarchical, enforced stratification of society to emerge.
And I firmly think that people who want to control other people are sick, mentally.
ff
|
|
you.
Trad climber
fresh, isle
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 08:20am PT
|
cowardice and fear offer the least resistance thru this existence.
hence the mass following.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 08:58am PT
|
"Typical Bob making absolutes.
Bob never took modern science.
Modern science does not make absolutes.
Bob does not know his own science ...."
Typical Werner, talking smack.
Science is constantly looking for answers, religion thinks it knows them.
Tell us how you know there is a god Werner?
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 09:06am PT
|
Werner is right Bob.
Agnostic people "believe" in science now instead of religion.
You read it in a "science" book and believe it. You do not look for yourself.
News reports usually speak in generalities "Scientists say...."
Who says? What scientist? Who is a scientist? You you get a "Scientist" cert from a school?
I get your point in that science is more logical and easy to follow than the Old Testament.
Werner is saying wake up and look. It's all dogma unless you look for yourself.
(Although he may have some snide comment about this post.)
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 09:45am PT
|
Good thoughts, Spider, thank you.
Science and spirituality ask and answer different sets of questions.
Seeking answers from both is an enrichment, not a narrowing, of thought.
And I am reminded of the old saw, about the scientist who said she could create life from mud, and the question arose from a bystander "Yes, but who will make the mud?"
ff
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 09:57am PT
|
Largely naive** thoughts, Spider.
You should hook up with WB, at bottom you've got so much in common.
Hang tough, Bob. Remember, average intelligence is 100.
At this site, it's probably lower. At least by many
posts it can seem so.
In America, making a mockery of science is a popular pastime these
days.
** charitable? maybe
ff, a wee-bit too sugary, per usual; your posts might be flagged as diabetes-inducing.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 10:09am PT
|
Hang tough, Bob. Remember, average intelligence is 100.
So you are saying that you and Bob are at 50 or lower.
Way too funny ....
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 10:45am PT
|
You folks have won the argument. Religion is hereby cancelled, forthwith.
Have a great rest of your week!
DMT
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 11:00am PT
|
Spider...weak sauce. What questions has religion answered for you??
"Werner is saying wake up and look. It's all dogma unless you look for yourself.'
Looking out from the bottom of a dumpster??
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 11:09am PT
|
some of us have woken from the illusion of God
we looked, and we saw, and we understood why
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 12:36pm PT
|
Seems fitting to place this here.
Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates delivers Class Day speech at Harvard Law School...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 12:50pm PT
|
Reeotch: We've had the great enlightenment, . . . .
Which one was that? You mean the French or English one a few centuries ago, or some other one?
Spider Savage: Agnostic people "believe" in science now instead of religion.
(Better steer clear of this one. The Force is strong with him.)
:-)
|
|
clode
Trad climber
portland, or
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 12:53pm PT
|
So Happie, who "designed religion", as you put it in your second paragraph? Some Roman aqueduct engineer?
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 25, 2017 - 01:26pm PT
|
Design can relate to a plan, process or strategy. It's not restricted to physical items.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 04:33pm PT
|
OP: Is Religion Doing More Harm Than Good These Days?
I was wondering . . . compared to what?
(And how would one measure it?)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 04:56pm PT
|
Seriously, tt? How about all the secular charities that are doing fine work nowadays?
There are reasons iron age religions are getting pushback, I can't believe you don't know this.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 04:58pm PT
|
hey there say, happygrrl.. say,
i don't have too much to add to all this,
as, folks know pretty much how they feel on these things...
but, i know you shared, just so we WOULD share something,
as, you are curious...
religion, is connected to spirituality, too much, and
it should not be... folks use it for whatever they
want folks to 'join', so it seems?
ones spiritual life, is really ones own personal adventure,
and if they get stuck in various religions, well, they may
never understand more in life, than what that 'group' WANTs
one to learn-and-do...
...
so, that is why the word, religion can be used by ANYONE then, in the old days, and now, to have such 'power' to various things (good or bad)...
other than that, as to your question about rules, i think?
children need rules in the home...
nature, has animals with rules in there 'family system'...
if you want to read, you learn the alphabet, etc,
so, i think if you want kids to learn how to 'read/undestand' life,
well, they NEED an 'alphabet/or, list of characters' to behave,
as to...
(good or bad, you will see it in the homes)-- forms of conduct...
some folks choose spiritual rules, like the bible proverbs, and other choose spiritual rules, life asian philosphy, indian, native, etc, ...
and sadly, some folks choose fleshy self indulgne and violence,
and indiference, lies, stealing, in THERE home...
religions, won't make any of that good stuff work, or,
make the bad stuff better...
it is UP to the human heart/spirit, and that
is the key to perhaps? what you are wondering about???
other than sharing that, i don't have much to offer, as,
everyone has their own way to god, jesus, and any other main
gods, used in this world, and as to being atheist, too,
so:
so, in the midst of ALL THAT, is where the goodness,
or harm is... in the human's 'desire' ...
in time, everything gets seen for what it is, perhaps, as
you 'judge each tree' by its fruit, whever it is good or harmful, and
then, either 'go with' it, or 'reject it'...
does that help you, at all??
these are just a few little thoughts, you just can't
put it all in a box, sometimes, ...
as, everyone has an answer, and wow-- you KNOW how many
humans there are, out there, ;)
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 05:11pm PT
|
Curious what you or others opposed to organized religion did this year to help.
Not really opposed to religion. In fact, I'm convinced that institutional science, some scientists and assorted science zealots can be every bit as dogmatic as the most fanatic religious people. In my case, charity donations are an important family function and these include "Cáritas", a Catholic charity group. I'm particularly impressed with Bergoglio's work before he became Pope. I seriously doubt any of the anti-religious people on this thread, who so roundly criticize religion, have reached out to, connected with and sincerely helped as many disadvantaged people as Bergoglio has. The poor people in the slums of Argentina love this guy. Still, I have a hard time not making fun of religious people when they say things that that strike me as totally absurd. Maybe that's wrong, but that's who I am. I'm not a religious person, but when I see there are immoral d#@&%ebags who use their peers for their own personal benefit and who (seem to) flourish, while good decent people so often get the shaft, I sometimes wonder about the possible role of a just and merciful God in the universal scheme of things.
Cheers Timid Top Rope!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 05:15pm PT
|
but when I see there are immoral d#@&%ebags who use their peers for their own personal benefit
But then you people make the fatal mistake that action is not religion but masqueraded as religion.
In other words, it's nothing close to religion but just plain total bullsh!t .....
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 05:24pm PT
|
But then you people make the fatal mistake that action is not religion
I'm not sure who "you people are", but Werner, I am interested in what you mean. On the one hand, you seem to think belief and what you believe is so important and now you speak of action. Where is it that you stand?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 05:36pm PT
|
yanqui,
You’re a bit too mannerly to be here.
locker: Believing in "Fairy Tales" is for children...
Dude, I’m assuming that you’re only thinking about religion here with that “believing” stuff. Otherwise, come on. What DON’T people hold beliefs about? (Don’t be bringing science in here now. ) How about politics? How to raise children? How to get to somewhere you’ve never been? How the medical care in this country is going to turn out? How to make bread tomorrow? What you did a few years ago? Who you are?
It’s nothing but beliefs as far as the mind can see.
(But I think I understood you on your post.)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 05:38pm PT
|
I stand for the Absolute Truth ........
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 05:58pm PT
|
I stand for the Absolute Truth
If I said that, I'm afraid it would mean I stand for nothing at all, so I hope that means more for you than it does for me. Cheers Mr. Duck!
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 06:06pm PT
|
I stand for absolute truth
Stand, sit, religion, science, whatever. Absolute truth is gonna be absolute truth regardless of what we believe. IM(weak and lazy)HO, what and why we believe is subsumed by absolute truth, not the other way around.
If you mean that what you believe is absolute truth, well, that's cool. As JL said, we all want to see the plan, shooby doo wa.
|
|
Fossil climber
Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 06:15pm PT
|
In childhood we are indoctrinated in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, a loving God, and the virtue and superiority of our country or race. Anybody who becomes and adult and still believes in any of them has not been paying attention.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 06:16pm PT
|
I believe in Santa Claus.
Too bad ..... :-)
|
|
nah000
climber
no/w/here
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 08:38pm PT
|
the directly relevant is near to the end, but i found the whole discussion to be worth a listen:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 09:34pm PT
|
hey there say, nah000... say, don't know who the guy is, but,
that was all very true and very well said...
i HAVE seen that being done to folks (shunning them, etc) so much, through many places i have been and lived, and all due to them:
NOT being 'productive enough' or bringing in money, or, being marketable, etc...
well, you know... like he said...
i have a little sister, who would be in that category, and i have a
granddaughter, too... and my list goes, on, as well...
we are of VALUE though... and they are, too...
and, we all DO have all those 'tendencies' all through all human nature,
some have more than others but-- the more 'perfect' society and man pushes to be (and thinks they are) the MORE they reject what
they 'perceive' to blemished and useless, :(
very very sad...
well, i did not say it as good as he did, but thanks for sharing the
clip... (don't know who he is, and i MAY find i'd not agree with other stuff, he might say, BUT, this is very very clearly seen-- if folks, look around them...
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 10:19pm PT
|
In my long persuit of religion and truth I've seen and experienced some amazing things.
But not one single person here cares, is interested, or wants to know.
If I told you, you would wad it up and throw it in my face.
And if you did it would be because you believe something, not because you looked for yourself.
The only way to find truth, a true sense of immortality (the goal of all religions) and an understanding of the universe deeper than physics is to look.
The non-climber looks at a steep Yosemite slab and shakes their head and walks away saying it is impossible. A climber looks, and looks, and the holds begin to appear. Then through a transendent knowledge of the physical self and what the body can do, plus an insane urge to try, the climb unfolds before you.
And that is the best metaphor I could ever give for mastering life.
That plus, the climber is an immortal being who can never die, and there you have religion.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
May 25, 2017 - 11:08pm PT
|
hey there say, spider... oh my... i am glad that you share...
sure won't throw anything in your face, :)
that is how we learn about folks, is to let folks share, and
then, keep it all for to understand our friends, :)
it doesn't mean we all have to stop being ourself,
if we don't agree, :)
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 07:51am PT
|
Spider, I feel your pain
I was there once, I was on a quest for truth
But you have to define what is truth, a book can't be truth, saying Christianity is truth is very untruthful
all you can say is "my experience with God was true"
and then untruthfully explain that the Christian God was responsible
So this is true
In my long persuit of religion and truth I've seen and experienced some amazing things.
We all feel amazing things, we all have mystical experiences
But if you take each experience and do a critical assessment of it, it can be explained by "Natural" causes.
It's all about looking harder, and knowing that "the holds started to appear" is wrong, the holds were always there, you just didn't look hard enough.
I was very spiritually inclined during my youth with a new age eastern theology, I meditated every day, I strongly felt the presence of God's Love, and believed in a purpose and afterlife. But as I searched harder, the more the pieces fell apart, and the more I needed to apply Natural phenomenon to what I was experiencing, and all the more it made sense without God.
In other words, there is no magic, every thing can be explained truthfully without God or any other kind of unknown forces, it's all Naturally evident.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 09:26am PT
|
I'm not telling Spider what to think or do, I'm just explaining that evolution is possible past "His" personal state of spirituality.
and the thing about truth, can "you" call a book the "truth"?
I can't
It seems that any time we try and discuss religion, someone has a problem with the discussion and they "feel" like we are shoving it down their throats
If they could just express themselves honestly, they wouldn't feel threatened, but they shield themselves from the discussion instead by shutting it down
If they felt more open to the possibilities, and not tied down with dogma, they would be able to debate these topics with ease
just my opinion
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 11:41am PT
|
I don't know if people would still kill each other as often as they do if there were not a religion.
No way to tell, really.
I've been reading a book about how Al Qaeda formed, and the history of the dudes who gathered around Bin Laden's money, and they absolutely want to kill anyone who isn't a muslim. They even justify killing other muslims, despite it being expressly forbidden in the Koran.
Ghandi was killed over religious differences. So were a lot of people. Look at what happened in the Inquisition, when they tried to cleanse the Christian population.
Stuff like that will always go on, but so will wars, which kill far more people than terrorism does, including innocents.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 12:54pm PT
|
Craig Fry: But if you take each experience and do a critical assessment of it, it can be explained by "Natural" causes.
Speculatively. Interpretatively.
. . . as I searched harder, the more the pieces fell apart, and the more I needed to apply Natural phenomenon to what I was experiencing, and all the more it made sense without God.
It seems to me that you’ve moved from one interpretation to another.
Neebee and DMT praise you for “sharing” your experiences. Indeed, it’s often interesting to hear what other people think they’re seeing. It also seems to be a lot more friendly and open-minded than saying what-is-what dogmatically or—as DMT points out—what others should do. It seems to me that every one has his or her own reality up front and unavoidable.
We all feel amazing things, we all have mystical experiences . . . But . . . .
!!! Why is there a “but” apparently needed?
As I said above, one might be unhappy that he or she discovered that they've found themselves to be disillusioned.
Another person might reply: "Don’t get angry about it. Be happy!"
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 01:03pm PT
|
but back to the question, is religion doing more harm than good?
religion CAN do a lot of good
religion can give many people certainty of purpose and comfort
hope for an afterlife
moral and ethical guidance
a reason to get up early on Sunday mornings
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 01:10pm PT
|
Yes, definitely more harm than good. The Christian right in America voted to the tune of around 80% for Trump despite his egregious short-comings as a "moral" person. A large percentage of Muslims, not just Islamists, believe that death is the appropriate punishment for heresy/blasphemy. It's not all that long ago that the same was true for Christians. Religion has been treated with kid gloves for too long. I think it is a good thing that non-believers are finally not afraid to speak up. Currently, there is no way that an Atheist could ever make it to the Oval Office. I'm hoping (I used to assume) that it will happen in the relatively near-future.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 02:54pm PT
|
It's all about looking harder, and knowing that "the holds started to appear" is wrong, the holds were always there, you just didn't look hard enough.
dear, dear, DrFry.. who was it jus say'in, "we shout out what we,re lookin to solve within in our selves"! Dude, go back and reread spiders post and then read what you wrote?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 03:17pm PT
|
I don't know if people would still kill each other as often as they do if there were not a religion.
Base
Test this scientist.lol. Try giving the great white shark, or the African lion religion and see if it changes their mind about murdering little antelopes and seals to live..
Don't you think man killed each other before God, "came around"?
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 03:22pm PT
|
I can't wait to weigh in on this topic, too busy with work right now. Science deniers beware...
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 03:38pm PT
|
Y'all haven't sussed this out yet? LOL
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 03:48pm PT
|
Bushy's got wood!
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 04:00pm PT
|
To the titular question: "Is Religion Doing More Harm Than Good These Days?"
The answer depends on whom you ask and how you define harm and good :)
I posit that every person acts in exactly the way that helps them best avoid pain and obtain pleasure according to their perceptions of present and future circumstances and outcomes. It follows that the large numbers of religious followers in the world are receiving more good than harm from their involvement, according to their perceptions.
Where it gets messy is that defining the immediate and future pleasure and pain depend on people's priorities, and their perceptions of present circumstances and future outcomes.
There are some pretty deep human needs that religion meets:
 affirmation of being worthy of and receiving love
a sense of fellowship, acceptance, belonging in a community
a way to cope with the sense of powerlessness, of realizing our insignificance in the universe
a defined moral/ethical framework
reducing the risk and fear of loss from crime
I'm sure the collective hive can rattle off many more.
But the point is, these are the fundamental problems of humanity, and religion is but one of many possible prescriptions to solve those problems. Like many/most people in the business world I have encountered, when you ask someone what they need, they have a hard time articulating what actual problems they are trying to solve and instead focus on whatever "solution" they are familiar with and parrot the talking points of that solution.
Religion itself is not a problem- it is simply a framework or contract for people to get a variety of needs met, in exchange for something else. One problem is that the leaders of religion represent a broad spectrum of humanity, many of whom will use whatever they have at their disposal to manipulate others for their personal gain. So they use the age-old sales techniques of fear, uncertainty, and doubt to influence their customers, and then leverage their position of power (saving people from eternal damnation or being a gateway to divine pleasures) to obtain more from the customer in their contract negotiations.
I don't like to disparage things unless I can see better alternatives. In this case, finding better alternatives amounts to clearly defining what are the problems of humanity that religions address, and suggesting solutions that are as pragmatically effective to those problems. Yes religions yield many negative side-effects, but what other solutions can endure across a spectrum of humanity and inspire people of all levels of intelligence and socio-economic circumstances and all exposures to crime and loss of physical and emotional safety? It seems that people who are more curious and introspective and intelligent and more cozy in a life where they trust their continued well-being, are more likely to identify and participate in alternate solutions that don't require religion... but it is a tough sell to the masses.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
|
per Gabors "normal"
IMO, his idea of society is bent. But he does get that God isn't standing over pullin strings. That the universe,, or atleast the World IS Reap What Thou Sowest. Which from my bench only gives him gratitude for knowing the law.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 04:29pm PT
|
So Happie, who "designed religion", as you put it in your second paragraph? Some Roman aqueduct engineer?
"Religion was invented when the first con-man met the first fool."
Anyway, I give $40 per month to the United Methodist Church Relief Fund. They do good things with it. The Methodists aren't some corporate super church out to fleece the flock.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 04:46pm PT
|
Religion is part of the makeup of humanity and like so many other aspects of the human condition it can be used for good or evil. But the primary function of religion is to reconcile the human experience to the tragedy of life. When you look at Christ on the cross what you see is the acceptance of mortality and its absolutely inevitable nature and in that is the deflation of death's horror and its associated anxiety. Make your God what you want: some all powerful entity or nature itself, but make it you will.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 04:55pm PT
|
NutAgain!: I posit that every person acts in exactly the way that helps them best avoid pain and obtain pleasure according to their perceptions of present and future circumstances and outcomes. . . . Religion . . . is simply a framework or contract for people to get a variety of needs met. . . .
Ah, a utilitarian. Someone call Kahneman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman);.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 04:55pm PT
|
from Happies op;
Would you be willing to sacrifice “your” religion, if you believed it might reduce the conflicts which you may deem as unacceptable that are occurring within another religion? If only things were so simple, and of course they are not, but, for a moment pretend that they are. How would you answer that question: Would you be willing to walk away from all affiliation to your religion if you knew it would eventually bring about world peace, and why or why not?
What peace did you bring by walking away from your catholic heritage? Divide to conquer doesnt work gyrrrrl! That's why "religion" is for the birds. Quack Quack
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 04:56pm PT
|
Religion's main role is to offer humankind a way out from mortality.....heaven or hell with a stop in purgatory for some folks. I kind of like the Mormon's take on life after.....if you done good bro you gets yourself your own planet.
Not buying it.....but I'll request a non casket burial so that my corpse can give back with some nutrients for the soil.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 05:05pm PT
|
I should explain myself.
Providing a narrative about how people make decisions that relies upon a sort of cost & benefit view so oversimplifies cognition. It’s immensely more complicated than that. Really interested people might read the reports and theoretical musings from scientific investigators, or even a scholarly book that summarizes where recent thinking has gotten to. There are so very many puzzles that seemingly can’t get resolved to the communities’ satisfaction.
Kahneman’s work strongly suggest that what appears reasonable or rational in decision making is very often not. Instead people use heuristics. Believing in that conclusion opens the door to any so-called reason at all. Any interpretative framework will do. Guess what that includes?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 05:07pm PT
|
We were all Suns before birth. What might you think the morality on our Sun now to be?
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 05:08pm PT
|
I want a Tibetan Budhhist "burial" - cut my body into pieces and feed it to the buzzards!
Religion is harmful when we make the mistake of assuming that a given religion necessarily has a sustainable ethic.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 05:17pm PT
|
^^^ God is, the only unchanging
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 05:27pm PT
|
I kind of like the Mormon's take on life after.....if you done good bro you gets yourself your own planet.
hey Donini, would you be stoked with that? What if, you where there all by yourself??
So what say you is more important, if there can be an answer? The nutrients you'll provide to worms, or the nutrients you've provided to young minds??
|
|
Don Paul
Big Wall climber
Denver CO
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 06:46pm PT
|
They may do charitable works, but how can it be "good" to promote ideas that are not true? Religions hold out the false promise of immortality - death is a fact many people just can't deal with.
I grew up in a church-going family, and as I grew older, came to view the indoctrination I was subjected to as a kind of child abuse. Children are so vulnerable and so trusting of adults. I also feel that my relations with my family are harmed by religions (different parts of my family follow different ones, including Catholicism, Protestantism, and Judiasm) - for example, I don't want to go to Catholic confirmations or Jewish bar mitzvahs because I don't want to contribute to the indoctrination of these helpless children who love me and whom I cannot betray this way.
I do like the Pope, who says even atheists can go to heaven. But, despite his qualities as a peacemaker and advocate for many good things, it's incredibly arrogant and maybe a little insane to pretend to be the spokesperson for a God that exists only in the desperate hopes of these poor, deceived victims.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 07:27pm PT
|
And just what is the alternative to the "deception" of immortality? An existential philosophical notion of absolute aloneness in a cold, uncaring and unresponsive universe that offers only a kind of eternal oblivion and from which we are eternally separated. Which is worse the belief in the deceit of divinity or the truth which is an inevitable eternal nothing. What do you tell the mother of a dying child? Get over it? Know the truth? Be a man?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 07:36pm PT
|
hey! There was nothing before me cept what I cans imagine..
i am the. walrus?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 07:55pm PT
|
Which is worse the belief in the deceit of divinity or the truth which is an inevitable eternal nothing.
well your proclaiming divinity to be false. So I'm not playin ur game.
sorry I wanna be giving
.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 08:17pm PT
|
And just what is the alternative to the "deception" of immortality? An existential philosophical notion of absolute aloneness in a cold, uncaring and unresponsive universe that offers only a kind of eternal oblivion and from which we are eternally separated. Which is worse the belief in the deceit of divinity or the truth which is an inevitable eternal nothing. What do you tell the mother of a dying child? Get over it? Know the truth? Be a man?
Get over it, become a physicist.
Cold and inhospitable as it is, the universe is a beautiful and magnificent thing to explore and attempt to comprehend.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 08:27pm PT
|
And just what is the alternative to the "deception" of immortality?
What doesn't seem to compute here is that everyone feels some deep need for some promise of immortality.
Some idea of immortality has never been been the least compelling for me and I know it is true for a great many others, also.
"There is more under heaven and earth, Horacio, than your philosophy will allow..."
...and I'm not referring to ghosts.
The alternative is being in the present. What we know is we are born, we live and we die. Before and after is just an opinion no matter how passionate we are about our opinions.
Knowing there is a finite run makes what we get richer and sweeter. But, that's just my opinion and a lot of people think I'm effin crazy, especially since I really like Don Juan's model that death is always sitting on your shoulder and can take you at any time and it's our responsibility to be complete in every moment because that may be the last one. Not entirely obtainable, but a very satisfying exercise.
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 09:22pm PT
|
hey there say, MikeL... thank you, kindly...
happy good eve, to all...
got to do lots of work, tonight on projects...
:)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 09:46pm PT
|
Get over it, become a physicist.
I love it. Great thing to tell a mother whose lost her child. You wonder why there is religion? Because life is tough, often unbearable. And you think taking religion away from humanity will some how make things better? Really? Do you realize the insanity of such a supposition?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 26, 2017 - 10:07pm PT
|
The gross materialists are always stoopid clueless fools who bring nothing but the slaughterhouse to their own selves and everyone else ....
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 04:29am PT
|
Don't Tell Me
Corporate terrorists and criminal lawyers
From HMOs to Wall Street
All the way down to Colliers
They're pumping up their profits
Paying later to buy first
With no love for the children
Unprepared for the cloudburst
Oh baby,
It's just black rain
I'm so sorry
I won't see you again
Don't worry
Heaven's not so insane
Praise god
It's all in Jesus's name
Government corruption and corporate vice
Teeming with maggots
And infected with lice
They don't care how the world ends
As long as you pay the price
For casinos and luxury
Take heed to this advice
No one believes
It will happen to them
Perish your lover
Or even your best friend
With a mighty cloudburst
Black rain will descend
See the mushroom cloud
On the road, my friend
Until the hoax appears at your front door
Who knew that climate change
Could be such a bore
See the moss growing
On its icy shores
First goes Antarctica
Then goes one more
Oh baby,
It's just black rain
I'm so sorry
I won't see you again
Don't worry
Heaven's not so insane
Praise god
It's all in Jesus's name
-bushman
05/27/2017
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 05:20am PT
|
God died in the blood and gore of an ancient battlefield. Honor was replaced by arrogance and stupidity. Climbers have long revered an international community. With our loyalty owed to family and friends, to many of us, nationalism is dead or should have died with the last gasps of the Nazi Third Reich.
I could say that the demise of religion will follow the demise of destructive nationalism, but I am not at war with religion. Nationalism is the new religion of our homeland, and like religion, it is at war with the world. I only hope that we survive it.
-bushman
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 05:59am PT
|
Without an American sense of nationalism there would have been no point in fighting the Japanese or nazis... without nationalism we would still be under British rule
It's bizarre to me how politics is trying to redefine words to fit an increasingly anti American agenda..
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 06:09am PT
|
I think we will see religion eventually replaced with individual spirituality. Organized religion is also a social glue, a means to communicate local customs and culture, and has become a centralized forum for all sorts of traditional rituals from baptism to marriage to death. While these functions may have been usurped from other fora, the fact remains that humans have found this forum of religion useful as a place to gather and share acknowledgement and rituals of life events. Interestingly, in more traditional cultures we find less concentration of these rituals within religion, and more within the village or tribe, but without a lot of the "G*d" trappings.
Religion is not merely about finding answers to fundamental questions of behavior, but is also a means of establishing levels of coherence — and often justice and balance — in a community. But I doubt if you'd find two people anywhere who agree on all points about "their" religion. We are individuals. We find balance when we acquaint ourselves with our own internal, private spirituality, however we happen to perceive it that day.
If you find a schism between science and spirituality, check your basic premise.
An aside to those with thinking impediments:
A common insult I often use is to brand muddled thinkers as having an IQ lower than their body temperature. When I am really riled, I might say, "Don't try to think, you don't do it well." So if I appear saccharine, it is probably out of kindness for those with IQ lower than their body temperature. I am a member of Mensa and a Director with Intertel. Now then, I will continue to be polite, but all this ad hominem stuff obviously comes from people who aren't thinking well enough to present cogent arguments or comments on the subject at hand.
Because if you are going to discuss the good and bad points of religion, then I think you must begin with what we have been able to garner of its origins, examine its functions in society, and determine its aggregate enhancement and destruction of any perceived or imagined peaceful and just society. Remembering, of course, that there isn't any utopia.
If you want to discuss it as it applies to the individual, then you need to speak in the first person, and admit your subjectivity with respect to to the question at hand. We have both sorts of arguments going on in this discussion.
"Is religion doing more harm than good these days?" raises the questions of, "more harm than good to whom and where?"
And Bushman, as usual, your poetry is spot on. Thank you.
feralfae
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 06:20am PT
|
Galileo, a devout Catholic, refuted the Aristotelian view of nature which was Church dioctrine. He saw no conflict between being a devout Christian and persuing scientific inquiry which proved prevailing ideas of the nature of the universe to be wrong.....the Inquisition felt otherwise.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 06:22am PT
|
God died in the blood and gore of an ancient battlefield.
No such thing ever happened, nor will ever happen.
Being brainwashed and in ignorance of what you can't see with your defective material senses is all you know.
Even your own Brother Tobin had more sense than you.
You can't get rid of God.
Try it, the minute you try, you'll end up masquerading yourself as god.
But you will really end up just becoming a stoopid dog ......
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 06:44am PT
|
Jim, I am smiling. Some of my ancestors escaped Spain in 1500, one step ahead of the Pope's soldiers.
The Inquisition was less about recognition of God or refutation of science and more about using violence to change minds on the subject of religion, a concept which has an outstanding history of failure.
But you are spot-on with respect to Galileo. He was arguing science against an arrogant and powerful bunch of guys who were running a major institution of the religion of Christianity, albeit a very twisted version of Christianity. And since they had no reasonable arguments, they used force. Same old problem.
Werner, yes, I had missed that comment by Bushman. Unless all existence disappears, I don't see any way to get rid of the concept of Creator, Mind of G*d, Headmaster, or whatever name humans care to use.
Thank you.
ff
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 06:55am PT
|
Christianity is about a guy who had the compassion to uplift other humans. Sadly he did not do well at giving that gift to others.
Shortly thereafter his words were twisted and edited to fit the needs of powerful men.
But what holds it all together is his original intention to help and his honest ability to do so.
That is religion.
People killing or enslaving each other is not religion. It is crime.
FF - Individual spirituality is safe. I think much of the USA has gone that way. But it is difficult for many to come up with their own religion that satifies. So it goes to professional prophets to put it together for us.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 07:16am PT
|
Werner, FF,
Point taken...
Sometimes I go overboard here with my new found passion for Atheism. Sometimes a word too far. I love my brother but never loved the religion, not since childhood. I also never tried to compare myself to Tobin. But like the Chinese proverb, I am happy in my work.
-bushman
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 07:22am PT
|
Without an American sense of nationalism there would have been no point in fighting the Japanese or nazis...
Ever heard of the "America First Committee"?
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 07:30am PT
|
Or was it Colonel Saito the Japanese prison commandant in The Bridge on the River Kwai?
"Be happy in your work!"
Maybe I am a dog. I only know my fever spiked at 102 again last night for the third day in a row. Dr says it's a virus. Running all over from my head to my toes. Ridin' me hard and puttin' me away wet, wait that doesn't sound right...I must be delirious.
^^^^^
Thanks and oops and thanks again.
vvvvvvvv
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 07:32am PT
|
Christianity is about a guy who had the compassion to uplift other humans. The very definition of liberalism
Liberalism is about a society that has the compassion to uplift other humans.
and doesn't have anything to do with individual spiritualism
spiritualism is about living in the moment, exploring, searching, learning, living your life as best you can, which includes having compassion
Bushman
Sometimes I go overboard here with my new found passion for Atheism. Atheism does provide a new sense of freedom that you should be passionate about. I love your posts... keep up the good work
being an atheist does not mean you are not a spiritual person
if you intentionally cause pain in others, insult, post ugly lies, always a Debbie downer or call people insulting names, then you are spiritually bankupt
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 07:43am PT
|
Atheism is just the religion of Smugness wrapped in a cloak of condescendion.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 07:54am PT
|
Now Reilly it's perfectly alright to believe that there is no God. I certainly am among the rapidly growing number of people who believe that all religions are human constructs.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:13am PT
|
Actually, Jesus was pretty specific. I don't think he mentioned lifting up others. As an individual Quaker, I speak only for myself. I am a spiritual anarchist, and eschew all hierarchy with respect to my relationship with Creator. I enjoy the opportunity to discuss the teachings of prophets, but know I am solely responsible for my actions, no matter what.
I do understand that we can manifest compassion and Christian lovingkindness through voluntary actions, rather than through coerced tithing or enforced taxation in the name of "general welfare" as is often cited. I see no place for government in charity or good works, actually.
I am interested in the discussions on this topic, but also know that anyone who has a sense of self-responsibility is going to find their own ethical compass and live their life according to their own sense of integrity and justice. Probably no argument of mine will change their thinking. What I often find bothersome is how people do heinous things and hide behind the shield of some organized, hierarchical religion as their excuse. Yes, organized religion provides many people with their only moral compass. But organized religion has also encouraged people and provided an excuse to pillage and plunder, to steal and murder.
And while Jesus said to feed the hungry, comfort the sick, and provide for the orphans, he also said to sell your cloak and buy a sword. He tossed the money changes in the temple. Let us not turn Him into
some soft-hearted wimp. He had compassion, but I cannot find where he said it was my job to provide for those who were able to provide for themselves, and especially not through some government bureaucracy trying to pretend to be a charity. When someone talks about "lifting up"others, I run away. Because the next sentence is usually about how I need to "sacrifice" to "lift up" someone else, whom the speaker (usually some priest or politician) will identify and then dictate my share of the "sacrifice" to enable that "lifting."
And unfortunately, the words of Jesus have been so terribly mangled and twisted by organized religions trying to ride His coat tails that it is often impossible to find two people who can agree on what was actually said. At various times, humans have done extraordinarily horrid things in the name of Jesus, including mass murder, genocide, sending children off on crusades, and killing innocent women accused of being witches.
So while religion may provide a cookie-cutter set of reasonable directions, it also may provide a cookie-cutter set of depraved directions, all equally offered under the banner of some prophet no longer around to defend His or Her intent.
And I am not going to even try to discuss the horrid marriage of religion to government.
But if I can make one point, it is that while I can find merit in organized religion, I can also find great harm in it. On the other hand, I can find much merit in spiritual self-responsibility, and little to condemn it other than perhaps the possibility of social isolation for those who tend toward a more monastic life in their contemplation or practice of their spiritual Path. And if they are not harming any other human, they have the right to the life they choose, even if it does not suit me.
ff
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:16am PT
|
I get it, Jim.
And, I'm with Reilly in the sense that a lot of atheists like to bludgeon - I mean proselytize- people with their religion.
Atheism is just the religion of Smugness wrapped in a cloak of condescendion.
I really liked that so had to post it again.
Those who love scientism tend to like atheism. Too much worship of reductionism and mechanism without identifying and keeping in mind the limits of the models - mistaking the map for the terrain.
Those who love science and the methods of science tend to like agnosticism.
Seems to me...
Being the weirdo that I am I have my rational and my mystical mind and they have fun teasing and laughing at each other.
God on the battlefield -
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:18am PT
|
I like what one person said about atheism: "Who really knows?"
I don't find atheists smug, but rather, simply firm in their conviction that they have no individual relationship with any form of a priori Creator. Other than that, they appear normal and able to function reasonably well. Who am I to argue over G*d beliefs with a peaceful person living their life?
ff
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:27am PT
|
^^^Well put.
"Who really knows?" = agnosticism
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:38am PT
|
"Atheism is just the religion of Smugness wrapped in a cloak of condescendion." -Reilly
I'm with Reilly in the sense that a lot of atheists like to bludgeon - I mean proselytize- people with their religion.
This sounds canned to me. Can you name a couple? Any?
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:40am PT
|
If no one knows, then no one should have faith in their own personal religion
because you just can't know if it's true or not!
so you might as well give up on searching, because you can never know!
Sorry
I find the whole not knowing anything as a cop out
something's you can know, and something's may not be known, that is what's true.
One thing we do know, we know the things that Man Creates, and he created religions and his Gods
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:41am PT
|
Can you name a couple? Any?
Or, if you prefer not to personalize...
what is this "blungeoning" or "proselytizing" with their own "religion" you speak of?
...
I had the opportunity to watch "Whatever Works" (2009) with Larry David and Evan Rachel Wood last night. Besides a lot else, this movie does a great job showing how much we as a species and civilization have changed in just 100 years (a mere four generations). I think it's probably got a dozen salient points (re: science, belief, religion, history, future, morbidity and mortality, etc.) that tie nicely into this thread. Hugely entertaining, too.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1178663/?ref_=nv_sr_1
"And don't kid yourself. Because it's by no means up to your own human ingenuity. A bigger part of your existence is luck, than you'd like to admit. Christ, you know the odds of your father's one sperm from the billions, finding the single egg that made you." -Boris
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:42am PT
|
There was this evangelical type who lived across the street and was always blasting the Jesus rock from his garage. One evening I heard some shouting and I went out to my front yard to see what was the commotion. The guy was yelling at his wife as she sat behind the wheel of their car in the driveway with the two kids in the back seat. Every time she tried to shut the car door he would reach in and slap her. I yelled "Hey!" and he turned to look at me, drunk eyed and swaggering.
I was seriously ready to walk over there and clock him, and was pretty sure the five of us could take him...
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:49am PT
|
This sounds canned to me. Can you name a couple? Any?
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/2515755/The-New-Religion-Vs-Science-Thread
whenever I mention god, locker says its a fairy tale. Perhaps thats not prosletyzing and more along the lines of brow beating, but it is fairly constant. Don't believe that.. don't believe that.. which is primarily what atheism is, the religion of don't believe. So in one sense a form of prosletyzing. And don't get me wrong, I like locker, but he does tend to drive nails.
Then of course there is your thread. heh heh..
.........
religion is not god. religion is mans attempt to codify his beliefs about god.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 09:14am PT
|
John, have you seen Whatever Works?
"and with it all the day still comes where they put you in a box, and it's on to the next generation of idiots, who'll also tell you all about life and define for you what's appropriate." -Boris
It's got something for everybody.
"That's not what I'm saying, imbecile. You guys completely misrepresent my ideas, why would I even want to talk with those idiots." -Boris
:)
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 09:24am PT
|
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
Matthew 7:15-20
Proselytizing - no matter who's doing it - doesn't do much for me. I watch closely the ones who don't say that much and make cool stuff happen for others.
Craig, when you talk about those things that can't be proven you can't know that they're true. To claim TRUTH without proof is hubris and leads to violence of all kinds.
To live in the world of science is to know that we have models that approximate the truth and that what we know today may be different tomorrow in the lightof better evidence. That pursuit in it's purest form is humble even though utilization of the knowledge that comes from science is often anything but humble and scientists are often the worst offenders of all.
Faith is a cool thing AND faith is not proof. Believing that faith is proof is intellectually dishonest and hubris AND it undermines the beauty of faith - devotion.
"Both the man of science and the man of action live always at the edge of mystery, surrounded by it."
~ Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 09:44am PT
|
My Liberation
How many here who grew up in the protestant church felt a kind of Stockholm Syndrome relationship with god and the church like I did.?
When I began to question faith the answers were designed to guilt or frighten me back into line, or at worse, shame me for not being a good sheep like the rest of the family. I hated that god might punish me for all eternity if I sinned but I loved the 'kind forgiving Jesus' simultaneously. When I realized the hell I was in I began rebelling subconsciously at first, then by the age of thirteen I began running away from home, only to return when all other avenues were exhausted.
This continued through high school as my preacher dad and teacher mom left the church and divorced. My illusion about god, the sanctity of family, and all authority were shattered as I read about many other philosophies and religions. I tried almost every drug until alcohol became my oppressor. Years later, with wife and kids still intact, I made it into a recovery program and had to adjust their doctrine to fit with my agnosticism. After 20 years I quit listening to the 'god talk' and never looked back. It was useful, but not right for every one. I'm still clean and sober nearing 28 years.
I never really rectified myself with agnosticism or spirituality, instead I enjoyed reading about science and history. Still I found myself in long philosophical arguments with people where I would cite the evils of religion and the sufferings it had caused. Several years ago, at the behest of a friend I read the book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, by Christopher Hitchens.
Suddenly everything clicked, a kind of light bulb turned on in my head, and I saw the logic of the writer's thinking. It was exhilarating. I have never needed to have a soul, or a hereafter, or to be owned by a superhuman being. I've always felt comfortable being alone or with company in the nighttime under the stars. Trying to understand physics and science and the mystery of the stargazer's perspective have overtaken me. I am home.
-bushman
05/27/2017
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 11:15am PT
|
I was seriously ready to walk over there and clock him, and was pretty sure the five of us could take him...
Sycorax,
Thank you for your analogy of a fictional story intended to be humorous. The material is more personal than you know but the anecdote was based on an old joke I heard, "the five of us could take him," being the punchline. But then I assume you knew that.
You are absolutely correct that I didn't see the hypocrisy of an ex drunk deriding a drunk, but a wife beater I have never been. Perhaps the story, as a joke, was in poor taste here.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 12:54pm PT
|
The pope is brainwashed with biblical nonsense. Evolution and the the Big Bang are just more proof of god.
"God" in my opinion is not a representation of the work or words of man. God is everything around us and in every living entity on earth.
If anything religions are just a manifestation of the ego of man
Which is why religions cause problems- as every religion insists its "god" and its interpretation of what god is- is an absolute.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 01:01pm PT
|
May 27, 2017 - 12:56pm PT
"Yer GONNA die!!!"...
EDITED:
Then, rot...
For sure...unless I am cremated. Personally I would prefer to be dragged into a remote field or forest where animals and insects could feast upon my body and "deposit" me back to the land as useful organic matter. Just as nature intended. Sadly though humans subvert the natural order of things. We feel we are above the cycle of life
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 04:13pm PT
|
I do not know if there is God or not
I base my religion on the belief that there is no God
there is no "maybe a God exists, maybe not" for me
it makes sense that any kind of consciousness or spirit needs a brain
does it not
that
no physical brain = no mind, no spirit, no god, no complex thoughts or something more
Show me something that is above the Human mind in complex thought, there is nothing
The only good thing about becoming an atheist is that almost every question about religions, gods, profits, how God did this or that is answered (because they can never be answered by the religions, you are asked to have faith it's true) suddenly reality makes total sense, nature makes sense, deep time makes sense,
and the silly gods don't fit in the picture at any level nor do they make sense
Once you are free of gods, you are personally free in many ways you could never have imagined.
BUT
But But
I would change my belief system in an instant if some kind of irrefutable evidence came forward that proved me wrong
I am completely open to any scientific explanation that proves God does exist
That was my early reason for posting on religion, hoping someone can convince me I'm wrong, show me the evidence...
still waiting
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 04:22pm PT
|
God has the Supreme mind, consciousness and brain.
His body is fully spiritual.
Not like Fry's material fried brain.
God has personality and is not impersonal.
God has been proven scientifically for zillions of years.
More years than any stoopid computer can hold.
Not like stoopid modern science which guesses and makes no experiment.
Modern science just plain blabs "there is no God".
Modern science just useless blathering with no proof.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 04:36pm PT
|
"Weren't you a drunk once too? So you didn't "cast the first stone" but you failed to recognize your reflection. The guy had bad taste in music. End of story.'
Not end of story...scumbag was/is a wife beater.
|
|
divad
Trad climber
wmass
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 04:39pm PT
|
Modern science just useless blathering with no proof.
and the difference between that and what you spout is?...
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 04:40pm PT
|
maybe you can elaborate on this
God has personality and is not impersonal. I really want to know how this works
If anyone can answer any of my questions about God, I would have so many questions,
and we all know that none will be answered to any acceptable level, because they do not have an answer
the only answer for the questions is that their God has no answers
No questions can or will be answered, that is their response.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 05:29pm PT
|
Not being specific here but, when a thread degenerates into baseless personal attacks I'm out.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 06:36pm PT
|
Bushman: Perhaps the story, as a joke, was in poor taste here.
Are you kidding?
Everything is in poor taste here.
EDIT: Watch what comes next.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 07:04pm PT
|
Words, words, words. Here’s a few more.
In all of these threads and writings, there seems to be an abundance of modernisms that promote rationalism, meta-narratives, “being” centered as a unitary personality which can make and execute decisions, overarching single-coded totalities, utopias, myths of one sort or another, materialisms, and scientific projections—all conceptualizations in one form or another.
Modernism seems to be one of the strongest religions. With the rise of secularisms (Darwinism, attacks on Christianity), intellectuals have become skeptics, and materialism’s theorists (e.g., Smith, Darwin, Marx, progressives) have made it difficult to believe in any creator. Rationalism, socialism, Marxism, and economics (all oriented to self-interest) have seemingly become unquestioned pseudo religions, expressed as technical functionalisms and structuralisms. What one knows legitimately is what one knows technically. We are still Bobos in Paradise. Brooks’s insights apparently still hold true.
Rational self interest (e.g., avarice; in the big picture, Darwinism) was supposedly the best understanding that leads to civil peace, efficient resource allocations, and of how the world works. There was a time when the rational pursuit of utility (Hume and Hobbes) was considered a rare moral achievement. Today, it’s considered basic common sense, and it’s vulgar. Supposedly everything works out for the best that way. A flurry of cognitive research indicates, however, that human beings cannot pursue self-interests or maximize utilities fully because they cannot fully process complete data. There’s too much of it. Instead, human beings identify with the groups they belong to heuristically, even when those groups’ goals go against their self interests. Communities and groups shape human beings behaviors, norms, values, and beliefs almost more than science can say—and not just religions.
Modernism has been privileging abstractions and projecting all sorts of sacred qualities that Christianity had once absorbed. One could say that modernism’s abstractions have become “the opiate of the intellectuals.” Ornament, polychromy, metaphor, humor, symbolism, place, cultural identity, local contexts, the senses, mind, multiple codings, irrationality, and historical context have all been stripped of their value, even seen as taboos. Instead, meta-narratives of emancipation, progress, universal brotherhood, Nature, etc. are more acceptable to modernists. These metanarratives are relevant, sure, but they do not appear to tap fully into the richness of human existence.
One recognized pervasive problem of modern living revolves around alienation, meaninglessness, anomie, self-estrangement, and powerlessness. One can see much of it in the threads here in ST. People appear generally unhappy about a long list of things, and they often report a lack of personal efficacy and a sense of detachment from their communities and societies both large and small.
Marx first got folks thinking along these lines of alienation by arguing that the energy and skill invested in the objects of people’s labors were part of their life’s blood. People see themselves communally and individually by the things they create. They socially construct. Without the perception of a direct connection between them and the things they make (e.g., laws, their communities, products and services, even their very lives), human beings become alienated from themselves (which is kind of a strange notion). Marx said that the lack of insight into one’s true condition is itself a consequence of alienation. Emile Durkheim agreed and noted that the division of labor, and values, norms, and beliefs of communities were ceasing to provide meaning to contemporary human beings (circa 1890-1910, anyway), even though memberships should theoretically ground people in their communities. In other words, people were becoming disconnected from one another, from their very selves, and from their worlds that they themselves helped to make. Erickson argued that alienation from the planet, societies, communities, and in people themselves resides not in any of those but rather “in the whole of one’s existence.” (One can argue today’s situation looks worse.)
There are, however, minority views to challenge the modernist view. One of them can be termed a postmodern view. A postmodern view focuses on finding enchantment in life. One can do so by focusing on the more cultural and aesthetic aspects of living—found, for example, in fashion, images, style, and tropes. Postmodernism takes notice of a moment-to-moment sense of living that always seems to be fragmented, de-centered, multi-narrative, multi-coded, qualitative, deconstructed, embedded in discourses and practices, and the very “spectacle” some call life. It rejects the totalizing arguments of elites and embraces pluralism and multiculturalism. The view is impossibly messy. Rather than focusing on what is true or what is right or accurate, postmodernism focuses on what’s interesting. As a result, it places high values on paradox, contrast, counter-intuition, humor, sarcasm, satire, and irony, indeterminacy, and relevance (rather than rigor). It’s made for iconoclasts.
It’s interesting to note that a fair amount of 20th Century philosophy (Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Sartre, Derrida, Foucault) has concentrated on the perplexity (the unexplainability) of the universe and human beings’ apparent alienation from it. Existentialists say human beings are forced to be free because they’ve been thrown into a meaningless universe with no answers. They say beings must heroically choose between vicious alternatives with very imperfect information. What is uncertain, undecidable, and chaotic appears to be an emergent cosmic presentation that has no underlying essence. IT is simply as it appears. Estrangement and disillusion thus enables human beings to see the familiar for the first time—all the time. “Solutions” no longer arise because “problemizing” (structuring situations as problems in the first place) doesn’t arise.
It is also perhaps worth noting that the postmodern view looks remarkably similar to what certain spiritual masters have pointed to over the centuries. Postmodernism appears consonant with the views of Advaita Vedanta, Dzogchen, Bon, Kashmir Shaivism, Kundalini Yoga, primal Buddhism, the Tao, and other radical spiritual teachings. What they all seem to say is what arises in consciousness are simply manifestations. Those displays appear to be without certainty, indescribable, highly ornamental, sense-based, uninterpretable, infinitely creative and energetic, momentary, unpatterned or unique, undecidable, chaotic—and beautifully enchanting. A kind of never-ending kaleidoscope of virtual reality, and really, really, really intelligent. The masters call it “the natural state.” Others call it liberation. Alienation, anomie, disillusionment, meaninglessness, radical ambiguity, powerlessness (no cause-and-effect or free will), and the estrangement and alienation from all constructed selves and groups might be early stepping stones to seeing the natural state.
One need not to commit to totalities or single interpretations of either this or that. There appears to be a middle way, an excluded middle, a lack of substantiality in apparent appearances, in-the-moment spontaneities, wide-open potentialities, an absence of absence.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 07:17pm PT
|
Pu
trans. uncarved block
def. original/primordial nature; perception without prejudice/duality; mental clarity aligned with the Great Unity/Tao
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 08:55pm PT
|
I lost an entire post, frats.
Just as well.
Mike L, you have, in a no few words, opened the discussion of the vast spectrum of individual faith, facts and feelings.
I think each individual chooses one's own point within this spectrum, plotting for absolute indifference to the entire question, all the way to a belief that one is a (part of) god.
And why would we care who others think? Of course, unless they initiate force against us? And that is certainly a major problem with religions. Not so much with individual spirituality. Perhaps individual spirituality is going to be this reformation's evolution from the last one's Protestantism. The internet has certainly replaced the printing press, and mores daily.
Anyway, technology seems to be taking us on a fast ride toward a global sense, beyond nationalism. Given that fact, consider the vast and awesome universe of the G*d question. LOL
end of nattering.
feralfae
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 09:20pm PT
|
Religion is human escapist theory because we are faced with an indifferent universe. Whatever makes you happy is a good thing as long as you don't bother other people.
Succinct, to the point, and even fewer words. Excellent!
ff
|
|
d-know
Trad climber
electric lady land
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 09:56pm PT
|
Very insightful post MikeL.
What is apparent to me is that some
"religions" don't know what they believe
so they try to get others to agree
to their ideas through mission work
and conversion and if that doesn't
work out they simply kill off those who
do not agree. More harm than good.
The spiritual teachings that you
mentioned are suggested ways of
experiencing existence and acceptance of
the dualistic nature of reality.
One can take it or not without fear of
judgment. More good than harm.
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
Boulder climber
ne'er–do–well
|
|
|
May 27, 2017 - 11:44pm PT
|
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 02:02pm PT
|
Is there something wrong with physics?
Feralfe, I thought the cartoon was funny.
Was Jesus misunderstood?
Yeah. Read the red print in the New Testament and listen to Jesus' words as a mystic speaking. Gives some insight.
Interesting reading what Jesus said to the Pharisees about having no authority in light of priests, preachers and pastors.
Jesus speaks of a direct relationship - a spiritual relationship, not a religious relationship.
I'll skip the neurology of religious and mystical experience other than to ask what proof - beside how you feel - does anyone have that all religious and spiritual experience is anything but internally derived phenomena?
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 02:43pm PT
|
Though there have been some interesting posts here, for sure, this thread seems to have largely degenerated into a lot of insults to those who don't think along the same lines as the poster of the insult. I don't have a particular axe to grind on this topic, and while I am interested in what a variety of people have to say, I wish there was a bit less mud-slinging... and more genuine discussion along the lines of "I do hear what you're saying, and can understand that, but here's why I think differently....". That sort of dialectical process is how we broaden our horizons, or perhaps just reinforce our own views... but it doesn't happen without an initially open mind and the personal discipline to not react in knee-jerk fashion. And Mark Force, I do believe that religious/spiritual feelings and thoughts are internally generated, though also with input from one's life experiences, tragic, loving, or otherwise. At the end of the day, it's all about compassion for people/animals/plants/things beyond our personal selves. Having and caring for a family, and really, just LIVING, whatever your circumstances, also make these philosophical issues recede into the background. Philosophical arguments are just parlor games, really, though interesting ones!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 03:37pm PT
|
At the end of the day, it's all about compassion for people/animals/plants/things beyond our personal selves. Having and caring for a family, and really, just LIVING, whatever your circumstances, also make these philosophical issues recede into the background. Philosophical arguments are just parlor games, really, though interesting ones!
Worth making stand out and repeating.
"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."
~ Dalai Lama
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 03:57pm PT
|
The Dalai Lama quote posted by Mark Force puts in all into eight words....
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 04:03pm PT
|
"The Dalai Lama quote posted by Mark Force puts in all into eight words...."
Which you don't need have religion to do.
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 05:25pm PT
|
MikeL said:
Providing a narrative about how people make decisions that relies upon a sort of cost & benefit view so oversimplifies cognition
I don't think people consciously and rationally evaluate their options in light of the facts at their disposal. People are complicated: we lie to ourselves and to each other, sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, and in the end, I believe our actions are based on what we REALLY perceive and what meaning we add to that, rather than what we tell ourselves we perceive/believe or what we tell other people.
So from a behavioral and relationship modeling standpoint, I stand by my perception that people seek to minimize pain and maximize pleasure. That doesn't mean people act cowardly and hedonistically in all cases. That would be a narrow interpretation of what causes pain and pleasure. What really causes pain or pleasure for a person are influenced by the person's history and values. People who have trust in the future benefits of hard work or delayed gratification can endure quite a lot of pain in exchange for their perception of a future benefit, and the loss of material benefits might be exchanged for spiritual peace of mind, etc.
So a simple sounding model can actually lead to quite complex outcomes if you look at the richness and diversity in how pain and pleasure are learned and what material and conceptual things people value.
As for this dude:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
I'm not familiar with him. A quick perusal of his Prospect Theory looks a lot like standard game theory with some consideration for people's perceptions and wanting to hedge against the consequences of low probability negative events, explaining behaviors that seem inconsistent with pursuing the highest risk-adjusted benefits. I guess this is on the same track with how I am thinking, if I have grasped what they are after.
Pivoting...
I wonder how many people who are already in a mental contract with a religion are able to form a perception outside of that framework or intellectually consider alternatives, and to evaluate what are their fundamental needs that are being met by it. I guess the danger for these folks is that having such thoughts, recognizing their religion or their relationship with it as a contract, might constitute a breach of that contract and have dire personal consequences in terms of loss of identity, loss of safety, loss of love, etc. etc.
Makes it easy to discuss religious beliefs, but hard to remove biases in a discussion on the topic raised in the title. It's like we ca have a collection of anecdotal data points, but we can't transcend from being a data point to being an evaluator of the options, as long as we are in a contract with a religion that demands our belief. Perhaps that is part of why religions are so persistent.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 05:36pm PT
|
^^^Funny. He doesn't even have to believe it's a big deal and can just play the whiner game for coin. Any judge that lets that go anywhere has no spine. The article says he didn't know the pepperoni was pork....uh, huh.
I stand by my perception that people seek to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.
Epicureanism is a far more efficient practice than religion. Of course, that's merely my opinion...
....and I'm weird.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 06:41pm PT
|
At the end of the day, it's all about compassion for people/animals/plants/things beyond our personal selves. Having and caring for a family, and really, just LIVING, whatever your circumstances, also make these philosophical issues recede into the background. Philosophical arguments are just parlor games, really, though interesting ones!
Worth making stand out and repeating.
"Be kind whenever possible. It is always possible."
~ Dalai Lama
Hear! Hear! Well said! ^^^^
Yes, I thought the cartoon was funny as well. My humorous aside would be, "Just when you think you have it figured out, you don't." We then to think, as humans, that our sense of boundaries is the natural order of things. We are a young species. Not all that long ago, a bunch of humans thought the Earth was flat. We are still living down that assumption.
So we ask questions. We find some answers. We measure things as well as we are able to do so this day, and hypothesize and extrapolate from there. Whether G*d or physics. Personally, I have had enough personal, subjective experience that I think I have proof of and know a tiny bit of the Mind of G*d. But that is just me.
But I also think that each individual human has a right to believe and think and know what they find best for them, as long as they do not initiate violence or fraud against any other person. And they honor their contracts. :)
fascinating discussion.
ff
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 06:42pm PT
|
Pork Pizza... ? A definite violation of his civil rights....If the case gets tossed out of court Little Caesar employees should at least have to take sensitivity training and maybe wear Burkas...
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 06:52pm PT
|
I still think a lot of religion is simply a social event for people. A way to share a structure for social/tribal events. While the theocrats and democrats and republicrats may be organized and have longer-term goals and plans, I think most every day people adopt the religion of their family, stay within the mores and dogma of the family unit, and thus avoid alienation from the community. That we live in a nation with the tolerance for RC and COE, as well as the Wesleyans, Baptists, Lutherans, and all the other branches of the JC tree is remarkable.
I think most humans would gather for story-telling under almost any social structure, and use that relational structure for their Tribal/Family/Congregational celebrations and rites. It did not begin with Christianity, nor with Judaism. We all know about prehistoric Solstice gatherings. These simple celebrations and rites are global.
One of a human's strongest needs is to belong. I think we often underrate the power of belonging, and look to material gain and power as motivations, when belonging will cause otherwise sane people to do very odd things. Like genuflect. :)
feralfae
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 07:17pm PT
|
Religion is great, you can get d#@&%ebags like Donald Trump and Mike Pence to use it to get you to vote them into office so they can't push their backwards agenda down our throats and it previous times to wipe out indigenous people around the world.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 09:50pm PT
|
okay, whatever: . . . more genuine discussion along the lines of "I do hear what you're saying, and can understand that, but here's why I think differently....". That sort of dialectical process is how we broaden our horizons, . . .
Sure. It’s gonna take a lot of time and patience.
I honestly don’t think that kind of thing happens often. At least that’s my academic opinion. People just don’t change when they are experiencing what they perceive as success or pleasure. Why would they? If you want people to change, you have to challenge them hard. Threaten them with survival, and that will get their attention to start. Young people you have more of a shot at. The mature ones, . . . good luck. Check out Chris Argyris’s research at Harvard in the 60s and 70s. (He’s a big guy on organizational change / learning.) Don't get me wrong: I’m all behind you, dude. I’m just not very optimistic. Argyris said: unfreeze them cognitively, shift their views (show them possibilities), then refreeze them.
NutAgain!,
I think you need to pick which side of the argument you’re going to be on. One the hand, you don’t think people rationally evaluate their options. On the other hand, you believe people are in a mental contract with others and with religion. Which is it? Do they know what they are doing or not?
Scientifically, it’s a big deal which one you’re arguing. Ultimately, in the spiritual sense that I’m very familiar with, the very question is meaningless in much the same way that a dream is meaningless when you are in it.
(BTW, Kahneman had a bit more to say than project theory. On could go to Amazon and look at the reviews of his latest books, but you’d have to be interested. Really, it doesn’t matter.)
. . . You guys with your arguments about “contracts.” Seriously, do you believe that people live or actually think that way?
feralfae: I still think a lot of religion is simply a social event for people.
I suppose that anyone could make this argument for any behavior. It strips others of their humanity, their experience, their understanding, their learning. It makes a thing of them. It lacks empathy. Of course, one can describe any so-called event as a psychological this, or a social that, but those are abstractions.
Other people live in an infinite bubble of experience just like you do.
(Ugh, we’re so technical and scientific. I wonder why we’ve not solved our problems by now?)
Bob D’A,
You’re not really adding to the conversation.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 10:09pm PT
|
Mike L... Bob's comments are relative to the conversation in that some religious people use religion to create a self image which may or may not be real...
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 28, 2017 - 10:39pm PT
|
Gotta agree. Much of the impetus - much of the purpose and value - behind religion is about control and power.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 05:03am PT
|
Make L,
No, I don't think my comments strips of anyone of their humanity: I think it recognizes that as humans, we have deep longing to belong, to have a part of our identity within a group, and to know that we are recognized for being a part of that group. I think we need other people, to have a family, tribe, or gang with whom we can share our life experiences, who help us to recognize our life passages, and who will recognize our humanity. I have no idea where you come up with such drivel.
There is nothing in anything I said lacking in empathy or denying anyone's humanity, except perhaps your own pedantic perceptions of what you think other should think and feel. I am not going to even ask you why you make such off the wall statements: I think you simply put together stings of words in an attempt to refute or belittle the contributions of others in these discussions, without considering the source or the person, much less what they have attempted to communicate. Because when you purposefully or carelessly misunderstand people, you only show how closed and fossilized your own mind has become. Bob d'A's contributions are salient to this discussion, and your high-handed dismissals of those who do not genuflect to your superiority of insight and pedantry are both insulting to your own understanding, and lacking explicitly in the very humanity and empathy you deny others.
feralfae
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 07:21am PT
|
Mile L wrote: Bob D’A,
You’re not really adding to the conversation.
Funny coming from you and your longwinded responses.
Mine are short and to the point...Religion is killing humanity and the natural world.
And you prove my point with every response you post.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 07:31am PT
|
Feralfae:
I think Bob D’A has a political complaint in particular. I thought we were arguing about ideas.
My comments to you are also comments about abstractions, whether you make them or someone else does. Perhaps you’ve made your comment as an objective observer from the outside of other people’s experience. Yeah, we do that all the time in science. In my view it’s dehumanizing. Others might think so too. These days anyone who undertakes a research study of people’s behaviors in controlled situations now has to get approval (or at least check in with) some office on campus to ensure that they are not “using” or manipulating those people (especially students) psychologically or socially for their own purposes. You may not see the connection, but every objectification seems to me to be a distancing technique. I guess i’m with Socrates and his paradox: I think people—all people—are doing the best that they can. It seems to me that everyone thinks they are doing the right thing, the best that they can. That’s what makes the issue of moral choice and other things (like jurisprudence) so interesting.
Rottingjohnny,
Thanks for that interpretation. I guess I like your wording better.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 07:36am PT
|
Bob,
Just missed your post.
I apologize for being longwinded sometimes. Being succinct is a sign of expertise. I struggle often making sense of what I’m seeing. So many things look hopelessly complex and self-contradictory to me. I also can’t seem to put almost anything into a box neatly and cleanly.
My comment was civil, I thought.
Be well.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 07:47am PT
|
MikeL...your post was condescending. I don't make long winded responses especially here on ST, I don't think it is that complex and and history has proved my point.
That said I hope it all comes together for you...I kinda like the KISS way of looking at things. :-)
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 07:53am PT
|
May 29, 2017 - 07:21am PT
Mile L wrote: Bob D’A,
You’re not really adding to the conversation.
Funny coming from you and your longwinded responses.
Mine are short and to the point...Religion is killing humanity and the natural world.
And you prove my point with every response you post.
Hatred of others is killing humanity. You are no better than an angry religious nut. Go shop at the super save and get off that high horse
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 07:59am PT
|
Hatred of others is killing humanity. You are no better than an angry religious nut.
I'm not angry or nuts just to the point which always seems to bother you.
Lack of tolerance is killing humanity along with lack of respect for the natural which you have no problem finding in the christian bible.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:09am PT
|
So tolerant bob...
I don't worship any religion of man...
You should turn off CNN and try the same. Might calm you down
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:21am PT
|
So how do Gods and spirits work?
are they intelligent? do they have personalities like Braun claims?
Can they think, converse, move, control things, create, do magic?
yet they have no physical presence, no material, no brain, no complex molecular structure.
Some how, complexity comes from nothing.
how about the afterlife, how does that work? where do you go? for how long? why?
If you could show us some kind of blue print of how it all works, then we could ask more questions and do a scientific study of the phenomenon... and
or you can just say ..... Here's how it works.. Gods and spirits can't be explained at all because Gods and spirits don't exist, so they don't have any anything.... question answered..
any one want elaborate on what I'm missing
|
|
nature
climber
Boulder, CO
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:29am PT
|
Same amount of harm as ever.
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:29am PT
|
I theoretically miss the good old days, when apes were men and men weren't apes.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:30am PT
|
Craig- ever wonder why a Dungeness crab claw is the perfect tool to extract meat from hard to reach areas? Is that just a fluke? Or was it "designed" that way? Certainly evolution would have nothing to do with it
I don't worship any religion- but I see god in the natural world all the time.
As to what "god" is- I have no idea
I used to reject the notion of a god and was quite vocal about it. As I have calmed down though I have had to admit to myself that something is going on. As for what it is- I have no clue
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:33am PT
|
The 'Dungeness crab claw is the perfect tool to extract meat from hard to reach areas" due to a long evolutionary process that can be easily verified by a detailed scientific study
Wilmot, you best step away from any more of your speculations on evolution
just coincidence then...totally explainable by science... yes, totally explainable by the science that I know, I have a degree in Biology
creation science and intelligent design has been discredited completely
I see the beauty of evolution in the natural world, deep time has created unimaginable beauty and life on our planet
are we the only ones looking back at the universe?
That I don't know
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:38am PT
|
so you see it as just coincidence then...totally explainable by science...
What about dogs that can detect earthquakes before they start? Coincidence? Or do dogs just have a better scientific grasp of how the earth works...
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:43am PT
|
Dogs can hear the vibrations created by earthquakes before they are detected by other means
I guess you have zero grasp on any science
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:48am PT
|
Fry said -- "... deep time has created ..."
Just how foolish Fry always is.
"deep time has created"
I've always said "Time" is eternal and the impersonal feature of God.
"Time" is not under the jurisdiction of material nature.
No one can conquer or control "Time" by materialistic means.
Now even the fool Fry himself unknowingly describes the impersonal feature of God creating life.
Next, he'll be ranting trying to deflect all this into his little closed safe sterile haven box of scientism ......
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 09:17am PT
|
I'm not laughing at you Craig.. Just laughing at the questions. You so want God to be material and He/She isn't. Thats what a spirit is. It has no material presence which you can test/detect with your machines. What can detect the presence of the Lord is your heart. but the heart can be polluted and that makes it even harder to detect spirit. Another thing that you don't understand is that by wanting God to be material, what you are really wanting is a way to control God. Which in essence means you want to be God. True religion would teach you that there is a way to be one with God, and thus God. But that is through the heart and most folks don't want that because it means that they must give up their feelings of superiority.
There are methods to learning how to detect spirit. They aren't really that hard. It is about learning to tune ones consciousness through the heart. The problem most people do not understand and are not aware of is that there are levels to the material world before you even reach the spirit world/lower levels of heaven. The densest level is the one which we all are aware of. The physical realm. The next level up, which is still in the material realm is the astral realm. This is where most people do their dreaming. Because it is so fluid, many people believe that they have reached the spiritual realm and this is where many problems with understanding begin, because the astral realm is not the spiritual realm. It is still a part of the material realm and it has been polluted by dark forces. This is why nightmares can occur. Its also why many dreams have no meaning. The astral realm is the level of emotions. The next level up in the material realm is the lower etheric. It is the level of thoughts. The higher etheric is beyond that and it is the level of beliefs. Edit: The higher etheric is the final level of the material realm and is the closest to the spiritual realm.
So our beliefs create our thoughts, which then create our emotions and it is our emotions that then create our experience in the material realm.
This is why the Truth is the pathway to peace. If one has Truth, then one can find lasting peace. Of course there are levels to even that. So while it might sound simple, it is actually very complex. Many people spend their whole lives teaching themselves to not feel, believing that this leads to peace. But this is a false path. If you understand the order of the universe, then you can understand why it is a false path.
I wish that there was a way to convey/convince you of the Truth of what I am saying. But I fear that that time has past as I believe we are in the time of the tribulation,I which means God has removed his hand from the world and darkness reigns. Which ultimately means that people are given over to their darkest desires, which is why people experience the world as indifferent. God is in no way indifferent. Nor is the world indifferent. Yet there are consequences to our choices and we are currently living them. This in no way means that one can not access God. It simply means that God is not actively attempting to reach humans. God is allowing us our choice. If one wants to know God, then one can find God. But that requires effort and a willingness to let go of ones ego. Werner at this point would say that one can't let go of the ego because the ego is our identity. In the teaching that I follow, the ego is our false self. Our True Self is our Identity. In the teaching that Werner follows, the false ego is the lower ego and our True identity is our higher ego. It is simply a matter of understanding what each person means by the words we use that can then cause one to see that we are speaking out the same thing. Yet the difference in the meanings of words and how people use them is one reason that there is so much misunderstanding between people.
And to those who say the heart is just an organ which pumps blood. I am not speaking about the physical heart. I am speaking about the spiritual heart, which we all posses, but which many have hardened by filling it with arrogance. anger, lasciviousness, lust, greed, and pride.
Awe of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom. Proverbs 9:10
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 09:22am PT
|
My dog barks some...Mentally you picture my dog , but i have not told you the type o'dog which i have.. Perhaps you might even picture Toto...from the Wizard of Oz..? Arf..
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 09:35am PT
|
It helps to let go of the notion that the bible is one book. And that is is the inerrant word of God. It is a collection of teachings. Some of which are false. There is Truth in the bible and so it is useful. My quote is but one example of how teachings are twisted. Many versions of the bible replace the word awe with the word fear. They say that fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom. Then they try to get around it by explaining fear. But this is an insidious method of destruction. God has no desire to teach fear or have anyone fear Him/Her. When one has a true experience of God, then one finds awe. If you lack awe of God, then you have not had a true experience of God. What one should fear is evil/anti god because evil/anti god is the lack of Love. Not human love with all of its foibles. But deep, endless, compassionate Love.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 09:46am PT
|
Dogs can hear the vibrations created by earthquakes before they are detected by other means
I guess you have zero grasp on any science
Can't say I have ever heard a vibration... though I understand what you mean. If it's that simple- then why have we not been able to produce a reliable way of detecting earthquakes? Are we not smarter than dogs?
Or is it that humans have a limited perception of what is going on? I think both religious and scientific people make the same egotistical mistake of looking to a book as the source of all answers
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 09:52am PT
|
The Trouble with Pipples
Doug God sat down at the table with Wendy God and Rhianna God and sighed. "What's the matter?" Rihanna God said.
"I googled the word 'spirit' last night and all I got was a wiki reference for 'spiritualism;' practice whereby 'people' assign the magical properties of an unseen self to themselves and those around them. It also made mention that many people believe in a mythical hierarchy of beings from an unseen spirit world " said Doug God.
Wendy God replied, "I've heard of spirits too, but what are these 'people' beings you speak of?"
"Nah, I'm not buying that there ever were such things as people," Rihanna God interjected, "it's obvious to me that some god way back when made that stuff up just to entertain baby gods at bedtime, or maybe, they just had way too much time on their hands."
-bushman
05/29/2017
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 10:03am PT
|
Can't say I have ever heard a vibration
everything you hear is a vibration, simple science, nothing magical
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 10:10am PT
|
sycorax: Can we please get the discussion back on track to physics? Jesus Christ!
why waste the time?
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 10:14am PT
|
she was making a joke Ed..
|
|
clinker
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, California
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 10:46am PT
|
Can we please get the discussion back on track to physics? Jesus Christ!
why waste the time?
she was making a joke Ed..
An excerpt from an early discussion on Creation and the making of man?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 10:46am PT
|
Cwilmot...all religions are man made
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 10:56am PT
|
Randisi: MikeL, to say that social events strip people of their humanity is exceedingly odd.
First of all, one has to agree that a big reason people get involved in religion is because it’s a social event. Then we can talk about how that objectification might diminish, obviate, or de-legitimize their views. Some people actually believe everything is about God, that God infuses everything that they are or do. I get it that you don’t see it that way. In this thread, I felt compelled to stand-up for a minority view. I don't see anyone's subjectivity as less than anyone else's. You?
Bob: I don't make long winded responses especially here on ST, I don't think it is that complex and and history has proved my point.
You bet. My background / profession is academic. That too might be of a minority here. (I tend to equate long-winded with "not much to say" rather than word count.) I’d bet that you’ve read books with many words, too. (Heck, that might signal another minority here.)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 11:50am PT
|
Simply:
We exist in a universe that is inconceivably large with an inconceivable number of opportunities for life, consciousness, mind.
We know with certainty that mind/ consciousness exists on a continuum. Some creatures more some less: even in the human population intelligence seems to vary greatly.
If intelligence exists on a continuum we, as humans, exist on that continuum and can assume with some degree of accuracy an intelligence beyond our own exists in this universe based on our understanding of that intelligence.
And so the question becomes at what point does an intelligence become so far beyond our own that it assumes the quality of what we have defined as deity?
The existence of deity or God or whatever you want to call it doesn't have to exist in a state of magic but rather within the the structure of physics.
That the bible is somehow an "evil book" is plainly ridiculous, as the bible, through metaphor, addresses the nature of existence in a rather accurate way as poetic and not scientific, yet in that biblical explication is remarkable wisdom regarding the human condition.
Religion has, for the most part, put a lid on the kind of human behavior that causes chaos and pain. Of course there are glaring exceptions to that and that's all some here seem to recognize. But in this regard religion and science are similar: one could, by the standard afforded religion on this thread, declare the Theory of Relativity the most evil thing written in the western tradition based on its military consequences.
Where are the open minds around here?
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 12:35pm PT
|
We know with certainty that mind/ consciousness exists on a continuum. Some creatures more some less: even in the human population intelligence seems to vary greatly.
If intelligence exists on a continuum we, as humans, exist on that continuum and can assume with some degree of accuracy an intelligence beyond our own exists in this universe based on our understanding of that intelligence. my open mind doesn't accept point 1 and 2
No, consciousness does not exist in a continuum, kill the brain, end the consciousness
please tell us how this works
How does consciousness exist beyond the living?
Does an ant's consciousness exist beyond the body as well?
I haven't seen any sign of consciousness outside a living organism ever.
please elaborate on this continuum, since it seems like pure hopeful speculation
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 12:37pm PT
|
my open mind doesn't accept point 1 and 2
please tell us how this works
You're a smart guy, think about it.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 02:10pm PT
|
Unanswered questions
= cover up for not having answers
= the answer exposes you as a hypocrite
= the answer relies on "faith", you just need to believe in magic
= says you are not intellectually curious and have a need to repress open mindedness outside the box
= fearing god will punish you for questioning his will
= too brainwashed to know why you believe anything
= etc. etc.
Just like Trump, he refuses to answer any questions because he knows they will just bury him further,
instead we get
"believe me, it will be terrific"
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 03:01pm PT
|
The whole material universe is a living organism of consciousness of individuality and together also as one whole.
Fry is clueless material academic brainwashed fool.
Fry can't even understand basic simple consciousness itself ..........
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 03:09pm PT
|
The whole material universe is a living organism of consciousness of individuality and together also as one whole. wild speculation
with zero evidence as proof
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 03:19pm PT
|
Unanswered questions
= cover up for not having answers
= the answer exposes you as a hypocrite
= the answer relies on "faith", you just need to believe in magic
= says you are not intellectually curious and have a need to repress open mindedness outside the box
= fearing god will punish you for questioning his will
= too brainwashed to know why you believe anything
= etc. etc.
Just like Trump, he refuses to answer any questions because he knows they will just bury him further,
instead we get
"believe me, it will be terrific"
Good grief! After reading this I think I know who's most similar to Trump on this thread. Your questions just indicated you either didn't understand what I wrote, that understanding clouded by incorrect assumptions, or you didn't really read it at all. Try it again.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 03:55pm PT
|
"The whole material universe is a living organism of consciousness of individuality and together also as one whole."
Of course you can prove this speculation?
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 04:21pm PT
|
Look, the question posed is:
"Is religion doing more harm than good these days? (OT)
Which is a complex, multi-layered question if one thinks about it at all. There is enough evidence on both sides to make a persuasive argument. And again, this does not appear to be a question about spirituality, but about religion (not that one person cannot have their own religion based on their spirituality), but the question and OP narrative seemed to be asking more about how organized religion influences humanity's actions and the situations in which we find ourselves. It further seems to invite historical and present comparisons, as well as asking for an assessment of the balance of harm and good resulting from religion. Here, we are going to need to agree that harm is the diminishment of the rights, property, or well-being of an individual or individuals (or please provide a better definition if you have one, and thank you) as well as agree on the good, which would be the positive enhancement of those qualities rather than the diminishment. (I am not trying to open a discussion on harm and good, but hope we have some common lexicon for this discussion, beginning with the question as stated.)
If I am mistaken in the tenor of the question, then please correct me. Otherwise, I am addressing the question as one which takes not only an historical view (the question seems to ask for a comparison between "These Days" and "Those Days") but also examines the present influence of organized religion on the actions and circumstances of humankind, of which I happen to be a member. If I were answering this question from my own perspective, I would rephrase the question to be: Is you religion doing more harm than good these days? But that is not the question, nor is it geographically or doctrine-bounded.
So, a tentative beginning on scoring the harm and good might be . . .
Religion presently doing harm:
Warfare in the name of a doctrine;
Diminishment of some of our human rights in the name of some doctrine;
Absconding with people's productivity under some banner of faith;
Indoctrination that can impede an individual's ability to reason;
Building tax-exempt empires to do more harm.
Religion presently doing good:
Feeding hungry people;
Sheltering and caring for those in need;
Initiatives for peace from some faiths;
Distributing necessities to those in need;
Indoctrination that can encourage a more self-compassionate and self-loving attitude;
Offering alternatives to more oppressive government taxation.
And those are just a few things. If we are going to look at the question as it stands, then are we not considering and weighing the harm and the good religion does for the individual as well as for society?
Or are we mostly concerned with the question as it relates to groups of people?
We were at a cemetery earlier today, honoring veterans and cleaning and decorating their final resting places. While there was sadness and pride, and some tears for those we knew, there was also joy for those who believe that their loved one is now in a better place. As we gathered for prayers, I looked up into one of the tall cottonwoods and noticed a nest with two great horned owl chicks and a parent perched on the branch next to the nest. When I mentioned the owls a bit later, one of the women said she was sure it was a sign from her son, who was an ornithologist and studied owls especially. It was not about religion for her, but about her personal, loving connection with her son. A priest tried to convince her it was a sign from G*d, and she firmly but politely told him that she didn't need G*d to get a message from her son. It isn't always about religion. Sometimes it is about Love. When Love gets separated from any religion, I think we see a lot more harm in the fallout.
I sometimes attend Quaker Meeting for Worship, because I like the absence of priests. But if you ask me about my religion, I'd probably just say I am spiritual, because I do not agree with all things Quaker. I grew up with a mixture of Native American spirituality, Jewish faith, a bit of Catholicism, and then decided to mediate on and follow Lao Tsu when I was 13, but I brought all the rest along with me, because pieces of many practices and writings gives me a discipline and a structure for asking questions of myself.
Frankly, I don't know of any organized religion I would join. But there are a number of practices I find beneficial, such as meditation, reading the Tao, reading the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, following the admonitions of Jesus, and periods of self-examination to steady myself in my spiritual balance.
If you ask me, individually, if religion does or would do me more harm than good, I could not answer: the synthesis of my studies and thinking seem to defy religion as we usually think of it. Yet I have a firm perception of a force, and energy which I call the Mind of G*d, and to which I attribute both the existence of my emotional and intellectual being, as well as the existence of the orderliness of all that is. I marvel at both my individual, interactive systems, as well as at the universal, interactive systems I am able to perceive. If you want to call it Faith, then my faith is based largely on my sense of awe at my own existence and on the elegance I see around me in nature.
enough of my nattering
feralfae
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 05:14pm PT
|
Thanks on a number of levels, feralfae. Cheers and Ciao, lynnie.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 05:29pm PT
|
Religion is a system with a few positive components, no doubt.
But taken as a whole it is pretty Luddesque** to think highly of it in this
day and age.
**charitable? maybe
It's too bad our species doesn't have the room any longer to further speciate, eh?
One can wonder how that could turn out.
Cheers and ciao.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 05:56pm PT
|
HFCS... How much room does it take to speciate...? You need a football field or somethin..?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 06:33pm PT
|
Here, we are going to need to agree that harm is the diminishment of the rights, property, or well-being of an individual or individuals (or please provide a better definition if you have one, and thank you) as well as agree on the good, which would be the positive enhancement of those qualities rather than the diminishment.
Personally I've never heard one pro lifer happy to be advocating for less rights. In actuality pro lifers seem to be advocating for more rights.., Rights for people who haven't even been seen yet. Yeah, the unborn, the gentle beings unlodged inside a woman's body. You all are discriminating because you haven't seen him/her yet. But let's be forthright, there is a him/her inthere and they deserve atleast the same rights as any illeagal immigrant. Don't they?
To rise below that argument.. Let's peer deeper into evolution. Has there ever been any other living organism to prejudicely cut the cord(in a manner of speaking) and decisively decide to not propagate? Doesn't it seem to go against the mettle of evolution? Same could be said for homosexualality. Sure, it happens in Nature once in awhile, but what positive notes might you expect from "Mother Evolution "?
Even, if not!
I'm one who supposes the environment is responsible for atleast 75% of change within the human organism.. Yep, we can change mountains to molehills with our minds!
I think basically that it's my ideal for us to live above the law by us drastically hammering each other with higher standards/ambitions.
Oh yeah: feralfae, that was a great post!
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 06:43pm PT
|
Well said, Jim Brennan.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 07:00pm PT
|
Yeah Jim, possibly maybe each and every religion is devised by a yearning? And they are all out there. Seems as if we go thru life, and presumably mature in maturity; and our yearnings change! I'm startin to think of it as a sequel..
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 07:51pm PT
|
Brennan... My mum is 94 , sassy , and has outlived most of her church buddies...My observations of someone being 94 is that breathing and eating become a priority and all other non-sense goes out the window...
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:14pm PT
|
Hi Lynnie, good to hear from you, hope you are having entirely too much fun. :)
Mr. Brennan, that is a beautiful story for this Memorial Day. Thank you. I think that especially as one prepares for the Next Big Adventure, one likes to know one is a part of a Fellowship. Tolkien seems to have mentioned that a time or two. It was one of Jesus' things. too. :)
Your Mother has found loving fellowship. So beautiful.
ff
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 08:55pm PT
|
Craig- ever wonder why a Dungeness crab claw is the perfect tool to extract meat from hard to reach areas? Is that just a fluke? Or was it "designed" that way? Certainly evolution would have nothing to do with it
I would say that evolution did have something to do with it.
|
|
Delhi Dog
climber
Good Question...
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 09:01pm PT
|
I thought whales (and anchors) had flukes.
But on a crab?
weird
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
Boulder climber
ne'er–do–well
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 10:46pm PT
|
Religion has been a crock of sh#t since Eden on.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 - 11:54pm PT
|
Fascinating how "anti-er's" get anchored in Genisis....
|
|
Delhi Dog
climber
Good Question...
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 02:10am PT
|
Has there ever been any other living organism to prejudicely cut the cord(in a manner of speaking) and decisively decide to not propagate?
Not to get too caught up in this discussion but regarding the above;
I can think of at least one example right off the top of my head..."in a manner of speaking" offspring of many living things are regularly killed by a parents in nature. I believe that IS part of the evolutionary process.
Not to defend nor attack pro-lifers nor religion, just a example.
And to respond to the homosexuality comment; One obvious stand out is that homosexuality does not "harm" others.
Why would anyone care who one loves.
It ain't my business, nor your business, nor religions business.
“This is my simple religion. No need for temples. No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind, your own heart is the temple. Your philosophy is simple kindness.” ― Dalai Lama
|
|
perswig
climber
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 03:12am PT
|
“This is my simple religion. No need for temples. No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind, your own heart is the temple. Your philosophy is simple kindness.” ― Dalai Lama
"Be graceful." - Jim Brennan
Same-same.
Dale
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 06:23am PT
|
"“This is my simple religion. No need for temples. No need for complicated philosophy. Your own mind, your own heart is the temple. Your philosophy is simple kindness.” ― Dalai Lama"
Spot on.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 06:32am PT
|
^^^The KISS formula for religion.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 06:45am PT
|
Heart. Mind. Grace. (Interesting choice of words among moderns.) “Formula” and KISS would seem to me to be more like it (useful heuristics).
Good to know HHDL is not involved in any religions. It’s all wonderfully simple and straightforward.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 12:31pm PT
|
Fascinating how "anti-er's" get anchored in Genisis....
We'll, it is the first book. And easiest to read. And one of the most classic tales of Science Fiction ever.
Jesus made a huge mistake attaching the Old Testament to his new religion. (unless it was someone else, not him) Probably done for marketing reasons. Funny thing is the Jews were the least likely to convert.
The Old Testament is the foundation for the Judeaism, a religious practice, with a bit of "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" so as to enforce it with fear.
Jesus was about justice and healing and compassion, good stuff like that.
If you really love Jesus, stick to the new Testament. And dump Revalations. Should have alternate title "Halucinations."
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 12:36pm PT
|
"Jesus made a huge mistake attaching the Old Testament to his new religion. (unless it was someone else, not him) Probably done for marketing reasons. Funny thing is the Jews were the least likely to convert. "
There is no written words by Jesus...his life and writings are based on hearsay.
|
|
tradmanclimbs
Ice climber
Pomfert VT
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 04:13pm PT
|
When churches run food banks and childrens hospitals they do a tremendous ammount of good. when they get involved in politics it almost always goes bad.....
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 04:37pm PT
|
I like the idea of "some degree of accuracy."
Translated into the beliefs and words of one supertopian, "Jesus filled my gas tank"! You know, more or less, he did. Other than being a crock of sh#t, it's got some degree of accuracy! I mean, a human believes it, so ...
You can see for yourself that some people are small and some people are larger, so it stands to reason, with some degree of accuracy, that in the continuum of human size, someone exists who's large enough to hold the earth up while standing on that turtle's back! No wait, this was supposed to be about my huuuuuge consciousness.
Heck this believing stuff is easy.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 04:50pm PT
|
You are insane .....
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 04:57pm PT
|
Oh yea??!! Well you. ... you! well you, you think like a human! No worries - a big part of thinking like a human is probably thinking that the way other humans think is insane, without noticing that we think the same insane way.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 05:28pm PT
|
"If it's that simple- then why have we not been able to produce a reliable way of detecting earthquakes? Are we not smarter than dogs?"
We have an earthquake warning system being developed on the west coast. Japan already has one.
It provides only a slight advance warning, so anyone who is to use it must connect their alarms to it directly. The advance time provided is proportional to how far you are from the epicenter (if there are enough sensors)
Trump is planning to cancel funding for the system.
It could be used
to pause critical surgeries
to pause crane operations
to slow train traffic
to stop traffic on vulnerable bridge entrances
to stop elevators even with floors
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-earthquake-early-warning-20170522-story.html
" The early warning system works on a simple principle: The shaking from an earthquake travels at about the speed of sound through rock — slower than the speed of today's communications systems. That means it would take more than a minute for, say, a magnitude 7.8 earthquake that starts at the Salton Sea to shake up Los Angeles, 150 miles away, traveling on the state’s longest fault, the San Andreas.
The prototype system has had some early successes. When a magnitude 6.0 earthquake hit Napa in 2014, the system gave researchers in San Francisco about eight seconds of warning before shaking began. Last year, 30 seconds of warning reached downtown L.A. before the ground shook from a magnitude 4.4 quake centered near Banning. "
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 - 10:03pm PT
|
You can see for yourself that some people are small and some people are larger, so it stands to reason, with some degree of accuracy, that in the continuum of human size, someone exists who's large enough to hold the earth up while standing on that turtle's back! No wait, this was supposed to be about my huuuuuge consciousness.
You should try reading the post I wrote, but then again you have to know how to read. You do have a huge consciousness, unfortunately you think it's worthless. Science sees human life as insignificant and finite and of course this diminishes any responsibility one might have to virtue. Good luck with that.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 04:55am PT
|
Ethics don't require religion.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 06:26am PT
|
^
Well said, Mr. Force.
Morality, with its religious overtones, is not ethics, which are founded in logic. The two can certainly overlap. For instance, we don't murder people who make us angry because as humans we do not go around murdering people who disagree with us, (even if it might make life a lot easier :) ) WhIle morality and virtue often appeal to religion or emotions to justify their precepts, ethics, when practiced rationally, will appeal to logic to justify its precepts.
I'm working on a paper right now about the disparities between morality and ethics. Ethics, I have found, are of logical universal application to human action. Morality, I have found, is a regional/religious/cultural manifestation of human action.
thank you
ff
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 06:31am PT
|
we don't murder people who make us angry because as humans we do not go around murdering people who disagree with us
You Americans have been doing this very exact thing all over the world and still doing it.
Assassinating, killing civilians, along with all your stoopid violence against each other.
America is the most violent country on the planet against all living entities.
Soooo, you are full of sh!t .......
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 06:32am PT
|
Bullsh#t. Science is trying to understand and preserve all life on this planet.
Are you really that naive? Science, I repeat "science" and science alone has provided the means necessary for the destruction of this planet. Save it, Ha! Talk about bullsh#t. Go tell it to your local nuke factory.
Ethics don't require religion.
Perhaps not but it requires a belief in the meaningful nature of human life, it requires an understanding that our lives and mind, our ability to know and understand are important and we're not just insignificant life forms on a dust speck in a nearly infinite universe.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 06:45am PT
|
"Are you really that naive? Science, I repeat "science" and science alone has provided the means necessary for the destruction of this planet. Save it, Ha! Talk about bullsh#t. Go tell it to your local nuke factory."
Bullshit again, humans and humans alone made nuclear plants/weapons.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 07:07am PT
|
Bullshit again, humans and humans alone made nuclear plants/weapons.
Okay, then I guess science and religion have something in common don't they: human manipulation can do bad or good. I sure wouldn't get rid of science simply because of its negative manifestations and I can say the same for religion. As in science the good religion does far out weighs the negatives it's sometimes inclined toward.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 07:17am PT
|
Bob: Science is trying to understand and preserve all life on this planet.
Science is not supposed to be honoring or promoting any values other than its own, and those concern rigor and validity. That’s supposedly what makes it objective. Values may possibly fall out of research (e.g., forced variety to assist evolution), but I think all academics that I've worked with would be highly skeptical.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 07:19am PT
|
Perhaps not but it requires a belief in the meaningful nature of human life, it requires an understanding that our lives and mind, our ability to know and understand are important and we're not just insignificant life forms on a dust speck in a nearly infinite universe.
True. Ethics requires that we view other humans as having the same rights as we have. It requires the ability to perform critical thinking. And ethically, I think we are bound to share insights we have gained with others, preferably through successfully modeling our ethics.
No Werner, I am not full of excrement. Werner, our government makes war. If you know of more things I can do to stop such activity, I'd be happy to hear about those actions.
Ethically, I would not go to war or kill anyone. Wars are about murdering people. People who go to war have various motivations, but as an individual, there is no way I could justify going to war, even if it meant prison. I would not serve as an ambulance driver or as a medic, either. I have yet to find a way to stop this government from waging war and murdering people. I can speak against war, which I do. I can refuse to support wars, which I do. My personal ethical compass does not allow me to support war in any way. I am all for self-defense as an individual, but entirely against warfare, weapons of mass destruction, and blind obedience to politicians and tyrants.
How would you stop the government of this nation from going about its usual occupation, which is warfare both abroad and against us right here at home? If you have some helpful thoughts on this, I would certainly like to hear them. Read them. Thank you.
ff
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 07:24am PT
|
Science and religion are both going to be around much longer than anyone posting here. Science is is inextricably woven into our lives and, to an extent, so is religion.
I have come to a personal conclusion that all religions are human constructs and that there is no divine revelation. I have tried, as much as possible, to exclude religion from my life. The fact remains that many decisions made by others that effect my life are decisions made with a strong religious bias. So, try as I might to exclude it, I still find that religious belief effects the way I live my life.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 07:26am PT
|
I am not religious. At all.
But I just don't see any right at all, natural or otherwise, that empowers me to abolish religion and tell half the world population its my way or the highway.
There it is. Reason, reasonableness a remarkable human quality.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 07:30am PT
|
How would you stop the government of this nation from going about its usual occupation, which is warfare both abroad and against us right here at home?
Stop the mechanistic industrialized animal slaughterhouses which breed 90% of the violence against all living entities.
The real reason Buddha came was to stop all unnecessary the violence against all living beings.
Modern slaughterhouses karmic reactions by material nature create violence.
Stoopid Americans are clueless to this very simple basic understanding how all that violence creates a negative destructive consciousness ........
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 07:43am PT
|
Thank you Werner. It does come down to overpopulation, greed, and the initiation of force. Yes, we definitely need to reverse population growth, end factory farming (humans and their livestock account for a very large percentage of the biomass of Earth these days, while natural systems are polluted, exterminated, and paved).
I do not know how to end factory farming and processing. I am fortunate to be able to hunt and fish, have a garden and fruit trees, and to know how to forage. I heat with wood and live most simply. Most people are not so fortunate. Nor do they know how to make better choices.
How would you stop factory farming of animals and of the land?
ff
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 07:48am PT
|
Science is not supposed to be honoring or promoting any values other than its own, and those concern rigor and validity. That’s supposedly what makes it objective.
Well put, MikeL.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 07:50am PT
|
How would you stop factory farming of animals and of the land?
Can't stop it in this day and age yet.
Too much materialistic brainwashed people.
Material nature will ultimately force them to stop it by Karmic reactions.
It will be a very very long time coming, thousands of years.
It will get very very bad.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 08:15am PT
|
Admittedly we are a very young species, but Werner, do you not think there is hope of living according tour ethics, and therefore being examples -- models -- of more rational ways to live? Materialism is a driving force of this nation's dominant culture, but not of all cultures.
It might get very, very bad, but we are thinking, conscious humans. Is it within our ability to shift the paradigm? :) No future is set in stone: we have options. How do you see us exercising those options that are more rational?
And more essentially, how do you see us, as humans, choosing those options when even as we write, the other discussion here is about science and its pros and cons. We have choices, but I find many people do not want to live simply. And those peoples who do choose to live simply are often invaded by corporate interests who want the resources on that piece of geography.
We embrace and utilize materialism for many creature comforts and conveniences, but in some instances we know better. Why do we not, therefore, act better?
I must get to work.
ff
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 08:27am PT
|
No future is set in stone
You will get kicked out of your material body when your number of breaths (prana) is used up.
Soo .... it is set in stone you WILL get kicked out.
The gross materialists call this death and final due to their ultimate poor fund of knowledge.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 08:29am PT
|
Ah Werner.....my material body rotting away will signal the end.....alas, there is no more.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 08:31am PT
|
Jim Donini Will return in his next life and be a climber again.
It's guaranteed, for someone who's consciousness is so deeply trenched ...
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 08:48am PT
|
But Werner, that is just a loss of this body, like shedding an old coat that no longer serves its purpose. It does not mean that I end, nor that my consciousness ends. It merely means that this body I occupy will be ferret food. Or wolf or eagle food, if I have my way and am able to sit somewhere, sing my last song, and leave my body to return to the Earth. But this is not me, it is just a body.
So, I suppose that things set in stone have to do with stones, but things set in spirit, or consciousness, may have a longer time of existence. I do not know. I know I am more than this body. Although I do like this body very much, and it has taken me on wonderful adventures.
Someone reminded me that I not only heat with wood, but mostly, I heat with sun. My home is mostly solar heated, actually. Just to clarify.
Yes, some signs are set in stone, I suppose, because someday our sun will expand, consume its planets, and poof! it will be over for this little solar system. By then, maybe humans will be elsewhere. I don't know. I am only an egg. :)
Thank you,
ff
ps... I could see Donini coming back as an eagle, soaring over the peaks and seeing all that eagles can see. Transcending climbing. Or maybe a pilot of Montgolfier vintage. AFAIK, there are no rules about moving back and forth in time. You, with your rescue capabilities, might be a Saint Bernard, or the chap who slides down lines to rescue stranded dolphins or something. I am only being slightly silly here. I do not know. I must go get muddy now, as much as I am enjoying this exchange.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 08:57am PT
|
It does not mean that I end, nor that my consciousness ends.
That's what I said.
Also ....
Donini will be a climber.
His whole consciousness is trenched in it ......
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 31, 2017 - 09:46am PT
|
Another horrible mass killing, this one in Kabul, Afghanistan, likely performed under the guise of religion, but more likely performed by the misguided religious fanatic acting under the auspice of some one or some group who would mock any god their followers believe in.
Conversely, we here at home have the lovely Jeremy Christian, from Portland, so bent out of shape with his own fanatical views on religion that murder is an acceptable behavior.
When religion is used as a shiny object to divert one's attention from true good, it is evil.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 10:07am PT
|
Another horrible mass killing,
By the religion of gross materialism .......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 11:57am PT
|
"Another horrible mass killing, this one in Kabul, Afghanistan, likely performed under the guise of religion, but more likely performed by the misguided religious fanatic acting under the auspice of some one or some group who would mock any god their followers believe in."
As Yuval Harari points out (Sapiens, Homo Deus), we all have narratives or fictions ("stories we believe in") running in our heads as software driving/motivating our conduct.
Now if you happen to think iron-age "religion" - in particular its iron-age elements - ("God wants this" "God hates that") don't play a proactive role in this motivation among umpteen millions - not just in the U.S. but around the world (eg, Middle East)- you are misguided, imo, and maybe even, in some way or other, (a) serving to provide cover for this archaica, inhibiting its elimination, encouraging its continuance, (b) serving to thwart incentive to update/upgrade or reinterpret - which many an Abrahamic narrative adherent obviously and seriously needs to do.
https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496257099&sr=8-1&keywords=yuval+harari
If only early and medieval "religion" had had some sort of "error correcting" mechanism, or adaptation mechanism, or upgrading mechanism built in to its institution in a much more proactive way, somehow or another, then perhaps today our world's Abrahamic religions in particular would exist in much better form and higher regards.
For too many, myself included, the word "religion" will always stand for belief in the supernatural or belief in an intervening personal deity. It will always stand for something more than (a) a system that articulates "what matters" in addition to "what is" (the purview of science) or else (b) a system that articulates how we should live our lives in terms of prescription (dos and don'ts). Therefore for these people (like myself) it will remain a problematic word.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 12:03pm PT
|
Yuval Harari perfect for a guy like you who continually presents so many mental speculations and opinions masqueraded as facts ......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 12:04pm PT
|
Yeah, I'm sure you've read him. /s
You know, others here may tolerate you or placate you but I think as a poster you're a disgrace.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 12:06pm PT
|
He's easy to figure out .. just like you .....
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 12:49pm PT
|
DMT: . . . would we accept a scientific reasoning to cull our herd?
You go first, ok?
(Eugenics can be a “reasonable” social agenda—but next we’ll have to be talking about what’s reasonable and how to assess and compare reasons.)
Duck: . . . perfect for a guy . . . who continually presents so many mental speculations and opinions masqueraded as facts ......
Yes. It’s very very difficult to see without speculation, interpretation, opinion, without choosing. It’s so very difficult that one cannot do it.
Quack quack.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 01:27pm PT
|
Yes. It’s very very difficult to see without speculation, interpretation, opinion, without choosing. It’s so very difficult that one cannot do it.
Quack quack.
Its the masquerading as fact that is the problem.
|
|
TYeary
Social climber
State of decay
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 02:22pm PT
|
Religion makes it possible for millions to believe in what only a madman could believe on his own.
Paraphrasing Sam Harris:
TY
|
|
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab, A sailboat, or some time zone
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 02:37pm PT
|
I have found my religion!
It's Terrie's BEAUTIFUL wire wrapped necklaces. I'm becoming a collector. Can't stop .... I LOVE THEM
Susan
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 02:40pm PT
|
Religion makes it possible for millions to believe in what only a madman could believe on his own.
Paraphrasing Sam Harris:
Religion has made it possible since the Paleolithic period for humanity to reconcile itself to the riddle and terror it is born into. In that sense it has served an important purpose. As well, religion is a reflection of psychological elements so deeply imbedded in the human psyche as to be called archetypes by some. Celebration and exposition of these archetypes is a release from the strain of an other wise debilitating energy and anxiety from which all eventually suffer: the loss of a loved one, tragedy of one kind or another, poor health and eventually that "distinguished thing."
Knock it till you need it.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 05:16pm PT
|
'Covfefe' What an amateur!
Islandunism and Felinedificatonia
Processes whereby a person's belief system and religious institutions have been subject to constant revision and/or dramatic upheaval or scandal, leaving the person with a sense of abandonment, betrayal, resentment, and sometimes guilt. The process often leaves a person feeling isolated and suspicious of other's motives, with no avenues of emotional support.
Many find themselves at an impasse whereby their religious views and belief systems are cast aside. Some find solace in other religions, or possibly join cults. Others simply abandon their belief in religion, spiritual ideas, and/or god altogether. Of the latter, some go into a self imposed emotional isolation in an effort to insulate their emotions from future betrayal by other human beings. Of this group, a percentage has been known to possess up to forty or more cats.
My take away after having my religion and family dynamic ripped away during childhood was that I was left with a feeling of enormous guilt coupled with inescapable thoughts of impending doom. My reaction was to curse god, denounce him, and to commence upon a fruitless search for a meaning to life outside my own nuclear family. The end result was that after 40 years in an existentialist desert, I was able to find solace in the simple realization that whatever I thought I was looking for, the key to my peace of mind had been with me all along; a love of art, science, history, literature, and an infatuation with the natural world.
God and/or an explanation of it was no longer interesting to me and a belief in things spiritual was no longer necessary to me.
PS
Among my peers this view has opened me up to some criticism, for which (because I still process some traces of lingering guilt) I am sometimes penitent of. But then I am compelled once more by a sense of willful rebellion to get right back to asserting my uninhibited thoughts on the matter.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 05:24pm PT
|
"Religion has made it possible since the Paleolithic period for humanity to reconcile itself to the riddle and terror it is born into. In that sense it has served an important purpose. As well, religion is a reflection of psychological elements so deeply imbedded in the human psyche as to be called archetypes by some."
Yes,yes, and now it is time we moved on. Sheesh.
Knock it till you need it.
Really, you think the majority of us are that weak willed, do you? Sheesh.
Jordan Peterson: "Stand up straight. Have the guts to look at life for exactly what it is. Speak the truth. Take responsibility."
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 06:37pm PT
|
]
Really, you think the majority of us are that weak willed, do you? Sheesh.
I think you have a will of steel and for you faith is stupidity, if not just silly. The problem is that, unlike yourself, not everyone is an uberman who's risen above the petty weakness of the masses. Some see the grave and constant slings and arrows of existence as overwhelming without the anodyne nature of their faith. For them religion is vital and necessary. And this may be true for those self sure souls such as yourself in some future situation where the confrontation with mortality cancels the will.
Few atheists in the fox hole. (Sheesh).
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 06:45pm PT
|
Paul, it's the way you phrase things, often in hyperbole, inaccurately or out of context. I guess I just don't appreciate it the way, say Dingus, does. And yet often I agree with much that you post, so it is rather funny strange.
for you faith is stupidity...
Which type of "faith"? This has been gone over many times already. I employ evidence-based "faith," iow evidence-based trust, on a regular basis in my life.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FQUA9Rh2MCY&feature=youtu.be
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 06:49pm PT
|
Paul, it's the way you phrase things, often in hyperbole, inaccurately or out of context
If you'd had a solid liberal arts education you'd realize I've never used hyperbole and I've never been inaccurate and I always place things in context.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 07:33pm PT
|
That post made no sense.
That's because you're Kanadian.
You're way too far north, to understand.
It's cold up there and sh!t freezes.
Including senses ....... :-)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 08:18pm PT
|
Spirituality starts where doctrine and beliefs leave off. It starts where Bushman found himself. Adrift. Then what? That's the adventure.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 08:41pm PT
|
Yeah ....
Every boat has a rudder and an anchor.
Except for the most modern ones.
They drift aimlessly masquerading as adventure ........
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 09:13pm PT
|
Bushman: God and/or an explanation of it was no longer interesting to me and a belief in things spiritual was no longer necessary to me.
Er, . . . gosh, but you do have explanations. Just not the one (anymore) that you came to dislike.
In some ways, you've supported Paul’s point. However it leaves you both with interpretations, and that is what the writings and readings might expose for thought. I might be bold here, but Paul’s point might be that human beings grasp for interpretations as reference points in an infinite field of emptiness (no final substances) and hence endless possibilities.
What Largo said afterwards is that an adventure starts when one leaves interpretations behind. (It’s what I would say.)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
May 31, 2017 - 10:15pm PT
|
Problem is that with explanations, you're always switching out one for another that is more better, hoping to find the final right one. But what, exactly, are they referring to?
What persists?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Largo: . . . more better . . . .
John? Did you write that?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Mike. I did. For fun.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
^^^next time I'm asked to recommend a name for a new element I'll recommend it, but don't get your hopes up... (I've been asked in the past, by the way).
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
Is Religion Doing More Harm Than Good These Days?
Only when your religion is not "dialed in."
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Susan: I have found my religion!
It's Terrie's BEAUTIFUL wire wrapped necklaces. I'm becoming a collector. Can't stop .... I LOVE THEM
Okay, Susan, that was funny! :)
And of course we each our own individual lares and penates of the hearth. Some seem to be a part of our birthright: we like pretty things around us. :)
Just smiling, thank you.
ff
|
|
Reeotch
climber
4 Corners Area
|
|
Religions discourage free thinking. They all claim to have answers to unanswerable questions. We don't accept these answers because they make any kind of sense. Then, why do we accept such fantastic explanations.
Occasionally, some religion or other will actually change their tenants in response to public sentiment (as in the case of the Mormons abandoning polygamy), or under the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence (as in the Catholic church's acceptance of the theory of evolution). These changes seem dubious.
Religions have done more to hold humanity back than to push it forward. The Renaissance did not come about because of a more strict adherence to religious dogma.
I would argue that religions actually prevent us from reaching a state of maturity both as individuals and as a species. Humans don't like uncertainty. Religions provide that certainty that we crave - they provide a parental protection from the uncertainties of life and death. I'm saying this need for certainty is childish and immature. Mature adults (and societies) can deal with uncertainty, they don't need absolute answers to everything. They are still able to think and to learn. They don't need to accept ideas that are not provable. They have learned that it is ok to say, "I don't know".
I believe that truly mature enlightened people (even the few religious ones) got that way by going beyond their religion. They had to take a personal journey to a place where religion does not exist. If this is what is meant by developing a personal relationship with God, then I support this concept. Eliminate the middle man (religion is the middle man).
Finally, I think it is important to distinguish between religion and spirituality. A rejection of religion is by no means a rejection of God or spiritual matters. Like what largo said:
//"Spirituality starts where doctrine and beliefs leave off."
//
|
|
Nuglet
Trad climber
Orange Murica!
|
|
Trump is the Messiah!!!
fvck this planet!
Follow Him to his New Orange Planet for True Believers!!!
|
|
Reeotch
climber
4 Corners Area
|
|
Wrong thread, nuglet . . .
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
"Spirituality starts where doctrine and beliefs leave off. It starts where Bushman found himself. Adrift. Then what? That's the adventure."
True science starts where doctrine and beliefs leave off.
:-)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Americans worship the dollar.
All their wars are now because of their dollar religion.
Worthless paper backed by hot air .......
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
America is Putin bitch.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Bob: True science starts where doctrine and beliefs leave off.
Then it's nowhere, Bob.
Science is full of doctrines and beliefs. That's what supposedly makes it so great. Those beliefs purportedly light up the world for folks to see, and science couldn't be anywhere at all without doctrines. Doctrines are the residual precipitate of experimental studies, thinking, and investigations. It's the knowledge science claims to have discovered. Were it not for doctrines, scholars could not stand on the shoulders of giants who have gone before them. That means that everyone in a field would have to start from scratch each and every time.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
"Then it's nowhere, Bob. "
Wrong, it everywhere.
"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."
Albert Einstein.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
MikeL
Doctrine..."a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government:
Belief..."an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists."
Sorry my post didn't make sense to you.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Bob:
Are you saying that science has no beliefs or doctrines?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Are you saying that science has no beliefs or doctrines?
science has no unquestionable beliefs or doctrines
|
|
Reeotch
climber
4 Corners Area
|
|
^^^^ Well, it's not supposed to, anyway . . .
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
MikeL wrote: Bob:
Are you saying that science has no beliefs or doctrines?
Methods and data, thats what science is.
"Every major religion today is a winner in the Darwinian struggle waged among cultures, and none ever flourished by tolerating its rivals. E. O. Wilson
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
How about answering the question, Bob?
(Thanks, Ed.)
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
I did.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
I don't think you did. How about a yes or no?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Is it wrong to ask for a straight answer? I'm not asking Ed. Ed isn't making these comments here.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
I will post it again..."Methods and data, thats what science is."
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
I get it. No straight answer.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
MikeL, that is really about as much as you will get from me. This discussion is really not that important to me and it is just a way to whittle a little time away while working on one of my rock climbing guide.
Have a great day.
Bob
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Right, Bob. I'm sure that's a better thing for you to do.
Be well.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
Attend our Instant Cash Flow Faith Conference; Unquestioned Devotion and How to Bilk Your Followers for Life
This $3500 cash up front low cost seminar will teach you;
1. How to Manufacture Your Own Religion while Working from Your Home
2. Making a Profit off a Co-Opted God;
Developing and Fine Tuning a Cult for Maximum Profits
3. Building a Better Devotee Trap; the Secret to Cultivating Blind Loyalty
4. Guilting Your Followers into Servitude and Other Forms of Manipulation
5. Culling the Hotties from the Congregation for Your Personal Harem
6. (Bonus presentation)!
Special Guest Speaker Russian Cult Leader and Founder, Sergey Anatolyevitch Torop, gives tribute to the Reverend Jim Jones; "A Martyrdom gone Unrecognized".
Call 1-800-24S-ATAN to make your reservations today!
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
I will post it again..."Methods and data, thats what science is."
Bob, no imagination, no speculation, no insight, no conceptualization, . . . ? Just methods and data?
C'mon now, you're a smart guy! Sycorax we can understand. She is bogged down in the quicksand of literature and only glimpses occasionally the larger world of ideas.
;>)
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Jgill wrote: Bob, no imagination, no speculation, no insight, no conceptualization, . . . ? Just methods and data?
Wouldn't all of the above fit under methods? :-)
Hope you are well John? Laurel says hi.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had a world where everybody said, "We don't know"?
Sure ... let the whole world drive right through a stop sign and kill everyone in the cross traffic.
Then when they're asked why didn't you stop at the stop sign?
"We don't know"
The religion of stoopid people .....
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
So, in simple terms, we have the "fanatics", the "We don't knows" and the "old contrary as#@&%e"?
Got it!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Duck: The religion of stoopid people .....
You should put me in that group. I’m only sure of one thing. The rest . . . not only do I not know, I don’t care much that I don’t know. Keeps things really interesting. Everything tends to look fresh to me.
Be well.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Amazing to be Werner who knows all or at least he thinks so.
That what religion does to you. :-)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Amazing to be Werner who knows all or at least he thinks so.
That what religion does to you. :-)
That's funny, I thought that's what science did to you.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
No, science is based on falsification, not on continuous hermetical confirmation of what you already believe you know...
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Paul wrote: That's funny, I thought that's what science did to you.
As I said before, science searches for answer, religion thinks it has them all. All science has done for me is show me how little I do know.
Good try Paul.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. James 1:6
Pretty simple, but if you think about it, it covers a lot of territory.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
Justice, not religion is the foundation of our society and Justice is not based on an ancient and unyielding narrative created by man.
Justice is base upon the reflection of our deeds and man's ability to have empathy and regret.
Spiritual belief's unguided by archaic dogma only help in the pursuit of Justice.
I wouldn't say that about pure science.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
How so? Are you a proponent of pure science?
Would you start culling the weak and afflicted among us for the betterment of mankind?
Shall we start embryo screening? Why not?
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
That's wonderful! I wouldn't think anyone would argue about the critical roll science has played in the advancement of our society.
Now please go back and read my post. It related to the guiding principles of Justice.
A quick summation would read-
In regards to Justice:
Dogmatic religion- bad
Pure science- bad
Example- 77% of people released from prison go on to commit a new crime within five years, yet society bets on those 23% making good.
For a second, do you think our laws are based solely on statistical analysis?
If you were a quadriplegic should my tax dollars go to help support you? Base on pure science I could certainly win an argument that resources could be put to better use.
Embedded in our laws is an irrational belief system that ignores pure science.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
Word of the day - Ethics
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
^^^^^^^
Whose?
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
What's in your wallet?
Oops...
What's in your ethic?
I find the idea that religion is required for ethics and morality silly.
Borgia?
Even the Dalai Lama's over it.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Then why do you keep practicing your own version of religion .......
The hypocrisy is deafening.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
Set up like a bowling pin... Getting knocked down by Braun gets to wearin thin..
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
I don't think anyone wants to get rid of all Religions,
well maybe some do
what we really want to do is criticize what we don't like about them, and hopefully wake some people out of their dependence on them
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
sycorax
Boulder climber
Yoknapatawpha County
Jun 9, 2017 - 08:27am PT
All narratives do not yeild over time.
what is yeild?
good to know that others "typo" too.
maybe wonder how our "vision" of a word makes it to the screen through the keyboard via the hands, and what a fraught path it be
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
Then why do you keep practicing your own version of religion .......
The hypocrisy is deafening.
Werner, I like you, but that makes no f*#king sense.
You do know that you're practicing your own version of religion...
...right?
Do you know what the definition of hypocrisy.
Hint: That my picture is by it in the dictionary doesn't count.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
Ref. the heading...
Yes, what will happen to Havana?
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
Hilarious, Marlow! I hope something interesting can be said for me as well.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
The first scientist to ever win a Nobel Prize in literature (since it wasn't Carl Sagan) should be this guy...
https://tinyurl.com/y8vkefu9
“In this golden age of enlightened science writing, it is stunning that no scientist has won the Nobel Prize for Literature. It is time literature’s highest award be granted to a scientist whose writings have changed not just science but society. No living scientist is more deserving of such recognition than Richard Dawkins, whose every book reflects his literary genius and scientific substance. Science in the Soul is the perfect embodiment of Nobel–quality literature.” - Michael Shermer
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
^^^
Is that New?
I need to read it.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
If you were a quadriplegic should my tax dollars go to help support you? Base on pure science I could certainly win an argument that resources could be put to better use.
Maybe I'm unclear what you mean by "pure science" but I don't see that that follows at all.
Given our society's incredible wealth and technology, I don't see why science is opposed to spending money on health care.
A belief in Science doesn't mean that you believe that everything possible should be done to maximize the economy damn the consequences for any given individual.
Society has to make trade-offs and choices. Some of these Science might have something to offer the discussion, just how much money does it cost to support a quadriplegic at some given standard of care?. But just because Science doesn't give a definite answer doesn't make it reasonable to assume that there is some supernatural being that has told society how they should go about making choices.
You can have a philosophy that is based neither on "God" nor "Science". Secular Humanism would be an example.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
All narratives yield over time. Justice is an ancient narrative, to hold otherwise seems ludicrous. And its not that malleable either, as we see in the daily drama of the politics and courts of our time.
But here's the problem: though local inflections change whether in myth or literature the sources for those narratives, that is the psychological compulsions based on human physical experiences: birth, adolescence, arrival at adulthood, love, sex, marriage, childbirth, decline and then death, these are unchanging as part of the human condition and are manifested in a variety of mythological or literary ways that allow or become coping mechanisms. Stories may change but the compelling drive to those stories doesn't and as a result the old stories still resonate if read in an enlightened manner, including the story of Genesis in the bible which in its own way is a work of literary genius addressing how something can possibly come from nothing. To dismiss Genesis as not scientifically accurate and therefore worthless is like dismissing Hamlet because it's a fictional work, when, in fact, it is not fictional at all, but completely realistic in regard to addressing the human condition.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
DM- Justice is an ancient narrative, to hold otherwise seems ludicrous
The Greeks had, then lost it
The Romans had, then lost it.
Justice ascends a single helix, corkscrewing upward with shifts to the left and right and periods of transition or moderation in between. Each shift generally results in the abolishment of failed ideas and the entrenchment of successful ideas. The left and right both contribute successful and failed ideas, thus maintaining the axis or balancing point.
In a successful Society it's critical to have opposition.
A constant state of moderation would eliminate the experimentation of good ideas and the opposition to bad ideas. Social evolution would be non existent.
To have separation of church and state allows religion to be a force in the process and not a nullifier.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
curious, Paul
how then is Genesis scientifically accurate?
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Marriage is a physical aspect of humans life that is unchanging as part of the human condition (like death, decline, etc.)? With US divorce rates at 40% and 30% of Americans choosing not to marry at all? Seems to me to be in kind of a different realm than say death, which, I agree, is a physical aspect of our unchanging human condition for 100% of humans.
But do we get stuck on a belief that marriage is an unchanging physical component of our unchanging human nature in the same way that our supertopian friend got stuck believing that Jesus physically filled his gas tank?
I get that humans learn to believe stuff, but what many humans are mostly interested in understanding is what is actually true.
And sure, I also get that what everyone believes is that whatever silliness they happen to believe is what is actually true. And for most people that's probably good enough.
I didn't fill my gas tank, so Jesus must have filled it!
You never married? What's wrong with you?! Why don't you obey your unchanging human nature and get married and be a human the right way? You know, like me.
And while you're at it choose the right religion for a human like us with our unchanging human nature to believe - Christianity! Our physical reality is that there's a heavenly gas station on every corner.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
" To dismiss Genesis as not scientifically accurate and therefore worthless is like dismissing Hamlet because it's a fictional work, when, in fact, it is not fictional at all, but completely realistic in regard to addressing the human condition."
Smoke and mirrors.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
how then is Genesis scientifically accurate?
I didn't say it was, in fact, that was my point.
But consider this: how does the universe come in to being for humanity if not for consciousness. For the universe to be known as an epistemological experience consciousness is requisite: what is the universe without human consciousness? It may be, but it is not known. In Genesis the author submits that the word, a direct manifestation of conscious mind, is the source of creation: "Let there be..." I think that's a brilliant realization that the "known" universe, that is, what we know or realize is, first of all, a function/creation of mind.
Smoke and mirrors.
I love the typical "science" retort to any idea not agreed with: "your wrong." Brilliant!
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Paul
does consciousness exist without a brain?
Can you site examples
what does this non-biological consciousness do?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
does consciousness exist without a brain?
Can you site examples
what does this non-biological consciousness do?
I don't know. I certainly don't have any examples. However, I can say with certainty that the potential for consciousness existed before there was a brain, because it's here.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
"does consciousness exist without a brain?"
No...plain and simple.
" I can say with certainty that the potential for consciousness existed before there was a brain, because it's here."
Prove it.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Prove it.
Really?
How could it not have been potentially available if you have it? How can you be a conscious being if consciousness wasn't a possibility in this universe. If it were impossible you wouldn't be writing on this thread.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
consciousness existed before there was a brain, because it's here. Here?
It seems to be restricted to biological brains, does it not?
and there is no evidence of it existing before brains
the slow evolution of the brain explains consciousness,
are you saying that it existed before and was somehow transferred to biological brains?
Why? How? When?
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
August West, good points.
Pure science can just exist benignly and be observed, without question.
I guess I should have made more clear- pure science as it relates to application. No hope, no soul, no human emotions, just logic and algorithms similar to AI.
My broader point was that dogmatic religion is much worse in my view.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Here?
It seems to be restricted to biological brains, does it not?
So what? Ask yourself how is it that there is such a thing as consciousness in this universe? How is it that the physical laws and material of the universe lend themselves to conscious mind. It's staggering when you think about it, just the fact that you can know, that you are aware and that this universe was given to that happening.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Ask yourself how is it that there is such a thing as consciousness in this universe?
There is absolutely no Consciousness in this Universe other than biological Consciousness.
Why should there be?
What is the evidence that there is?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
There is absolutely no Consciousness in this Universe other than biological Consciousness.
Why should there be?
Again, that's irrelevant. And your statement is a statement of faith based on a rather finite set of experiences as the entire universe is far beyond your experience.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
So you just speculate that there is, and have faith in your belief without any evidence what so ever
believe me
If there was any evidence, I would be so excited about it, and have many more questions....
Why should it be hidden? if it exists at all, we should be able to do all the investigations we want
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
So you just speculate that there is, and have faith in your belief without any evidence what so ever
No, I don't speculate in either direction. I simply realize there's a lot that we simply don't know. I'm not willing to discount what I can't know. Your certainty with regard to consciousness is the only faith I see here.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
You said above there was consciousness without a brain
so it isn't you can go either direction, you have made your decision
all based on speculation, correct?
If something is possible but has no evidence, you have to accept it without question
Because as you say, "no one can know"
I did the reread, I have no corrections to put forward
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
You said above there was,
I did not. You need to reread what I said. You might find it interesting.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
God has the supreme brain.
Infinitely greater than any Fry brain.
Thus consciousness originated before the creation of all material manifestations .....
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
I did the reread, I have no corrections to put forward
Really? Is that how science operates? A bit disingenuous don't you think?
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
God has the supreme brain.
Infinitely greater than any Fry brain.
Thus consciousness originated before the creation of all material manifestations .....
Because you say so?
I say Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a true travelogue.
Craig Fry, Do enough psilocybin and you will experience the consciousness in all things...I think so, anyway that's what did it for me. Take enough and it will be lasting or, wait, maybe that was just a psychotic break! ;-)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
consciousness existed before there was a brain, because it's here.
Here? It seems to be restricted to biological brains, does it not?
and there is no evidence of it existing before brains
the slow evolution of the brain explains consciousness,
are you saying that it existed before and was somehow transferred to biological brains?
Why? How? When?
Here you quoted only part of what I said. The actual sentence was "the potential for consciousness existed before there was a brain."
Science needs to do a better job than that.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Mark
I experienced what you talk about in many different ways, I've had many experiences that were very spiritual, as in "all" of what you are talking about
I was a big Religious/Eastern Philosophy person for 20 years
but after 40 years of spiritual searching, this is where I am now
the farther you go down the road of spiritual searching, and delve into personal honesty and truth, the more likely you become an atheist
I guess you suckers will have to change your posts now after my edit
talk about reactionaryism, you guys go off with the slightest word tangle
so far, you got nothing
and embarrassing yourselves with your over the top reactions
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Fry --- "I experienced it all"
No sane person would ever say this ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
rbord: Marriage is a physical aspect of humans life . . . .
I don’t think it is. What happens physically? I should hope marriage is a social and psychological event.
Contractor: My broader point was that dogmatic religion is much worse in my view.
I’d say dogmatic anything indicates a closed mind. I don’t think anyone has to restrict it to religion. I’d say there are a grand number of things that people believe without a question of a doubt that they don’t know because they’ve not read the research, they’ve not had the experience, they’ve never looked for themselves. Just about every “thing” is a belief.
Craig: I experienced it all
All? You must be God.
You are so over the top. It’s difficult to find anything that you write that one can take seriously. You seem to be in a constant rant.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
anyone have any evidence of non-biological consciousness?
No
so these reactions are all about trying to attack me because you have no acceptable response for providing evidence on your claims that I am wrong
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Fry --- "anyone have any evidence of non-biological consciousness?"
Then he answers the question to everyone as "NO".
Again, no sane person does this .......
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
Well than, please answer the question
Can you prove me wrong that there is no evidence?
all I need is evidence, then I'm completely with you guys
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
You're insane.
No one can talk to you ......
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
^^^
You're insane.
No one can talk to you ......
and no evidence?
all speculation based on hope and faith that some God exists
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
Craig, Are you an atheist or an agnostic?
In practice, I'm a science-loving research wonk and metrics freak measuring and remeasuring stuff to understand what's happening as a doc and still believe there's a "ghost in the machine" that leaves room for vitalism.
I get your frustration with the spiritual materialism game. None of it means sh#t until the "rubber meets the road" and your religion/spirituality/philosophy/ethic leads you to make a difference that matters to someone else.
But, that's just my "matrix."
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
After many years of spiritual searching and research
I became an atheist
not an agnostic
BUT
as all of us atheists agree upon, we look for evidence to prove us wrong
this hasn't happened yet, so we will have to maintain our position until it happens
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
Craig Fry, I feel sorry for you you. Seek and you will find, knock and the door will open. Guaranteed. You've never really looked.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
I feel sorry for all the people that have beliefs in something that doesn't exist
I knocked years ago, I found what was on the other side of the door,
nothing
So many ancient religions that no one believes in, so why don't you accept them, apparently most of these people only believe in one belief that is promoted by big money, and reject all other religions just like us atheists
Money, it all comes down to what big money promotes
If you live in America, big money promotes Christian Propaganda
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
It was Kirk; boning green aliens, irrational chance taking, double fisted karate chops, shoulder rolls, wiping his ass with the Prime Directive, that was Captain.
Spok, the consummate scientist, recognized the intangible value of spirit and moxie.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
^^^Nice!
Word of the Day - Smug
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
I'm only one out of several hundred million that want evidence
I guess you are OK w/o any
Is it so crazy to ask?
Isn't spiritual searching asking questions?
finding answers that are in complete line with reality and science
if there is any magic going on, can't we research it as well
These are just my opinions up for debate
I welcome a honest rebuttal
|
|
Majid_S
Mountain climber
Karkoekstan, Former USSR
|
|
it is all about making money in the name of lord
here, basket is coming and drop $5.00 in there
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
funny, majid, jesus never asked for a dime from anyone, he just gave to those who needed help.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 06:12am PT
|
Craig: Is it so crazy to ask? Isn't spiritual searching asking questions?
There’s no need to search for anything that you already have.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 06:30am PT
|
Attacking Craig makes you all look so spiritually intact, especially Werner the biggest name calling/insult throwing poster on ST. :-)
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 07:07am PT
|
The Old Testament is pure mythology and the New Testament is mythology redux with an added enticement....the savior myth. Pretty heady stuff and with thousands of years of imprinting there is no wonder that these myths have found fertile ground in so many people's psyche.
You would have thought that the scientific revolution would have swept these myths away but mythology, being untestable, has proven to be extraordinarily enduring.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 07:19am PT
|
Dingus
You fit the definition of an agnostic
They don't care one way the other
Mike: There’s no need to search for anything that you already have. Oh, are you God??? (as Werner would say to me)
you have no further questions ???
You know enough already
Now it's you being silly and disingenuous
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 07:28am PT
|
Non-Biological consciousness?
How does it work?
It just floats around with no structure or material, no network of energy, no storage of memories or history....
what happens when they put you to sleep, you loss consciousness,
you wake up not remembering anything, you were dead to the world until they turned you back on.
Is not death the same for your consciousness?
This I do not know for sure...
If there is Intelligent Alien Life out there.
It would be intelligent by the fact that is a life form with some sort of brain that gives it intelligence.
The scientific consensus is that no intelligent life forms have visited the earth.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 07:36am PT
|
Goggle intelligent alien life forms that visited earth that have been scientifically verified
and then you will get the consensus,
it's Zero
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 07:58am PT
|
Zero scientifically verified intelligent alien life forms have visited the earth, that is the consensus
Do you have data that contradicts the consensus?
What is the percentage of the population that are convinced that alien life is here now??
Beliefs based on zero evidence, just here say, myths, faked UFOs, conspiracy loons and speculation,
just like most religious beliefs.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 08:02am PT
|
They came, sniffed around, and finding no other intelligent life forms, held up their noses and left.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 08:08am PT
|
The distance between the closet possible earth like planet is much to far for any imaginable space craft to travel, ask Ed.
It's 10s of light years
It takes 10s of years to get outside our solar system alone which is about a three light minutes
"three light minutes", I just made that up, I wonder exactly how many light minutes/days the distance is.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 08:25am PT
|
Know it all and never wrong about anything so called scientist Fry says just google and you too can know everything and never be wrong again .....
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 08:49am PT
|
Having a Religion is primarily a Geographical question... and preferring one to the other is primarily a question of Religionism - a parallel to Nationalism.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 09:48am PT
|
Donini: They came, sniffed around, and finding no other intelligent life forms, held up their noses and left.
Good one, very funny. LOL
ff
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 09:54am PT
|
Mr. Brennan: The alien question was answered years ago. Did any of you watch Men in Black ?
Okay, that is even funnier. LOL
ff
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:07am PT
|
The distance between the closet possible earth like planet is much to far for any imaginable space craft to travel, ask Ed.
by various definitions, I'm agnostic on this point. What is "imaginable" spans a huge domain.
Given the technologies we have developed, and our current knowledge, 10 light years is a long way to travel for a complex organism like a human, largely because of finite lifetimes and an environmental extremely hostile to life.
Sustainable travel that involves generations of organisms is also hard to imagine, probably as much in terms of the social uncertainties as the technological ones.
Technological uncertainties come in many categories. Anyone who's sailed long distance in the open ocean knows the boat is falling apart, it is in a continual state of disrepair. This projects to the state where the boat no longer serves its primary function, keeping the crew out of the water. Reliable boat building, which included the ability to repair the boat, opened up the oceans to exploration. Initially, the boats were big because the crews needed to repair the boat had to be large, and the supplies required extensive. Being a member of those crews was busy with the tasks of repair, and the motivation came from the imperative of survival, loosing the ship meant loosing your life.
If you broaden the concept of island hopping as part of the voyage, the Polynesians engaged in multigenerational oceanic travel. This does not seem to have a generalization to space travel as the "nearby" is a long way, but it must have seemed to be an equally remote possibility to those who first set out in boats into the Pacific unknown. Human space travel will likely be to places that are at least "known."
So with space travel, those craft will have to be repairable by the crew (and their robotic surrogates) in order to sustain a long, multigenerational voyage. The length of the voyage has to do with the total energy and the power generated by the engines of such craft. There are two interesting technologies (to my mind) that are conceptually encouraging (to me):
ion engines, which NASA has been working on even before it became NASA,
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/ion/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_thruster
"laser" sails which are categorized as "beam-powered propulsion"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beam-powered_propulsion
here is Lubin's "white paper" on interstellar travel:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/roadmap_to_interstellar_flight_tagged.pdf
so if you enlarge your vision of human exploration, you might come up with some interesting science fiction scenarios, e.g. genetic engineering allows us to send material to be combined upon arrival and generate humans when the particular planetary criteria are met; along with the necessary information to provide cultural context to these humans (as well as the earlier nurturing, socialization, etc provided by computer/robotic surrogates) all launched on micro-wafer sized space craft using Earth based laser beam....
more prosaic, however, is what has probably already happened, that biological molecules of varying complexity have been spread in material left over from the annihilation of life on planets throughout the history of our local universe, coming to us in the chunks of rock launched into space by various planetary cataclysms.
30 years ago I asked a scientific question: if you were to draw a graph where one axis was the mass of an object, and the other axis was the velocity of the object, what would the distribution look like for all the material in the universe?
I'm not sure where we are today on understanding the "rock sized" chunks, and how they move, but those chunks may have a lot of surprises... cosmo-paleontology?
A wonderful topic for wild science based speculation that has no current definitive answer and almost a guarantee that whatever is "the answer," it cannot be recognized in what we imagine now.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:14am PT
|
Mythologies are not pseudo science or proto-science they are manifestations of psychological needs that reconcile the individual to the grave and constant events and affects of living. To disparage myth because it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny is to simply misunderstand and misread it.
Biology may very well be the predicate to consciousness, but certainty in that regard, considering the complete lack of understanding science has as to what consciousness
actually is, is nothing more than faith predicated on an extremely limited scope of observation.
The mystery of "knowing consciousness" seems so rare and humanity so remarkable in that sense, I continue to be fascinated by the continually negative view of mankind as just transitory/finite and unimportant even worthless on this and other threads. It seems more and more to me simply an excuse for inaction and a lack of responsibility.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:27am PT
|
We don't know if the space travel is possible or not because we don't have any examples of it ever happening
No intelligent alien life forms from another planet have been documented that would prove it's possible
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:30am PT
|
the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... however,
the carefully worded scientific response is that we do not have any evidence of alien visitation, and our understanding of the process (in this case, interstellar travel by intelligent beings) indicates it is not likely to have happened.
unlike science, technology is not so easily constrained, e.g. no one uses the flip cell phone anymore, antiquated technology, but Capt. Kirk couldn't have imagined that technology obsolescence scenario in the 1960s, his communicator was so 2300's, now in the 2000's almost no one uses them.
on the other hand, you are never likely to be beamed-up, ever.
it is interesting that the legacy of "Bitchin' Betty" had threaded through the StarTrek computer voice to Siri...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitching_Betty
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:37am PT
|
"the carefully worded scientific response is that we do not have any evidence of alien visitation, and our understanding of the process (in this case, interstellar travel by intelligent beings) indicates it is not likely to have happened.
I think the "burden of proof" doesn't fall on Craig. :-)
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:40am PT
|
To disparage myth because it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny is to simply misunderstand and misread it.
Hi Paul, nowadays there a lot more attackers of mythologies simply because we know more than we used to. There are many examples, one would be that humans now know that the success or failure of crops are no longer dependent religious rituals such as prayer, and entirely dependent on proper watering, sun, and hopefully not locust plagues.
And since the focus of this thread is questioning if religion doing more harm than good in modern times, I assume that in your above quote you are referring to religious myths being disparaged because they can be proven untrue, wrong. I understand your statement but what I would like you to clarify is ending part of your quote which essentially says that those people who then prove religious myths wrong simply do not understand or misread those myths.
So I can better understand your point, can you elaborate and give some examples?
Unless of course I am missing the point of your quote completely?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:53am PT
|
"To disparage myth because it doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny is to simply misunderstand and misread it."
WTF???
myth
noun
1.
a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
synonyms: folk tale, folk story, legend, tale, story, fable, saga, mythos, lore, folklore, mythology
"ancient Greek myths"
2.
a widely held but false belief or idea.
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 11:20am PT
|
I'm with Bob D'A on this. It's wonderful literature that does tell us something about ourselves as humans, over the ages, and everyone should read some of it as part of their Humanities education. But it's not science.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 11:25am PT
|
I am maybe going out on a limb here but can I assume that Paul is a theist, does believe in supernatural beings, gods, and perhaps a Christian?
If so I hope he will tell me because it would help me in confirming a bias I feel he has.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 11:48am PT
|
I don't think Paul can be stereotyped into one of your categories...
he is a critic of what he would term arrogant statements from scientists, an apt criticism. When one doesn't "know" something, they should say it, "I don't know."
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 11:54am PT
|
Wittgenstein famously said..."Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent."
|
|
lostinshanghai
Social climber
someplace
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 11:56am PT
|
Is Religion Doing More Harm Than Good These Days and does it have to do with anything going on today: Saturday June the 10th. This should be interesting, now let’s see if the MSM [Main Stream Media] gets the clues and connects the dots.
“March Against Sharia” demonstration organized by Act for America happening right now and coming to a city near you. “Trouble in River City” Pass out the ammo.
CIA, Walid Phares, Steve Gaffney and Mike Flynn but where is Eric Prince hiding? All the usual but new suspects.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 12:42pm PT
|
"When one doesn't "know" something, they should say it, "I don't know."
I hope both Paul and Werner take your advice. :-)
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 12:59pm PT
|
ok, let me ask my question another way
how is speaking out against something that is by definition suspect, wrong (a myth) and/or
in fact proven so by science then evidence that those speaking out do not understand the myth? Paul?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 01:16pm PT
|
Scientists, by and large, are committed to a literal scientific description of reality.
In someways this is akin to a fundamentalists interpretation of a religious doctrine, a literal religious description of reality.
There is a vast spectrum of thought that is not literal, and generally thought of as a cop-out by both the scientists and the fundamentalists.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 01:47pm PT
|
how is speaking out against something that is by definition suspect, wrong (a myth) and/or in fact proven so by science then evidence that those speaking out do not understand the myth? Paul?
Take any myth you want, but let's take one that seems outlandishly unscientific: the birth of Venus. Do you imagine it's untrue or does it communicate a truth to you? What does it really mean? Are we to believe there is a goddess named Venus? Why the myth? What does it do for us. You can't look at a myth as an example of some scientific postulate. There is reality in myth and that's why it's so effective and so helpful to so many.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 05:28pm PT
|
You can't look at a myth as an example of some scientific postulate. There is reality in myth and that's why it's so effective and so helpful to so many. the birth of Venus is just another mythological meme
Venus doesn't really influence anything besides those that want to think is does
How is it helpful to some?
it certainly doesn't effect atheists/skeptics
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 05:59pm PT
|
Ufology - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ufology
Ufology is the study of reports, visual records, physical evidence, and other phenomena related .... On the other hand, skeptics have argued that UFOs are not a scientific problem at all, as there is no tangible physical evidence to study. .... no consensus concerning the nature and scientific importance of the UFO phenomenon ...
as there is no tangible physical evidence to study.
the consensus ends up equaling zero evidence
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 06:52pm PT
|
Craig: . . . you have no further questions ??? You know enough already. Now it's you being silly and disingenuous.
I know nothing other than there is consciousness. It’s all that there is from what can be seen by me.
You?
Ed: What is "imaginable" spans a huge domain.
This could be the understatement of the year.
When one doesn't "know" something, they should say it, "I don't know."
That is a sign of wisdom.
One should next make a distinction between what one believes and what one knows.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 07:05pm PT
|
When it comes to the real reality, it's a lot easier to know or not know
There are many subjects I know little about, so I don't claim knowledge of them
other subjects I know more about, so I like to debate them
Ed: What is "imaginable" spans a huge domain. the topic was any Imaginable space ships that can travel light years to deliver Intelligent alien life forms to earth
yet no imaginable space ship of any sort has ever been observed
Ed did admit that, did he not?
Are you attacking me for some kind of Bias about the topic you did not comprehend
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 09:31pm PT
|
Venus doesn't really influence anything besides those that want to think is does
How is it helpful to some?
it certainly doesn't effect atheists/skeptics
Speaking of not comprehending:
You should ask yourself how a painting like that, of a pagan deity, could be done under the eyes of the inquisition in strictly Catholic Italy? Because even the Catholics understood the syncretic nature of mythology and the transcendent truth to be found there.
The story of Venus is the story of inspiration's source and the resulting creation of beauty: beauty born of the mixture of corporeal matter and divinity (read the mysterious conscious and intuitive mind). The story of Venus is an attempt to explicate the source of what is beautiful or desirable. You can read it as failed literal truth but even a Roman in the first century would have realized its allegorical nature and that that allegory speaks a visceral reality regarding the subject.
What is beauty and what is beauty's source? Why is beauty compelling/fascinating? Myth gives us a real and efficacious answer to these questions: beauty is the manifestation of inspired mind through the structure of matter.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:04pm PT
|
book review...
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6341/915.full
Idiosyncratic desires
Erika Lorraine Milam
The Evolution of Beauty: How Darwin's Forgotten Theory of Mate Choice Shapes the Animal World—and Us
Richard O. Prum
Doubleday, 2017. 454 pp.
Science 02 Jun 2017:
Vol. 356, Issue 6341, pp. 915
DOI: 10.1126/science.aam9520
"Imagine a world created by the quest for beauty, filled with colorful dancing and governed by the principle of autonomous sexual freedom. To access this world, according to Richard Prum, you need only take a stroll outside and watch the avian rites of spring. The Evolution of Beauty represents the culmination of decades of Prum's careful research on birds—he is the William Robertson Coe Professor of Ornithology at Yale University—including the evolution of feathers, courtship patterns, and social behavior.
Prum argues that evolutionary biologists, especially those who spend their time with mammals, have fundamentally underestimated the importance of female choice as a cause of beauty in the natural world..."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:07pm PT
|
Ed did admit that, did he not?
yes... if you want to get down to brass tacks...
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:23pm PT
|
Of course our understanding of the beautiful goes far beyond the bounds of sexual preference and includes not only what we find in nature (a meadow in the Sierra) but what we create within the constituting consciousness of a picture frame.
The question as to whether or not a bird is attracted to the feathers of another because of an aesthetic perception may very well be an anthropomorphic investment by the human observer.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:27pm PT
|
extraterrestrials - viruses
transport - meteorites
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:30pm PT
|
"...Prum devotes the final third of the book to the evolution of sexuality in humans. Although it would be tempting to attend to differences between men and women, Prum argues that to understand our own nature, we would be better served by comparing ourselves with our ancestors and simian relatives. From this angle, human males are far less sexually aggressive than we should expect.
In comparison with male chimpanzees, human men have relatively smaller testicles, longer sex, dramatically reduced canine teeth, decreased rates of infanticide, and higher rates of homosexual interactions. These physiological and behavioral changes, Prum contends, might result from selection for female sexual autonomy and pleasure similar to that seen in birds. He hopes that other biologists will incorporate sexual selection for beauty into their own research programs on the mating (or more accurately, remating) preferences of humans..."
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2017 - 10:40pm PT
|
I forget, did Venus have anything to do with sex?...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
...does sex have anything to do with evolution?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 05:45am PT
|
“Humanity today is like a waking dreamer, caught between the fantasies of sleep and the chaos of the real world. The mind seeks but cannot find the precise place and hour. We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. We thrash about. We are terribly confused by the mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to the rest of life.”
Edward O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth
“Moreover, we look in vain to philosophy for the answer to the great riddle. Despite its noble purpose and history, pure philosophy long ago abandoned the foundational questions about human existence. The question itself is a reputation killer. It has become a Gorgon for philosophers, upon whose visage even the best thinkers fear to gaze. They have good reason for their aversion. Most of the history of philosophy consists of failed models of the mind. The field of discourse is strewn with the wreckage of theories of consciousness. After the decline of logical positivism in the middle of the twentieth century, and the attempt of this movement to blend science and logic into a closed system, professional philosophers dispersed in an intellectual diaspora. They emigrated into the more tractable disciplines not yet colonized by science – intellectual history, semantics, logic, foundational mathematics, ethics, theology, and, most lucratively, problems of personal life adjustment.
Philosophers flourish in these various endeavors, but for the time being, at least, and by a process of elimination, the solution of the riddle has been left to science. What science promises, and has already supplied in part, is the following. There is a real creation story of humanity, and one only, and it is not a myth. It is being worked out and tested, and enriched and strengthened, step by step. (9-10)”
― Edward O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 03:27pm PT
|
Nice Bob.
Trouble with old religions is they died and no one noticed.
Some more contemporary religions just try to reboot the old ones.
The greatest religions are yet to come. And they will look nothing like the old ones.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 03:52pm PT
|
The worldwide fastest growing belief is no belief.....praise the non existent one!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 05:20pm PT
|
Atheism - the new evangelism!
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 06:04pm PT
|
Atheism requires that you specifically NOT believe in God. Personally I don't like going around NOT doing something all the time. It is tedious.
That would be directly opposed to Monotheism which believes in a single God. (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Bahai, Mormonism)
There are other religions that don't care or are like, whatever.
Polythesim (Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Hinduism, and many tribal religions)
Enlightenment religions (Buddism, Taoism, Scientology)
Philosphy Religions (Confusism, Falun Gong)
And many others hard to categorize:
http://www.religionfacts.com/religions
Christian Americans always worried about loosing their grip. Tried to shut down the options. Studying other religions frowned upon.
There needs to be better education on what religion is. It seems to simply get defined by the media as bad.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 07:44pm PT
|
Cosmic, great follow up. Spider, nice post. Here, here, for making a study of comparative religion. There is a lot of useful to learn there - even for atheists! ;-) - from the myths they contain and what we can come to understand about ourselves and others.
Been into taoism for 47 years. Good stuff, in my estimation. To get a feel for the thing read the Tao Te Ching. Best translation - bar none* - is by Ralph Alan Dale. That's the background on what follows.
The foundations of taoism are the concepts concerning laws of nature (YinYang) and ideal human behavor being in harmony with natural laws as expounded in the I Ching (Yijing).
The Great Integrity expresses one.
One manifests as two.
Two is transformed into three.
And three generates all
the myriad entities of the universe.
Every entity always returns
to yin after engaging yang.
The fusion of these two opposites
births the Vital Energy
that sustains the harmony of life.
~ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, Chapter 42
400-600 BCE, emperor Zhou’s court
Core concepts in taoism are wu-wei, pu and the three treasures.
Wu-wei
action in harmony with the laws of nature
Pu
original nature; naturalness; pu is characterized by authenticity, spontaneity, creativity and simplicity
Three Treasures
compassion
frugality
humility
Note: The three teasures can also refer to the three characteristics of living things - jing, chi and shen. This model is fundamental to traditional Chinese medicine, including acupuncture.
The concept of enlightenment isn't really a "thing" in taoism. If anything the point is to become aware of the Tao (laws of nature), return to Pu (your original and authentic nature) and practice wu-wei (act in harmony with natural laws).
In this way, taoism is more philosophy than religion although there is some aspect of religion, also. Being a lover of stoicism, too, I can't help but feel comfortable with their similarities.
*I could be wrong, of course!
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 08:28pm PT
|
To Spider's point, if you remove the Judeo-Christian perspective of God or any other form of Mythology and shift the meaning to a higher intelligence, designer or organized energy, then atheism, in my mind becomes a prejudice.
Then again, using these alternate definitions of God probably eliminates the traditional meaning of religion and more accurately addresses spirituality.
I'm neither religious nor spiritual, yet I'm unwilling to dismiss some religious and very intelligent people (Jimmy Carter, Bill Moyers, Barack and Michelle Obama, the Dalai Lama, etc.).
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 08:50pm PT
|
Atheism is an act of faith usually based on a misunderstanding of what God might be.
In that sense atheism is itself a kind of religion.
For one to say with certainty that there is no final term, no first cause of an organized nature, no intelligence in the universe larger/greater than that of humanity, one denies the reality and the mystery that reality presents. You don't have to believe in magic to recognize the possibility within a structured universe governed by the laws of physics that a final organizing term is a possibility.
To state unequivocally there is no God is to assume an impossible knowledge based on a completely subjective and totally assumed definition of the term itself.
Nonsense.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 08:58pm PT
|
In that sense atheism is itself a kind of religion.
That's what I've been sayin'!
The whole god question isn't a science question.
Asking the god question, regardless of your conclusion, is a religious/spiritual inquiry - not a scientific one.
Because of this atheism is a religion/religious belief based on faith.
And, its' believers tend to suffer from - wait do they suffer or do those they're proselytizing to suffer? - with smugness, self-righteousness and intolerance much like their religious brethren.
Of course, for context, refer to my "We are after all just making this sh#t up" model of religious/spiritual practice/belief/faith. Which means that, since I'm talking about religion, I'm just making sh#t up as much as everyone else.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 09:23pm PT
|
To state unequivocally there is no God is to assume an impossible knowledge based on a completely subjective and totally assumed definition of the term itself.
Nonsense.
I think to state unequivocally that there is a God is also nonsense.
To say that you don't know would be the most honest answer.
But it is also possible to conduct your thoughts as if there were a God, or weren't a God.
From my perspective, one might push on the idea that no God is required to explain the universe, and work from there. I don't think that is nonsense.
It is a tortured task to make the case that atheism is a religion.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 09:31pm PT
|
To say that you don't know would be the most honest answer.
Exactly.
It is a tortured task to make the case that atheism is a religion.
It wasn't a tortured task. It was really very easy.
And, the case is easy to make.
Doesn't mean it convinces. ;-)
Do I care? Not really. The thing itself is fun and I am a zen tantric stoic Sufi taoist, so I'm not attached to it. Riding the juice of the wave is enough
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 09:49pm PT
|
It is a tortured task to make the case that atheism is a religion.
It's a certain belief that is predicated on conjecture based on limited and perhaps, even likely, mistaken observations. As well, Insofar as atheism defines God in no uncertain terms, how can it not be a religion.
An interesting discussion would be whether there is more evidence for God's existence or non-existence, judging from physical evidence, the condition of consciousness, the structure of the universe. Of course this requires a definition of the term.
You can make a strong argument for a universe sans God, but the problem is you can make a powerful argument the other way as well. That leaves both the priest and the atheist in a bit of a bind.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 10:32pm PT
|
The universe is 10 billion or more years old.
There exists, billions of planets capable of supporting life.
In the cosmic blink of an eye, man has gone from stone tools to the manipulation of life and matter.
Do the math....
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 11:24pm PT
|
Nobody's Business
Logic and reason are funny things, and can be totally subjective in the abstract. I sometimes think that the existence of god, one way or the other, is none of my business. Does that mean I am strictly a business person in relation to work and spiritual matters? Then to say spiritual matters are none of my business would mean I am almost all business all the time? Would that mean that business is my religion? Hardly, I hate business! I only use it as a means to an end. Does that mean that hating business is my religion and hating religion is my business? I could reply that those things are also none of my business. But, then lying would also be my business and that too should be none of my business. Upon occasion I stick my nose in other people's business only to be reminded that that too is, you guessed it; innovative or enterprising. God, I really do hate business. Oh Einstein, I've really gone and done it this time.
-bushman
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2017 - 11:33pm PT
|
there seems to be a choice made in dictionaries, whether to define "religion" or "religious"
relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religious
the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/religion
the OED is in the other room and inaccessible to me now...
Certainly the first definition includes atheism if it were considered an "acknowledged ultimate reality" but the other definitions certainly seems to exclude atheism.
A belief can be something other than a religion.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:19am PT
|
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a Possibility that I can't prove does not exist
Do I need have faith in it just to be PC/honest with Not Knowing?
Having a debate on the existence of God is Proselytizing?
I am always amazed how these debates go, the Christians just can't stick to the subject and instead rely on cowardly victimization.
No one is making you open this thread and read these posts.
Please don't whine abut us debating.
Here is the question, why should I believe in God?
I don't see any reason there needs to be one, wouldn't Occam's Razor apply here more than anywhere, the Universal Expanse.
No consciousness's have been found to exist w/o a physical brain, so any kind of God seems like pure fiction to me, how can God exist?, Who created God?
The stance taken by atheists is the most plausible explanation,
especially when you subtract the historical human imagination of Gods
from the first day that a prehistoric man asked "where did I come from? What controls Reality?"
His only answer before science was "Some type of God was responsible"
He would have no other options to evaluate, he had no scientific explanation because there was no science that considered other options at the time.
We have only redefined what God is or can be to the point that he "Just a possibility, so you must have faith in him"
but this God has no apparent action upon reality, it is hidden from us at every angle, you can never know.
The next question would be why is God hidden?
If there is a God of any sort, why would God not be able to investigated like anything else? Why should we never be able to know?
Sounds like a con job to me, and looks like one when you look at the history of the religions that promote this kind of God
and this is for any type of possible God, meaning you can't say that God is different than you think, any possibility of a God includes the Gods I can't comprehend or imagine.
Skeptics have debunked many other similar paradoxes, and Occam's Razor always wins in the end.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:30am PT
|
Here is the question, why should I believe in God?
You shouldn't believe until you find the proof.
So remain an atheist, and quit yer incessant whining.
God is easily proven using the correct scientific method.
But you've experienced it ALL, so you are god now.
You're still insane .....
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:45am PT
|
See No Godill
See no godill
Hear no godill
Speak no godill
Think no godill
Funny I don't
Sense a godill
Feel no godill
Taste no godill
Smell no godill
Need no godill
Informs me I don't
Believe there's a godill
-bushman
06/12/2017
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:49am PT
|
Craig Fry, Nice sermon.
It smells like abuse of Occam's Razor -
one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything
Occam's Razor is a construct from this statement -
it is vain to do with more what one can do with less.
~ William of Occam
William of Occam was an English Franciscan friar (1287-1347)
It is very common for those who worship science rather than practice science to fail to discern the distinction that reductionism and mechanism are incredibly useful models, but they are just that abstract methods for observing and contextualizing observation of phenomena. They are not actually real.
"The map is not the terrain."
~ Abraham Maslow
I think there is a place for reviewing the scientific method and considering whether considering the god question is worth the consideration of science or a scientist. For me it comes down to a question outside of scientific concern - it's just not a question worth scientific inquiry.
Personally, just based on opinion, there is a range of belief around the god question from a personal anthroprmorphic concept of god that alters the laws of nature because of personal protestation (a patently ridiculous idea IMHO) to the concept of an impersonal universal principle that modulates the dance between entropy and order to there is a merely mechanistic universe.
There are some tantalizing tastes of the possibility that initention may actually translate to material influence on the environment - Princeton Electronics Anomolies Research Lab, Conscious Acts of Creation by William Tiller. In my practice and observation for 47 years, experiencing and observing and measuring human systems has solidified my opinion we are an example that mechanism doesn't completely account for the expression of allostasis and homeostasis. My observation of those professing the atheist position is that there is a tendency in that "cohort" to mistake scientific models for reality and end up professing scientism to the detriment of impartial science.
It seems that in the recent past - think Oppenheimer, Einstein or Edison - there was a clearer distinction between science and not science.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:56am PT
|
What's less
a natural reality
or one that has some type of God that created this natural reality
and is still at the helm in some way
yet hidden
and you must pray to it
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 08:36am PT
|
Natural reality has enough intelligence and vitalism in it as is. That is the magic in and of reality. I am, after all, a taoist.
Was there an intelligent catalyst that "begat" evolution?
Hmmm...
Yes, my model for the magic of reality isn't congruent to Dawkins.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 08:41am PT
|
They are not actually real.
this is a rabbit hole that once you descend you will never emerge.
From a factual standpoint, you throw in with MikeL, that even the slightest "uncertainty" makes the "model" untruthful. But if you seek Truth, it is probably better to look elsewhere than science.
What the reduction of a problem to its component parts, and the assembly of these parts to build a mechanism are are simply methods for understanding the phenomenon. Philosophers of science recognized these as doctrines, and some posit that they are part of the "socialization" of scientists.
There is an alternative view that these methods are tools in the tool box for understanding physical phenomena, and that they are not applied in a doctrinaire manner to solve any and all problems. Scientists, by and large, recognize the limitations of their methods, and seek other methods to understand phenomena.
"What is real" is often a criticism of the explanation, which if a scientific one, has known limitations due to the accuracy and the precision of the data for which the explanation applies. It is important to note that this is a quantitative statement regarding "uncertainty."
However, we often overlook the criticism of "reality" when those explanations are applied to utilitarian works we benefit from. And example might be the machinery of genetics, which in some thinking is acceptable when applied to medicine but apparently not acceptable to many, when applied to evolution. People might "want the medicine" but state that evolution is "just a theory."
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 08:46am PT
|
People might "want the medicine"
Medicine will act whether you believe or not .......
God will act whether you believe or not.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:02am PT
|
You've misunderstood my argument and partly made my argument.
There is an alternative view that these methods are tools in the tool box for understanding physical phenomena, and that they are not applied in a doctrinaire manner to solve any and all problems. Scientists, by and large, recognize the limitations of their methods, and seek other methods to understand phenomena.
Exactly!
I am a "true believer" in science. It is a big part of my life.
What I'm arguing is that scientific models and practice have limitations, especially mechanism (useful as it is), especially with regard to complex systems where the science gets "squishy."Those complex systems for me are my patients. No matter how much science I bring to bear or how many metrics I use, there are still mysteries I see that stretch my left brain - dammit!
When we ignore the limitations, we indulge in scientism - a faith-based belief in science. The biggest thing that bugs me about scientism is that it degrades science! IMHO ;-)
MikeL and I aren't actually close in our views on what is real and we've had fun conversations/arguments about our differences.
Werner, You seem to confuse cause and effect with the god idea.
Ed, You do agree that the model for understanding reality and the reality itself are not one and the same. Don't you? Yes, I know the model can be incedibly precise!
We have many models that look at many things and those models can be incredibly precise. What about the dynamics between the models? What about the uncharted space between the space we've modeled? Just wondering.
Don't we practice better science when we are clear about the limits of our observations and modeling?
Ed, The difference in our perspective may be the vast difference in the precision of physics and the inherent imprecision of the "art" of medicine.*
*Here the referral to medicine is the generic term. I am just a dumbass chiropractor and not a real doctor, after all. But, then I don't want to be an allopath anyway - the model is too limited for treating functional illnesses.
A backtrack -
I think to state unequivocally that there is a God is also nonsense. ~Ed
That's what I've been sayin'!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:14am PT
|
(Someone call my name?)
Bushman: I hate [business]! I only use it as a means to an end.
Well, this might be a crux and conundrum for many people. It would seem to be the result of instrumentalism, having objectives, being oriented to intentions, looking for answers, seeing questions, materialism, physicality, objectivity, and even subjectivity itself. People are often addicted to being addicted, to the contents of experiences, to purposes, to values. Most people seem compelled to be busy, doing things, making contributions, making their lives meaningful.
It’s not necessary. It can be fun, I suppose, but all those things seem to me to be diversions. It’s sort of like culture . . . interesting and all, but fluffy. (Of course, fluffy can be just fine.)
I don’t mean to pick on him individually, but so many of us are like Craig. We are hot to do things, to search, to find meaning, to have noble objectives, to get achievements under our belts, to find the truth of this or that.
Mark has made references to the Tao. The Tao, along with other radical (spiritual and psychological) points of view suggest poetically (as all myths seem to do) that What This Is (“living?”) is indescribable, enigmatic, profoundly engaging, and infinitely infinite in every way and direction. Anything that one might say, do, point to is like picking out a grain of material at the base of Everest.
Religion seems to be an expression of something like that, rather than a definition. Ditto for science.
By this light, a search to say what things are or are not would seem to constitute a fool’s errand. Fun, oh sure, but not anything that really leads anywhere final, accurate, or complete.
I’ve recently become flummoxed by a technical problem in creating an art project. Certain materials aren’t working as I expected, and I’ve been experimenting and talking to authorities to close the gap between what I have in front of me and a vision. I’ve seen (once again, for the thousandth time) that what looks to be a technical issue is really an issue that revolves around an image or vision that my mind seems to have of how things are or need to be. Whether it is scientific, spiritual, material, academic, aesthetic, or even moral, the base of such issues seems to be revolving around vision . . . the vision of “me,” the world, others, community, the aether, of the definitions of “things.”
As I think Paul makes clear now and then, all these views would seem to be the effects of what some call the human condition. At best we can only point to those effects. Other than perhaps having interesting conversations about those effects, it doesn’t seem to be useful to be attempting to do anything about them. If anything, it just brings us more in contact with the human condition, which is like the ouroboros (the snake that eats its own tail).
(Back to my art project.)
Be well.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:18am PT
|
Hi.MikeL!
Wow. Ouroboros...
...haven't seen ouroboros show up for a while though she is ever-present...
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:50am PT
|
Having spiritual and mystical experiences do not require the existence of a god
Some things may never be proven as fact in the strictest sense, but we can still call them facts or truth enough for communication purposes
Sure evolution is just a theory, but it is so well represented in theory and evidence that it is considered true and can't be denied
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:55am PT
|
I flat out laugh whenever I hear someone say "Well, you know evolution is just a theory.."
My usual riposte is "Well, you know gravity is just a theory so why don't you go and try challenging that?"
There is a disturbing lack of basic science understanding in our society and a broad swath of our "culture" that prides itself on being ignorant.
A lot of people actually believe a scientific theory is just waking up on morning and thinking, "I have a theory.."
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:15am PT
|
As one who travels throughout the world I will say that America, with it's beauty and abundant natural resources is truly blessed. I will also say that our "culture," relative to the rest of the world, is certainly not enviable.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:25am PT
|
From wikipedia
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities
some posters on this thread contend that Atheism IS a religion
based on the above definition, how is it?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:30am PT
|
It's ridiculous Norton, why waste your time on it?
It's obvious their minds are made up and there's no changing them.
As if it's cool to be "agnostic" about Aphrodite or Horus... lol
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:31am PT
|
Just see how crazy these fool atheists are.
Now they are defending their beliefs after telling others their beliefs are not evidence based on their so called science/
LOL, just can't get any more ridiculous .......
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:33am PT
|
As if it's cool to be "agnostic" about Aphrodite or Horus... lol
Word of the day: disingenuous
Now they are defending their beliefs after telling others their beliefs are not evidence based on their so called science/
I certainly don't always agree with you, Werner, but we stand together on that point.
When I've posted an argument. it often seems the scientism acolytes are too busy formulating a response to digest the argument.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:41am PT
|
see how crazy these fool atheists are...
The disgrace is we can't even have a thoughtful discourse on these subjects because of the Trumpian mindsets - incl their jr high language - that have taken over so much of the public internet. Guys like Huxley and Darwin would be ashamed to see the intellectual thought in these areas (eg theology) amount to this kind of thread content 100-plus years after their deaths. So proud!
Word of the day: disingenuous
You must think these phrases of yours are cute or effective?
I got news for you: One man's "proselytizing" is another's persuasion. The latter's a key necessary component in maintenance of a smart, educated, responsible democracy.
With all due respect, you are a monkey wrench in the wheels. Not that much unlike WB.
You've cited Carl Sagan in past posts. You think he'd respect what you write? I do not.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:47am PT
|
Darwin was a fool too.
He left out the evolution of the living entity itself as he was clueless to the life force itself .....
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:53am PT
|
HFCS, Yes, I do think that considering the faults of indulgence in incivility and logical fallacies is worthwhile, whether yours or mine.
I'm so happy you think I'm cute! It supports my fragile ego. ;-)
I believe you would be suprised what Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Oppenheimer and others would have to say about your musing...
Trumpian mindsets? Really? Can you name the logical fallacy?
I ain't special. I ain't that smart. But, I am straight up and I can smell bullshit when it's put under my nose.
And, be clear, being congruent with a man's particular argument isn't congruence with a man's every argument. Can you name the logical fallacy that was alluded to by HFCS here?
I don't know a whole bunch of things, but if I had a choice to make for who to have around for if the sh#t went down and for good company or for who would be willing to pitch in to get stuff done that helps others, it would be Werner. He's the real deal. I don't require my friends to believe like me. My friends are people who show up and make themselves useful for others like Werner.
I know the details of the science and even do genetic counseling. And, Werner has said something with a deep wisdom right here...
He left out the evolution of the living entity itself as he was clueless to the life force itself ..
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:55am PT
|
Don't worry Fruit man.
Darwins consciousness will come out of the grave and reestablish your mechanistic only (no spiritual soul) consciousness as defacto standard western materialism brainwashing.
You'll be safe again in your numbers .....
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 11:09am PT
|
Some of you are just arguing words without attempting to find meaning. Why do some say atheism is like a religion? Because atheist treat their non belief just like many religious people treat their belief. They pound you over the head with it. A prime example is limpingcrabs thread stating his beliefs. Instead of just saying.. hey.. thanks for sharing, the atheist had to chime in and say.. Its all fairy tales. They abuse their non belief just as some religious people abuse their belief. Like the guy with the sign saying.. John 3:16. Out and proud. Does that make it a religion? By definition, most likely not, though Ed pointed out one definition of religion that would allow it. But isn't the effect the same? Every single time I say.. "I believe in God", giving my point of view, there is someone who follows me by saying its a fairy tale. Thats not persuasion. That proselytizing. Some atheist are no different in their actions then the religious who pound it down your throat. That is what is meant by those who say atheism has become a religion. Some of its members act just like the thing that they hate.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 11:25am PT
|
The very definition of God needs to be defined before you speak with someone. Especially if they are only educated in one religion.
It could be one of many dieties to watch out for and respect.
It could be this vengeful disciplinarian as in the Old Testament.
It could be Jesus the healer if you are into the New Testament.
It could be a fairy tale if you are an Aethest.
Or it could be just another big being at work holding the universe together.
The proof would be can you exchange communication with it.
You can communicate with a human, a dog, a horse, etc. How about a planet, a star or a galaxy? It could be postulated that all matter that is animated is animated by a life force. Proof: A dead body.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 11:30am PT
|
Oh those "abusing" "proselytizing" "atheists"! they're so "shrill" and "militant" with their pens!
"I commend the bravery of women like Sarah Haider for being the public face of ex muslims. Liberals need to wake up quickly to the dangers of Islam. As an ex muslim it f*#king frustrates me to see liberals tip toeing around the issue, allowing far right wingers to capitalise on the issue and being complicit in the brutal violence and oppression enforced by islam. This is a generational issue aand the longer we delay it the harder it becomes to combat." -johannes
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/leaving-islam
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 11:35am PT
|
"I'll take logical fallacies for 400, Alex."
Oh, and, once more just for fun - word of the day: disingenuous
Here's my stand, when you turn good science into a bad religion and try to proselytize - using emotional and fallacious arguments - hoping people will repent and believe just as you do, you undermine the integrity of the very science you profess to love.
IMHO ;-)
I love science through and through and that's the reason I want you to stop it!
JohnM, Thank you. The post above was well put.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 11:39am PT
|
Thank you for making my point HFCS. I can usually count on you.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 11:44am PT
|
the brutal violence and oppression enforced by islam.
You believe everything you're always fed
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 11:58am PT
|
John M, you are absolutely correct that many atheists, along with a large number of religious people, are guilty of prostelytizing. Interestingly, nearly 100% of people on this thread, regardless of their beliefs, are guilty of prostelytizing.
Can anyone say that anyone here has modified their belief's because they have been convinced by arguments on this thread....I doubt it.
i am very content with my atheism but will never try to convince others to follow suit. Beliefs, when it comes to religion and politics, are very rarely changed by any kind of arguments...logical or otherwise.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 12:00pm PT
|
Just see how crazy these fool atheists are.
Now they are defending their beliefs after telling others their beliefs are not evidence based on their so called science/
LOL, just can't get any more ridiculous .......
Look in the mirror, it does get more ridiculous.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 12:06pm PT
|
I looked in the mirror and only saw YOU ......lol
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 12:08pm PT
|
"Thats not persuasion. That proselytizing. Some atheist are no different in their actions then the religious who pound it down your throat. That is what is meant by those who say atheism has become a religion. Some of its members act just like the thing that they hate."
I could less what someone believe or thinks, the burden of proof still lies on the soft shoulders of someone like Werner, nothing but insults and jibber jabber out of the likes of him.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 12:18pm PT
|
"I looked in the mirror and only saw YOU ......lol"
Lucky you.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 02:43pm PT
|
On Blathering Winds I Must Ride
I wear this proselytizing shroud
Like a burlap sack 'round the remains
Of a fossilized ipseity
Hypocritically bleached by stains
Of piety where once was housed
My shrunken head and narrow brains
Beseeched by those who knew me well
Not to frequent these alleys of living hell
With such heresy or impiety
That I am want to retch or spew
But still find I am often prone to do
-bushman
06/12/2017
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 03:16pm PT
|
Some of you are just arguing words without attempting to find meaning. Why do some say atheism is like a religion? Because atheist treat their non belief just like many religious people treat their belief. They pound you over the head with it
So if I'm a self-described atheist and I pound my belief that we should generally listen to what Science tells us, for instance that smoking causes cancer, global warming is caused by humans and is a real problem, vaccines don't cause autism... And that there is no reasonable evidence for a supernatural being, or an afterlife, or reincarnation...
I'm being "religious" in both my beliefs and advocacy?
Really?
I guess NASA must have been very, very religious to figure out how to put a human on the moon...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 03:19pm PT
|
Stoopidest logic ever presented ^^^^^^
Atheist, theists, agnostics, etc have been manipulating the inferior material energies since forever.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 03:27pm PT
|
Natural reality has enough intelligence and vitalism in it as is.
Mark
What intelligence does Natural reality have?
Can you point to something that has intelligence other than a living biological organism?
So many memes are thrown out there out on wild speculation alone;
Like God is Love, The universe is love, God is truth, you are going to a better place, the universal intelligence, universal spirit... etc.
No one can know these things, they are just throw away words to give comfort to the gullible.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 03:40pm PT
|
No one can know these things
But you know everything since YOU experienced it ALL.
You are god (a tiny infinitesimal one) and only you know what everyone else in the whole cosmic manifestation can know. Rolls eyes ......
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 03:55pm PT
|
I truly respect the fact that people have deep spiritual and metaphysical experiences that give them a deep understanding of life and the human mind.
I can't argue that they were not life changing and very meaningful. But these experiences occur in the mind, nothing from the outside enters the mind except through the senses; i.e. like a physic transfer of thoughts or feelings(please debate if you think this is incorrect).
Anything can be experienced, but anything that is experienced has nothing to do with God or can be attributed to God.
It's your own workings of your mind, it occurs there and stays there.
Atheists can be just as spiritual and enjoy the farthest reaches of the mind just like anyone else. God has no bearing on what happens in our mind, this does not change one iota if you believe in god or not.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 03:57pm PT
|
God has no bearing on what happens in our mind,
Now Dr Fry is an expert on what God does and doesn't do.
Yowza !!!!!
Are you using a huge excavator for digging that huge hole you're making for yourself?
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 04:00pm PT
|
Wbraun is an expert on what God does and doesn't know
He knows all so he can say everyone else is stoopid
only one possible option; ignore all WB posts
so tedious...
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 04:22pm PT
|
But what is Craig's definition of God and what is Werner's definition of God?
I don't think it is the same. Apples and Oranges.
In various religions God, self, and one's own mind are one and the same.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 04:36pm PT
|
DMT, How much money are we talking about? I'm not cheap, but, hey I'll hear the offer!
Craig, I wrote a fairly long reply to the question and then realized how silly I was being, both in terms of my ego and the expectation we would have a conversation. My thoughts are already here upthread and you're welcome to them. Cheers.
Second word of the day: shoshin (beginner's mind)
If you check Werner's stuff like a gold panner you'll occasionally catch a really nice nugget! Thank you, Werner!
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 04:55pm PT
|
My definition of God is any possible form of God possible or imagined,
therefore, includes all and everyone else's God or what they want to call God, even WB's
here is the Exception:
Calling one self or any other Human God, I will not make an exception for this type of God in my definition of possible God
God is something other than a Human or living biological organism.
Next Exception; Calling everything "God",
Everything is not Called God.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Sport climber
moving thru
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 04:57pm PT
|
Humankind, continually trying to place their limited knowledge into boxes with labels that proclaim....I know this.
A wonderful challenge to live life fully.... experiencing and not labeling. Growing and learning as you go.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 05:13pm PT
|
Craig, Go upstream to the post on Taoism. Then circle back and initiate a conversation. Let's put an anthropomorphic and personal God off the table and not consider it a plausible idea for including in a conversation.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 05:25pm PT
|
Let's put an anthropomorphic and personal God off the table and not consider it
Why do that? As Craig started to really think. He said:
"My definition of God is any possible form of God possible or imagined,
therefore, includes all and everyone else's God or what they want to call God, even WB's"
He should have left out "My" and "imagined"
God can take any form he wants. and then he says:
"Calling oneself or any other Human God, I will not make an exception for this type of God in my definition of possible God
God is something other than a Human or living biological organism."
Yes, so "Calling oneself or any other Human God, I will not make an exception" this is 100% true.
I called him a tiny infinitesimal god. I used "god" in that sentence in lower case because it was a sarcastic statement.
In truth, every living entity is a part parcel (infinitesimal tiny part) of God himself with all the qualities but not the quantity .......
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 05:29pm PT
|
I do like the pantheistic god concept as a homogenous impersonal resident intelligence that underlies the cycles between states of animate and inanimate phenomena. It's such an interesting idea to ponder and experience and in my observation, however delusional, joyful.
The anthropomorphic personal God idea is a big yawn for me. It vey compelling/interesting.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 05:32pm PT
|
Since you are a person Mark you are a big yawn and not very interesting. :-) (sarcasm)
I'd much rather talk to an impersonal formless thing :-).... (more sarcasm)
This is has been a crude form of analogy .....
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 05:42pm PT
|
Hi, Werner! Beer? ;-)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 05:43pm PT
|
I don't drink alcohol.
But it's cool man ......
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 06:26pm PT
|
God doesn't call "alcohol-free beer" beer. She's kind of an all-knowing sort. Kind of tiresomely so, in some of her creations.
I like the idea of labelling our posts as sarcasm! I wish Trump would do that with his tweets, but how many times can you type (lie) before you get carpal-tunnel?
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 06:30pm PT
|
In truth, every living entity is a part parcel (infinitesimal tiny part) of God himself with all the qualities but not the quantity .......
Why not? On a sub atomic level and a planetary level, its so similar.
Planets and stars orbit around each other the same as electrons around a atom. The building blocks of nature, who knows how far into infinity it stretches. We could all be some small part of a much vaster life form, as we are all part of our Mother Earth. It actually seems more likely then not.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 06:37pm PT
|
"In truth, every living entity is a part parcel (infinitesimal tiny part) of God himself with all the qualities but not the quantity ......."
Of course Werner knows this to be true/factual based on...
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 06:49pm PT
|
Werner is in harmony with his experience. It is profound for him and he is conveying the depth and impact of his experience. He claims that his experience is universal. At some level the experience is universal as functional MRI shows religious experience is universal in the pattern of brain activity associated with it.
These things are true based on science.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 06:49pm PT
|
The "truth" that we are looking for, is obviously wrapped up in the evolution of first vertebrates, then mammals, then primates, then human-like creatures (hominids). Science (evolutionary science) allows for introducing new things into the universe, like human-like creatures. Religion has a tough time explaining the same phenomenon..
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:10pm PT
|
Hey, Bob! Attribution! I'm hurt!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:36pm PT
|
Hi, Mark.
August West: . . . smoking causes cancer, . . . .
Heard of HPV?
Good post, Lynne.
Bob: Funny that science can explain what Werner and others can't.
Horse pucky. Not 100%. It’s always lacking. Find one study that explains 100% of the variance.
Why is there variance?
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 07:42pm PT
|
MikeL, Have I heard of HPV? What kind of question is that? have you heard of the sun?
By the way, nice work on bringing ouroboros into a recent post. I love that!
Variance. Tolerance. Distribution. The universe isn't completely predictable. Isn't that fun?
How cool it is that our view at the macro level of phenomena is just the average distribution of "random" phenomena at the micro level.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:07pm PT
|
Mark,
The HPV comment was not to you, but it's nice that you commented anyway.
Jim,
I had HPV and never knew. And got cancer. And smoked for 35 years.
And loved every minute of it.
Who knows what "the cause" is / was?
Whatever, . . . . it showed consciousness, what seemed to be mine.
But talk to my wife. :-) She'd probably say that I exhibited no consciousness whatsoever. I was dead to her. (And she surely wasn't at all happy about that!)
Be well.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:09pm PT
|
LOL Mike .....
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:16pm PT
|
Ha-ha-ha-ha.
(To the both of you.)
:-D
|
|
Super Sleuth
Ice climber
New York City, NY
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:19pm PT
|
I used to follow the bible loosely at best. For moments when I was a child I wished that it was true: That I had a life that required attention from an all knowing, all seeing god that could intervene if I believe enough, or prey enough, or preyed hard enough, or said the right words in the prayer that I would somehow get some help.
I have always believed the help never came in a language I understood, or could comprehend or could ever believe was ever real or meaningful in my life.
I have always asked myself "What do you believe?" and, just as importantly, "Why do I believe that?"
Any time I would blurt out a cliché "reason" I would sit and think and eventually ask myself another question: "Is that true? Or "What evidence can I find to support that part of that belief?"
Eventually reviewed the bible by way of attempts to read from cover to cover (never made it - Thank God For Dyslexia). Found it more useful when used like a preacher uses it: specific passages to elicit specific responses in specific people.
This led me to find a passage that kept everyone out of my discussion group on god: Matthew 6:5-6 New International Version (NIV)
5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
The passage I read as a kid, or teen said something about keeping it between a lord and myself, and it had nothing to do with anyone else.
But I was recently pointed to another quick blurb that opens doors for me at times: Romans 3:3-4King James Version (KJV)
3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.
So, now I get to ask a judge, when swearing to tell the truth on the bible, I tell him "God is the truth, but I am a liar, Judge, God's Word's, not mine!"
Am I shown an honest man if I admit to you that I am a liar?
Whether you believe me to have a God or not, I ask you to ask yourself these questions as well
Never Settle
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 09:36pm PT
|
Nice!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2017 - 10:34pm PT
|
MikeL, Be well.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 08:46am PT
|
Mark and Mike
What's your belief of an after life?
I think a belief/hope in an after life is one of the biggest proponents in maintaining a belief in a high power.
That's my story, I had a belief in a higher power for ~30 years, but after I couldn't justify the existence of an after life in my mind, the reason for a higher power that provided purpose slipped away.
And I then became a natural being, like the rest of natural world; live eat, be happy die, just like every other living thing.
There is no purpose or higher spiritual goal.
The best you can do is live in the here and now, and abide by the Golden Rule.
My opinion open for debate.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 08:49am PT
|
There is a difference between belief and fact.
All you ever do Fry is give clueless beliefs.
Fact, the living entity is eternal and not the material body ......
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 08:57am PT
|
MikeL. said there are no facts
so you will have to take that line of debate up with him
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 09:25am PT
|
Fact, the living entity is eternal and not the material body ......
I have to 2nd this and say that this is where religion gets real.
As a young man I chased up a number of religions as a matter of interest starting with the oh so boring Sunday School. One thing lead to another and I was chasing up various metaphysics oracles speaking long and often about the imortality of the concious human soul.
We'll I eventually found the stuff I was looking for and opened up the long term memory banks. Vast amounts of past-life stuff came out. I'm not talking about fortune telling. I'm using an electronic devise that registers when you see fact and finding it for myself, not someone else telling me how it is.
Well after many hundreds of hours of unfolding the tangled past of my existance, past life stuff is just boring old hack. Lots of lessons learned and freedom from "lessons learned."
The cool thing about knowing for sure that you live forever, as a being, is the future. You think long term. Also, the idea that life long.
Life is long and then you die, then your are born again for a long life and it goes on and on and on. So if that seem tedious, it is, so fix what you need to so that the now is always good.
Oh, and if you don't remember sh#t yourself, that is normal. Most people wouldn't want to rememer the life they are in now. It's just a mild case of abnesia that is easy to fix with the help of someone who knows what they are doing.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 09:29am PT
|
There is the now that is all you have.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 09:33am PT
|
Werner is like a snake oil salesman.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 09:37am PT
|
The cool thing about knowing for sure that you live forever, as a being, is the future. You think long term. Also, the idea that life long.
Life is long and then you die, then your are born again for a long life and it goes on and on and on. How do you know?
I came to exact opposite conclusion after doing my search.
What evidence is there that your soul/some part of you lives on?
Born again where?
on and on, why?
how long?
are there rules in heaven?
or do you come back to earth as another human to process some karma?
see how this works, none of these questions can be answered, it's pure speculation
Yet I can answer the same questions, "none of this after life stuff exists, period"
answered to my satisfaction.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 10:14am PT
|
Let’s take Roman and Greek deities nobody believes are real: Aphrodite/Venus, Ares/Mars, Dionysus/ Bacchus, Athena, Apollo.
These are anthropomorphic manifestations of psychological states that are helpful as metaphors in understanding love and beauty, anger, emotion, reason.
They were helpful for centuries in securing an understanding and a resolution to the angst of the human condition.
If you’re having trouble being reasonable offer a sacrifice to Athena and in the process perhaps you’ll come to your senses.
The tradition of ritual and sacrifice and self-examination through these deities helped people pure and simple. And in the broadest sense that’s why religion is generally helpful.
In these deities is a truth that so many on this thread, particularly those lost in the absolutes of science simply can’t comprehend.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 11:38am PT
|
Human sacrifice to the deities was a wonderful thing back in the day
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 01:53pm PT
|
It's a sloppy argument to claim the fallibility of all religions on a small, archaic and unfortunate practice. Read the account of Abraham and Isaac in the old testament or the story of Iphigenia in Greek myth to understand the elimination of human sacrifice in those two worlds.
I would never claim the fallibility of science based on Dr. Mengele or the notion that bumps on your head are an indication of your character, or the development of nerve gas and missiles and atomic weaponry, and germ warfare and...
Yet I can answer the same questions, "none of this after life stuff exists, period"
answered to my satisfaction.
Who cares about life after death, what about how we live our lives presently and how we reconcile ourselves to the tragedies, both little and big, inevitable in every life?
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 02:16pm PT
|
I'm questioning the existence of God
not the importance of myths and literature
you carry on with your debate, and I will carry on with my debate on God and the after life
The things you say are important have no importance to my life or the way I lead it
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 02:40pm PT
|
The things you say are important have no importance to my life or the way I lead it
As it should be. As long as others might have their own "importances."
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 04:19pm PT
|
Altruism has been found to be an trait that has evolved because it has a benefit for the survival of our species
So the Golden Rule has no connection to a higher power, it's part of our evolutionary history
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 04:28pm PT
|
what is altruism for Donald Trump? A genuine question. How does that look to you? Is it the unconditional love of the new agers?
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 04:39pm PT
|
The Golden Rule is "do unto others as you wish they do unto you"
I don't have any direct contact with Trump, so I don't have to worry about doing unto him.
Nor do I have to be altruistic to him, since he we do not have a personal relationship. Nothing I do will affect Trump, so if I did some altruism for him, it would be meaningless.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 04:41pm PT
|
Altruism is disinterested.
Why should anyone's title, beliefs, speech, or actions matter?
This is where I have extreme disagreement of modern teachings of the Buddha. The Buddha taught selfless love. Not disinterested love. The very essence of Love includes interest.
So practically speaking.. does disinterest mean that you would not stop someone from murdering someone else? Would you not try to stop someone from doing harm to others? Even Jesus threw down the money changers tables.
.......
Edit:
I don't have any direct contact with Trump, so I don't have to worry about doing unto him. You don't have to have direct contact in order to "do unto others". If you vote for things like war, then you are partially responsible for that war. Our congress did not go and fight the war in Iraq, but they are certainly responsible for enacting it and requiring others to go fight it.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 04:41pm PT
|
Altruism is a word likely not in Trump's vocabulary and definetly not evident in his behavior.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 04:54pm PT
|
The "Golden Rule" was given by Jesus of Nazareth, who used it to summarize the Torah: "Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets" (Matthew 7:12 NCV, see also Luke 6:31).
Definition of golden rule
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/golden%20rule
1 a rule of ethical conduct referring to Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31: do to others as you would have them do to you
2 a guiding principle
golden rule
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/golden-rule
1. a rule of ethical conduct, usually phrased “ Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, ” or, as in the Sermon on the Mount, “ Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so unto them. ” Matt. 7:12; Luke 6:31.
2. Any philosophy, guiding principle, or ideal of behavior, as in a discipline, pursuit, or business: The protesters agreed that their golden rule would be“no violence.”. |
|
Byran
climber
Half Dome Village
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 04:59pm PT
|
The Golden Rule is arrived at through logical thinking. It's not mandated by God, and it's not an innate human characteristic shaped by evolution. Humans have been tribal animals for a very long time and most of our hard-wired morality is based on "in group / out group" distinctions. This probably evolved through kin selection and reciprocal altruism. But humans definitely aren't hardwired to regard all of humanity as part of the "in group". If we were, the history books wouldn't be filled with wars, genocides, racism, gang violence, et al.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 05:05pm PT
|
OK
how does all this Golden Rule constitute a higher purpose?
My dog wants to be good, won't poop or pee in the house, and she goes out of her way to be cuddly and lovable, higher purpose?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 05:07pm PT
|
Religion is for the weak...
Which is what most of us are.
Altruism may be a vestige of evolution but religion promotes it, encourages it, even makes it into a lifestyle, all things it would not be if it were simply an evolutionary consequence.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 05:10pm PT
|
civil society promotes altruism religion or not
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 05:13pm PT
|
civil society promotes altruism religion or not
Not true... civil society promotes its survival: ask Stalin how important altruism is in his civil society, ask the Spartans, Chairman Mao.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 05:15pm PT
|
I suspect that the amount of altruism in a given population has nothing at all to do with religious belief or disbelief. Altruism and good behavior are as disconnected from religious belief as prayer is from influencing outcomes.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 05:20pm PT
|
During Stalin's Russia there was the normal amount of altruism going on inside local tribes.
Obviously...!!!!
That not all humans are altruistic; i.e Stalin, Trump, Bush, the Republicans
The initial point of my debate was:
since there is no after life or God
And if you want to be a good human; Why Not?
You should live in the here and now, and abide by the Golden Rule
That's all I got.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 05:49pm PT
|
You should live in the here and now, and abide by the Golden Rule
Begs the question: why?
That's all I got.
Certainty requires more.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 05:53pm PT
|
That's all I got for "now"
since my dinner appeared in front of my computer
Please post any question that is specific enough to debate
and I will get back to you
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 05:57pm PT
|
Give it up Paul, if don't understand what Craig is saying then it is up to you find out, not him.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 06:57pm PT
|
Why should I abide by the Golden Rule?
Because I want to, I want to be treated justly, so I need to treat others justly to deserve being treated justly
I want to be a good human, just like my dog wants to be a good dog.
It's innate for some, not all
there are bad humans and bad dogs
that's why we have a judicial system/pound
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:20pm PT
|
^
no evidence of Jesus or what he said verbatim exists
so we really have no idea what was going through his mind at any time during his life if he existed at all, or was just mythologized, which would be the likely explanantion
So you may need to find that source of love inside yourself
I have
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:30pm PT
|
Craig: Because I want to, I want to be treated justly, so I need to treat others justly to deserve being treated justly
This is not love. This is self-interest. You are a modern man.
|
|
John M
climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:31pm PT
|
Thanks LG..I appreciate the answers. Your beliefs are similar to my own. But I believe that when we become one with the Father, that then Love becomes a figure eight flow between the Father/Mother and the Son/Daughter. So it not an expectation of getting back, but rather realizing that one has already been given to, and that this means that you are the one giving back, and this completes the karmic flow allowing the multiplication of Light/Truth/Love.
So back to your original question.
Do you have altruism for Donald Trump?
Do you actively practice, exhibit, and cultivate love, kindness, compassion, and sympathetic joy for Donald Trump?
Wouldn't it then be Altruistic to work to get Donald Trump out of office if you believed his actions were harming the country and ultimately himself? The primary problem with this is whether one was acting selflessly or not. Or acting out of some lower emotion such as fear or anger or hate. That would then cloud the altruistic act.
Just my thoughts. I enjoyed reading your posts.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:31pm PT
|
MikeL.
You are correct
It is self interest
But I can still love on the side
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:36pm PT
|
yeah Craig, it's only a fable spread through-out time through Man's heart.
So tell me Craig, what's more smarter; the mind, or the heart?
|
|
Byran
climber
Half Dome Village
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:40pm PT
|
Re. Love ^
In Christianity Jesus exemplifies this sort of unconditional love. When he's on the cross dying, instead of having anger or hatred for those that were humiliating, torturing, and murdering him, he had only love and compassion for them. He even prayed for them explaining to god that because of their ignorance they aren't even capable of knowing what they're doing, therefor they should be spared from the suffering of further punishment.
In that case, one must be shocked at the number of Christians who believe: that all those who don't accept Jesus as Lord and Savior will, upon death of the body, have their souls thrown into a lake of fire to burn in agony for all eternity. It seems ridiculous to me that God should hold humans to a much greater standard of forgiveness and compassion than what He Himself is capable of.
It's just fine with me if religious folks keep on with their love, altruism, and charity. All I'd ask is that they let go of the stoopid sh#t, the bigotry, and the hate.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:45pm PT
|
???
yes indeed
I have no idea where that came from
there was no greed, anger or hate in any of my posts, so I guess you were talking to someone else
question
answer; No I do not have any love what so ever for trump, or his cronies
why should I?
for arguments sake
I love my dog, why shouldn't I have unconditional love for her?
Is there any harm in this love?
I feel the love back from her.
I'm an atheist, I can love or not love anything or anyone I want.
There are no rules or guilt placed on my love
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:46pm PT
|
freak's just like to dilute religion into the political stream!
STOP IT!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:47pm PT
|
GROW UP !
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:49pm PT
|
It's just fine with me if religious folks keep on with their love, altruism, and charity. All I'd ask is that they let go of the stoopid sh#t, the bigotry, and the hate.
HA! said the toad to the grasshopper.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 07:55pm PT
|
why Norton?
you just think old people are runnin this world, when really it's change!
trim off some branch's Brother!
;)
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 - 09:35pm PT
|
"So tell me Craig, what's more smarter; the mind, or the heart?"
Are you freaking kidding me??
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 06:41am PT
|
Bob: Are you freaking kidding me??
Gee, Bob, that doesn’t strike me as such a weird or stupid question.
When it comes to life’s vicissitudes and challenges, which do you find leads you to better outcomes or to better understandings?
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 06:52am PT
|
Maybe not a stupid question but certainly not well phrased....."more smarter."
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 06:53am PT
|
The heart has zero smarts
it pumps blood
Brains have all the smarts
that's where the mind lives
if heart stops pumping, brain dies, mind goes blank for eternity
it's a stupid question
any more questions
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 07:13am PT
|
He wasn't talking about the gross physical heart.
He was referring to the spiritual soul, which is situated within the heart of every living entity ...
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 07:50am PT
|
What if the critter doesn't have a heart
where does it's soul reside?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 07:55am PT
|
"When it comes to life’s vicissitudes and challenges, which do you find leads you to better outcomes or to better understandings?'
Your brain does with rational thinking...no matter what the crazy duck spews out.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 09:52am PT
|
Threads like this are a bit like Republicans commenting on global warming. You have a group of individuals disinclined or in denial of the subject matter who have done no research on the subject and yet feel inclined to feign knowledge of the subject. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion on the matter of religion. It is, after all, an intensely personal thing. I don't tell people what they should believe so, conversely, I dislike people telling me what I supposedly think or feel or know about the subject.
Dr. F (the real one) said:
no evidence of Jesus or what he said verbatim exists
so we really have no idea what was going through his mind at any time during his life if he existed at all, or was just mythologized, which would be the likely explanantion This is not true. We know that Jesus was a real person. We have the Romans in part to thank for the census information they obtained. The big question, the real question, is whether Jesus was the divine figure that Christians believe him to be.
We do have a pretty good idea of what Jesus preached. Do we have a verbatim quote? I'm not sure what kind of evidence you need to support this statement? Audio tape, a notarized writing, etc.? For obvious reason those do not exist. However, we do have the Apostles who heard his teachings and taught them to other in the period immediately following Jesus' death. We have Paul writing his epistles about 20 yrs. after Jesus' death, and the first three gospels being written about a life time (c. 5-60 yrs.) later. Keep in mind that people did write things down back then (e.g. Paul's letters), so between that and oral history, which can be remarkably accurate, I think we have a pretty good idea of what Jesus said. There has been FAR more research on this area than you could possibly realize.
Re Donini's comment:
I suspect that the amount of altruism in a given population has nothing at all to do with religious belief or disbelief. Altruism and good behavior are as disconnected from religious belief as prayer is from influencing outcomes. I disagree with this alot. This is not unlike Jody's political observations. This is just one person's opinion based upon, well, his own opinion and little else. I give you that religion and altruism do not always correlate, nor do Christians always do a good job of following Jesus' example, sadly. Some clearly do; many do not. However, often when I find myself deciding whether I should give a homeless person a handout, or move to help someone, I do think about my faith and what Jesus would do. I try to be a decent person and help others out, in part because that's how I was raised (though I was raised Catholic), because I want to help and in part because I feel I am doing what my faith instructs me to do. To paraphrase Jesus, "whatever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 09:58am PT
|
Craig, There are index medicus listed peer-reviewed studies that indicate the cardiac plexus and cardiac nerves input ultimately to the central nervous system modulates the limbic system, in general, and the autonomic nervous system, in particular. The limbic system has a lot to do with regulation/modulation of awareness, focus, attention, mood, memory and emotions.
It turns out the heart is actually quite "smart."
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 10:53am PT
|
Fat Dad.....you think about what Jesus would want you to do and that is fine. My point is simply that as high a percentage of people with no belief in God will also show good behavior in regards to their fellow humans. Good, even altruistic, behavior is not predicated in a belief in God,
Yes, some people will say that their good behavior stems from folllowing the tenants of their religion. Some people will also do heinous acts because of their beliefs, however perverted, in a particular religion...the Crusades come to mind.
Civilization could not exist without people behaving properly in regards to their neighbors. Flourishing civilizations existed before any belief in a personal, monotheistic God, and flourishing civilizations exist today with people who are, for the most part, secular.
And as to the condemnation that my remarks are based on my own beliefs and nothing else....look in a mirror. Your comments are based on your beliefs and nothing else...as they should be.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 11:26am PT
|
Fat Dad.....you think about what Jesus would want you to do and that is fine. My point is simply that as high a percentage of people with no belief in God will also show good behavior in regards to their fellow humans. Good, even altruistic, behavior is not predicated in a belief in God, Jim, I totally agree with you on this point. I think even Mark Twain made a similar comment a long time ago. Dante did as well when he included his nobel infidels, people of high esteem but born before Christ, in The Divine Comedy. I don't wish that everyone be Christian or any other faith. I find lots of so-called Christians just that. I mostly wish that people choose to be good people and do good works. I care not a whit whether they do so as part of their faith or not.
And as to your last comment, you are right. I just find that sometimes that threads like this involve people commenting on what I, as a person of faith, believe or do not believe. I will choose my words better in the future.
And Bob, thanks for the link. However, that is one opinion (by a guy marketing his book). I know you're a smart guy and know that there are competing opinions on that issue. Different people choose to be convinced by different evidence.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 11:31am PT
|
"And Bob, thanks for the link. However, that is one opinion (by a guy marketing his book). I know you're a smart guy and know that there are competing opinions on that issue. Different people choose to be convinced by different evidence."
The burden of proof isn't on me, as I said before...prove it. :-)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 11:55am PT
|
Fat Dad.....you think about what Jesus would want you to do and that is fine. My point is simply that as high a percentage of people with no belief in God will also show good behavior in regards to their fellow humans. Good, even altruistic, behavior is not predicated in a belief in God,
This may very well be true but what religion does is to refine moral behavior and raise it to a level that often ignores evolutionary mechanics for the sake of morality itself and the pursuit of a virtue that might otherwise go unrealized.
As if praying (aka Talking into the wind) does a fuking thing...
Such nonsense!!!...
Well it sure as hell helps the person doing the praying and isn't that nice?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 12:03pm PT
|
The big question, the real question, is whether Jesus was the divine figure that Christians believe him to be.
The same can be said, for Zeus, Jupiter, Santa Claus, and Tinker Bell.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 12:19pm PT
|
The same can be said, for Zeus, Jupiter, Santa Claus, and Tinker Bell.
Zeus and Jupiter are essentially the same figure and the Hellenistic gods were, again, anthropomorphic deities that represented psychological states and worked very well for the Greeks and Romans. That anger you feel, well that's Mars or Ares at work, that flush of intellectual insight you experience, well that's Athena born of the mind of God lending you reason. The gift of beauty is the mix of corporeal matter and divinity ( read mind) that Aphrodite represents. I don't see how anybody can think there is no truth to be found in these deities, no help.
5 to go.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 01:04pm PT
|
My point exactly...
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 01:20pm PT
|
Jim, agreed on ethics and altruism not requiring religion. I love the ethics that Jesus taught in the New Testament (if you believe Jesus was an historical figure) and they form much of the basis for my personal ethic. Interestingly, practicing Christian ethics doesn't require believing anything beyond Jesus being a sharp rabbi.
“Kindness is invincible.”
~ Marcus Aurelius
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 02:52pm PT
|
Zeus and Jupiter are essentially the same figure and the Hellenistic gods were, again, anthropomorphic deities that represented psychological states and worked very well for the Greeks and Romans. That anger you feel, well that's Mars or Ares at work, that flush of intellectual insight you experience, well that's Athena born of the mind of God lending you reason. The gift of beauty is the mix of corporeal matter and divinity ( read mind) that Aphrodite represents. I don't see how anybody can think there is no truth to be found in these deities, no help. This is actually an interesting issue. My initial response, without thinking about it, would be that these were just mythological deities without any claim to humanity. But then I remembered my mythology and that many of the deities assumed human form, visited the earth, had sex, beat up people, etc. I could say that Jesus was a man, whereas the gods only assumed their form while remaining gods. However, then you get interesting issues like the Trinity, where Jesus is, in addition to being human, the Son of God, God and the Holy Spirit. I think that belief denies me a quick rebuttal to the Greek gods thing.
This is an interesting thread. Though it's easy for the faithful to feel like they have to defend their positions, I don't mind. I welcome doubt and questions about my faith because it gives me the opportunity to be introspective about it. Most of the time my life is too busy to stop and contemplate what I believe.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 02:59pm PT
|
Mythology now, but in Greece and Rome back in their days those gods were considered just as real and divine as jesus is considered by christians today. What on earth would make a christian believe their god is any more valid than those gods?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 03:21pm PT
|
If a god is that which creates, subsumes, unites, and guides the workings of all things, then science has risen to the position.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 03:22pm PT
|
Modern science has failed that .....
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 03:39pm PT
|
"If a god is that which creates, subsumes, unites, and guides the workings of all things, then science has risen to the position."
It is a work in progress, unlike Werner who has all the answers.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 07:23pm PT
|
Evidence of Jesus actually existing is sparse,
I am suspect because I doubt the existence of a Son Of GOD!!!
virgin birth, walked on water, resurrected from death but died for your sins, but came back alive (I guess your sins are not excused because he didn't die), but disappeared after coming back alive, because we can't find any Jesus still alive from 2000 years ago even though he came back from the dead,
where is he??
But did the man responsible for the world's largest religion actually exist?
Historians, theologians and secular scholars are agreed on one thing: he probably did. But beyond that basic statement - that a man called Jesus did once walk the Earth - they are divided.
To what extent his life has been exaggerated, mythologised and bent will almost always be impossible to prove.
This in-depth literature review by Alternet's Valerie Tarico outlines five reasons scholars give that he did not exist:
•There is no first century secular evidence that he existed - all sources are either Christian or Jewish
•The earliest New Testament writings are vague on details of his life - they become more fleshed out in later texts
•The eyewitness accounts in the four canonical gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) are all second hand Bingo, no first hand accounts
•The gospels make contradictions about his life
•Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the 'real Jesus' contradict each other
https://www.indy100.com/article/did-jesus-exist-7489786
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 09:00pm PT
|
Dr. F,
I don't believe that a failure to reference Jesus outside of Christian or Jewish texts means that those texts are biased. You could make the same argument that secular sources were alos biased against Christians. The Romans, for examples, hated and persecuted Christians. Why would they chronical some one who would have been regarded as a political criminal. Having said that, the Roman historian Tacitus does make reference to the leader of the Christians, Christus, who was crucified under the reign of Tiberius. The Jewish historian, Josephus, who wrote in Greek who later took the name Flavius after his Roman patron, also mentioned a Jesus, who is called Messiah, who was executed.
With respect to the Gospels, as I mentioned, they were written about 50-60 years after Jesus' death, so yes, no eyewitness accounts. The Gospels do vary in the details they share, particularly John's, but they share different details more than contradict one another. Having said that, that does not mean that both are incorrect, only that the details in one may be apocryphal.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 09:11pm PT
|
Craig,
Is there anything that you rely upon that has come to you by a second account? Have you talked to or listened to those who have had the direct experiences of all the many beliefs that you hold to be credible / true?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 09:18pm PT
|
I'm glad Jesus Christ consciousness is still here and never left.
Much better than the Boob D'A and Fried mundane tag team to nowhere ......
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 03:37am PT
|
Threads like this are a bit like Republicans commenting on global warming. You have a group of individuals disinclined or in denial of the subject matter who have done no research on the subject and yet feel inclined to feign knowledge of the subject. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion on the matter of religion. It is, after all, an intensely personal thing. I don't tell people what they should believe so, conversely, I dislike people telling me what I supposedly think or feel or know about the subject.
I wouldn't be so concerned about what they believe if they didn't act upon those beliefs. But they tend to do things like want to replace the teaching of evolution in schools with some crap like intelligent design or elect politicians hostile to gay rights or make abortion illegal.
And even with that, delusion is still a bad thing.
If society has convinced somebody that they are, and should be, a second class citizen and that's all right and proper ....
Do you just shrug and say they are entitled to their belief?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 05:04am PT
|
I'm glad Jesus Christ consciousness is still here and never left.
Much better than the Boob D'A and Fried mundane tag team to nowhere ......
Yes and you are a shining example of that Jesus Christ consciousness with your constant name calling and verbal attacks on people who don't buy into your bullsh#t.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:49am PT
|
August West: But they tend to do things like want to replace the teaching of evolution in schools with some crap like intelligent design or elect politicians hostile to gay rights or make abortion illegal.
Fat Dad: I don't tell people what they should believe so, conversely, I dislike people telling me what I supposedly think or feel or know about the subject.
Both of you seem to have the same complaint.
Rights versus culture.
Both generate ideologies.
Should there be inalienable rights? Do communities get to establish their own beliefs, norms, and behaviors? Should a majority rule?
One might think that we could find some resolution if we could only have a dialogue about the deeper issues. But I suspect that is near-sighted. There is a conundrum about such issues. When looked closely at such things, one will often find the two diametrically opposing views contained in the arguments on both sides. For example, communities establish rights to membership, and any generation of rights comes from the deliberations of a community. Stipulating any prioritization about rights and community result from a social construction . . . again, a community decision.
The more fragmented people become, the more they war with each other, enlisting claims of moral superiority and enlightened intelligence.
These are issues debated by political philosophers for millennia. It seems there are no final solutions, just expedient arrangements for the sake of momentary peace.
There doesn’t seem to be any right or wrong, and that can be infuriating.
It would seem that one must get beyond right and wrong.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:12am PT
|
Craig,
Is there anything that you rely upon that has come to you by a second account? Have you talked to or listened to those who have had the direct experiences of all the many beliefs that you hold to be credible / true? Yes there is plenty I take from second account reports
but if smells like BS, then I check it out further
and if it turns out to be wrong, then I reject it.
And the whole Jesus thing smells to high heaven, not only is it second accounts, it was probably changed to add mystical elements and the magnitude of the Son of God identity in later Versions of the second hand accounts
Everything has changed since biblical times
including what was written in the bible
Socrates and Aristotle had some great ideas, some are still valid, others have been found to not be true, I don't need to stick to a flat earth because it was written down is some book that should be questioned.
If you use the bible as a work of fiction, I think it would be better appreciated.
Most of Jesus' teaching are the same as any other spiritual liberal philosopher of the time.
They (years after the death of Jesus) just lumped all the good pagan stuff together and put a face on it, Jesus.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:34am PT
|
Craig, (1) you do realize you're a "modern" and MikeL is a "post-modernist" - (2) the latter whose main purpose - besides arguing pretty much any point made in terms of its antipode - is to level, that is, zero out, every interpretation or value (system). You don't have to feed it, you can find a more worthy recipient than post-modernism bs (eg. free will, peak oil, climate change, automation, dangers of future AI or VR, etc).
August West, you're a breath of fresh air. Keep it up.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:39am PT
|
Freedom from Religion
Freedom from religion is a right I empower myself with and exercise. The repression of religion imposed on me in early childhood almost turned me into a militant anarchist, opposed to a religion and government steeped in racism, sexism, and other abuse.
Luckily my wife and kids have civilized me some, and life experience has helped to temper the rage I carried for so many years against the Protestant church and the southern evangelist guilt/reward based fire and brimstone teachings I was exposed to in the vulnerable lamb state of my youth.
Sure, the religious based arts, music, philosophies, and other disciplines of our civilization have their benefits and beauty, but the oppression of free thought and human rights, and the stifling of scientific advancements by the arbiters of religious views far outweigh the need to remain bound by old world theologies.
Believe what you would but I would have none of this god you speak of. No political leader in this country who professes atheism will be elected by the electorate because of the narrow mindedness of religious peoples in our nation. This is evidence that there is no war on religion in our society. It is still balanced in the other direction.
-bushman
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:46am PT
|
August West, you're a breath of fresh air. Keep it up.
You too, Bob. I just wish you'd give as much attn to the criticism of fundamentalist Islam as you do fundamentalist Christianity. It's true, this is America, American culture, American sociopolitics and fundamentalist Christianity is the greater influence here. But there is also the global perspective, we are globalizing, and taking on that perspective is not that much more challenging. There are umpteen millions in the world like us (women to public intellectuals) having moved beyond fundamentalist theology, who presently suffer under the oppression of 7th century Islamic conservatism. Their voices need our support, in other words our global international support, one way or another too. Just a thought.
It's vitally important to distinguish Muslims (people) from Islam esp Islamism (ideas, systems of ideas), the latter needing pushback and constructive critique from all sides so it can mature beyond its medieval belief.
Unf, this distinction is largely lost (so far) on the general public. No doubt due in large part to the mentalities of the far right and far left.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:50am PT
|
My answer was directed to Fat Dad
MikeL. just provided the launching board
Fruity
I whole heartily endorse the liberalization of Islam, but there is nothing I can do you bring this about, that's their fight, not mine.
I have no interest in gang piling on them at this time when they are under such right wing pressure of bigotry, hate and misunderstanding.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:52am PT
|
Fine. But maybe you got the points? :)
...
Sarah Haider. Here's a 21st century hero. If she ever visited Pakistan, she'd be in REAL danger of getting her head cut off. Imagine that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0plC24YuoJk
"Islamism and the Necessity of Liberal Critique"
...
I have no interest in gang piling on them at this time when they are under such right wing pressure of bigotry, hate and misunderstanding.
"Them"? Them means people. In this case, obviously Muslims. Then, No, I guess you don't get a main point of afore post - the distinction between people (muslims) and ideas (Islamic, Islamist).
With all due respect, in at least this area, you've got some intellectual/spiritual growing to do.
...
Aughh, just lost a whole paragraph that wouldn't upload for some reason. So........ forget it. Have a good one.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 12:37pm PT
|
HFCS: MikeL is a "post-modernist" - (2) the latter whose main purpose - besides arguing pretty much any point made in terms of its antipode - is to level, that is, zero out, every interpretation or value (system).
That’s an interpretation, and perhaps a reasonable one . . . except for the part of my supposed “main purpose.” I don’t seem to have one. (Is that a good thing or a bad thing?)
Your main purpose?
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 12:54pm PT
|
I wouldn't be so concerned about what they believe if they didn't act upon those beliefs. But they tend to do things like want to replace the teaching of evolution in schools with some crap like intelligent design or elect politicians hostile to gay rights or make abortion illegal.
And even with that, delusion is still a bad thing.
If society has convinced somebody that they are, and should be, a second class citizen and that's all right and proper ....
Do you just shrug and say they are entitled to their belief? No, that's clearly the opposite of what I was saying. Belief and action, particularly political action, are different things. While it might be true that we want to act in accordance with our beliefs, forcing others to act in compliance with your own beliefs is contrary to respecting others' belief and the right to live by those beliefs. I am disgusted by some religious groups (e.g., Evangelical Christians) who want to conform society to their own beliefs. I recall seeing a pastor of a large, well regarded church claim that laws that permit gays to marry, etc., is a personal attack on their values. They strike me as a scary, insecure bunch. I don't want overgeneralize but that denomination has certainly become far more politically active over the past 20 yrs. and are driving in part some of the hard core conservative agenda. They decry the prospect of Sharia law in the U.S. (like that would ever be deemed constitutional) but seem to want their own version of it since we are a "Christian Nation". But I disgress...
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 01:09pm PT
|
Yes there is plenty I take from second account reports
but if smells like BS, then I check it out further
and if it turns out to be wrong, then I reject it.
And the whole Jesus thing smells to high heaven, not only is it second accounts, it was probably changed to add mystical elements and the magnitude of the Son of God identity in later Versions of the second hand accounts
Everything has changed since biblical times
including what was written in the bible Craig,
Keep in mind that there are a whole series of gnostic gospels, which have been rejected as inauthentic, despite being contemporaneous, so it's not as if they just bough the stuff wholesale without much scrutiny. We are talking about probably the single most scrutinized, discussed writings ever, by far. You say it doesn't pass the smell test and that's fine; different people have different senses of smell. However, you seem to presume that it was changed or that mystical elements were "probably" added, but you don't provide any cites to support your hunches. Bottom line, you can believe what you want. You gotta do what works for you. I'm just curious whether you're rejectin this stuff based on something specific or just by a general set of criteria like second hand accounts being unreliable.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 02:10pm PT
|
I guess you haven't heard of the Jefferson Bible
Using a razor and glue, Jefferson cut and pasted his arrangement of selected verses from the King James Version[8] of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in chronological order—putting together excerpts from one text with those of another to create a single narrative. Thus he begins with Luke 2 and Luke 3, then follows with Mark 1 and Matthew 3. He provides a record of which verses he selected, and of the order he chose in his Table of the Texts from the Evangelists employed in this Narrative and of the order of their arrangement.
Consistent with his naturalistic outlook and intent, most supernatural events are not included in Jefferson's heavily edited compilation. Paul K. Conkin states that "For the teachings of Jesus he concentrated on his milder admonitions (the Sermon on the Mount) and his most memorable parables. What resulted is a reasonably coherent, but at places oddly truncated, biography. If necessary to exclude the miraculous, Jefferson would cut the text even in mid-verse."[9] Historian Edwin Scott Gaustad explains, "If a moral lesson was embedded in a miracle, the lesson survived in Jeffersonian scripture, but the miracle did not. Even when this took some rather careful cutting with scissors or razor, Jefferson managed to maintain Jesus' role as a great moral teacher, not as a shaman or faith healer."[10]
wiki
When you study atheism, you study biblical scholars interpretation of the bible which has some of the same beliefs as mine. And how paganism was the main source of their material they used to write the bible. I studied comparative religions as well.
No gnostic texts have been discovered that pre-date Christianity
The Gnostic ideas and systems flourished in the Mediterranean world in the second century AD, in conjunction with and influenced by the early Christian movements
wiki year 200, not contemporaneous.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 03:58pm PT
|
"This is where we are in 2017, when a progressive, rational, married gay guy is labeled as alt right because he has open minded conversations." -Joe Rogan
re: Dave Rubin of the Rubin Report
"Hey @joshharkinson, your article is outright libelous about me. Expect a public retraction from you and @MotherJones." -Dave Rubin
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/06/kyle-chapman-based-stickman-alt-right/
I feel the frustration, Joe and Dave.
No surprise: People are just too busy to give anything more than 10% its due it seems nowadays, consequently they lose the plot but they make allegations or claims anyway thus causing a mess if not grief for others. Welcome to the new Wild Wild West.
We see it right here on ST. People have no problem posting up about stuff about which they have little or no real understanding.
...
MikeL, "the latter, whose main purpose" was referring to the post-modernist in general, not you individually. But if the shoe fits...
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 04:31pm PT
|
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 05:09pm PT
|
"https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/10-conflicts-watch-2017"
Most are religious based. Come to your own conclusion.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 05:13pm PT
|
Religions don't kill people...religious people do.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 05:41pm PT
|
This could be an atheist manifesto
It's all inside you
There is no higher power
you can only save yourself
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 05:52pm PT
|
you can only save yourself
So far you've failed.
Oh oh boob drool'again will not like this lol .......
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:08pm PT
|
you can only save yourself
So far you've failed.
Oh oh boob drool'again will not like this lol .......
More name calling...I don't like you, you are weak and a hypocrite.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:25pm PT
|
Craig,
An atheist manifesto? Maybe.
Maybe that conclusion is incomplete.
Is biology and its' higher order manifestation merely mechanistic?
I find the overlap between taoism, zen and stoicism interesting.
"It is folly for a man to pray to the gods for that which he has the power to obtain by himself."
~ Epicurus
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:28pm PT
|
Is biology and its' higher order manifestation merely mechanistic?
not sure
a higher order manifestation that is merely mechanistic is a little too board to address
a mechanistic theory of the mind has not been conclusive
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:33pm PT
|
"Not sure"
Now you're thinkin'!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:44pm PT
|
What's the difference between...
a) an evolution denier and b) a mechanistics denier?
Mark Force, are you an evolution denier?
You proud of this?
My opinion: a) you shouldn't be so "agnostic" that you're indecisive. b) turning to the ancients is fine to a point - but this is the 21st century now.
I thought "disingenuous" was one of your word of the day entries.
It's hard to be a mechanistics denier (1) when you've had years and years of physics, chemistry, biology and systems engineering (to name just four categories); (2) when you're determined to "live up to" your science edu and training.
Things aren't nearly so easy or black n white as your posts imply. Sorry.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:48pm PT
|
^^^^
Trolling for the gullible.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 06:51pm PT
|
In what way, my favorite ST post-modernist? lol
Actually both Mark Force and Dr. F remind of that cartoon... I wonder if I can find it... poking fun at the "free will" arguments - or fantasies - based on something somewhere being "free" of physics, chemistry, biology, causation.
Till I find it... "Show me the evidence."
Without evidence, just who here is (a) trolling, (b) mocking or downplaying science, (c) being disingenous, (d) showing lack of due diligence in the subject matter, (e) all the above.
Food for thought at this dinner hour. :)
Hear hear! for google...
"But it's part of the brain that's out there... just being kinda free."
How are these "mechanistic deniers" any different? lol!
You guys take ten years plus in physical sciences (engineering physics to control engineering) AND life sciences (incl mol bio, bio chem, neuroscience) perhaps working all that time in a univ research environ and get back to me. Nickels to navy beans you won't be such a denier at that point. Nor such an "agnostic" if that's your preferred term.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:06pm PT
|
A will (volition) "free" of demonic possession is one thing. A will (volition) "free" of physics, chem and biol (or systems) is another. You should get your concepts and definitions and contexts staight if you hope to work through this issue instead of forever floundering in it. My two cents.
...
Trolling for the gullible. -MikeL
Per usual, not much there.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:17pm PT
|
Mark Force, are you an evolution denier?
HFCS, That's pathetic as is your post above insulting MikeL. It makes you look small.
You have a recurrent tendency to reduce others' contributions to simplistic absurdities rather than show discipline and engage in an actual conversation. It's disrespectful, uncivil and discourages productive discourse.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:25pm PT
|
Mark F,
(1) Why don't you answer the questions for a change instead of sidestepping them (shirking them?) with your cliches or feigned (moral) outrage . (2) Look at my posts again, they are quite concise, to the point, aphoristic. (3) Re MikeL, Sorry I don't suffer post-modernists or post-modernism as many others do here (perhaps by not even recognizing its manifestation).
This was fun.
..
But the question remains... Where the rubber meets the road, what's really the difference between an evolution denier and a mechanistics denier?
Why not answer the question?
For extra credit... What's really the difference between (a) belief in God Zeus or God Quetzalcoatl and (b) belief in God Jehovah/God Jesus as personal intervening gods? Don't shirk these questions. Answer them for a change.
There's no disingenuousness here. Only relevant issues and questions that Epictetus and other ancients obviously cannot answer. So why keep alluding to them.
Are you seriously going to contend that 40% in America do not "believe in" a personal intervening God? incl several right here on this site; or that 80% plus in the Islamic world (the conservatives and fundamentalists) do not?
It's time to get real man.
I am a free speech fundamentalist. Are you? There's been no name-calling, ad hominem or bigotry, etc here on my part. Only honest forthright mention of the relevant issues that many can't seem to get past, only to go round and round on. If the truth hurts, sorry but not sorry.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:31pm PT
|
Edit: Craig once again deleted his post. So the running dialog at this point is discontinuous.
Really he (Edit: Mark Force, that is) doesn't get back on anything. He sidesteps. To employ a favorite term here, he rather shuck and jives.
A couple weeks ago, I asked him in all candor and seriousness... If the world were entirely 100% mechanistics, what would he think of that?
Crickets.
So who for starters is disingenuous? Talk about "flipping the script."
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:34pm PT
|
If you believe I am an evolution denier, I believe you have never digested anything you've ever read that I've written previously or there's an organic issue of some kind in your "CPU." Are you OK?
You're that guy that doesn't actually listen to what other people are saying because you're too busy coming up with the cool and smart thing you're going to "say" next.
Afterlife? You got the wrong guy, you must be thinking of someone else.
Do you guys actually read what I write?
Side step?
Craig and HFCS, Hmm, let me clear this up since you guys seem dense.
Evolution is the real deal.
There is no proof of an after life.
And mechanism is a useful model and incomplete. An anology would be that Newtonian physics is incredibly useful and incomplete.
I love hanging out with folks into science, especially natural sciences and particularly neurology and biochemistry. People practicing the science mindset and in it with both feet. These guys and gals are fun! Their practice makes them humble and immersed in wonder.
You guys don't come off that way. You come off as worshippers of scientism rather than practitioners of science. You come off as completely proud and completely sure. Those who I know practice science are quite sure about certain things, not sure about certain things and inspired by the wonder about what is suggested and yet to be known.
And, I could be completely mistaken, because people sometimes come off differently online than they are in real life, but the impression that you both make is that you like being dicks and you're pretty good at it.
You guys also come across as boorish. That's not the general tone around here.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:40pm PT
|
If you believe I am an evolution denier... -Mark F
Where's YOUR comprehension? Of course you're not an evolution denier. That was rhetoric on my part to make the point that - in this 21st century day and age and after decades long interdisciplinary science edu and training - it's no more sensible to be an mechanistics denier than an evolution denier. Read my posts "more better" please.
Do you guys actually read what I write?
lol
...or there's an organic issue of some kind in your "CPU." Are you OK?"
Oh now I'm hurt!! Where can I report this?!! You triggered me!! Damn you, that's "pathetic"!!!
lol
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:48pm PT
|
You're game is old and shallow.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 07:50pm PT
|
oh boy
...
One final chance: Rephrasing: If you think denying evolution is retro, baseless, without merit, etc then why not same for denying mechanistics?
Did you ever take a physics, chemistry, biology or control engineering course where in ANY chapter of ANY text or lecture a part of ANY system (eg, molecule, cell membrane protein switch, Kreb cycle step, transistor gate, etc) is described as "free" of causation?
I never did. If you did, name it? And if you can't, then you've got zero evidence pointing to incausal indeterminism in a nonmechanistic context - against a backdrop of tons and tons and tons of compelling convergent evidence FOR mechanistics.
I cannot really ask it any more simply than that. Plain as day to anyone trained in the corresponding subject matter.
So instead of getting angry or defensive or texting ad hominems why not just respond candidly and forthrightly to these questions? They are right pertinent and "avant garde" to the age we find ourselves living in.
Ad ideam, doc.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:04pm PT
|
One final chance? To become simple? I have too much love for science and wonder for everything I experience and have yet to know. I'll stick with that tribe that loves looking at the edge of the known. That's the juice and I certainly won't give that up to join the cult of scientism - it's a shadow of science.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:05pm PT
|
Crickets. Per usual.
I perceive you as a mechanistics denier (cf: "evolution denier" for a parallelism).
And insofar as you deny "mechanism" (the philosophical ism term), in other words, our complete worldly and biologic mechanistic nature, as you've indicated in several of your past posts directly or indirectly...
why not own it?
Show courage and own it.
Admit you are a mechanistics denier (aka mechanism denier).
Not an evolution denier (of course not) but a mechanistics denier.
OWN IT.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:06pm PT
|
Science is what is out beyond the next unknown.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:15pm PT
|
The question for Mark Force remains unanswered...
Did you ever take a physics, chemistry, biology or control engineering course where in ANY chapter of ANY text or lecture a part of ANY system (eg, molecule, cell membrane protein switch, Kreb cycle step, transistor gate, etc) is described as "free" of causation?
My fellow lover of science, step up the plate and take the swing!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:21pm PT
|
HFCS, You seem to want the argument to be a very reductionistic one. You are welcome to call me a mechanistic denier if you'd like.
Does that feel better?
I still consider myself agnostic because my work makes me humble about what I know.
"We are too much accustomed to attribute to a single cause that which is the product of several, and the majority of our controversies come from that."
~ Marcus Aurelius
Right now I'm really into curating genetics in patients to help them solve chronic systemic illnesses. It's really fascinating work. You go through the various genes that control specific genes and attempt to summate the influence of the polymorphic SNPs that comprise that gene and all the other genes that can influence it and the outcome in terms of gene expression on enzyme activity and the resultant cellular metabolism and organ and systems functions.
My interest is determining the genes resulting in the patient presentation and using biochemical/nutritional and neurological interventions for their cumulative epigenetic effects.
You see some really cool stuff from that approach on follow up exams. You see people heal in amazing ways.**
It's really exciting and it's at an edge of known and makes it very tangible about how much is not known and how much more complex systems are than our knowledge. Exciting and humbling.
**curation of my wife's genetic testing resulted in finding variants limiting expression of molybdenum oxotransferases and after 3 months of targeted nutritional support, the epigenetic effect allows here to eat potatoes and pork for the first time in decades. We get to have BLTs together once more. Ahh, the wonders of science!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:27pm PT
|
You have a recurrent tendency to reduce others' contributions to simplistic absurdities rather than show discipline and engage in an actual conversation.
That's because he's learned from my sorry experience.
To whit:
You CANNOT address these questions in rigorous fashion in a forum thread without being accused of "walls of text! Walls of test! Gagggg... ackkkk... pukkkkkeeeee."
So, he enjoys the benefits of appearing "wise" without having to subject himself to genuine scrutiny, because people like me that have attempted to take him on just get browbeaten to death.
So, if you're not gonna take the time and space to write rigorously on such subjects (and be prepared to then try to juggle responses to 10 different (superficial) counter-arguments simultaneously, while trying to ignore the bleats of pain from people that have a reading comprehension that really can't span as many as five sentences, well, then it's better to treat these threads as "for entertainment purposes only" and pretty much leave them alone.
Ooops, I just violated my above principle!
Physical laws made "me" do it.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:31pm PT
|
Oh MB1,
if there's no ghost in the machine, what remains?
No WOT here. :)
...
"HFCS, You seem to want the argument to be a very reductionistic one."
Actually, I'd probably prefer the ghost in the machine in the traditional sense. That might be fun. It's certainly easier to conceive. But the evidence just doesn't support it.
The evidence - and it is richly compelling evidence across the sweep of science - supports (a) evolution (which btw is mechanistic, physical) and (b) mechanistics (aka mechanism).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:32pm PT
|
^^^ LOL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:37pm PT
|
It's been fun, gotta go! :)
...
but in closing down, just caught this gem...
"Craig and HFCS, Hmm, let me clear this up since you guys seem dense." - Mark Force
No ad hominem there!!!! lol
But Craig deleted his post. So perhaps he saw the light? lol
Evolution is the real deal. -Mark Force
And so is our mechanistic nature, both cosmically and biologically. It's just a matter of (socially and individually) getting around to accepting it, adopting it (through enough education, precisely as with evo as an analog).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:40pm PT
|
You are still insane as ever .....
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:47pm PT
|
Do you actually "do" science or do you just proselytize?
HFCS, It's an ad hominem when I'm making spurious allegations about your character or qualifications to undermine your argument.
When I call you a dick that's just stating an opinion.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:51pm PT
|
If you were passionate about mechanistics as I am (it's what led me, sustained me, through biology and engineering) you WB and MF would likely have the very same perspective else attitude. Food for thought.
So-called "mechanisms of action" are the common denominator across all studies or sciences of systems of all kinds. So when I see posts here at this site denying "mechanism" (the philosophical analog) it rather gets my attention. Surely climber people can understand this?
I'll end on this: There's been no name-calling or ad hominems on my part in this discussion. Despite WB and MF. FWIW.
For the record...
When I say you're a dick, it's just stating an opinion. -Mark Force
Do you actually "do" science or do you just proselytize? Ah, your favorite word of late, it seems. Yes, if you tell me there's a component part in your genetic mechanisms of action that is "free" of causation ("floating free" ala Dilbert) then yes I'll probably object (else your "proselytize" I guess). So be it. But your use of "proselytize" is pretty loose if not strange, but whatever, go for it.
No, I do not do science any more. I did it for 20 years. In engineering and brain sciences environments. That was enough. Now I'm on to different things. But I still follow along. (Maintaining a science edu and moreover living up to it are part of my core creed.)
Don't make it personal. Make it about the idea or ideas. Where I post bullsh#t, shoot it down. Otherwise you got nothing.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:57pm PT
|
Bit the question remains... Where the rubber meets the road, what's really the difference between an evolution denier and a mechanistics denier?
Fruitcake with all that edumacation if you had a prescribe-able syrup you should have us all frothing at the bits and standing in line! but you aint got shite. Ur forever muddying the waters, so obliviously clarification has nothing to do wit ur motive.
i'll up ya one if, you can even wholeheartedly describe the difference evolution and "mechanistics'
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 08:58pm PT
|
Too good not to quote...
Fruitcake with all that edumacation if you had a prescribe-able syrup you should have us all frothing at the bits and standing in line! but you aint got shite. Ur forever muddying the waters, so obliviously clarification has nothing to do wit ur motive... i'll up ya one if, you can even wholeheartedly describe the difference evolution and "mechanistics' -blu
Oh, god, now I really have to go.
You guys enjoy each other, it seems you're all on the same page.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 09:25pm PT
|
Passion and attachment makes for bad science. Excitement, wonder and non-attachment seem to be more effective.
Assuming a scientific model does more than it's designed to do is bad science.
Assuming you know rather than assuming you probably don't know is bad science.
Being a bully on a thread or forum is bad manners.
Using arguments that are intentionally full of logical fallacies is intellectually dishonest and sacrifices rigor, discipline, humility and kindness for the shallow gratification of "bullying" participants and an argument to your desired outcome.
I know a few things and don't know a bunch of things. I also know that I don't know the TRUTH and I know that you don't either and so I humbly proclaim that I am a radical agnostic.
I also have this really weird belief that our inherent nature is kindness in its' various iterations. The presence of it may have species survival value and may have no deeper meaning, but my right brain keeps whispering that there's more to it. Based on that, I look at the absence of kindness as a perversion of our nature. So, when I call someone out, which may be me, often as not, it's for the perversion of our nature and not the gem at the heart of the lotus.
Now that shit's gettin' weird. Is there any beer left around here?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 10:06pm PT
|
can you ever answer a question, Fruitless-loop?
edit; Happy Everyday MikeL! Pssst, are you a father?
vvvv
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2017 - 11:05pm PT
|
Been traveling for Father’s Day’s events. Happy Father’s Day!.
HFCS,
You refer to “relevant issues and questions,” as if that is what separates the men from the boys in serious thinking. What qualifies as “relevant?” That alone could establish a pasture for an interesting dialogue.
I think you think you are asking taunting questions. Sometimes that can be useful. Being controversial can create interest in people, but too much of a good can be a little too much.
It could be more engaging with readers if you were to come forward with a full-fledged narrative that establishes a position and why you think it should stand. That would put a stake in the ground for the rest of us. (You’d could do well at Hyde Park where people stand soap boxes and proclaim their positions, but you’d have to make fuller arguments than you do here.)
BTW, what is a “free speech fundamentalist?” I think we all get the idea of free speech here in North America, but what extra meaning does “fundamentalist” bring to your mind?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 05:33am PT
|
BB,
Happy everyday to you, too! The Mad Hatter would say that we all have 364 days of Happy unbirthdays.
I am embarrassed to say that I am not a legitimate father. Mis-spent youth has left seeds about.
I am an only boy in a family of 10, and raised most of my sisters. I thought I had my fill. I've also been teaching since 1979, and my students have been my offspring so to say.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 08:22am PT
|
HFCS: Not an evolution denier (of course not) but a mechanistics denier.
It’s never simply “this” or “that.” At least I’ve never seen it that way. It always appears to be not what we can say finally, completely, or accurately. Reality appears to be infinitely complex, not just complicated. The web of correlations or connections in the matrix appear to be infinitely dense. One finds it difficult to talk ONLY about this thing or that thing in isolation.
You seem to want to argue that the question of free will cannot be divorced from physics, biology, chemistry, neurobiology, etc. That might well be the case, but it’s far from proven even if one gives leeway to inconclusive statistical measurements. The claim amounts to a speculation. There appears to be nothing intrinsically wrong with generating speculations, it’s great fun, but we can’t say for sure what things are. This is not a post-modern view. It is a scientific view that can be taken from the journals. We are always coming up with new interpretations of the same data we generated, and when we do, our worldviews change (Kuhn’s point in his book, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”). The fun of these activities seem to be how inventive we can be in our speculations—never straying too far from the data, but never quite relying strictly on the data. The fun leaves, however, when our speculations become dogma—that is, received and unquestioned truth. Then things become serious and concrete.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 08:32am PT
|
Religion has been good to me. Leaving tomorrow for a three week pilgrimage. I'll be worshipping at the "Church of Outdoor Pursuits." Chapels to be visited include the City of Rocks, Mt, Borah, the Grand Ronde River and the Rogue River.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 08:47am PT
|
Werner is a master mechanic
|
|
norwegian II
Trad climber
camino, ca
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 08:51am PT
|
every time my soul loosens
i borrow werner's monkey wrench; left-hand of course;
and spin reality counter-thought-wise.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 09:00am PT
|
A good friend of mine, a blended incarnation of Thoreau and Muir, says he belongs to The Church of the Here and Now and he practices what he preaches.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 09:11am PT
|
and Flip Wilson said he belonged to the Church of Whats Happening Now...
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 10:04am PT
|
I hear Werner's a great mechanic. His universal viewpoint gives him understanding of the mechanics of the universe and he always has an extra hand when he needs one.
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 11:22am PT
|
Cogar or kcogar - spent in the nor weed a'gain- II -2-
The deity I owe . . .dwells wherever rocks are
And in my Brest
the KoGaR . . . . . .lets me climb to climb again (o-to0)
With the return of your faithful son, the bottle blond
My blood upon the trax
I'll say that spelt any way : -gnashkor- or -nascar- ?
going fast and turnin' left, never holds a wit of in'trest
till all things go west, -air-born- wheels a-sky ward
anymore than
that
and his allusion to it
a fitting return
At best. . .
It Has Been Nice , ; I, H,B, N
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 07:28pm PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 08:34pm PT
|
Well, the word "unnatural" isn't really helpful in this context.
Whatever it's moral status, homosexuality is anomalous because it is not evolutionarily advantageous in mammals. That itself doesn't make it "wrong" or even "bad." But it could be argued to be "unnatural" by one obvious interpretation of that term.
Of course, the left wants us to believe that (by Gary Gates estimates, which is probably the best research we have) about 3.5% of the population should be represented as "everywhere you look" and very disproportionately represented in all forms of media.
You know, whatever. But "unnatural," well, probably yes from an evolutionary point of view, certainly an evolutionary dead-end. Again, it all comes down to what you mean by that term.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 08:38pm PT
|
If wild animals engage in homosexuality, could that be called unnatural?
|
|
drF
Trad climber
usa
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 09:20pm PT
|
^^^^
What exactly....are wild animals?
Interested to hear how you've parsed things out
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 09:31pm PT
|
What exactly....are wild animals?
Animals that live without human assistance, non-domesticated animals. Do you have a dictionary?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 09:42pm PT
|
Virgin births, original sin, snakes that talk, Gods dead and resurrected, you only see these things as doubtless unreal.
You miss entirely the real meaning of these stories.
Do you think fiction, say Hamlet is untrue? I submit it as one of the truest, realistic things ever written. Not because it is historically accurate but because it so accurately articulates the human condition. Well the Bible with its snakes and virgin births does exactly the same.
If you're too buried in the scientific and mechanistic interpretation of what you suppose to be the real world, well, you're missing out on a true understanding of what it is to be a living being and I suggest a return to a solid liberal arts education.
But I fear most can't see beyond the illusion of a strangely myopic certainty that can only tell them what and never why.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 10:24pm PT
|
But I fear most can't see beyond the illusion of a strangely myopic certainty that can only tell them what and never why.
Would you then also fear that most Christians have a strangely myopic certainty that the bible is truth?
Of course if they read the bible they might see that those who work on the Sabbath should not be put to death. (Exodus 35:2). And maybe the bible thumpers might read about stoning a bride who is not a virgin. Her virginity must be "proven" by displaying the matrimonial sheets. (Deuteronomy 22:21). Are those to be taken literally? Or do those passages give us the what and the why?
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 10:32pm PT
|
I'm sorry
I don't know why I'm always tweeking the nose's of the most respected around here? But
The idea that there was a socially up lifting point to writings used to subjugate people,
That allowed the making a hierarchy that let some exist with Zero moral compass, while insisting on the servitude of the masses, is a worthy frame-work to further civilization ?
Is a false construct .
On the other hand. . .
Given, the entire forced nature by overtaking the media, and jamming uncomfortable ideas down the collective's throats by bring ' The Gay' into our living rooms, and so, forcing the acceptance of the unacceptable has led to the reactive conservatism that is this, swinging of the social pendulum .
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 17, 2017 - 11:06pm PT
|
Given, the entire forced nature by overtaking the media, and jamming uncomfortable ideas down the collective's throats by bring ' The Gay' into our living rooms, and so, forcing the acceptance of the unacceptable has led to the reactive conservatism that is this, swinging of the social pendulum .
Are you sayin' the country has become more conservative because media has forced people to accept gays?
|
|
Byran
climber
Half Dome Village
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 12:18am PT
|
Whatever it's moral status, homosexuality is anomalous because it is not evolutionarily advantageous in mammals. That itself doesn't make it "wrong" or even "bad." But it could be argued to be "unnatural" by one obvious interpretation of that term.
Besides choosing a same-sex partner, here are some other things that people do which are not evolutionarily advantageous.
-Using condoms
-Joining the priesthood
-Basejumping
-Becoming educated
I'm not saying getting a college degree is "wrong" or "bad", but it does statistically mean you will have fewer offspring. So everyone should just be aware that these people are unnatural.
But "unnatural," well, probably yes from an evolutionary point of view, certainly an evolutionary dead-end.
Well, we're 3.5 billion years into this evolution thing, w/ ~1.2 billion years of sexually reproducing life, and the homosexuals are still hanging on. But certainly the dead-end is fast approaching.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 01:05am PT
|
I'm not saying getting a college degree is "wrong" or "bad", but it does statistically mean you will have fewer offspring.
It also means the offspring you have have a better survival rate, are more likely to have parental help during early adulthood, and it is more likely that those children will be college educated and statistically are more likely to help you in your old age.
But maybe we should all breed and die like salmon.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 01:11am PT
|
Well, we're 3.5 billion years into this evolution thing, w/ ~1.2 billion years of sexually reproducing life, and the homosexuals are still hanging on. But certainly the dead-end is fast approaching.
More likely, the end will come from the pressures on the ecosystem from runaway population.
Which is, incidentally slowed by education. So maybe the best survival of the species will come from less reproductive sex.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 02:03am PT
|
Besides choosing a same-sex partner, here are some other things that people do which are not evolutionarily advantageous.
Everything on your list is a chosen behavior, which is not the same as the anomaly of being homosexual. Remember that you're committed to this trait being genetically passed down, which does make it an evolutionary dead-end. Base-jumping as a behavior is not genetically passed down. Neither is being college-educated.
The vast majority of people engaging in the behaviors on your list end up breeding and passing along their genes before death. Thus, their behaviors (even if such behaviors ultimately kill them) are not evolutionary dead-ends.
By definition, being homosexual results in sexual behaviors that are an evolutionary dead-end.
Which is why it remains a tiny-percentage anomaly.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 05:22am PT
|
"Of course, the left wants us to believe that (by Gary Gates estimates, which is probably the best research we have) about 3.5% of the population should be represented as "everywhere you look" and very disproportionately represented in all forms of media."
And about 2.2 billion people want you to believe a virgin woman had a baby....nothing unnatural there.
Been a while since any humans heard a snake talk?
Sorry the gist of the post when right over your head.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 06:36am PT
|
The boob dufus always, wants to believe that a virgin impregnated by God is impossible ........
And then there was...... the American Indians who first encountered the white men human snakes with their fork tounges of lies ......
Don't bother replying as the reply is already obviously known .....
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 07:00am PT
|
Werner...to much dumpster food over the years?
|
|
7SacredPools
Trad climber
Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 07:29am PT
|
Why does it matter where homosexuality fits in from an evolutionary viewpoint? Or if it's "natural."
The anti-gay parade are always looking to excuse their bias. People don't get to choose who they are attracted to, and apart from minors, they should be free to love whomever they choose. It's that simple.
Happy Father's Day!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 07:35am PT
|
Liberte', Egalite', Fraternite'.
What does it matter to the good of civil society if a citizen is homosexual? It matters not a bit.
If one believes in the principle of liberty, the question isn't worth consideration.
Issues of character are far more important.
Barry Goldwater was once asked what he thought of gays in the military and he said, "Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar" and "You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 11:13am PT
|
Sorry the gist of the post when right over your head.
Nah, I didn't miss it. I just refuse to acknowledge that your perspective is so much better.
Little quips like that image you posted are shallow, ridiculous caricatures. But that seems to be your level.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 11:19am PT
|
^^^Thank you.
Word of the Day - snarky.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 11:30am PT
|
"Nah, I didn't miss it. I just refuse to acknowledge that your perspective is so much better."
Perspective and facts are two different things. When you are dealing with people who think Noah's Ark had every species on board, dinosaurs roamed the earth 6,000 years ago and that a virgin gave birth you have to keep it simple.
"There is no mystery surrounding dinosaurs if you accept the Bible’s totally different account of dinosaur history.
According to the Bible: Dinosaurs first existed around 6,000 years ago.3 God made the dinosaurs, along with the other land animals, on Day 6 of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:20–25, 31). Adam and Eve were also made on Day 6—so dinosaurs lived at the same time as people, not separated by eons of time."
I give it another ten posts on this thread before you blow a gasket.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 11:48am PT
|
Would you then also fear that most Christians have a strangely myopic certainty that the bible is truth?
The fact is there is truth in the Bible: what does the virgin birth mean or for that matter the birth of Athena from the head of Zeus or the birth of Dionysus from the thigh of Zeus or the birth of the Buddha from the level of the heart? Each of these births means something far more complex as metaphor and if read as metaphor offer real truths.
Good grief, you don't disparage the novel "Moby Dick" as BS. You look to the certain truths manifested in that great work and if you're smart try to absorb them into your own life.
I give it another ten posts on this thread before you blow a gasket.
Some here appear to have blown their gasket some time ago.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 12:06pm PT
|
"Good grief, you don't disparage the novel "Moby Dick" as BS. You look to the certain truths manifested in that great work and if you're smart try to absorb them into your own life."
Well it wasn't..for most parts. :-)
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 12:11pm PT
|
Good grief, you don't disparage the novel "Moby Dick" as BS. You look to the certain truths manifested in that great work and if you're smart try to absorb them into your own life.
No, I'm not saying that Moby Dick is BS. I wouldn't devote my life to the teachings of Moby Dick, or use Moby Dick to divide humans into believers and nonbelievers of its truths. Not even saying the bible is BS. But if you're worried about people missing the point of the bible stories then isn't it also disturbing that people put 100% blind faith into the bible? Read those passages I cited. That ought to have you concerned, no? Religion is causing a lot of divisiveness, no?
What if someone with hidden motives figures out how to use religion to manipulate the masses? If you don't agree you're not a true believer, you'll be ostracized, you might go to hell. You see my point...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 12:47pm PT
|
7SacredPools: People don't get to choose who they are attracted to . . . .
Take it from someone in his third marriage: you can and perhaps should learn to.
(But this should have nothing to do with homosexual pairings.)
Sycorax,
Hume’s ideas were complicated, and significant. With Locke, they set man on a path of development toward radical self-interest, the benefits of avarice / materialism over the other deadly sins, and provided the basis for Smith’s ideas on capitalism. Very impressive for his time, but in the long run, perhaps not so good for humanity. The story isn’t over, however.
The one thing I would have had him reconsider was the idea that passions ruled / directed reason. I would have had him give equal preference to both. There is a place for both, as both are different kinds of knowledge and means of gathering understanding. The notion is to see how to employ both without allowing either to assume dominance over the other. (It would require a consciousness that we have yet to develop.)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 01:04pm PT
|
Perspective and facts are two different things.
LOL... and then you proceed to quote one person's perspective of how to interpret the Bible. You post a snarky image that "quotes" a mixture of metaphor and some supposed "fact" about homosexuality, and you thereby believe you've said something significant.
You haven't.
As with what the word "natural" means in your ridiculous image, ALL of these points are matters of interpretation, including what the Bible really says.
I give it another ten posts on this thread before you blow a gasket.
LOL... you've blown more gaskets on these threads than I have.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 01:12pm PT
|
What if someone with hidden motives figures out how to use religion to manipulate the masses?
been happening for a very long time
today the Taliban and ISIS use their literal interpretation of the Koran to justify Jihad
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 01:19pm PT
|
The American Taliban does the same sh!t.
USA created the al qaeda & ISIS terrorists
They overthrow govt's, brainwash their citizen to warmonger since forever and worship the dollar.
They assassinate leaders of other countries and interfere and, manipulate with their elections
They etc etc etc etc on and on and on ......
boob d doesn't even have a gasket.
His stuff leaks and oozes out everywhere ...
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 01:35pm PT
|
What if someone with hidden motives figures out how to use religion to manipulate the masses.
been happening for a very long time
today the Taliban and ISIS use their literal interpretation of the Koran to justify Jihad
Really? dang, you are well informed on this, eh. Hey, just messin' with you.
That is indeed the point I'm making. Look at the similarities in how trumpism manipulates people to hate the muslims. And the crazy stuff in both these holy books.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 02:05pm PT
|
I opened up the Koran the other day for another go. I found this one in the first page:
As for those who are bent on denying the truth, it makes no difference to them whether you warn them or not, they will not believe.
God has sealed their hearts and their ears, and over their eyes is a covering. They will have a terrible punishment.//
Does anyone see the rather obvious non sequitur?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 02:59pm PT
|
"Take it from someone in his third marriage: you can and perhaps should learn to. "
I guess I nailed it first try...42 years and counting. :-)
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 03:10pm PT
|
Bob, I sent you a PM a while ago
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 03:20pm PT
|
Didn't get it Norton, hope all is well?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 03:25pm PT
|
ok i just sent you a PM again
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 03:46pm PT
|
Mike, you are preaching to the crowd lecturing in me about Hume. I have a degree in philosophy, spent time studying Hume, and was raised by a philosophy professor.
I have a Ph.D. in analytical philosophy, also studied Hume and Kant extensively, and what I find ironic is how empiricists today don't take what Hume (the greatest of the empiricists) said seriously.
The vast majority of philosophy of science revolves around the implications of Hume's writings, but most people thinking of themselves as empiricists today don't have any clue about any of it.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 03:51pm PT
|
Yeah, modern people are pretty shallow surface thinkers.
They splash around in the shallow end of the pool.
They can't hold their breath in the deep end very long.
They drown there ........
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 04:19pm PT
|
Hume was not a big fan of organized religions or the need to proof of a god. More than likely seeing the shortcomings of both.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 04:37pm PT
|
You just repeated what madbolter1 already said .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 04:46pm PT
|
hot in the Valley today, Werner?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 06:08pm PT
|
Hume was not a big fan of organized religions or the need to proof of a god. More than likely seeing the shortcomings of both.
Yeah, but what YOU aren't seeing is that Hume's sword cuts ALL ways. He gutted the entire notion of causality, and, with it, the rational practice of science.
"Constant conjunction" is not causality.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 06:36pm PT
|
what does Hume know?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 06:39pm PT
|
"Yeah, but what YOU aren't seeing is that Hume's sword cuts ALL ways. He gutted the entire notion of causality, and, with it, the rational practice of science."
He did?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 06:46pm PT
|
He gutted the entire notion of causality, and, with it, the rational practice of science.
Hmm...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 07:18pm PT
|
That's right Hume denied cause and effect relationships.
Hume was a fool .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 07:20pm PT
|
"...the rational practice of science."
playing word games? there is no "rational" practice of science, that was Hume's point, wasn't it?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 08:54pm PT
|
there is no "rational" practice of science, that was Hume's point, wasn't it?
One of his points, yes.
On that point, the issue is that we have no good reason from empirical evidence alone to believe in causality. It's a "brute" belief we have that is often shown incorrect in its particulars. Yet, we have no choice but to believe in it anyway. It's "faith" based upon occasional "evidence" that we subconsciously cherry pick.
Kant reestablishes the rational foundation of science, along with a robust notion of causality.
Philosophy of science since that time has really come down to a dichotomy between a Kantian perspective and various efforts to keep Hume intact but sidestep his baleful implications. In other words, transcendental idealism vs. empiricism, but where that empiricism seeks to avoid the Humean implications of thoroughgoing empiricism.
Of course, scientist will say something like, "Well, while philosophers are debating about what science is doing, science will just keep doing what it's doing and making real progress." But that dismissive attitude ignores, as just one example, what a vast effect the debates between Carnap and Popper had on the practice of science and how its theories are perceived among scientists themselves. The net effect of Popper's contribution is that now it is recognized that the scientific method doesn't "prove" or even "indicate" anything; it can only falsify theories.
A "confirmed" theory one that just hasn't been falsified yet. It's still "useful" in terms of "producing results," but that is not the same as "true" or "confirmed" in the loose sense.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 09:13pm PT
|
"...what a vast effect the debates between Carnap and Popper had on the practice of science..."
do tell.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 09:30pm PT
|
Madbolter1: Yet, we have no choice but to believe in it anyway. It's "faith" based upon occasional "evidence" that we subconsciously cherry pick.
An important point. One can infer it in every research findings when one looks at the statistics presented.
To the extent that it is applied, rationality ends up to be woefully deficient, even perhaps degenerative these days, hiding as much as it can show.
I’d say there are other choices, if one thinks “choices” are possible. There is also other “evidence” available, not just those of the senses that can be measured. IMO.
Nice to read your writing.
Sycorax,
I think you meant to write that I was preaching to the converted. (It was an attempt to engage in a conversation, and one emerged!)
(I Love Edinburgh. Say hello to the ghost of A. Smith there.)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2017 - 10:00pm PT
|
“Thus we remember to have seen that species of object we call flame, and to have felt that species of sensation we call heat. We likewise call to mind their constant conjunction in all past instances. Without any farther ceremony, we call the one cause and the other effect, and infer the existence of the one from that of the other.”
"All philosophers, of every school, imagine that causation is one of the fundamental axioms or postulates of science, yet, oddly enough, in advanced sciences such as gravitational astronomy, the word "cause" never occurs. Dr. James Ward, in his Naturalism and Agnosticism, makes this a ground of complaint against physics: the business of those who wish to ascertain the ultimate truth about the world, he apparently thinks, should be the discovery of causes, yet physics never even seeks them. To me it seems that philosophy ought not to assume such legislative functions, and that the reason why physics has ceased to look for causes is that, in fact, there are no such things. The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 12:52am PT
|
The law of causality, I believe, like much that passes muster among philosophers, is a relic of a bygone age, surviving, like the monarchy, only because it is erroneously supposed to do no harm.
Ah, got it. Because the problem is, well, such a problem that savvy scientist have just stopped "using" the term. That, then, means that the "problem" was merely terminological, so getting rid of the pesky term got rid of the pesky "problem."
But, the problem is that you necessarily depend upon the concept regardless of your use of the term. Pretend that you're not necessarily employing the concept, and you abandon all sense of determinism and even the point to seeking for "natural laws."
Discovering necessary connections is the thing. You're looking for the "rules of the game," so to speak, because if you understand the rules, then and only then do you have the power of rule-based, predictive models.
Try all you want to pretend that causality doesn't underlie your rules, that the "rules" are something other than necessary connections, and you're left with no better pseudo-science than astrology.
Regarding your snarky "do tell," how about we let Richard Feynman tell:
In this clip, Feynman talks about the "philosophies" that underlie theories. By "philosophies," he's talking about "metaphysical ideas," as you'll see.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
In this clip, Feynman talks very specifically about the principle of falsification. Prior to Popper, scientists strove to do "verification." But Popper forever changed how scientists see the relation between theory and experiment. As, Feynman says, "If it [a theory] disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Now, the second that you acknowledge that science can only falsify theories, never verify them, you realize that science cannot in principle be doing metaphysics. It cannot be telling us any "truths" about the "furniture of reality." It can produce clever guesses. It can "make things work" and "get results" (the practical applications are employed by engineers). But "what works" is not the same as "what's true" from a metaphysical perspective.
There's no doubt that most people enthralled by the "successes" of science will say something like, "Well, it's obviously doing something more productive than religion," or that sort of thing. Of course, that's about as useful a comparison as saying, "Well, gasoline in a car is more productive than the color blue." Such statements are usually some sort of category error. And, like "natural," "productive" is a context-laden term.
It's a category error to think that science is a truth-seeking mechanism. It's instead a purely pragmatic enterprise that seeks to provide the human race with more and more productive guesses about how things will work (most of the time). But scientific theories (models) are not "capsules of truth" in a metaphysical sense. They are just better or worse guesses about how things will seem to work for us in this or that time-slice.
Where science become arrogant and goes far beyond its possible ken is precisely when it starts asserting that, in Feynman's terms, its "philosophical ideas" are actually TRUE, such that it makes KNOWLEDGE assertions about this or that model. Because NO scientific "ideas" can be confirmed by ANY pile of experimental evidence, claiming "is TRUE" simply goes beyond the evidence.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 05:23am PT
|
"...what a vast effect the debates between Carnap and Popper had on the practice of science..."
do tell.
Doesn't seem like it had a vast effect in the science community.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 05:48am PT
|
"“Moreover, we look in vain to philosophy for the answer to the great riddle. Despite its noble purpose and history, pure philosophy long ago abandoned the foundational questions about human existence. The question itself is a reputation killer. It has become a Gorgon for philosophers, upon whose visage even the best thinkers fear to gaze. They have good reason for their aversion. Most of the history of philosophy consists of failed models of the mind. The field of discourse is strewn with the wreckage of theories of consciousness. After the decline of logical positivism in the middle of the twentieth century, and the attempt of this movement to blend science and logic into a closed system, professional philosophers dispersed in an intellectual diaspora. They emigrated into the more tractable disciplines not yet colonized by science – intellectual history, semantics, logic, foundational mathematics, ethics, theology, and, most lucratively, problems of personal life adjustment.
Philosophers flourish in these various endeavors, but for the time being, at least, and by a process of elimination, the solution of the riddle has been left to science. What science promises, and has already supplied in part, is the following. There is a real creation story of humanity, and one only, and it is not a myth. It is being worked out and tested, and enriched and strengthened, step by step.
― Edward O. Wilson, The Social Conquest of Earth
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 07:59am PT
|
Poor, poor Bob. All he can do is find quotes that he thinks agree with him, but he can only quote without understanding.
Science become arrogant, and pseudo-scientists like populate this site become arrogant, when they conflate the term "reality" with the phrase "empirical reality," such that they drop off the "empirical" part of the phrase and just say "reality" without even remembering all the presuppositions that went into that conflation.
"Scientific evidence" just becomes "evidence."
"Scientific knowledge" (falsely so-called) just becomes "knowledge."
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 08:10am PT
|
Poor, poor Bob. All he can do is find quotes that he thinks agree with him, but he can only quote without understanding.
Don't feel sorry for me and I do understand exactly what I post...you just don't agree as I don't agree with you, you just think you are on some moral high ground...you are not.
You are all smoke and mirrors.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 08:29am PT
|
Actually, I'm not the one claiming moral high ground, Bob.
If you'll remember, you are the one posting "gotcha" posts and images specifically designed to treat anybody not agreeing with you as idiotic, stupid, and foolish.
That's worse than claiming the "high ground." That's a smug superiority that is the opposite of intellectual honesty.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 08:32am PT
|
I would be surprised if Feynman had been concerned with Popper, and even more if he spent much time regarding the philosophy-of-science as something that was relevant to science. As we see, the explanations of how science "works" come after science works, even the word "metaphysics" reflects this.
The discussions that philosophers engage in are not meant to actually settle anything, nor to predict anything, nor to even limit anything. They are relevant to trying to understand what is going on, but they cannot, in and of themselves, aid in actually doing anything. This is simply a practical observation, the same discussions have gone on for all of human history. They probably went on before then, we have no written records.
Are there any settled philosophical points? None, unless you wish to include modern science as a part of philosophy. Science has thrown out ideas, relegated them to the trash heap and moved on. There is no scientific discussion about "the origin of the species," as evolution serves to organize all of biology. There is no scientific discussion about the "luminiferous aether" a Newtonian conjecture which took 150 years to understand, and ultimately reject. There is no scientific discussion of the supernatural.
In the latest great discovery of high energy physics, there was the prediction of the Higgs Boson from the standard electroweak theory. The theory did not predict its mass, though it did predict a range of physical parameters allowable by the theory, including the mass, the coupling, the properties of the boson(s) etc. Not finding the Higgs would have presented the theory with a tremendous challenge, though not falsifying it outright. Had the Higgs not been found, the idea that this particular particle existed, often referred to as the "naive Higgs boson" would have spurred searches for a more complex theory. That didn't happen, we have the empirical equivalent of confirmation.
Maybe Popper wouldn't like this, but we went looking for something and we found it. Had we not found it that wouldn't have falsified the theory, at least not immediately.
At the same time, in the same lab, we expected to see signs of the "next great unification" of the physical forces, but have so far come up with nothing. This is a serious crisis for SuperSymmetric theories that we expected to be the story "Beyond the Standard Model," right now these theories, which have been the major focus of theoretical work, are in "danger" of being wrong, largely because the parameters that describe the theory would have to be set to unphysical (that is in disagreement with the body of observation) values.
The philosophy-of-science fails to anticipate these interesting occurrences in science, though I'm sure there will be a lot of discussion in PoS regarding just what this all means, and to no resolution. The scientists won't wait, don't have to wait, and are not constrained by that discussion.
The most successful "philosophy" of the physical world is science. There may be a philosophical debate as to what this means, but what's new?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 08:37am PT
|
Ed wrote: The most successful "philosophy" of the physical world is science. There may be a philosophical debate as to what this means, but what's new?
Great post Ed.
"If you'll remember, you are the one posting "gotcha" posts and images specifically designed to treat anybody not agreeing with you as idiotic, stupid, and foolish."
Look in the mirror.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:04am PT
|
There is a real creation story of humanity, and one only, and it is not a myth. It is being worked out and tested, and enriched and strengthened, step by step.
And invariably, it is incomplete, inaccurate, and never final.
The basis for any myth is the psyche, whether the myth arises from the conscious mind or the unconscious mind. The psyche or soul expresses narratives that make sense of one’s world, but since humanity is constantly evolving interactively between the individual and his or her communities, then new myths are constantly arising for projection and expression. One might consider it a form of art or creativity.
Science presents a vision, not unlike other visions of how and what we see what we are and where we are. Both of those appear to be indescribable for many reasons (language, the limitations of conceptualizations, poor measuring tools, bounded rationality, etc.). Science, for all of its apparent benefits, is no different than other myth as myth—surely *more* detailed and accurate and complete than others, but never completely so. Moreover, science’s approach and capabilities present a bias, for everything that is said by any assessment or interpretation leaves other things unsaid. Look closely at any claim made by science. You’ll find more questions spawned than what were purportedly “answered” on any point. Is that due to the nature of reality, to the nature of the mind, or to some other reason that we have yet to discover?
Every tool made has its limitations. That’s another way of saying that there is a bias in every perspective, interpretation, framework, abstraction, or approach. If one doesn’t see that and admit that, then he or she is in delusion—often self-inflicted.
Ed: The discussions that philosophers engage in are not meant to actually settle anything, nor to predict anything, nor to even limit anything. They are relevant to trying to understand what is going on, but they cannot, in and of themselves, aid in actually doing anything.
“Practical” and “doing” should play well with this crowd, Ed. Unfortunately, that is not the usual issue that gets argued about here. Oftentimes what gets argued is what’s real, true, and what can be proven empirically.
On the other hand, one can argue that there are a great many things about life which are immensely important to human beings that are not practical or oriented to measurable performance. Most people here will not or cannot hear this, much less understand it. Instrumentalism, materialism, utilitarianism, expediency, is what living is all about for them. It’s the state of being we seem to have evolved to as society and individually. It characterizes our current state of consciousness. It biases how we see the world and ourselves. (We can thank Hume, Locke, Smith, and Hobbes for initiating this view.) If it’s not productive, it’s useless and irrelevant.
It’s been claimed by some that higher education should be shortened to two years and the general studies curriculum dropped because it does not help people in their careers.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:08am PT
|
Physical science always remains incomplete to a human being because a human being is ultimately not material ........
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:10am PT
|
"There is a real creation story of humanity, and one only, and it is not a myth. It is being worked out and tested, and enriched and strengthened, step by step.
Mike wrote: And invariably, it is incomplete, inaccurate, and never final. "
And this what I said/posted early on in this thread, science doesn't have all the answers, it strive to find them.
This is what E.O. is saying and if you are honest you will admit that science has explained more about our natural world than religion has.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:38am PT
|
Rhetoric and logic remain exacting. Take symbolic logic that breaks down arguments. Have you taken a symbolic logic course?
yes
have you taken a mathematical logical course? are you familiar with the origin of logic, in the mathematical sense, that there are different varieties of logic, and the limitations of logical systems?
it would seem to be relevant to a student of philosophy to do more than learn some dusty hand-me-down ideas from ancient Greece, especially since there is a whole area of directly related modern thought; oh, you might need to learn a little mathematics though.
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 19, 2017 - 09:54am PT
|
So another religious zealot goes looking to kill those of another faith, driving their car into a crowd exiting a worship service while yelling epithets against their group.
What in the fk is wrong with people?
I pretty much ignore the long posts in this discussion, as I am not really interested in any philosophical debate as to whether God is "real." My question was whether "religion" is doing more harm than good these days, and it's my opinion the answer is yes.
A person can do good. A group, organized, can do good. And they do. But when someone, or some group, is suggesting any sort of "us against them" poop, based on their particular religious beliefs, they are immediately going into my "part of the problem" garbage heap.
I am so sick of it all. From all angles.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:04am PT
|
Ed, that was such a patronizing reply that I scarcely know where to start.
I would be surprised if Feynman had been concerned with Popper, and even more if he spent much time regarding the philosophy-of-science as something that was relevant to science.
Whether or not he was concerned with Popper is irrelevant. The fact remains that Popper had a dramatic effect on how scientists "cast" what they are actually doing. This shift took place from high-school biology throughout graduate programs.
When I took high-school biology, we were taught verificationism: If the results agree with the theory, then the theory is correct. If they don't, then you refine or replace the theory until the theory is correct.
Now students are taught falsificationism, and it is very widely known, even among the laity, that science is NOT "doing" verificationism (despite how popular literature slips into such loose talk quite frequently).
Feynman virtually quotes Popper, whether he knows to whom the credit should go. And your idea that "science is just doing its thing" is amazingly naive. WHAT "its thing" even is has varied through the centuries, becoming more and more refined even in our lifetime.
Regardless of your dismissiveness, the fact remains that science does not and CANnot "confirm" anything.
As we see, the explanations of how science "works" come after science works, even the word "metaphysics" reflects this.
You'll have to explain that one to me. The "meta" in "metaphysics" means "before" or "logically prior to" or "underlying" or "overarching" or those sorts of meanings (depending on context). Aristotle, for his part, meant that "metaphysics" was more "encompassing" than the physics. So, I don't see how you get "after" from "metaphysics."
The discussions that philosophers engage in are not meant to actually settle anything, nor to predict anything, nor to even limit anything.
And you know this, how?
How much professional philosophy have you engaged in? How many professional philosophers do you know? How many philosophical journals do you regularly read? How many philosophers do you personally engage with regularly?
The broad spectrum of philosophy has produced more branches of inquiry than every other discipline combined. "Ph.D." means "doctor of philosophy," and this is not merely a historical throw-back. What most disciplines quickly lose sight of is that their origins as "separate" departments are grounded in philosophy. So, for example, linguistics departments quite recently sprang out of philosophy of language and remain deeply grounded in that philosophical mode of analysis.
Computer science has deep roots in philosophy of mind, and the pursuit of "hard-AI" is grappling with those very questions, sharing the same journals in many cases.
I could go on. Philosophy again and again refines the questions to the point where a "separate" line of inquiry gets spun off into its own "academic department." Then, the philosophers are not "left behind" but instead further refine the lines of inquiry.
Regarding your notion of "settled," I would put it to you that science itself is about the most "unsettled" discipline in all of academia, including in its professional practice.
Of course, you'll want to emphasize "vast consensus" regarding a host of scientific "discoveries," but to that I would reply that there are equally vast consensus points regarding a host of philosophical discoveries.
So, let's not move the bar of what "settled" means. The very wide-spread consensus among philosophers, for example, is that consequentialist ethics is a dead-end; deontological ethics is the standard basis of further ethical inquiry. That's a pretty "settled" question at this point, and that result is quite significant, given millennia of debate regarding the nature of right and wrong! Please explain to me what science has contributed to the question of right and wrong.
Another thing that's pretty widely "settled" is that some notion of a contract-theory of governmental legitimacy is right. Just as refinements within a paradigm are the norm in science, there is much refining discussion going on in political philosophy. But the contract-theory of legitimacy is the working norm. If you look at the endless "experiments" in government through the millennia, that's another really significant result.
Intro to Phil students sometimes ask, "What does philosophy produce?" Among other answers, perhaps most striking is: The United States of America.
Science didn't produce that, nor could it have. Philosophy and philosophy alone produced our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. And there was clearly enough political philosophy consensus to garner widespread agreement about not just the founding principles but even the practical outworking of them that a nation was formed out of discussions about those principles, how to enshrine them, and how to practically protect them.
Science had exactly ZERO hand in that process, as science can tell us NOTHING about, for example, inalienable rights.
They are relevant to trying to understand what is going on, but they cannot, in and of themselves, aid in actually doing anything.
Ridiculous. What a clear-cut example of scientific arrogance. The fact that you have funding AT ALL to pursue your research is firmly grounded in the practice of philosophy, and science contributed nothing toward the founding principles of this great nation. Science didn't produce the nation whose teats you now suckle upon; philosophy did.
And, whether you, Feynman, or any other scientist can get outside your bubble enough to give credit where it is due, the fact remains that "the bar" that scientists seek to get over resulted from philosophy of science discussions that DID change the entire educational system from kids on up, such that they are now trained in falsificationism rather than verificationism.
This is simply a practical observation, the same discussions have gone on for all of human history. They probably went on before then, we have no written records.
My "practical observation" is that, in typically scientific arrogant fashion, you conflate all meanings into scientific meanings. And you do this so subconsciously that you suffer from a worse myopia than the logical positivists ever did. Even "practical" for you means "some product of empiricism."
But this nation was founded on inalienable rights, you enjoy the vast benefits of living in such a nation, and that PRACTICAL result has not one whit to do with the practice or results of science.
Are there any settled philosophical points? None, unless you wish to include modern science as a part of philosophy.
More arrogance. And ignorance. Many fields of philosophy are as "settled" as many fields of science. And philosophy has "produced" more significant and widespread "results" than science ever has. The fact that you know how to blow up a hydrogen bomb and (in general) why it blows up as it does utterly pales by comparison to the production of that nation that enabled you to do such research in the first place.
Don't forget that the first hydrogen bomb had double the predicted yield, because ya'll just happened to overlook some pesky little details about how one form of tritium would be converted to the other form (if memory serves me correctly). You didn't "predict in advance" at that really key level. Instead, you just blew the thing up and went, "Oops. Now we know." You reconstructed "what happened" after the fact, rather than predicting in advance exactly how tritium would react in the theorized environment.
Of course, the public isn't privy to HOW many "oops" moments science has. Instead, it gets popular literature explicitly designed to magnify the "successes" rather than the stumbling path toward "knowledge."
And why shouldn't modern science be included in the practice of philosophy? You guys surely do a LOT of philosophizing! From Dawkins to Kaku to Weinberg (and the list goes on!), you scientists perpetually take up philosophical topics that you then proceed to do VERY badly. You take up questions that no pile of empirical data can possibly answer. To be intellectually consistent, your "answers" on these topics should be one of two: 1) We have NO idea and never will, because these questions are not empirically based; 2) The questions, not being empirically based, are not meaningful/relevant to the best/only approach to assessing evidence that we have.
Instead, scientists pontificate long and hard about questions that science can in principle have no answers to. And the so-called "social sciences" are a flat-out JOKE, yet these most purport to tell us "real things" about human nature, which then bleeds into ethics, political philosophy, and the like.
You try to conflate ALL forms of inquiry into empirical inquiry, and you thereby see as an empirical "nail" every question you have THE "hammer" for. But science never has and never will provide the answers to the largest array of human inquiry.
Meanwhile, philosophy often reaches comparable levels of consensus that are enjoyed in the scientific community, and it "settles" some of the most pressing questions to ever confront human beings. Its successes particularly in ethics and political philosophy are impressive indeed, particularly given how fundamentally abstract and intractable such inquiry has proven over the millennia.
So, I'll end with one question: Given the scientific method, what in principle could be adequate evidence for the existence of a creative God?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:32am PT
|
The meltdown has begun.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:41am PT
|
I am so sick of it all.
Might I suggest Angels of Our Better Nature, by Steven Pinker.
When things really feel out of whack, it helps keep things in perspective.
Subtitle: Why Violence Has Declined
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 11:23am PT
|
HFCS, Good one. I second the motion on The Better Angels of Our Nature.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 11:48am PT
|
I applaud Madbolter1 for his nice thought out analysis.
The only one having a meltdown is the simpleton dufus who said it has begun .....
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 01:19pm PT
|
Werner: I applaud Madbolter1 for his nice thought out analysis.
+1
ff
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 01:49pm PT
|
I applaud Madbolter1 for his nice thought out analysis.
Yeah, really thoughtful and well said.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 02:22pm PT
|
lol!
I applaud Madbolter1 for his nice thought out analysis.
The only one having a meltdown is the simpleton dufus who said it has begun .....
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
Jun 19, 2017 - 01:19pm PT
Werner: I applaud Madbolter1 for his nice thought out analysis.
+1
ff
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
Jun 19, 2017 - 01:49pm PT
I applaud Madbolter1 for his nice thought out analysis.
Yeah, really thoughtful and well said.
All right, marginally motivated by afore posts, I took the time to read MB1's WOT. (1) His "way of talking" (posting) reminds me of William Lane Craig (if not MikeL). If you don't know who this Christian apologist is, you should youtube him. Much to learn from him in regards to how many of our fellow sojourners choose and apparently prefer to express themselves in (fantasy-based) rhetoric over (reality-based) substance. Full of fluff, bouffant. (2) Personally, I could shoot down just about every single paragraph of MB's wall of text - except maybe the one alluding to the social sciences (where there might be some agreement). But thankfully I've got memories of past dealings with MB1 and his (ironic) proclivities (a) to use terms rather loosely and (b) to ignore contexts or definitions (other than his own) or other povs (other than his own); and I'm busy with other fish in the moment (woot) so really I've got no further interest. One point in particular stands out throughout his WOT though - his failure to nuance between (a) historical philosophy (overlaps a lot with science) and (b) contemporary academic philosophy. There's simply a world of difference between the two (eg, re output or legacy). Overall: Sloppy. Grade D.
What we have above is a three way (or four way) groupthink or circle jerk if you prefer. My ending beta: Consider the sources.
Politiking and subtribalism and patent pedantry are alive and well here at ST. lol
PS. MB1... maybe review your OWN understanding of the English language's definition/description of meta-. It could use a honing. Just a thought.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 02:36pm PT
|
Fruit said: -- "I could shoot down just about every single paragraph of MB's wall of text."
You could, but you didn't.
So your usual egotistical high and almighty fluff piece rant is worthless .......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 02:44pm PT
|
As I said...
consider the source(s).
...
PS The battle between consequentialism and deontology is settled? lol
The very wide-spread consensus among philosophers, for example, is that consequentialist ethics is a dead-end; deontological ethics is the standard basis of further ethical inquiry. That's a pretty "settled" question at this point, and that result is quite significant, given millennia of debate regarding the nature of right and wrong! -MB1
Well, maybe it is "settled" amongst today's academic philosophers.
Consequentialist ethics is a dead-end?
Heh.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 02:49pm PT
|
Talk all you want but you still didn't do sh!t ......
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 02:54pm PT
|
What we have above is a three way (or four way) groupthink or circle jerk if you prefer. My ending beta: Consider the sources.
What I've noticed on this thread and others like it on ST is that science/ tech. people have a unique argument that goes something like this: "you're wrong." The notion of philosophy's importance as a predicate to science seems undeniable and "you're wrong and I know better and I have the education to prove it and you don't know anything," well, that's just not very convincing.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 02:58pm PT
|
Today's academic philos, like today's so-called "Social Sciences", has only itself to blame. It could've chose a long time ago to work with the sciences instead of opposing them at just about every turn. If it doesn't adapt somehow, good riddance.
...
Ed, sorry for interrupting your "dialog" with MB1. Please carry on.
You'll have no more interruptions from me.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 02:59pm PT
|
Fruit man's logic reminds me the time when me and Bachar came back from climbing one day.
We're driving back and I asked John what he thought of Wolfgang's free solo of Separate Reality roof a few days ago.
John shrugs and goes ..... "I can do that".
But he never did .......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:03pm PT
|
Hey WB, what's deontology? Hey WB, what's the Greek meta- in English denote? either in popular circles or in philosophy and science circles?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:13pm PT
|
Sycorax, easy enough... what's the English definition and use of meta- prefix (either in everyday vernacular or in technical use)? Come on, impress me, Teacher, with an valid and accurate answer.
Just google Merriam Webster Online and see. Easy enough, eh?
The rest of his post is just as sloppy and inaccurate.
Just as expected....
crickets
...
For the record...
re: "metaphysics"
"You'll have to explain that one to me. The "meta" in "metaphysics" means "before" or "logically prior to" or "underlying"..." -MB1
Claim: In today's contemporary academic philosophy there is a concise use of language.
Response: Uhmmm, apparently not. :(
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:22pm PT
|
Fruity
agreed
the self righteousness,condescending and insulting nature of Mad's writing is annoying and usually based on fallacies
He has posted many WOTs on Hillary's e-mail server, all based on the concept that it was a National Security Risk, but none of her e-mails were classified, so hence his million word rants were all in vain!!
and having him post that all his detractors are insulting him is the height of hypocrisy
You saw how he treated Bob after his non-insulting response
Kind of like Werner and Sully, every post is directed as a insult to someone
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:33pm PT
|
I could care less about Werner or Madbolter, two peas in a pod.
Madbolter latest rant was hilarious and based on his own overwhelming emotions...funny stuff, especially his rant on the founding fathers.
I wonder what native Americans, blacks/slaves and women felt about those "inalienable rights."
Didn't Werner get the the boot a few weeks back?
Paul wrote: The notion of philosophy's importance as a predicate to science seems undeniable and "you're wrong and I know better and I have the education to prove it and you don't know anything," well, that's just not very convincing.
You are talking about Madbolter??
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:49pm PT
|
And, as always, "nothing more to see here."
The view from most here is: Anybody not being hard-core materialist-empiricists is STUPID. So, end of story. Either buy the scientific paradigm in-toto, or you're STUPID.
Anybody attempting to even float the notion, "Hey, I don't agree, and I'm not STUPID, and I'm actually wider and more systematically read on these subjects than most here," has THAT then cast as "self-righteously STUPID."
So, really, there's no arguing with such people. You're "wrong" before you ever open your mouth, and the most systematic post is STUPID.
This waste of time is why I quit posting on the Religion and Science thread, and it's why I'll quit posting here.
It's like the politard threads: The consensus is that ALL disagreement means that the "opponent" is STUPID. No other alternative.
That's a toxic environment, and I have better things to do with my time.
So, you scientists can count this up as a "win," since you "win" by definition. (Of course, still no answer to my question about what evidence in principle could indicate the existence of a creator God. That one has implications they would prefer to not tangle with.)
I'm outty. Have fun, folks.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 03:56pm PT
|
The only person calling anyone stupid is Werner but then again you have a way of projecting your negative ways on to others who don't agree with you. I don't see you, Paul, MikeL to name a few calling him out on his insults and name calling to others.
In fact I wish I had a dime for every time Werner has called someone Stoopid (sic) or a name.
Goodbye.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 04:39pm PT
|
Another stoopid post by boob who has his very own way of projecting his very own negative and insulting ways on to others who don't agree with him .....
Goodbye
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 05:35pm PT
|
MB-I'm actually wider and more systematically read on these subjects than most here
WTF does that have to do with contemplating the spark of life?
Was there an eyewitness account I missed somewhere?
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 05:51pm PT
|
This is the age of Trump. Am I stoopid, or do I just have blood coming out of my wherever? And then globally apply whatever you think of me to everyone with my perspective. Sure, we geniuses have it all figured out.
I expect that when push comes to shove most of us are not as stoopid as our stoopid rhetoric suggests we are.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 05:54pm PT
|
I would like to ask Mad about his concept on major evolution...
he has said minor evolution may take place, but hasn't explained further if major evolution has taken place after being questioned
and for your information, none of us said you were stupid
we just disagree with some of your opinions
is that so hard to comprehend???????????????/
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 06:10pm PT
|
HFCS:
This quote you have attributed to me are words I neither wrote nor would have said. Shame, shame—sloppy reading or inadequate comprehension of what you read. What is going on with you? Are you ill?
The only one having a meltdown is the simpleton dufus who said it has begun .....
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
No, I did not write nor say that and doubt that I've ever called anyone a simpleton dufus—simply not my sort of language. Are you all right? Or was that just snark for the sake of snark? I might impugn your misquote and your inadequate intelligence as demonstrated by your error, but I would not do so with those words. Amusing.
ff
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 06:14pm PT
|
"The only one having a meltdown is the simpleton dufus who said it has begun .....
feralfae"
Werner's work, not feralfae.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 06:18pm PT
|
Thank you Bob, ah, that makes sense, in an interesting sort of way.
:)
ff
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 06:19pm PT
|
I think what you guys don't realize is that when Werner calls you stupid, its probably for your own good!
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 06:34pm PT
|
Werner once was smart...Then he became an American citizen...Then he became stooopid...
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 07:07pm PT
|
You'll have to explain that one to me. The "meta" in "metaphysics" means "before" or "logically prior to" or "underlying" or "overarching" or those sorts of meanings (depending on context). Aristotle, for his part, meant that "metaphysics" was more "encompassing" than the physics. So, I don't see how you get "after" from "metaphysics."
I found this in the Good Book (i.e. Merriam Webster):
Definition of meta-
1
a : occurring later than or in succession to : after metestrus
b : situated behind or beyond metencephalon metacarpus
c : later or more highly organized or specialized form of metaxylem
There are other definitions but not of them include "before" or any synonym of before.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 07:20pm PT
|
..Then he became an American citizen...Then he became stooopid...
ROFLMO ..... so true
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 07:28pm PT
|
What I've noticed on this thread and others like it on ST is that science/ tech. people have a unique argument that goes something like this: "you're wrong." The notion of philosophy's importance as a predicate to science seems undeniable and "you're wrong and I know better and I have the education to prove it and you don't know anything," well, that's just not very convincing.
Nah, there's plenty of that weak attitude on this thread from the believers too. If we all didn't think we're right, why would we be debating. "Science/tech people"? No need to label people and put 'em in a group. Not all believers are the same, not all scientists are the same. So drop those arguments, they're meaningless.
I do not claim to be highly educated in philosophy. But I have given pointed, concise, logical comments that went unanswered. So your characterization of "science/tech. people" is very weak, grasping at straws it seems, rather than reason.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 07:43pm PT
|
madbolter1's wall of text always appears daunting
Regardless of your dismissiveness, the fact remains that science does not and CANnot "confirm" anything.
I think that practicing scientists would disagree with you, and Popper, though the philosophical position that hypotheses are "falsified" is an ideal, as per the example I gave. If you asked the majority of particle physicists, they would say that the discovery of the Higgs is a confirmation of the electro-weak unification. They may be in philosophical error, they aren't in error on the physics. And what's more, they won't be shamed by violating something that Popper wrote.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/meta-
- meta-
1. a prefix appearing in loanwords from Greek, with the meanings “after,” “along with,” “beyond,” “among,” “behind,” and productive in English on the Greek model:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphysics
Definition of metaphysics
1
a (1) : a division of philosophy that is concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being and that includes ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology
b : abstract philosophical studies : a study of what is outside objective experience
that must exclude "physical cosmology," or does it?
So what of ontology, cosmology, epistemology has been decided by the philosophers? You can thank the physicists for making progress on cosmology, you're on your own with the others.
Didn't Hume kill metaphysics?
There would seem to be good discussion to be had regarding metaphysics, a few thousand year history of good discussions.
What do philosophers produce?
I think that almost none of your examples are meaningful. I have a Ph.D., and M.Phil. and M.Sci. I have those master's degrees because Columbia U. got a bounty for every advanced degree it produced from NYState. One of my fellow graduate student tried to argue with the Graduate School and was told to "go away."
The history of the US University "system" is interesting and is certainly modeled after various European and continental higher education institutions. I would have preferred my degree be a Sc.D. but such a thing doesn't exist, largely because of tradition.
As for the theory of mind, we can see just how much progress philosophy has made: none. And not only that, it inhibits progress by insisting on principals that may be irrelevant to a final physical theory.
Please explain to me what science has contributed to the question of right and wrong.
If medical science is indeed a science, then we know that people who have various illnesses may act in ways that we could consider "right" or "wrong" but have no awareness themselves of the act. For instance, the consideration of mental illness at trial. The diagnosis of such illness is physical, not philosophical, and the consequence behavior determined by the illness are treated very differently.
We have exceptions of the conventional meaning of "right and wrong."
As for the history of the United States, you might consider what the founding fathers knew of science at the time. You make an assertion, but you don't have any fact to back it up. Maybe you should read more widely.
you can do the Google search yourself:
http://www.google.com/#q=scientific+ideas+in+the+declaration+of+independence
and wade through the 14 million responses.
The rest of your discussion regarding the the founding of the nation are equally naive assertions with no backup. But I know you aren't a historian, you're a philosopher.
As for the hydrogen bomb, very good predictions were made based on what was known, and those predictions were wrong. The predictions were then used to find out why the physical system behaved differently, as determined by the measurements, than the prediction.
That's how science gets done.
Are you saying that scientists can never make incorrect predictions? that in so doing, they invalidate science? If that is the extent of what philosophy could do for science then there is even more reason to ignore it.
Those parts of philosophy that have been taken over by science have made rapid progress after the appropriation. Aristotle's cosmology is irrelevant after 2000 years, it seems to have been replaced by physical cosmology, starting with the beginning of science.
When I asked "what did Hume know?" it was a serious question. If you could explain what distinguishes the writings of an ambitious 23 year old from anyone else's thoughts it would, I think, be an interesting discussion. I'm not saying what he wrote wasn't significant, the interesting question is where does the authority come from, writing clear prose? Science at least teaches us that good ideas aren't always right, that seems very different in philosophy.
Given the scientific method, what in principle could be adequate evidence for the existence of a creative God?
that would depend, of course, on what you mean by God. If it is a subjective experience, e.g. a "personal God", science would likely have something to say about behaviors that give rise to the experience. The validity of experience is traditionally not questioned, but certainly drug induced hallucinations result in experiences that the individual believes is real. Similarly, various diseases like schizophrenia can lead the individual to accept that subjective state as "real."
I thought John Forbes Nash's reply to the obvious question regarding his schizophrenia, "how could you have not known the difference between your mathematical thoughts and the schizophrenic thoughts?"
"Those thoughts come from the same place."
So certainly this leaves plenty of room for a subjective experience of God, and as far as I know you could have all the "evidence" you need based on that subjective experience.
If you are asking about evidence for a physical God, not supernatural, then you have a lot of explaining to do. But let's say that God exists beyond the Planck scale. We cannot rule it out, and it is likely the physics of those scales is not yet known.
The invocation of a supernatural God runs into the difficulty of explaining how the natural and the supernatural interact... as far as I know there is no construction that keeps them separate, at least in terms of measurement.
I am committed to seeking a natural explanation for the universe. Nothing that I know prevents such an explanation from existing.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 08:24pm PT
|
The number one mystical in science is mathematics because no one knows what mathematics is.
But, .... without mathematics modern science can not even exist ......
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 08:45pm PT
|
I haven't checked this thread until now and as I expected it's sunk to name calling and gross mischaracterization of the "other side".
As I see it these types of "discussions" usually come down to the people who mainly see the world through reason, and those who see the world through faith. Of course there's a lot of belief inherent to both ways of thinking. But fundamentally they will never change the other person's mind.
The reason based people demand a logic based argument or experiment that can demonstrate what they think is wrong. And the faith based people demand absolute proof what they think is wrong. Neither side can provide what the other side demands, so we go round and round.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 08:49pm PT
|
Werner: The number one mystical in science is mathematics because no one knows what mathematics is.
But, .... without mathematics modern science can not even exist ......
Werner, you win the prize. :) I was once quoted, "If you can't express it in numbers, it is not reality." I was young and very arrogant then. I now know better, but only sometimes. :)
Anyway, thank you for that.
FF
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 08:52pm PT
|
without mathematics modern science can not even exist
it could be the other way around, that is, mathematics is a consequence of the physical universe, it is as good a speculation as yours.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:01pm PT
|
it is as good a speculation as yours.
Sorry ED I didn't speculate.
That was from Penrose himself.
Never underestimate what you'll find ........
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:10pm PT
|
And the good old OED, Third Edition, on the word
metaphysics > plural noun (usu. treated as sing.)
"the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, identity, time, and space. ~ abstract theory with no basis in reality: his concepts of society as an organic entity is, for market liberals, simply metaphysics.
Metaphysics has two main strands: that which holds that what exists lies beyond experience (as argued by Plato), and that which holds that objects of experience constitute the only reality (as argued by Kant, the logical positivists, and Hume).
-Derivatives metaphysician noun
-Origin mid 16th cent.: representing medieval Latin metaphysica (neuter plural), based on Greek ta meta ta phusika 'the things after physics' referring to the sequence of Aristotle's works: the title came to denote the branch of study treated in the books, later interpreted as meaning 'the science of things transcending what is physical or natural'.
It might help this highly entertaining discussion if there could develop a common lexicon. Does this help?
ff
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:30pm PT
|
That was from Penrose himself.
you're saying that Penrose wasn't speculating? if he was that would make you a second hand speculator...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:37pm PT
|
I didn't say any such thing.
You are projecting.
I said that came from Penrose and that I wasn't wasn't speculating.
That was all.
Whether Penrose is speculating or not is YOUR problem, not mine .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:45pm PT
|
So feralfae, it looks like you now understand - thanks to Bob - that I did NOT misquote you after all. So where IS my apology?!
Then there's this... "Shame" "inadequate comprehension" "ill?" "inadequate intelligence" - So it appears you can be just as snarky as the rest of them, no? Despite your "higher spirituality" after all? lol
Waiting...
paul roehl: "Yeah, really thoughtful and well said."
feralfae: +1
madbolter1: "scientists pontificate..."
WB: "I applaud Madbolter..."
Friggin hilarious!
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:50pm PT
|
Ed: it could be the other way around, that is, mathematics is a consequence of the physical universe, it is as good a speculation as yours.
Ed, no one has stated that the physical universe is a consequence of mathematics. No one.
What has been stated is that modern science could not exist without mathematics. I think that is a given. The elegance of being able to express relational physical reality through such simple terms as are readily understood by almost all physicists is a result of the continual development of mathematical applications to express theoretical propositions in measurable terms. Without these closely reasoned means of expressing these phenomenon, they could not be tested, refuted, verified or modified.
But I think you are just entertaining yourself with this argument. :) As we all probably are. :)
ff
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:54pm PT
|
The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.
Robertson Davies
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:55pm PT
|
HFCS: Bob made it plain that I did not say or write that. Read his comment again, please.
I am getting worried about you.
Are you all right?
ff
Bob: "The only one having a meltdown is the simpleton dufus who said it has begun .....
feralfae"
Werner's work, not feralfae.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:57pm PT
|
The eye sees only what the mind is prepared to comprehend.
Robertson Davies
Yes ... very good.
Unless of course, one uses the 3rd eye then one becomes safe .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:58pm PT
|
fae feral... Maybe it's YOUR comprehension? Go back yourself and read the original post. Carefully. I quoted you as expressing "+1 ff".
What YOU attributed to yourself I attributed correctly to WB.
I am getting worried about you. Are you all right? -feralfae Snarky feralfae!
Waiting, waiting for TWO apologies now, fae...
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 09:59pm PT
|
HFSC, I am not following you.
To agree with a statement is not to claim authorship of those words, which you attributed to me. Do you comprehend that?
And what's going on with you that you are resorting to ad hominem remarks? That is not like you, I would not think. I was being very snarky, and am fairly proud of escaping occasionally from my usually polite prose. But I see now there is some personal antipathy, which snarks at the politeness or at the snarkyness. And attributed words to me that I did not say. I think perhaps you are best ignored.
ff
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:01pm PT
|
I'm done with you.
See the trouble you cause, WB.
You guys deserve each other.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:02pm PT
|
It was you Fruit who screwed up not me ......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:05pm PT
|
But I think you are just entertaining yourself with this argument.
actually not, I've post links to work so speculating, that is, mathematics has an empirical origin.
Galileo outlined the role of mathematics in physics, so certainly that is not a new idea.
But serious physical thinking about such things as the origin of mathematics, space, time, are certainly a part of physics today.
WBraun: you're so serious...
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:09pm PT
|
And now, back to the discussion about . . . wait! What were were talking about? Oh, yes— all things considered (which is impossible, but pretend a balanced perspective) then, the question remains: Is Religion Doing More Harm Than Good These Days?
I am enjoying the recent commentary on physics and metaphysics. People actually arguing about Hume, for goodness sakes! :) Lovely.
ff
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:13pm PT
|
Sorry, Ed, that last comment was not directed at you, but to move beyond the little kerfuffle.
Yes, I have long been fascinated by the history and prehistory of mathematical thought. Where are the linked articles you mention mentioned? Or I can go search, so if it is a bother, don't.
thank you,
ff
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:14pm PT
|
Here, Snarky Fae, parse this cut n paste carefully...
I applaud Madbolter1 for his nice thought out analysis.
The only one having a meltdown is the simpleton dufus who said it has begun
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
Jun 19, 2017 - 01:19pm PT
Werner: I applaud Madbolter1 for his nice thought out analysis.
+1
ff
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
Jun 19, 2017 - 01:49pm PT
I applaud Madbolter1 for his nice thought out analysis.
Yeah, really thoughtful and well said.
Waiting for that apology still...
Are you a man or mouse, squeak up.
The kerfuffle aside: "+1" to the WB comment: I applaud MB1 for his "nice" "thought-out" analysis? REALLY, feralfae?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:15pm PT
|
Leave her alone Fruit, just drop it .....
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:19pm PT
|
Hell no, you piss in our beer everyday. You should be ashamed of yourself.
On this board at least, and on these topics, you're no different from Trump... a man-child.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:24pm PT
|
You really are insane.
feralfae has nothing to do with it.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:33pm PT
|
The Logic of Quantum Mechanics
"I want to begin by considering a case in which 'necessary' truths (or rather 'truths') turned out to be falsehoods: the case of Euclidean geometry. I then want to raise the question: could some of the 'necessary truths' of logic ever turn out to be false for empirical reasons? I shall argue that the answer to this question is in the affirmative, and that logic is, in a certain sense, a natural science."
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2017 - 10:57pm PT
|
ff: What has been stated is that modern science could not exist without mathematics. I think that is a given. The elegance of being able to express relational physical reality through such simple terms as are readily understood by almost all physicists is a result of the continual development of mathematical applications to express theoretical propositions in measurable terms. Without these closely reasoned means of expressing these phenomenon, they could not be tested, refuted, verified or modified.
If anything, this would seem say that without metrics or measurements, there would be no science. if so, then that would seem to imply an inherent bias and limitation. If not, then the common conception of science around here in this thread needs to be expanded considerably. (I suppose there are other alternatives, but I can’t think of them at the moment.)
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 05:30am PT
|
All this from a really kinda simple question....yes it does and data and history seem to back it up.
Religions are like tribes and what have tribes historical done?
Werner wrote: Leave her alone Fruit, just drop it .....
Funny coming from the little attack chihuahua, you might want ask Norton, Crankster and few others about being left alone on these forums.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 05:39am PT
|
If atheists don't also have a tribe mentality then why do they seek an affirmation from others in regards to their beliefs?
If you are truly atheist you would not feel a need to act in such a way.
Nor would you spend so much time trying to convince others how right you are
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 05:57am PT
|
"If atheists don't also have a tribe mentality then why do they seek an affirmation from others in regards to their beliefs? "
I don't care if you believe what I believe or not. Pretty simple. Happie asked a question and I think history shows what that answer is.
Also...this trend will continue. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/102002282
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 06:05am PT
|
You sure seem to care. If your answer to the original post is a simple: yes.
Then why do you persist posting on this thread?
Personally it seems you are doing what many religious people do- you are seeking affirmation from others in order to satiate your inner need to belong to a group..
Much like any member of a tribe
If you are atheist- then this is a waste of what little time you have in this finite life...
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 06:28am PT
|
"Personally it seems you are doing what many religious people do- you are seeking affirmation from others in order to satiate your inner need to belong to a group..'
I'm part of something called the natural world.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 10:03am PT
|
Werner is at least partly correct in saying that we trained the Taliban, during their fight with the Russians, but they weren't the Taliban yet. They didn't behead Walt when he snuck in to film them.
We have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the Iraq and Afghan wars. If somebody killed my family, I would be damn tempted to take up arms against them.
Where we screw up is nation building. We've more than gotten even over 9-11 now. We screwed up Iraq, and lost the good will of the people that existed right after we knocked off Saddam. Firing the army, banning the Baath party. Those were two critical errors, along with giving the Shia power, that ended up turning into ISIS.
When we screw around with a country, there can be unintended consequences.
How we screwed up Iraq is classic. There was a good documentary on CNN the other evening that discussed it all.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 10:11am PT
|
"There are lovely things in the world, lovely that don't endure, and the lovelier for that."
Can't wait for science to tell me why.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 10:57am PT
|
Paul...botany would be a good start.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 11:13am PT
|
you don't need to do some mystical speculations to figure out why things are lovely
just like some things taste good, some things don't
humans HAVE Preferences for things they see
like a bee looking for a flower, the bee prefers flowers with nectar
if you had these flower color patterns pasted all over the sides of your walls, you would probably start to hate them, it's just too overwhelming
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 11:28am PT
|
if you had these flower color patterns pasted all over the sides of your walls, you would probably start to hate them, it's just too overwhelming
Is my statement that those flowers are ugly equally valid to the statement that they are beautiful?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 11:43am PT
|
Paul... does it matter?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 12:50pm PT
|
Paul... does it matter?
Yes. What is beauty anyway? How do we explain it without recognizing the exceptional nature of humanity with its desire to know and as well, the strange delight we take in our senses, a delight that's extraneous to the survival dictates of evolution and something we also take delight in growing and encouraging. The question is why do humans have preferences for the things they see and why is there such enjoyment in the perception of those things? It is philosophy and myth and religion that bring us closer to any understanding of questions like this, questions that science seems incapable of answering.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 02:17pm PT
|
Should have been clearer, does it matter what you think or what I think personally about it?
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 02:42pm PT
|
It is philosophy and myth and religion that bring us closer to any understanding of questions like this, questions that science seems incapable of answering. I completely disagree
You could have never read a myth or have any type of religion
and you will have the same sense of Beauty as all other humans
and it can be explained by science, not explained by philosophy and myth and religion, since if it could, it would have.
I already gave to scientific explanation,
here is a little more detail
preferences before we were human may have aided in survival, and through evolution forces we Perceive Beauty
Can you say a dog does or does not perceive beauty?
I say yes, they can
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 04:37pm PT
|
"There are lovely things in the world, lovely that don't endure, and the lovelier for that."
Can't wait for science to tell me why.
Seriously? Science isn't making strides in understanding how and why humans believe what we believe? And you've already proven to yourself that science is incapable of explaining why we make up beliefs about how and why things are beautiful, but myth and philosophy and making up beliefs about why we make up beliefs about beauty brings us closer to understanding the truth of reality as it actually exists?
You seem to believe that things are actually lovely, and that their ephemeral nature (hey, we're ephemeral too!) makes them lovelier still, and that those things are aspects of reality, rather than aspects of our beliefs about reality.
It reminds me of a friend who posted on Facebook after the gay marriage ruling (when everyone was covering their photos with the rainbow hue) that everyone looked happier and healthier covered by the rainbow hue. Of course no-one's health or happiness changed as a result of their photo being covered by the rainbow hue, but our beliefs about their health and happiness did.
But you've already proven to yourself that there's no evolutionarily advantageous reason why people who share our beliefs might look lovelier to us? Their increased happiness and healthiness is just a fact of reality to you - a fact that we awesome humans are perceptive enough to actually see when looking at the photo, and not just something we make up in our heads as a belief?
Ok.
The fact that you "can't wait for science to tell me why" - huh, what's that about? My sense is that we need to believe that what we believe right now based on our incomplete information is true, really it's true!, and we can't be bothered to wait around for science to help us understand why. We need to believe that we're right right now.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 04:41pm PT
|
I didn't claim any of the sort
absolute?? no way
My scientific explanation included the notion of it being relative
Of course it's relative, and changes/evolves...
here is a question, what isn't beautiful?
man made messes = No. 1
Ugly Humans that are not beautiful = No. 2, but this relative in a way, overcome by love
mutations, other gross stuff
almost all of the natural world is beautiful in some way for all tribes
human preferences of what other humans do or look like is different for every tribe
Bonus answer
Trump is not beautiful in any way
he is an ugly human
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 04:46pm PT
|
Ugly Humans = No. 2
I hope you are talking figuratively...
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 05:31pm PT
|
and you will have the same sense of Beauty as all other humans not absolute, only you take it that way
Flowers are beautiful to all humans
as I said above
beauty seems most relative to how a human looks and the human world, and is very tribal
but the natural world beauty is agreed upon almost universally
and once again, what isn't beautiful?
Trump is not beautiful, I can say this with no hypocrisy
he is not of my tribe
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 05:35pm PT
|
My sense is that humans misunderstood how and why we believe things. IMHO, our ability to believe things is an evolutionary adaptation, probably our most important adaptation. That evolutionary adaptation is not the ability to believe a specific belief (or specific sense of beauty), any more than a specific skin color is the relevant evolutionary adaptation of our skin's melanin. The evolutionary adaptation is more the ability, tendencies, and processes by which we form beliefs, and the ways those beliefs affect our behaviors. The flexibility of our belief processes allows us to adapt to different environments and different sets of incomplete information. Sure, there are commonalities, like that I'm always right :-) and that I'll prefer the information that confirms it. But who knows, maybe we'll be able to transcend that and solve the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, eventually.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 06:15pm PT
|
I think what you guys don't realize is that when Werner calls you stupid, it's probably for your own good!
Fair enough. I accept that that might be true.
But ... he posted, without quotations, that "without mathematics modern science can not exist" And then, when called on it, he said that he didn't say it - someone else (Penrose) said it. It wasn't his speculation - he was just repeating what someone else said. And that by repeating this speculation in a post as his own, unattributed to the source, he wasn't speculating or endorsing this speculation (he was just speaking truth, based on his special relationship with the truth). And if Ed thought that he was the one who was speculating, or that Penrose was speculating, well that was Ed's problem, and doesn't reflect on him (Werner), or his beliefs, and his speculations. (He just believes truth.)
And that's all from altruism - so that we can enjoy the benefits of his awesome understanding of truth?
I'm not all that bright or perceptive or in tune with human nature, but to me, it smacks of perhaps a little ego, and possibly not a totally inhuman inegotistical evaluation of the available information.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 06:23pm PT
|
An active brain area does not an aesthetic experience make.
Beauty is celebrated and promoted, admired, extoled far beyond any evolutionary source, and our understanding of it is found in those that can produce it in the arts and in those who are able to critique it.
That an area of the brain lights up in the course of such an experience is so far from understanding the experience as to be laughable.
Myth, like great poetry and great music and great art, communicates something entirely real that is easily and immediately understood by the observer. These experiences are often enlightening and profoundly moving and the truths they hold are as vital as anything in science.
My suggestion: an art appreciation class.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 06:30pm PT
|
An active brain does not an aesthetic experience make.
Huh. That's some great knowledge you've created and believed there! Does an active brain create an aroused sexual experience, or is that better understood by myth, and unrelated to evolution, too?
That an area of the brain lights up in the course of such an experience is so far from understanding the experience as to be laughable.
Right? I so appreciate the humility of human belief processes in light of our ununderstanding of reality.
But fortunately, humans are growth learners. Heck, maybe that's an evolutionary adaption!
They laughed at the Wright brothers too :-) But IMHO the ones doing the laughing, and believing they already understand, and believing that they're already right, often find themselves wondering why they were wrong in the end.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 06:38pm PT
|
Next question
why would any human not appreciate beauty or art?
are there examples of these humans
of course some don't appreciate all art,
some art is only appreciated by a select few
but almost all humans appreciate natural beauty
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 06:50pm PT
|
"My suggestion: an art appreciation class."
Been there done that, along with two years as a philosophy major and four years at small liberal arts college.
Change to science and since that day always answered the questions I was asking.
Different for you, that just how my mind works.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 07:05pm PT
|
Right? What exactly is it that happens when you take an art appreciation class? The way that psychiatrists describe psychotherapy is that it's talk that changes the brain, but maybe art therapy works differently.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 07:07pm PT
|
Been there done that, along with two years as a philosophy major and four years at small liberal arts college.
Yeah, you might want to repeat that.
Right? What exactly is it that happens when you take an art appreciation class? The way that psychiatrists describe psychotherapy is that it's talk that changes the brain, but maybe art therapy works differently.
Well, you might learn something.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 07:09pm PT
|
Yeah, you might want to repeat that.
Exactly. The way to determine whether art therapy "works" or not is whether it produces the "correct" results. And by correct, I mean what I believe.
Well, you might learn something.
Thanks Paul. So much to learn. One thing I've learned is that sometimes we learn to believe things that aren't true.
The melanin in my daughter's skin produces a much darker color than the melanin in my skin. Our skin color creation processes are the same, but our skin colors are different. But our skin colors are both "true" - they're both "right."
But beliefs are different. We might use the same belief processes, but when they produce different results, one of those results might be right (true) and the other wrong (false).
But we have incomplete information - the best we can do is the best we can do, right or wrong. Logic and science are just tools to help us figure out which is which.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 07:10pm PT
|
Paul wrote: Yeah, you might want to repeat that.
I see what it has done to you...no thanks.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 07:22pm PT
|
Thanks Paul. So much to learn. One thing I've learned is that sometimes we learn to believe things that aren't true.
Yeah thanks, I already got that from your previous posts.
I see what it has done to you...no thanks.
Never took it myself.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 07:29pm PT
|
Thanks Paul. Meaning what I've learned to believe isn't true?
I thought it was the science types who's unique argument was "you're wrong." :-) Unique has a unique meaning that I expect non-science types have an inside track on understanding. Heck, I'll bet even the science types understand what you said.
Maybe even why you said it. White folks like us have to deal with the assault on the concept of our human exceptionalism at the same time that we're dealing with the assault on our white exceptionalism.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 07:41pm PT
|
I thought it was the science types who's unique argument was "you're wrong." :-)
Yep, you're absolutely right.
|
|
Fossil climber
Trad climber
Atlin, B. C.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 07:41pm PT
|
Thank God for Richard Dawkins.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 07:45pm PT
|
^^^^^ funny.
"The melanin in my daughter's skin produces a much darker color than the melanin in my skin. Our skin color creation processes are the same, but our skin colors are different. But our skin colors are both "true" - they're both "right." '
Where are you going with this??? Who said your color was wrong?
"The melanin in my daughter's skin produces a much darker color than the melanin in my skin"
There is a scientific explanation for this....you know that right?
"Skin color is due primarily to the presence of a pigment called melanin , which is controlled by at least 6 genes. Both light and dark complexioned people have melanin. However, two forms are produced--pheomelanin , which is red to yellow in color, and eumelanin , which is dark brown to black."
|
|
Studly
Trad climber
WA
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 07:58pm PT
|
Your hearts know in silence the secrets of the days and the nights.
But your ears thirst for the sound of your heart's knowledge.
You would know in words that which you have always known in thought.
You would touch with your fingers the naked body of your dreams.
And it is well you should.
The hidden well-spring of your soul must needs rise and run murmuring to the sea;
And the treasure of your infinite depths would be revealed to your eyes.
But let there be no scales to weigh your unknown treasure;
And seek not the depths of your knowledge with staff or sounding line.
For self is a sea boundless and measureless.
Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."
Say not, "I have found the path of the soul." Say rather, "I have met the soul walking upon my path."
For the soul walks upon all paths.
The soul walks not upon a line, neither does it grow like a reed.
The soul unfolds itself like a lotus of countless petals.
Kahlil Gibran
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 08:04pm PT
|
My skin color? I'm white. In the US, where 150 years after slavery ended, median white family wealth is still 13 times median black family wealth, who says my skin color isn't right? A lot of Trump supporters seem to believe that a lot of people are saying that.
My daughter's skin color? She's black. In the US, who says her skin color isn't "right"? I don't expect that you'll learn that in an art history class or a science class :-)
Where am I going with it?
Humans form beliefs about the results of other people's skin color creation processes using the same human belief processes that we use to form beliefs about the results of other people's belief creation processes. But ultimately we're humans, and we didn't create either of those processes. Those processes create different results in different people, based on, well, differences. Genetic differences, environmental differences, informational differences.
But maybe we can understand those human processes. With understanding our human skin color creation processes, we've done pretty well. With understanding our human belief creation processes, we still have a ways to go. As Paul humbly noted.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 08:09pm PT
|
Thank God for Richard Dawkins
I spit my beer....
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 08:14pm PT
|
You sure seem to care. If your answer to the original post is a simple: yes.
Then why do you persist posting on this thread?
Personally it seems you are doing what many religious people do- you are seeking affirmation from others in order to satiate your inner need to belong to a group..
Much like any member of a tribe
If you are atheist- then this is a waste of what little time you have in this finite life...
Unfounded assumptions. If religion is harmful some atheists may want to alleviate that harm by convincing others to drop their religious beliefs. And that wouldn't necessitate anything to do with a tribe. Why can't an atheist simply enjoy a good debate? Why did you make up these assumptions?
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 08:25pm PT
|
That an area of the brain lights up in the course of such an experience is so far from understanding the experience as to be laughable.
Well if that explanation is laughable, why isn't the story of Noah's Ark laughable? Sure the Bible stories can reveal some truths, as you've said. And if so then they are not to be taken literally, but rather to be understood as symbolic, right. Otherwise, the ark story would be pretty laughable. But would you believe the Bible's truths, as you call them, while laughing at a scientific argument that can demonstrate a relationship in the physical world? What does the Bible have that science does not? It has blind faith.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 08:31pm PT
|
I thought it was the science types who's unique argument was "you're wrong." :-)
Yep, you're absolutely right.
Paul, I debunked that argument three pages back. It makes no sense at all. Please go back and read my comment.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 08:41pm PT
|
Yes. What is beauty anyway? How do we explain it without recognizing the exceptional nature of humanity with its desire to know and as well, the strange delight we take in our senses, a delight that's extraneous to the survival dictates of evolution and something we also take delight in growing and encouraging. The question is why do humans have preferences for the things they see and why is there such enjoyment in the perception of those things? It is philosophy and myth and religion that bring us closer to any understanding of questions like this, questions that science seems incapable of answering.
Your logic is flawed. Science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Plenty of religious believers also have faith in science. And those who don't believe in religion are in no way less capable of understanding beauty or the natural world. The only thing believers have that non-believers don't have is ... religious belief. And you have no way of testing that religious belief. That could put religious people at a big disadvantage because their holy books were written, translated, and re-written, hundreds of times, over thousands of years, by hundreds of different humans. That could lead to some problems couldn't it?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 08:50pm PT
|
And you have no way of testing that religious belief.
Only a complete ignorant self-righteous total fool says this ......
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 08:55pm PT
|
.. the exceptional nature of humanity .. the strange delight we take in our senses ..
What exactly is strange about it? You seem to take its strangeness as an aspect of reality that you've marvelously perceived, rather than an aspect of reality that you've failed to understand. The only reason that it seems strange to you is because you don't understand it, but you take our human ununderstanding and transform it into a belief that confirms your belief in our human exceptionalism.
Not understanding it, the only explanation I can come up with is that humans are exceptional! I can't even imagine any other explanation. Human belief processes at their finest.
Why? Might that human belief process of transforming our ununderstanding of our belief and behavior processes into a positive confirmation of our own marvelousness have some evolutionary advantage? Why are humans such experts at confirmation bias? Maybe if you don't believe that you're so marvelously right, you might not be so motivated to act according to your beliefs.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 08:59pm PT
|
[quote]Only a complete ignorant self-righteous total fool says this ......
Here[/quote
good comeback Werner.
Can you test whether Jesus said what is in the Bible? How bout the old testament?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 09:03pm PT
|
Do the proper work and test it without running your mouth.
All spiritual science is testable .....
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 09:04pm PT
|
Right? If god had wanted you to have a mouth, she would have given you one. You just don't know the right way to be a human.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 09:06pm PT
|
Your logic is flawed. Science and religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Plenty of religious believers also have faith in science. And those who don't believe in religion are in no way less capable of understanding beauty or the natural world. The only thing believers have that non-believers don't have is ... religious belief. And you have no way of testing that religious belief. That could put religious people at a big disadvantage because their holy books were written, translated, and re-written, hundreds of times, over thousands of years, by hundreds of different humans. That could lead to some problems couldn't it?
The problem isn't my logic but rather your reading comprehension:
I never said science and religion are mutually exclusive.
I never said that those not believing in religion are not capable of understanding beauty.
It is those of a scientific bent on this thread who are continually declaring the fallibility of religious belief.
You imagine a stereotype when you make the statement above.
I'm an atheist .
But I'm not so shallow and ill informed to not understand the value of religion and faith and mythological ideas that still speak to us in a powerful manner and I certainly have more respect for those of faith than the arrogance of those in science who have no idea of the value of what they disparage.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 09:07pm PT
|
Do the proper work and test it without running your mouth.
All spiritual science is testable .....
Hah! have you ever even climbed el cap?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 09:22pm PT
|
paul roehl is always a good man .....
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2017 - 09:34pm PT
|
paul roehl is always a good man
I believe it. Like you. I'd probably say good human though :-)
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 06:24am PT
|
"But I'm not so shallow and ill informed to not understand the value of religion and faith and mythological ideas that still speak to us in a powerful manner and I certainly have more respect for those of faith than the arrogance of those in science who have no idea of the value of what they disparage. "
You show the same arrogance towards those of a science back ground as you accuse them towards those of faith.
Your belittling questions on beauty and art to me were not worth much of answer as most to all the humans I know appreciate those things and don't have to be justify. I spend a fair amount of time outside studying the natural world, science has helped me understand that world better.
Myths are called myths for a reason...they are not based on any verifiable information. They may pull on your heartstrings, they make make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside but they are still myths.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 07:30am PT
|
Base,
You and I agree about the unintended consequences of “screwing around in other countries.” I was interested in Trump for no other reason than I thought he implied he’d become much more of an isolationist so that our country might mind its own business. Alas, it seems that not even an outsider and iconoclast can overcome the immense institutionalization of a government such as ours.
War is such a terrible shame. (But I digress.)
Be well.
Craig: . . . just like some things taste good, some things don't
De gustibus non est disputandum
rbord: In the US, where 150 years after slavery ended, median white family wealth is still 13 times median black family wealth, who says my skin color isn't right?
I think there is considerably more than simply skin color that would account for the statistics. This suggests or implies a hasty generalization.
Sempervirens: Your logic is flawed.
Logic would appear to have nothing whatsoever about beauty. I would say you missed the object of the conversation.
Werner: All spiritual science is testable .....
From my side, I’d say that’s true. But the testability of spirit is not an objective process.
No matter what the area of study, what’s needed are the tools that are appropriate for the work. One would not break out the craftsman tools to repair a computer or a microscope to lay a floor.
Bob,
There are some things that cannot be discussed literally.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 09:23am PT
|
You show the same arrogance towards those of a science back ground as you accuse them towards those of faith.
Consider the original question of this thread. Reverse it: Is science doing more harm than good these days?
Remember science has produced a method for eliminating a good portion of life on this planet within a very brief period of time and we are threatened by that consequence on a daily basis.
However, I think science/ the scientific method is one of the greatest achievements of the human mind, but I would say the same for myth and religion. That you can't understand that is the source of the arrogance I referred to. Further, the achievements in both science and religion are evidence of the remarkable singularity and significance of humanity in a universe where such achievements seem to be extremely rare.
The arrogance is not mine.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 09:33am PT
|
Paul...science and religion both come from the minds of humans, how we use them for good or evil falls on our shoulders.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 09:36am PT
|
Science and religion both come from the minds of humans
No, they do not come from the minds of humans and is not the source ......
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 11:47am PT
|
Eldo prancers and Cali ball cuppers .
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 01:27pm PT
|
Ah, civil discourse...
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 02:07pm PT
|
However, I think science/ the scientific method is one of the greatest achievements of the human mind, but I would say the same for myth and religion. That you can't understand that is the source of the arrogance I referred to.
If by religion you mean philosophy such as what makes a life well lived or how should communities be organized, or an ability to appreciate the little things in life like art or rock climbing... Then I am on board with that.
If it is an unquestioning belief in some doctrine supposedly handed down from a supernatural being that dictates how life should be lived (and usually means the peons must bow down before the patriarchal elites)... Or deludes people into thinking that their suffering in this life doesn't need ameliorating because they will be rewarded in an afterlife... Yea, I'm arrogant enough to call BS on that.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 02:09pm PT
|
If by religion you mean philosophy such as what makes a life well lived or how should communities be organized, or an ability to appreciate the little things in life like art or rock climbing... Then I am on board with that.
Nicely done.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 02:16pm PT
|
The question is why do humans have preferences for the things they see and why is there such enjoyment in the perception of those things? It is philosophy and myth and religion that bring us closer to any understanding of questions like this, questions that science seems incapable of answering.
Those are good questions. And like you I also wonder what the answers are.
But have philosophy and myth and religion actually answered those questions? And if they haven't - if we don't yet know the answers to those questions - why do you choose the belief that philosophy and myth and religion are bringing us closer to understanding the answers, instead of believing that they're pushing us farther from understanding the answers? Did you just look at the idea that they're pushing us farther from the truth and say "you're wrong"?
Why do you say that science seems incapable of answering those questions? Because science hasn't answered them yet? But neither have myth and philosophy and religion. Why do you create that discrepancy in your beliefs about the effects of myth philosophy religion vs the effects of science in helping us understand those questions? If you don't know the answers, you don't know the answers. Why do you need to say that you do know - that your unsubstantiated belief is true, and my unsubstantiated belief is false? And IMHO, we do all need to say that :-)
Myth, like great poetry and great music and great art, communicates something entirely real that is easily and immediately understood by the observer. These experiences are often enlightening and profoundly moving and the truths they hold are as vital as anything in science.
My suggestion: an art appreciation class.
Your belief about my belief processes is that if I took an art appreciation class I would better understand the value of myth and philosophy and religion in understanding why humans believe and behave the way that we do? How would you know whether or not taking an art appreciation class had "worked" or not - whether or not it had had the "right" effect on my beliefs and behaviors?
Been there done that, along with two years as a philosophy major and four years at a small liberal arts college.
Yeah, you might want to repeat that.
So when Bob took the course of study that you suggested I would benefit from, and it didn't have the effect on his beliefs and behaviors that you think it should have had, your analysis was that he might just need to repeat it, until it does change his beliefs and behaviors.
You've received feedback that has contradicted your beliefs - both that great poetry and great art communicates something that is easily and immediately understood by the observer (it doesn't, for many of us) and that your suggestion of taking an art appreciation class will have the effect you expect that it will (Bob already said it didn't for him). Does that contradictory information have any effect on your beliefs?
Never took it myself
You believe that taking an art appreciation class is what I need to do in order to change my beliefs and behaviors to get closer to the truth, but you don't have any experience actually doing the work of taking an art appreciation class yourself, and observing the effects that it has on your beliefs and behaviors?
Do the proper work and test it without running your mouth.
I think Werner was the one who said that. Not to you though. Funny that. I wonder what course of study might bring us closer to understanding why not.
.. our understanding of (beauty) is found in those who can produce it in the arts and in those who are able to critique it.
I'm not so shallow and ill informed to not understand...
Now we're getting closer to the real human reasons behind our belief processes. Oh those shallow ill informed rubes that can't appreciate or understand beauty. Yes, I'm sure that you're simply marvelous :-)
Best to you.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 04:03pm PT
|
If it is an unquestioning belief in some doctrine supposedly handed down from a supernatural being that dictates how life should be lived (and usually means the peons must bow down before the patriarchal elites)... Or deludes people into thinking that their suffering in this life doesn't need ameliorating because they will be rewarded in an afterlife... Yea, I'm arrogant enough to call BS on that.
Of course the issue is not in regard to those experiences in life of a political or social nature but rather those inevitable tragedies that are grave and constant and inescapable in every life. Ultimately we will all experience these things and the question is how do we do that and the answer is through religion and myth and/or some other method of reconciliation. You don't reconcile a mother to the death of her child by telling her to get with science and it's just the circle of life... there is in atheism very often a distinct lack of empathy that precludes any real sympathy for the human condition. So I'll reciprocate the accusation of BS.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
|
Mark...if your post was directed at me...it was a take on Russ calling Eldo climbers prancers....mine was made in jest.
I also looked back and saw that you haven't called out Werner on incessant name-calling...way to keep it real.
:-)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
|
Anyone educated and trained enough in the school of life can see the weaknesses in Paul's phrasings but who, on this lazy solstice under the sun, has the want or energy to respond to them?
But if it works for Paul and his kind, and they are not impinging on our way of life, who really cares what they think.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 04:46pm PT
|
Anyone educated and trained enough in the school of life can see the weaknesses in Paul's phrasings but who, on this lazy solstice under the sun, has the want or energy to respond to them?
Once again an interesting and thoughtful argument from the science side.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 05:08pm PT
|
"You don't reconcile a mother to the death of her child by telling her to get with science and it's just the circle of life...
Have you lost a child, do you have children and what "science person" do you know has said that??
There is in atheism very often a distinct lack of empathy that precludes any real sympathy for the human condition. So I'll reciprocate the accusation of BS.
Could you please give real world examples.
A very weak opinion.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 05:08pm PT
|
But that short repartee, Paul, did raise an interesting point between me and my beach companions... If I am educated and trained a) in science (re what is) and b) in the School of Life (re what matters, what motivates and what works) then what the hell do I need "religion" for? partic now that it is the 21st century, partic any Abrahamic religion as practiced traditionally?
And it's not science our Grieving Mother needs (once again you caricature), it is life strategies, comfort and sympathy in her time of need. Perhaps she could get some of this from her School of Life community. Religion and mythology not needed.
Food for thought. With your Foster's. 😄
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 05:42pm PT
|
Let's remember what we are talking about when we say "science". We are just saying that we believe in the consistency of what we see and experience every day. Science encompasses all of that. Religion falls outside of this -- pretty much by definition. Surely, they (religions) all can't be right?
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 05:49pm PT
|
Perhaps both the widespread embrace of religion throughout the world and Donald Trump's leadership of the most powerful civilization are the present fruits, beneficiaries, and expression of human evolution.
Embrace of religion doesn't necessarily relate to kindness or other ethical behavior. My observation is that most Christians betray Jesus's calls to action all the time and willingly. So, too other religions. The things done in Muhammed's name betray Muhammed's ethics all the time, too.
Donald Trump's leadership is a non-sequitur or restated a ridiculous justaposition of words. He has enough trouble expressing leadership over his own rudderless mind.
Bob, I took your post at it's face and apparently out of context. I do rarely call Werner out. I give him more room because even though he's serious (mostly/maybe/kinda/tongue-in-cheek), he's not mean. He's solid, unprejudicial, inclusive and has your back. Yeah, he is definitely a first rate curmudgeon.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 05:57pm PT
|
" I do rarely call Werner out. I give him more room because even though he's serious (mostly/maybe/kinda/tongue-in-cheek), he's not mean.
You have never called him out as other (cuppers) :-) have not on these threads but feel no restrain to call me out. You might want to ask Cranster, Norton and few others who had the non-pleasure of his attacks.
"He's solid, unprejudicial, inclusive and has your back. Yeah, he is definitely a first rate curmudgeon."
Way to make excuses for his actions. Funny how that works.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 06:04pm PT
|
My impression is that your skin is too thin.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 06:49pm PT
|
"My impression is that your skin is too thin."
Not at all, actually quite thick when it comes to these threads. If you knew me personal level you would know that.
I just find the hypocrisy/double standard a little weird.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 07:11pm PT
|
hypocrisy
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel His hypocrisy was finally revealed with the publication of his private letters.; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
Yes, I may be an as#@&%e. Who among us is never hypocritical? Who among us in all instances is perfectly congruent with professed belief? Seems like if we're in the ballpark we're doing pretty good.
So, yeah, technically, I'm a hypocrite; practically, I'm pretty congruent.
Close enough for now. I used to be worse, but I got "bet-uh"...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Cuppers have more fun...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 08:59pm PT
|
The problem isn't my logic but rather your reading comprehension:
I never said science and religion are mutually exclusive.
I never said that those not believing in religion are not capable of understanding beauty.
It is those of a scientific bent on this thread who are continually declaring the fallibility of religious belief.
You imagine a stereotype when you make the statement above.
I'm an atheist .
But I'm not so shallow and ill informed to not understand the value of religion and faith and mythological ideas that still speak to us in a powerful manner and I certainly have more respect for those of faith than the arrogance of those in science who have no idea of the value
Right, you said religion brings us closer to the understanding of your questions (about human preferences and desire) but science seems incapable of answering. That distinction is what I called mutually exclusive. It is such logic that I disagree with because science can and does address those questions and any explanation would be just as valid as religious explanation.
You did make the stereotype by labeling a group of people (the science/tech people) and ascribing that strategy to them. That fits the definition of stereotype. I might fit your definition of the science people but I haven't used that strategy.
Religion and science both have value, on that we agree. But when science finds its own errors (like an invalid explanation of nature) it attempts to correct them, peer review. Does religion attempt to correct the crazy stuff in those Bible passages that I quoted for you? I don't think it does and that is one problem I have with religion. If the Pope makes a declaration the faithful are not encouraged to question and disprove it. They are told to believe. I would disparage that, wouldn't you?
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 09:27pm PT
|
Another important problem is the deliberate divisiveness in religion. It is cool that Hinduism does not inherently include that, but unfortunate that crazy humans find a way to use it to divide.
I realize science also can be and is used for diabolical means. But divisiveness a major part of some religions. Science doesn't include that as doctrine. Science questions and does not tell us what to do with the answers. Religion tells us what to believe doesn't it? It tells us what to value. Those are some big problems.
I think it was the smoking duck who said religion was not created by humans. Unless he has talked to God he's engaging in simple blind faith.
thread is moving fast, I don't have time to read all latest comments....
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 10:46pm PT
|
You are arguing that group represents what state of evolution? What particular state? Or is it the whole of the state? What is the distinction for what the cohort says about evolution, devolution, direction, future survivability/viability of our species? Will our species survive? Probably. Thrive into the future with the current trend line? Debatable.
Did you say that Trump represents the state of human evolution? Please clarify. Does that mean that our species is evolving toward muddled narcissism? Is that the highest level of adaptive evolution for our species? Or, does he represent an outlier cohort or historical artifact?
'Religious people' is a big swath - Thich Nhat Hahn to ISIS members that twitch with joy at the idea they might get to behead somebody today in the name of Allah.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 12:18am PT
|
Natural and artificially-driven sudden population collapses happen with some regularity.
The typical sudden population collapse graph looks like this:
Here's what our current human population graph looks like:
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 03:57am PT
|
"I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you’re not actually mammals.... Human beings are a disease...." LOL
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 08:04am PT
|
Right, you said religion brings us closer to the understanding of your questions (about human preferences and desire) but science seems incapable of answering. That distinction is what I called mutually exclusive. It is such logic that I disagree with because science can and does address those questions and any explanation would be just as valid as religious explanation.
Science is incapable of the kind of reconciliation to the "tragic nature of life" that religion offers. Religion offers a kind of escape hatch from tragedy which is something, an idea, that seems to "escape" the learned folk on this thread.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 08:21am PT
|
Science is incapable of the kind of reconciliation to the "tragic nature of life" that religion offers.
Not sure if this is at all true, impermanence is a primary characteristic of all life, "nothing lives forever," and while that may be an individual's "tragedy" it is possible to look back on the history of life on Earth and see how resilient it has been over roughly 4 billion years.
Science provides the opportunity to see the physical connections that all life on Earth share, on many different levels.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 08:43am PT
|
"Science is incapable of the kind of reconciliation to the "tragic nature of life" that religion offers."
Another emotional, broad non-provable statement.
You are on a roll.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:09am PT
|
""Science is incapable of the kind of reconciliation to the "tragic nature of life" that religion offers."
This is the kind of bullshit that did get Trump elected, total emotional talk to rally the followers.
Nothing based in truth. Just dribble.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:22am PT
|
What I've noticed on this thread and others like it on ST is that science/tech people have a unique argument that goes something like this: "you're wrong." The notion of philosophy's importance as a predicate to science seems undeniable and "you're wrong and I know better and I have the education to prove it and you don't know anything," well, that's just not very convincing.
Fair enough. But then you went on to say:
My suggestion: an art appreciation class.
So your belief seems to be that education isn't the basis for informed and true belief creation processes, but when someone had a belief that you disagreed with, you suggested education as a fix. But citing education as a basis for correct belief formation is something that only the other side does.
And then when that education didn't produce the belief creation processes that you believed were right, you said:
Yeah, you might want to repeat that.
So education isn't a valid basis for correct belief creation processes, but your suggestion if I have different beliefs than you is that I become more educated, and if that doesn't change my beliefs to match yours, then try again.
Never took it myself.
So not that you ever did that.
It's kind of beautiful the way our brains have evolved to do this seemingly opaque convoluted process of dancing around all the inconsistencies in our beliefs to create an ecology of human belief processes that support our survival and thrival in our environment of incomplete information.
Oh the pain of cognitive dissonance is too much to bear! Let's go write a tragedy that the really exceptional humans like me will understand, and that you shallow and ill informed science types will not appreciate.
Me, pick me for survival! I deserve it! I'm more exceptional than these other rubes. Me, I just sort through all the bullshit and come up with the truth.
Human survival biased belief creation. What will god think of next?
So in the ecology of human belief creation processes, yea, I think religion is probably still a good thing for us. But to me, the beautiful thing is that maybe we can outgrow that. And for you shallow and ill informed types who can't appreciate that beauty, that's ok, you're just humans like me, doing your human thing.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:50am PT
|
LG, I was twitching a bit trying to compute the correlation of evolution with the state of our US politic and culture.
The problem was that I was considering your use of the term evolution as the biological process rather than social/cultural process.
Yes, Trump and his ilk and the religious right in this country do represent much of the present state of our social/cultural evolution.
Though, the term evolution is correct, devolution is arguably more accurate.
These social/cultural/political trends are a betrayal of foundational American principles...
...in my humble opinion. ;-)
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:58am PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^ I agree with LG and you
The point of may last post, misinformation/lies and fakes promises won this last election. His right wing base lapped it up.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 10:17am PT
|
This is the kind of bullshit that did get Trump elected, total emotional talk to rally the followers.
Nothing based in truth. Just dribble.
Really?
The concern of religion is the psychological state of the individual and the individual's primary need/desire to be reconciled to those events in life that are inevitable. As well to find meaning and a sense in those events that might justify being itself.
What is the metaphorical meaning of the virgin birth or the birth out of the mind of god or the birth at the level of the heart? It is the birth of a spiritual life, or the birth of the intellectual life, or the birth of the compassionate life.
What is the earth touching posture of the Buddha but a symbol of the realization that enlightenment is beyond desire and loathing. How is such a symbol so much like the crucifixion? Because on the cross Christ ostentatiously displays the acceptance of a will/need greater than his own. The will/structure of life demands your death and I show you its acceptance.
When the Bible says In the beginning was the word/logos, properly translated logos means something more like order: an insight to be sure, an inviolate order applicable to all existence. Call it the laws of physics if you want.
In these metaphors and ideas humanity has found a way to mediate the "mysterium tremendum" allowing for a kind of anodyne, psychological acceptance.
The point is religion, all religion, offers a helpful understanding/insight of our plight as living beings of a remarkable nature that includes the gift of an epistemological function far beyond any other creature on this planet.
Reconciliation, redemption, a sense of acceptance in the face of the unacceptable, religion, myth offers these things.
The idea of taking that reconciliation away from someone who finds comfort in it because you want to read myth as scientific text instead of gracious metaphor strikes me as a bit unthoughtful maybe even a bit mean spirited.
That humanity will occasionally use religion for political justification of heinous acts is a human problem and not a religious one.
Overall religion, and remember the majority of humanity participates in some kind of religious practice, is helpful to the vast numbers of human beings as they move through the slings and arrows of being.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 10:34am PT
|
Sure, I find great insight in a variety of mythological and religious ideas and as I get older I find them increasingly helpful to me God or not. I think everyone searches for virtue in their lives and stories from the New Testament to the Upanishads have remarkable lessons and in those lessons there is a sense of peace.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 10:41am PT
|
Great posts Paul
Just remember:
The study of humanities is not for everyone
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 11:36am PT
|
.. science/tech people have a unique argument that goes something like this: "you're wrong".
K, maybe.
But then maybe non science/tech people have a unique argument that goes something like this: "you're stoopid", or "you're insane"?
Where the difference maybe is that "you're wrong" is a statement about the factual/objective truth value or your belief. You're belief is either wrong or not.
Whereas you're stoopid or you're insane is more a subjective/social/emotional statement about the person.
And sure, in arguments between persons, maybe science/tech people prefer statements about the truth value of a person's beliefs, rather than ad hominem statements about the person stating the belief.
And probably in arguments between persons, interpersonal/social/emotional statements often do have a bigger affect on our beliefs than statements of fact.
I think in general, human belief creation processes are often much more affected by social/emotional content than by factual content, despite how much we like to admire and approve of ourselves for our awesome rationality and objectivity. Might be best not to notice that.
Even in "arguments" with ourselves, beliefs like "I'm not the one who's shallow and ill informed!" seem to hold more sway than we might expect. But IMHO, those interpersonal/social/emotional beliefs have such an inordinately strong affect on our belief processes because they help us confirm ourselves and our beliefs and motivate us to act according to our beliefs. And sure, if we squint hard enough, we'll be able to believe that can't possibly have any evolutionary advantage.
But again, to me, the beautiful thing is that maybe we can overcome that, and learn to just believe truth.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 12:37pm PT
|
Great art catalyses discussion.
Right? If not for that play, all those folks would have been home by themselves playing Nintendo.
We create whatever survivor-biased self-confirming belief suits us (and often we're the ones unconsciously screening out information and only allowing confirming information to survive into our belief processes). We're humans - we create beliefs - it's what we do, how we work.
If you were a bird, you would flap your wings and fly. If your were a human who wasn't at that play (but was the discussy type who might have chosen to go to that play) you might have had a discussion too. Maybe not at the 100% rate that it occurred in that one instance, but heck, hopefully our love of the law of small numbers won't get in the way of our beliefs. Good luck with that one :-)
But IMHO, as a belief, yours probably beats "you're wrong" or "I'm not the one who's shallow and ill informed - I'm the one who understands!" :-)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 01:00pm PT
|
The fairy tale lovers...
Yeah, I love fairy tales, especially the Brothers Grimm. In those tales are some marvelous truths communicated directly into the psyches of adults as well as children. Read from a psychological perspective they are marvelous introductions into the world of myth and its value. Give them a try you might be surprised at the insights revealed.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 02:23pm PT
|
MikeL - thanks.
IMHO, when people see black skin, they react to it. Maybe not in the simple terms I describe, or the simple connection between wealth and race that I imply. But that skin color creation process - the color that your skin happens to create - affects what people believe about the person. And those beliefs have been perpetrated and reinforced and sublimated, to where, sure, hard to draw exact straight lines. Hasty? Maybe. Maybe lazy, the way we humans can be. Maybe parenting a black child affects my beliefs about it.
But the bigger point I was failing to make is that we use those same processes - the judgment and reaction to people's skin color creation processes - when we react to people's belief creation processes.
But they're both just human processes. For the one (skin), we've gotten to the point where at least consciously we're mostly willing to say no it's cool you're an ok human being regardless of what result your skin color creation process produces.
But for the other (beliefs), we're not quite there yet. Kind of seems like we're moving in the opposite direction. Maybe we're doing the same with our beliefs about skin color too.
And given that 150 years after slavery ended, white median wealth is still 13 times black median wealth (I guess maybe you could add the fact of Trump's election), we probably shouldn't hold our breaths waiting for people to stop congratulating themselves on how awesome the results of their belief creation processes are ("I'm not shallow and ill informed - I understand!" Yes, don't you have beautiful white beliefs ...). We really haven't even gotten there with respect to the (social) effect that the results of people's skin color creation processes has on our beliefs.
.. marvelous truths communicated directly into the psyche ..
That's cool, as long as the truths are, you know, true, and not just considered true in light of the incomplete information on which they were based (like maybe that people with black skin are lazier than people with white skin), and exempt from rational analysis because they're not supposed to be considered true in the first place. I think the problem is that much of the time the stuff that we shallow and ill informed humans take away from them, and the stuff that the exceptional humans who created them intended to communicate, are not true. 72 virgins is the kind of thing that sticks to a human's head.
Not that the truth value of a belief is really what matters to humans. We create and believe beliefs because doing so works to our advantage. And in the ecology of our beliefs, our beliefs can be advantageous regardless of whether they're true or not. Part of the problem, IMHO, is that we learn to conflate "truth" with "advantageousness." But that's maybe not such a disadvantageous thing for a human to have learned, depending on their informational environment.
The science/tech types just have an obsessive desire to believe truth :-( But in the end, that might not work out to be so disadvantageous for humans.
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 04:12pm PT
|
What I've noticed on this thread and others like it on ST is that science/tech people have a unique argument that goes something like this: "you're wrong." The notion of philosophy's importance as a predicate to science seems undeniable and "you're wrong and I know better and I have the education to prove it and you don't know anything," well, that's just not very convincing.
So when somebody has a sincere belief that the earth is only around 10,000 years old and they want that belief "respected" in their kids science class, we should just shrug and accommodate them?
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 04:13pm PT
|
Science is incapable of the kind of reconciliation to the "tragic nature of life" that religion offers. Religion offers a kind of escape hatch from tragedy which is something, an idea, that seems to "escape" the learned folk on this thread.
And herion offers a kind of escape hatch from the tragedy of real life also.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 04:26pm PT
|
Oh this is interesting...
"I'm an atheist." -paul roehl
What's the difference between (a) Paul, an atheist, not accepting theism, and (b) Mr Doe, a nonreligionist, not accepting religion?
Are we to gather from Paul that not accepting the former (ie., theism) is a-okay but not accepting the latter (i.e., religion) is not.
Given the close assoc between theism and religion, it is rather confusing.
...
Maybe there is not that much difference between (a) Paul, following a critical analysis and deliberation, rejecting theism and (b) the nonreligionist, following same, rejecting religion?
...
Really one should ask... just how productive can any religion be in any of its functionalities if its core conceptual foundation (namely theology or theism) is denied (doubted to the point of denial)?
This is being asked more than ever in this information era, I think, by smart millenials, for eg.; and the answer does not bode well for the future of religion, the Abrahamic religions in particular. It's probably just a matter of time, a couple more generations at most.
The likely outcome: something (placeholder term: "spirituality") will emerge to replace religion and this "something" - though not science - will have science as its foundation. It'll specialize in meaning, value and purpose together with strategies, protocols, etc for good living - specialties obviously not the job of science.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:03pm PT
|
What's the difference between (a) Paul, an atheist, not accepting theism, and (b) Mr Doe, a nonreligionist, not accepting religion?
Here's what you seem to never get: there is great wisdom in the mythologies and religions of the world. Religion helps people.
You keep pointing out aberrations like fanatic Islamists or fundamentalist Christians, but the mass of religious believers are just plain folks. Drop the aberrations and consider the help religion has been to so many.
Additionally, you impose on metaphorical notions that inform and reconcile the inappropriate and nonsensical rigors of scientific accuracy.
Myth isn't protoscience, its intentions are not scientific, it communicates through metaphor, and in the search for a life well lived and a life of virtue myth and religion are powerful tools.
I accept religion for what it is, a system of ideas that take us through life, inform us with regard to those things in life that cannot be changed and those events we find difficulty accepting. The creation story isn't a scientific description it's a metaphor of an etiological nature that offers insight into human nature, I mean really? What's so hard to understand here?
Think about it.
And herion offers a kind of escape hatch from the tragedy of real life also.
Herion? You mean like a Great Blue Herion? Or did you mean heroin? I hope you can perceive the difference between heroin and religious faith or perhaps you favor the Marxist notion of the opiate of the masses.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:08pm PT
|
The creation story isn't a [scientific] description [of reality], it's a metaphor of an etiological nature that offers insight into human nature, I mean really? What's so hard to understand here?
So tell it from a soapbox on a cornerstreet in downtown Islamabad.
Really, you think you'd survive the night?
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:13pm PT
|
What's so hard to understand here?
For you? Seems like not much. You already understand that you're right - that what you believe is true.
For the shallow and ill informed rubes? That religion is just metaphor. That our skin color doesn't affect our brain functioning. Stuff like that.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:13pm PT
|
So tell it from a soapbox on a cornerstreet in downtown Islamabad.
Really, you think you'd survive the night?
Honestly, do you realize how nonsensical that statement is? I would never say stand at ground zero during an atomic blast and tell me how wonderful science is. Never.
For the shallow and ill informed rubes? That religion is just metaphor. That our skin color doesn't affect our brain functioning. Stuff like that.
I honestly do not understand this, sorry.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:17pm PT
|
Honestly, do you realize how nonsensical that statement is?
But that is precisely the history of Abrahamic religion everywhere it exists. Literalist fundamentalism. From Islamabad to Wamego, KS. That you utterly disregard this FACT - and the net hurt it incurs - in every one of your hundreds of posts is glaringly negligent.
I would never say stand at ground zero during an atomic blast and tell me how wonderful science is.
Your continuing analogy between science (at its core: discovery, gain of knowledge) and religion (at its core: God, theology, supernaturalism) is crude. Your continuing failure to distinguish science from applied science (ref: engineering, technology) is also crude. They are not the same.
When you impugn science you also impugn knowledge, understanding re how the world works, education. Do you really desire to do that?
You should nuance science from applied science (aka prescriptive science), science from engineering, science from technology, and science from the science community.
Time will tell. Science will be here 100 years from now. (Theistic) religion won't be.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:25pm PT
|
But that is precisely the history of Abrahamic religion everywhere it exists. From Islamabad to Wamego, KS. That you utterly disregard this FACT in every one of your hundreds of posts is glaringly negligent.
Do you have any idea how many religious belief systems exist in this world? You don't like Islam and fundamentalism in general: fine. But good grief you condemn all religious thought based on the fallacy that metaphorical images should be interpreted scientifically. What's glaringly missing here is a rational understanding.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:32pm PT
|
But neither one of us would stand on that soapbox either in Islamabad now or in Wamego KS a hundred years ago to claim that God isn't real but only allegory or myth. What's that say?
Truly, I don't think you really know what it is to be raised in a fundamentalist family in a fundamentalist community in a fundamentalist state.
If you weren't raised in such, consider yourself lucky.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:34pm PT
|
I agree that there is a lot of wisdom in many of the myths associated with religions....
...why I'm thinking of the The Tower of Babel myth right now!
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:39pm PT
|
I honestly do not understand this, sorry.
Fair enough. I expect we could learn to understand your inability(?) to understand it, given information and time and a scientific approach to it :-)
Best to you!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:43pm PT
|
Back to the basic question you didn't answer, Paul.
What's the difference really between your rejection of theism (you're an atheist) and my rejection of religion (I'm a nonreligionist)?
There's no Tower of Bable here. The question is quite clear and concise.
Answer, Paul.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:45pm PT
|
Truly, I don't think you really know what it is to be raised in a fundamentalist family in a fundamentalist community in a fundamentalist state.
You realize as a scientist that your personal experience is simply anecdotal evidence and has nothing to do with a larger understanding of religions and their role. Your experience with fundamentalism has nothing to do with the true state of religion throughout the world.
What's the difference really between your rejection of theism (you're an atheist) and my rejection of religion (I'm a nonreligionist)?
As I explained before there is great wisdom to be found in religion and that wisdom can be understood without faith. Faith improves that wisdom and I wish I had it. Your disdain for religion discounts that wisdom and that's the difference.
Fair enough. I expect we could learn to understand your inability(?) to understand it, given information and time and a scientific approach to it :-)
Yeah, I don't understand this either.
What does the story of the Tower of Babel tell us? Plenty. What is it.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:50pm PT
|
I agree there is a lot of wisdom associated with many of thee myths associated with religion
I agree, honestly, there is wisdom there, like there's wisdom in the structure of a leaf.
A lot of religion and myth was created long ago, when there was less information available, and there was kind of a fuzzy process of codifying it. Was it the result of the masterful work of exceptional artists who painstakingly codified their awesome understanding of human nature into beautiful art that directly communicated truth into our psyches? Me, I'm not so much in that believer camp.
I think as we move forward our beliefs and belief processes are evolving (maybe not in a biological sense). We're able to more precisely state truths, without the easily misunderstood ambiguities.
I appreciate that there's a continuum of progressive and conservative belief creation strategies among humans, and if your thing is to admire the conservative strategies, that's cool.
Cheers!
I love that, but its already taken. I really admire DMTs prosocial communication style. No evolutionary advantage to be had there! :-)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:50pm PT
|
I've been studying religions since high school. I've told you this many times over many years now. It's a shame it has to be repeated here for your benefit so often.
your personal experience is simply anecdotal evidence and has nothing to do with a larger understanding of religions and their role. Your experience with fundamentalism has nothing to do with the true state of religion throughout the world.
Utter nonsense.
...
But isn't there great wisdom in the world's theologies and theisms? I don't get it, how you can reject theology and theism but not religion?
"Your disdain for religion discounts that wisdom and that's the difference."
My criticism and rejection of Abrahamic religions are based on (a) their reliance on supernaturalism for viability and (b) umpteen millions believing this iron-age "myth" as truth that ultimately causes pain and suffering.
Valid and accurate phrasing matters, Paul.
Since you're an atheist, what about your "disdain" for the world's great theisms?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:52pm PT
|
Current thread drift
How about another question?
What is the future of religion?
Studies, polls, show an increasing percentage of the population that does not identify with a particular religion, in addition to increases in the number who report they are agnostic or atheist
this perhaps does seem to track with a global reduction in wars and violence, along with an increase in overall education levels
so where are we in 500, 1000 years on this, does religion continue to be seen as unnecessary to explain how to live, ethics, morality, as secularism and non beliefs in a creator result as human psychological evolution continues? ...... I think so, you?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 05:59pm PT
|
I think I remember hearing there are over 4000 different religions in existence presently.
I don't think religion is going away anytime soon.
Utter nonsense.
I'm collecting the science responses. Nice one.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 06:00pm PT
|
Lol! My kids just say "what?" until I understand that they don't want to understand.
If you're not like my children, and you really do want to understand, what I'm saying is that there are reasons and processes that create our beliefs and behaviors, which eventually we'll be able to understand. Maybe not by fixating on the 72 virgins though. You seem like a bright guy, I expect that you could understand, if it was something that suited you to understand.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 06:04pm PT
|
So it seems, Paul, you accept the wisdom of the world's theologies and theisms yet consider yourself an atheist.
In the very same manner, so-called "science types" can accept the wisdom of the world's religions - what extent there is - and yet consider themselves nonreligious.
How is this not understandable. lol
...
"I'm collecting the science responses. Nice one." -Paul
"Utter nonsense" is MY response. To YOUR mistaken post. It is not a science response.
Please, as an atheist, speak to your "disdain" for theism.
....
Per usual, it's been fun....
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 06:04pm PT
|
God is like medicine.
Whether one believes or not God will act.
The foolish atheists waste their time arguing all while God keeps acting ......
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 06:06pm PT
|
Paul represents how humans have been wired towards myths, gods, angels, Adam & Eve and Noah's ark and so on. It is in our DNA.
It feel good to them, science is new and some what cold, data is cold, straight to point. Science has always answer way more about our minds, our body and natural world than religion, it's just not as warm and fuzzy. Humans want to believe they will flying around with angels for ever after.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 06:13pm PT
|
Science has been around for billions of years.
It is not new.
It has been in existence since the beginning of time.
The foolish clueless modern scientists are mental speculators of the source of science .....
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 06:27pm PT
|
I'm collecting the scientific responses
Cool. I think from the religion side, we have:
I'm not so shallow and ill informed to not understand
Kind of reminds me of Trump's cabinet meeting, where all his staff heaped praise on him.
I think what Trump said about himself was:
"Never has there been a president ... with few exceptions ... who's passed more legislation, who's done more things than I have."
And then he turned to his VP, whose staunch religiosity prevents him from being alone in the same room as a woman (but, huh, not with a man) to speak the first words of praise.
I expect if we really cared we could assign a truth value to that, but why bother, when his myth communicates truth directly into our psyches?
It's hard to understand how humans have survived with our petty little bullsh#t, but proof by existence is hard to refute :-)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 06:40pm PT
|
Kind of reminds me of Trump's cabinet meeting, where all his staff heaped praise on him.
Sounds like a personal problem.
In the very same manner, so-called "science types" can accept the wisdom of the world's religions - what extent there is - and yet consider themselves nonreligious.
If you accept the wisdom of religions and theological thought then how are you not religious?
You're parsing terms into nonsense.
It's hard to understand how humans have survived with our petty little bullsh#t, but proof by existence is hard to refute :-)
I really don't understand this post. Are you saying Trump lying is equivalent to a myth? Do you know what a myth is? A metaphor, wisdom?
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 06:50pm PT
|
Sounds like a personal problem.
Right? Humans have such flawless hearing. And what we like to hear is that the problem resides in other people - you know, those shallow ill informed types.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 06:52pm PT
|
Well Paul, yes with some 4000 religions presently you are certainly correct we will not be seeing the end of them anytime soon.
My question, however, postulated a much longer time frame, 500-1000 years.
As you were the only one finding this interesting enough even with a short answer, thank you.
The present thread of presenting equivalences to show the other side is more personally negative is obviously more interesting to all.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 07:04pm PT
|
The present thread of presenting equivalences to show the other side is more personally negative is obviously more interesting to all.
Yeah, a lot of injured merit out there, and too bad it could be a more positive exchange.
500 or 1000 years? Interesting to consider, my own sense is that as long as the mystery exists religion will flourish in much the same way it has.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 07:16pm PT
|
HFCS wrote: Time will tell.
Time is the impersonal feature of God in the Material world.
The clueless modern mental speculating scientist will be kicked by Time itself and thus theistic God consciousness will be around eternally ......
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 07:20pm PT
|
Myth? A widely held but false idea. But I expect that you prefer the other definition.
The petty little bullsh#t? Are you intending to keep an accurate and objective/scientific record of what the science types say, or are you intending to slant it by pretending it's an exhaustive record of the merits of the scientific perspective, and not just a biased self confirmation of what you have perceived as the well informed and deep understanding of your perspective? Like Trump does.
You seem better than that. But if that's the nonscience way to do things, Ok. Very beautiful stuff. Humans are exceptional.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 07:44pm PT
|
Absolutely NO cure has ever been made without GOD.
Fact ......
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
Sands Motel , Las Vegas
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 07:46pm PT
|
The scientific white coats have not discovered a vaccine to cure Stoopid ...
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 08:20pm PT
|
And you have no way of testing that religious belief.
Only a complete ignorant total fool says this ....
And you have no way of testing that religious belief.
Oh well, I guess whatever I used to be, now I'm a complete ignorant total fool.
Or maybe humans just say stuff, in the same way that we just believe stuff. Stuff that's true, stuff that's not true, stuff that serves a different purpose than strictly it's truth value? I guess there's some orthodoxy about what and why we believe and say stuff, but maybe we don't all follow the same one.
Covfefe!
No, I mean Word!
No, I mean Fact ..... :-)
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 08:22pm PT
|
rbord...Some people have a really hard understanding of what "faith" means.
faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
The duck is in left field with a catcher's mitt.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:04pm PT
|
Science is incapable of the kind of reconciliation to the "tragic nature of life" that religion offers. Religion offers a kind of escape hatch from tragedy which is something, an idea, that seems to "escape" the learned folk on this thread.
Science is not concerned with emotion so it doesn't address tragic nature. It addresses nature but not because of or in spite of or even in relation to human tragedy.
But the problem s that religion simply makes things up. That is the escape hatch it offers. And demands blind faith in its creations. It offers an escape hatch to those who prefer not to reason and decide for themselves. (before you get distracted, I'm not saying that would apply to all religious people, only some). While it offers solace it takes advantage of those in need of solace. For example: in the church they coddle those who need it, then demand obedience, money, allegiance. They prey on those who need the escape hatch as a tool for recruitment. Many religions encourage judgement of others who don't believe.
These things that religion offers, can't they also be obtained through art, literature, rock climbing? Then we can have an escape hatch without the crazy Bible passages and divisiveness. Sure religion has some value, no argument. I'm disparaging all these examples I've been giving you these past days. Religion is harmful. trump campaign did use it to their advantage to manipulate the gullible. That is a problem.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:14pm PT
|
[quote]If you accept the wisdom of religions and theological thought then how are you not religious?
You're parsing terms into nonsense. Here[/quote
Because you can find some wisdom in religious texts without accepting all of its doctrine or having faith in it. That was an easy one.
So are you saying because you accept the wisdom you are religious?? A religious atheist?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:17pm PT
|
Semper, it is Paul's MO, long in ST history now, to skip the points you made, it is as if his eyes are made to see only the assets column of religion's balance sheet.
It is incredible that this can be. But it IS so.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:28pm PT
|
t is Paul's MO, long in ST history now, to skip the points you made, it is as if his eyes are made to see only the assets column of religion's balance sheet.
It is incredible that this can be. But it IS so.
And it's my opinion that that balance sheet is decidedly tipped toward the liabilities side.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:38pm PT
|
rbord: And you have no way of testing that religious belief.
How do you test whether or not you have consciousness / awareness? There are some things that are self-verifying . . . if that’s important to you.
Bob: faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
How do you know you are you? What kind of "belief" do you have about that?
Seem like a silly thing to ask? Some people think it is. Some folks cannot deny their own experience. Look across the room. Is there a wall there? Do you doubt it? Should you?
Direct apprehension comes with self-authentication. Actually, most understanding ends up to be direct apprehension, although for most folks, it takes a little while to “get it.” Let’s say I teach you differential calculus, and I have to explain it to you 25 times before you “get it.” But when you do, it gets easy. Nothing I can do or say makes you get it. When you get it, YOU get it. That’s direct apprehension. It can be found in many other things than maths. It can even be found in things that can’t be described or things that can’t be seen. Direct apprehension is the result of a self-authentication, but that self authentication is an inside job of an individual.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:47pm PT
|
How do you know you are you?
Expressed like a dyed in the wool post-modernist.
Why not stop wasting everybody's time with these vague post-modernist queries?
That go around and around... nowhere.
....
Meanwhile, there was another successful launch into space tonight, onboard 32 satellites to make the world a better, tighter, more unified place.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:47pm PT
|
faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
The duck is in left field with a catcher's mitt.
That's a very reductive even simplistic view or definition of faith. Try reading Viktor Emil Frankl's experiences in a Nazi concentration camp if you want to learn the real search for redemption through meaning.
i used to play left field with a catcher's mitt and it was very effective for high fly balls and line drives. I'll bet it was better than being a cheer leader anyway, you tell us.
So are you saying because you accept the wisdom you are religious?? A religious atheist?
Honestly this is just exhausting, if you are accepting religious wisdom you are accepting religious thought. I mean really how hard is that to comprehend? You don't have to believe in God to see the importance of theology or religion or to accept and understand the value of religion. I mean where did you people go to school? Amazing. Scientists? Really?
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:48pm PT
|
the achievements in both science and religion are evidence of the remarkable singularity and significance of humanity in a universe where such achievements seem to be extremely rare.
The arrogance is not mine.
Again Paul, because I've said this before, you're taking your ignorance of reality and interpretting it as evidence to confirm your belief in humans' exceptionalism. Is that something that nonscience teaches?
The universe? Honestly, you believe that you've measured humans' achievements against the entire universe of achievements, and determined that all those other achievements in the universe pail in comparison? And you don't understand how someone might see that as arrogant?
Outside of the achievements that you know about on earth, what would you say is the second most impressive achievement in the universe? These "such achievements" - exactly how rare are they? How many such achievements are there in the universe? Please feel free to consult myths, religion, philosophy, if you believe that will bring you closer to the truth. But I expect their ignorance of the rest of the universe isn't much smaller than ours.
But you, you're not shallow and ill informed about all those other achievements in the universe. What are they?
it could be a more positive exchange
Paul I've responded substantively to like 8 things you've said, and the response I've gotten from you has been largely "I don't understand." Ok, if you don't understand then you don't understand. No shame there - we're humans - there's a lot of stuff we don't understand.
For me, the shame comes in when we pretend to understand things that we don't understand. But maybe that's the best we can do.
Science types, nonscience types, whatever. I think of them as humans.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 10:04pm PT
|
Paul I've responded substantively to like 8 things you've said, and the response I've gotten from you has been largely "I don't understand." Ok, if you don't understand then you don't understand. No shame there - we're humans - there's a lot of stuff we don't understand.
Please, no offense, but you write in these strange non sequiturs that are difficult to comprehend full of assumptions that I really don't have the desire to straighten out.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 10:36pm PT
|
MikeL wrote: Some folks cannot deny their own experience. Look across the room. Is there a wall there? Do you doubt it? Should you?
If I did doubt it , I would get up and go touch it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 11:21pm PT
|
But the problem s that religion simply makes things up. That is the escape hatch it offers. And demands blind faith in its creations.
I asked the question before. Twice. The one in a WoT might have been overlooked, but not the other.
I'll ask it again: What empirical evidence could possibly "prove" or even "strongly indicate" the existence of a creator God?
You guys bandy around such terms as "blind faith" like you've defined them. But you haven't. What is faith? What makes it blind as opposed to, well, some other sort of "faith" that isn't blind but presumably isn't "knowledge" either?
These questions impinge upon the pressing question, which is: What empirical evidence would it take, such that you would no longer claim that people with faith based upon "that" (whatever it would be) would not be "blind"?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 11:22pm PT
|
If I did doubt it , I would get up and go touch it.
That's called: naive realism, and it's pretty pathetic.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 11:51pm PT
|
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2978249&msg=2986915#msg2986915
Given the scientific method, what in principle could be adequate evidence for the existence of a creative God?
that would depend, of course, on what you mean by God. If it is a subjective experience, e.g. a "personal God", science would likely have something to say about behaviors that give rise to the experience. The validity of experience is traditionally not questioned, but certainly drug induced hallucinations result in experiences that the individual believes are real. Similarly, various diseases like schizophrenia can lead the individual to accept that subjective state as "real."
I thought John Forbes Nash's reply to the obvious question regarding his schizophrenia, "how could you have not known the difference between your mathematical thoughts and the schizophrenic thoughts?" provided insight:
"Those thoughts come from the same place."
So certainly this leaves plenty of room for a subjective experience of God, and as far as I know you could have all the "evidence" you need based on that subjective experience.
If you are asking about evidence for a physical God, not supernatural, then you have a lot of explaining to do. But let's say that God exists beyond the Planck scale. We cannot rule it out, and the physics of those scales is not yet known, it is possible it cannot be known.
The invocation of a supernatural God runs into the difficulty of explaining how the natural and the supernatural interact... as far as I know there is no construction that keeps them separate, at least in terms of measurement.
I am committed to seeking a natural explanation for the universe. Nothing that I know prevents such an explanation from existing.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 12:04am PT
|
I am committed to seeking a natural explanation for the universe. Nothing that I know prevents such an explanation from existing.
Lots of verbiage that really said very little.
You guys bag on anybody having "blind faith," as you like to call it. But then you have nothing to offer about what "evidence" would "contribute" toward "sighted faith."
Are you saying that atheism is by-definition true?
Oh, and btw, Ed, you sure slipped dangerously into philosophy there! Watch out; there be monsters.
My question is simpler than that. Granting your empirical perspective, what EMPIRICAL evidence could "indicate" the existence of God? I'm not asking about the existence of thoughts or impressions. Those are a given, and then only imply the question of whether or not they are veridical. And, after all, they doesn't distinguish, because, if empiricism is correct, that implies a "veil of perception doctrine," which is part of why Bob's naive realism IS so pathetic. You NEVER "touch the wall." You only "touch" your subjective perception of the wall.
So, since the "evidence" is ALL "back one level" behind the veil of perception, I don't care about "perceptions" or other such subjective stuff. That stuff fails to explicate. What I'm asking is: Pretend that empirical evidence is "direct" in the requisite way, so that there is genuine objectivity to it. Now, in THAT context, what sort of "touching the wall" sorts of evidence could in principle indicate that you're "touching God"?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 12:18am PT
|
one can ask the question of the physical necessity for a God, create a hypothesis and test it...
let's say that God created the universe 6000 years ago in such a way that scientists would draw the conclusion that the universe is 13 some billion years old.
there's not much to argue with, the construction of such a "physical theory" can be made to explain the observations.
However, one might then try to use such a theory to look for new physical phenomena, unfortunately, theories built in such a manner do poorly. Certainly a major criticism of String Theory is that it describes the universe, but doesn't seem to be able to predict new things in the universe. So generally it isn't a very useful theory.
What is the role of a physical God?
I understand completely, the physical motivations of String Theory.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:08am PT
|
He's back...that didn't take long.
"If I did doubt it , I would get up and go touch it.
That's called: naive realism, and it's pretty pathetic."
Pathetic or not it would still prove to me the wall was there.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:24am PT
|
sempervirens: Science is not concerned with emotion so it doesn't address tragic nature.
(BTW, you need to do a little reading. Start with Damasio.)
P.S. Go to Google Scholar and put in "cognition and emotion." There are 1.96 million hits.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:26am PT
|
Bob: Pathetic or not it would still prove to me the wall was there.
To you.
If that's all that matters, Bob, then you've begun an argument for radical subjectivity and solipsism.
Welcome!
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:31am PT
|
Good morning MikeL.
I just went over to touch the wall again, this time asked my wife to do it too.
Same result. :-)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:46am PT
|
Cited 424 times. Hardly a barn-burner, but it articulates the idea that perhaps Paul has been making.
Citation
Database: PsycARTICLES
[ Journal Article ]
Why fiction may be twice as true as fact: Fiction as cognitive and emotional simulation.
Oatley, Keith
Review of General Psychology, Vol 3(2), Jun 1999, 101-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.3.2.101
Abstract
. Although fiction treats themes of psychological importance, it has been excluded from psychology because it is seen as involving flawed empirical method. But fiction is not empirical truth. It is simulation that runs on minds of readers just as computer simulations run on computers. In any simulation, coherence truths have priority over correspondences. Moreover, in the simulations of fiction, personal truths can be explored that allow readers to experience emotions-their own emotions-and understand aspects of them that are obscure, in relation to contexts in which the emotions arise. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:48am PT
|
Bob,
I take it that your experience of your wife is somehow qualitatively / categorically different than the experience you have of the wall? Did you touch her at the same time?
(No, please don't tell us.)
:-)
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 08:01am PT
|
Paul, you're not following your own arguments. But yeah, it's exhausting to argue with so many people. I don't have time to read all the comments.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 08:01am PT
|
No Mike, she just gave me a weird look when I asked her to touch the wall. After 48 years together (42 married) I have been getting weird looks for a long time now. :-)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 08:39am PT
|
Certainly a major criticism of String Theory is that it describes the universe, but doesn't seem to be able to predict new things in the universe. So generally it isn't a very useful theory.
Ah, yes, but the point is that (at least as Kaku describes it) string theory accomplishes something that doesn't seem to be able to be done in other ways, namely unify general relativity with quantum theory. So, there is at least that reason to believe that it may well be correct.
In other words, thinking strictly empirically, there is evidence in favor of string theory, even if it's not "known" to be correct or "testable" yet. Somebody fervently believing that string theory is correct would not be engaged in "blind faith" because there are strong, reasonable, and theoretically-satisfying reasons to have "faith" in it.
So, you talk about "testable" procedures regarding God, but then you proceed to suggest the narrowest (and ridiculous) subset of DOCTRINES (not possibly divine attributes) for testing. And, surprise, surprise, they come up short. Hmmm... perhaps a straw man here?
One might instead say something like, "Just as string theory 'explains' things that nothing else seems to, a creative God seems to be able to explain things that nothing else seems to, such as consciousness and objective values."
Now, some will deny the very existence of such "entities" as consciousness and objective values. But most people (including many atheist scientists) believe in these features of reality. And there are other features of reality that are "non-material" but seem real enough, such as propositions. In short, people believing in the real existence of, say, propositions are no more out on a "flyer" than people who believed/believe in the Higgs Boson.
So, even in the absence of "direct evidence," something like string theory could well be correct and does offer a theoretical "neatness" that is appealing as a "best explanation" even if it's presently not as "testable" as you'd wish.
With many of your theories, "True" is not the bar you're seeking to get over (nor can it be). The religionist need not get over the "True" bar either (despite the fact that FAR too many take a rabid perspective that theirs is TRUE and even the ONLY TRUTH). The point is that faith need not be "blind," even if it can in-principle never rise to the level of "known" to be "true."
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 09:23am PT
|
So, there is at least that reason to believe that it may well be correct.
In other words, thinking strictly empirically, there is evidence in favor of string theory, even if it's not "known" to be correct or "testable" yet.
there is no "evidence" in favor of string theory, it was invented as a way of unifying gravity with the other forces, but that alone does not constitute "evidence."
Not only that, the program seems to be failing, that is, the unification scale for the strong interaction and the electro-weak interaction may be higher than thought, as evidenced by the lack of evidence from the LHC at CERN; that scale now apparently much higher than physically relevant theories require.
While a large number of physicists work on string theory, this is really a guess by them on what might be the basis of a future explanation. However, there are many speculative theories regarding gravity, and in the end it will be the collective efforts of both theorists and experimentalists to resolve.
So there are things you could identify as "rational" and "empirical" processes involved; however, parsing the process into a philosophical context will have to wait until the process is complete. As philosophy has no way of "predicting" the outcome, it will only offer an explanation after the fact.
In spite of the great success of particle physics in explaining the universe after 120 years (the discovery of the electron starting the whole thing), there is an abundance of evidence that we have only been looking at a small part of the entire universe, the luminous parts... diverted as it were by the shinny objects, while the bulk remained largely undetected.
There is "reason to believe" that our theories are correct, those reasons largely rest on the ability to predict the outcome of experiment and anticipate observation. For the philosophical discussion we're having here, the difference between falsification and confirmation are held up as if they are absolute arbiters of "truth." Popper may have proposed that science can only falsify theory, he left undiscussed the use of the results of non-falsified theory, the calculations so necessary to realize technological application of the theory.
One could say these calculations are not-true, and if so said, how could you use them to, say, build a bridge?
And if you say that they are an approximation to "truth," you are changing the meaning of truth in some fundamental way.
Yet you and others have no qualms about using these calculations, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly, in all sorts of activities, some of which have life-or-death consequences. Apparently the philosophical notion of falsification and confirmation, at least as are being discussed here, do not capture the full picture.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 09:27am PT
|
Long term survival, through multiple boom and bust cycles...
Yes, I think I see this in our future. I mean if I had to guess among the map of possibilities.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 01:56pm PT
|
Consider Hegel's dialectic.
as a method?
as interesting as discussion is, we run up against the concreteness of empiricism, and while MikeL will describe all the cognitive limitations there, this provides a much needed jolt to our rational process.
"String theory" is a pretty theory, it "makes sense," it explains a lot about the observed universe, it has mathematical beauty, it has the promise of a physical theory.
And it may be wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 03:34pm PT
|
Ed: . . . while MikeL will describe all the cognitive limitations there . . . .
No I won’t be. I’m reporting and summarizing studies. I can go a bit deep now and then, but I stopped reading avidly well over a decade ago, maybe two.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 03:47pm PT
|
Ed nails it again.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:06pm PT
|
So are you saying because you accept the wisdom you are religious?? A religious atheist?
Honestly this is just exhausting, if you are accepting religious wisdom you are accepting religious thought. I mean really how hard is that to comprehend? You don't have to believe in God to see the importance of theology or religion or to accept and understand the value of religion. I mean where did you people go to school? Amazing. Scientists? Really?
Paul, you said you are an atheist. You are arguing for the acceptance of religious wisdom. You asked if one accepts such wisdom then how are they not are religious. That's why I asked you if you are saying acceptance of its wisdom makes one religious, and are you a religious atheist. Seems contradictory ain't it.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:16pm PT
|
sempervirens: Science is not concerned with emotion so it doesn't address tragic nature.
(BTW, you need to do a little reading. Start with Damasio.)
P.S. Go to Google Scholar and put in "cognition and emotion." There are 1.96 million hits.
MikeL, you left off the context. I was responding to a statement about science and human tragedy. Sure science can study emotion, Damasio et al. On that we agree. But science is not concerned with anyone's emotional reaction to its experiments, observations, analysis, etc. even if those experiments are concerned with emotion. And so science does not help one reconcile human tragedy. Now you see the context.
Your previous response about logic and the appreciation of beauty also missed the context. I agree the commenter was not using logic in the appreciation. He was using flawed logic in his explanation of how science and religion address (or fail to address) beauty. See the difference.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
|
And to think MikeL called me out earlier today with this...
"You run fast and free with language. You are not careful or circumspect."
lol
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:29pm PT
|
I think its just as wrong to try and strip a person of her faith as attempting to force her to a new faith.
DMT
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphemy-jesus-tears
When water started trickling down a statue of Jesus Christ at a Catholic church in Mumbai earlier this year, locals were quick to declare a miracle. Some began collecting the holy water and the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni began to promote it as a site of pilgrimage.
So when Sanal Edamaruku arrived and established that this was not holy water so much as holey plumbing, the backlash was severe. The renowned rationalist was accused of blasphemy, charged with offences that carry a three-year prison sentence and eventually, after receiving death threats, had to seek exile in Finland.
When the state "miracle" was pronounced, he went to Mumbai and found that the dripping water was due to clogged drainage pipes behind the wall where it stood. His revelation provoked death threats from religious zealots and ultimately charges of blasphemy under the Indian penal code in the Mumbai high court.
DMT,
Trying to get someone to change their faith is probably as pointless as arguing on supertopo.
But the above article is an example of why I think it is moral to at least try.
Beside the death threat and threat of prosecution, some of the locals were kissing the wet [from sewage] image.
When faith triumphs over things like basic hygiene, pushback is warranted.
|
|
okay, whatever
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:32pm PT
|
I agree with whatever post said that we should listen to Ed Hartouni, and then adjust our ideas of science according to whatever drugs we're ingesting (just kidding on that!). Ed Hartouni is a legitimate, thoughtful, physicist. I listen to what he has to say. And he also obviously enjoys going out and climbing.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 04:45pm PT
|
"String theory" is a pretty theory, it "makes sense," it explains a lot about the observed universe, it has mathematical beauty, it has the promise of a physical theory.
And it may be wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time.
Thanks for the share.
Science is so much fun...
... dancing on the edge of known.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 05:52pm PT
|
And it may be wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time.
So that's why you people think everything you know nothing about is automatically WRONG ......
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 06:18pm PT
|
Werner, It's humble to be perfectly clear that you're likely to be wrong. You should try it sometime, it's really OK and even kind of exciting.
And, then you're leaping into the journey of the real.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 06:42pm PT
|
"Werner, It's humble to be perfectly clear that you're likely to be wrong. You should try it sometime, it's really OK and even kind of exciting. "
Werner is just one of god's fallen angels...he just doesn't know it.
:-).
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:06pm PT
|
Let me explain it again since it went over the top of yer heads.
You go to the mechanic and he sees the ball joint broken on the control arm of your car and tells you it is broken and needs to be replaced.
Instead, you'll say he's wrong and it's really the steering wheel that's the problem because you know nothing about the mechanics of the car, to begin with, because YOU need to be RIGHT ......
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:15pm PT
|
It's really a bad analogy, Werner.
But, If my FJ60 needed fixing I'd sure figure you'd know what it needed.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:23pm PT
|
It's really a bad analogy
Not really.
Bad ball joints transfer vibrations into the steering wheel .....
But in the case of a guy like Bob D he won't even be in the ballpark.
He'll tell the mechanic he's wrong because his balls are OK because he's been happily married for 40 some years.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 07:52pm PT
|
"But in the case of a guy like Bob D he won't even be in the ballpark.
He'll tell the mechanic he's wrong because his balls are OK because he's been happily married for 40 some years.
Classy Werner.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 08:17pm PT
|
Paul, you said you are an atheist. You are arguing for the acceptance of religious wisdom. You asked if one accepts such wisdom then how are they not are religious. That's why I asked you if you are saying acceptance of its wisdom makes one religious, and are you a religious atheist. Seems contradictory ain't it.
They are religious by virtue of being interested in theological ideas, though they don't believe in God. Surprising you're unable to understand that. Try reading the "Masks of God" all four volumes and then get back to me.
Perhaps Paul needs to write a book... The Religious Atheist.
It's in the works. Believe it or not, and I know exactly how difficult this is for you, but someone can be interested in theological and religious ideas without believing in God, can you believe it? Amazing. One can even recognize the great benefits of religion and theological ideas and the wisdom they provide without believing in God. I call them religious in that sense. I know it's hard to comprehend but there it is. Think about it.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 08:44pm PT
|
It's in the works. Believe it or not, and I know exactly how difficult this is for you, but someone can be interested in theological and religious ideas without believing in God, can you believe it? Amazing. One can even recognize the great benefits of religion and theological ideas and the wisdom they provide without believing in God. I call them religious in that sense. I know it's hard to comprehend but there it is. Think about it.
No it is not hard to understand. I have understood your posts but I disagreed. You can understand and still disagree. You don't know me other than these posts. You don't know what is difficult for me or not. My comments have not been about you, they are about what you've said.
I have not heard of "religious" being defined the way define it.
Definition of religious from Merriam Webster:
1
: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity a religious person religious attitudes
2
: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances joined a religious order
3
a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : fervent, zealous
So I think you're stretching the definitions of terms as a defense. I have agreed with some of your assertions. You have avoided my comments which have disparaged religion. And I've given reasons for my opinions that have gone unaddressed. Fine then if you choose to do so. I don't wanna argue about the definitions. I want to use the definitions so that we can debate and learn. But if people redefine the words it's hard to have meaningful discussion.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 08:57pm PT
|
Maajid Nawaz on Real Time with Bill Maher was simply superb tonight.
Please watch and support his lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center.
...
Excellent post, sempervirens.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 09:07pm PT
|
someone can be interested in theological and religious ideas without believing in God...
No duh! I'm one of millions interested in theo and religious ideas without believing in God, in partic God Jehovah/God Jesus.
Just as one can be interested in astrology and all its ideas without believing stars and planets control our lives.
Silly.
"Religious atheist" scores no less than 17M hits at google. Good luck with your book.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 - 10:59pm PT
|
sempervirens: But science is not concerned with anyone's emotional reaction to its experiments, observations, analysis, etc. even if those experiments are concerned with emotion. And so science does not help one reconcile human tragedy.
You may not be aware of many people who are concerned about reactions to experiments, observations, and analyses. In university there are departments that watch over the kind of research is done for those very reasons. Ask any practicing academic. (I can imagine that it sounds ridiculous to you, but working with human subjects is a very touchy issue these days with ethical considerations.)
Read the abstract that I posted right below that post you responded to. Various arts have been supposedly useful because they simulate an emotional experience that people can reflect upon (e.g., tragedy). You may not be aware of some of the counseling work on PTSD victims.
It’s long been argued that the very “usefulness” of teaching novels to students has been to simulate an experience that they can reflect upon. That includes dealing with tragedy. Indeed, Damasio, a neurobiologist, argued that people who had parts of their brains damaged which dealt with emotions could not make everyday decisions—much less those that dealt with tragedy. Empirical . . . science. How more simple would you want it?
Science AND the humanities can help people understand their thinking, feeling, and responses to emotional difficulties. I can point you to psychological research studying children raised in combat zones, and how it has affected their well-being and coping abilities. Empirical . . . science.
Science CAN help humans learn to reconcile human tragedy, but one may need to expand his or her notions of what science is or can be. It would demand seeing religion, for example, in other ways than people see it here (strictly literally and empirically false).
This division between the sciences and the humanities is serving no one—except those who want to dominate others ideologically. It’s, well, . . . silly, segmented, fragmented, and narrow. It lacks collaboration and does not contribute to civil discourse and understanding. No one is going to get very far these days being narrow and independent, even if they are an expert.
In general: make bridges, contacts with other areas of expertise, social relations with others who do not think or feel like you; relax your categorizations and interpretations. Employ some empathy. As Apple tries to tell us: think differently.
Perhaps most important of all these days, embrace transparency. That means seeing the pluses and minuses of every interpretation, law, axiom, idea, value, belief. There is nothing that is purely good or bad, right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, correct or incorrect alone. Let’s get real; let’s get honest with one another; let’s tell the truth as truthfulness and recognize that there is nothing whatsoever that is absolutely true in all instances. Let’s deal with uncertainty and ambiguity head-on by admitting them rather than employing premature closure ideologically and idealistically.
Be well.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:08am PT
|
"He'll tell the mechanic he's wrong because his balls are OK because he's been happily married for 40 some years."
Got to post this one again from the spiritual guru of ST. The hypocrisy of his constant insults and name calling know no boundaries.
Actually Werner it's been 42 years of marriage, lots of hard work, extreme highs, extreme lows and just about everything in between, shared love, loss of parents, a child, friends, celebration of three children being born, raising those three children to be caring and decent human beings, working to put food on table, roof over our head and clothes on our back. I wouldn't trade it for anything.
You want to make fun of it and it makes you feel better, carry on. You are a typical example of "do as I say, not as I do."
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:11am PT
|
you may not be aware of many people who are concerned about reactions to experiments, observations, and analyses. In university there are departments that watch over the kind of research is done for those very reasons. Ask any practicing academic. (I can imagine that it sounds ridiculous to you, but working with human subjects is a very touchy issue these days with ethical considerations.)
MikeL, sure they can study emotions and reactions. But science has to be dispassionate, doesn't it? Science can even be dispassionate about studying passion. I think you see now that we don't have a disagreement on that. You needn't convince me any further. I'm aware that people study emotions and other people care about their research for many reasons.
It does not sound ridiculous to me, you might imagine things about me, but why? You don't know me. We're not discussing me although Paul has also made similar comments about me. He and others have tried to make this thread about the people here posting instead of the topics. That is how discussion devolves into such nonsense we see here. I think you'll agree.
You do make some good points. And yeah I can see that science can help humans reconcile tragedy. Your explanations to me directly are out of context on that because Paul brought the statement (several pages back) that science cannot help reconcile tragedy while religion can. My response was that science doesn't care and in that way doesn't help, or doesn't try to help. It seeks answers but if the answers hurt feelings the info doesn't change. Even if some universities feel it's very touchy. See what I mean? But surely science can help by providing explanations to questions: why did the tragedy occur?, can we prevent it?, how will we deal with a flood?, how will humans react, how can we alleviate their anxiety, etc. Science itself does not have feelings, right, it's a method.
I don't a see disagreement here.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:19am PT
|
"Maybe its because you wrote:
Science is not concerned with emotion so it doesn't address tragic nature.
DMT"
What is so hard to understand what he is saying? Science is data/information, what humans do with that is on their shoulders.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:37am PT
|
Science AND the humanities can help people understand their thinking, feeling, and responses to emotional difficulties. I can point you to psychological research studying children raised in combat zones, and how it has affected their well-being and coping abilities. Empirical . . . science.
Science CAN help humans learn to reconcile human tragedy, but one may need to expand his or her notions of what science is or can be. It would demand seeing religion, for example, in other ways than people see it here (strictly literally and empirically false).
So science and humanities can help, no disagreement.
I don't take religion literally and don't disparage it as false. I disparage it because it is based on blind faith. Some religious people disparage science as false because it doesn't align with their blind faith regarding origin of life, age of earth, climate change, etc. That is a big problem with religion. But it needn't be if the religionists could drop their literal interpretations. Problem is they only drop the literal interpretations when it suits their motives, like when they get attacked and exposed as being absurd. But many religious leaders hold onto whatever interpretations they need to control their faithful. That is a problem. (not all religionists, but some, and the some are harmful to us all). We shouldn't fall for it but many do, why, because of their blind faith.
Science is not based on faith. It attempts to disprove. It must have peer review. It is itself without feelings and therefore does not care what we believe.
I have said earlier that science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Make use of both, fine. Science can't answer the ultimate question of infinite time, infinite space, who created the universe. But we still must seek answers. Religion simply gives the answers and says you must believe. That is a big difference.
So I'm not willing to redefine the word science, it's just a word. One can expand the notion but don't add faith to science.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:39am PT
|
DMT, read what he imagined about me and my response. You weren't following along then jumped in, but missed a lot.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:18am PT
|
Yeah, institutions are made of people and so obviously can be emotional, concerned.
I do try to be precise with words, it's all we have here in these discussions. Further back i posted the definition of religious. Definitions will at least clarify where we agree or disagree. Half these discussions are mis-use of words rather than disagreements.
Can't respond to all your points now. But I appreciate them. Gotto go live my life.
Pray for me. :)
And for us all. :)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 12:47pm PT
|
Sorry for the delay in responding. My company just had its annual business meeting, and that's been consuming.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply, Ed. I'll try to be as thoughtful in my reply.
there is no "evidence" in favor of string theory, it was invented as a way of unifying gravity with the other forces, but that alone does not constitute "evidence."
Okay, I think I better understand what you mean by "evidence." And I think that what most people think of as "evidence" is broadly construed as something like "reason to believe." So, there could be some "reason to believe" in string theory that does not rise to the level of "evidence" in your rubric.
However, even that assessment of "evidence" is perhaps too coarse-grained. I mean, even the term "believe" in "reason to believe" is perhaps too strong a term.
Most religionists "believe" in the "truth" of their perspective, which is a "stronger" epistemic commitment than I would guess that Kaku has toward the set of propositions constituting some version of string theory. So "believe" is probably too strong a "commitment" term.
Perhaps the lowest-level epistemic commitment that would properly capture Kaku's perspective about string theory would be something like, "reason to assert" or "reason to 'advance'" the set of propositions. In short, Kaku clearly thinks that some version of string theory is a "good idea" or has "something going for it" that other alternatives definitely lack.
It is that sense of "evidence" that I'm talking about, a sort of "reason to 'advance' a set of propositions," which is merely to say that somebody like Kaku is not "off on some wild flyer" to "advance" the theory as "a productive explanation" or something like that.
Now, in that sort of context, you say:
Not only that, the program seems to be failing, that is, the unification scale for the strong interaction and the electro-weak interaction may be higher than thought, as evidenced by the lack of evidence from the LHC at CERN; that scale now apparently much higher than physically relevant theories require.
Well, there's a lot of "seems," "apparently," and other such terminology in this statement. Kaku could (and presumably would) respond with something like, "The jury is still out, which is to say that I don't see any definite falsification of all versions of string theory yet, and there does remain a profound mathematical beauty and elegance in string theory that no other alternative yet has. Furthermore, without something like string theory, we seem to be beating our heads against and intractable problem. So, I'll continue to 'advance' the idea that string theory is worth further research."
Now, it seems that you would respond along the lines of, "I don't believe that string theory IS going to prove productive (read: turn out to be a predicatively-powerful model), and I'll keep 'believing' (read: asserting, advancing) the standard model as the more productive line of research."
But, notice that this is a contrast of "commitment" to a paradigm. Kaku has written for a long time (and continues to do so) that the standard model ha perpetually failed to produce a way to unify the known forces and that there is no "reason to believe" that it ultimately will. Thus, he is "motivated to think" (read: has reason to believe) that we should continue to explore theories "outside" the standard model.
You say, "there is no evidence" for string theory. But Kaku clearly disagrees! Perhaps you are using the term "evidence" differently from him, as, clearly, he thinks that "evidence" includes the notions of mathematical beauty and elegance, not to mention the fact that "on paper" string theory accomplishes something that the bare standard model has yet to achieve, even "on paper." So, is Kaku some "whack job" with "blind faith" in a failed-by-definition perspective?
Of course not. Or, at least, I hope you would not assert so.
While a large number of physicists work on string theory, this is really a guess by them on what might be the basis of a future explanation.
So, you seem to distinguish between "a guess" and something "known to be the case." In that, you go beyond your actual knowledge.
This is an important point, because the way scientists traditionally "connect" evidence with theory continually leans toward verificationism, but it cannot legitimately do so.
Theories are always underdetermined by facts, which is to say that an infinite number of theories are consistent with ANY set of facts. So, NO set of facts can ever "confirm" or even "indicate" the "truth" of any theory. ALL you can legitimately assert is that the standard model has not yet be definitively falsified, and it continues to make "productive predictions."
In that alone, you have a reasonable basis to distinguish the "guess" of string theory from the "demonstrated productivity" of the bare standard model. And perhaps that's all you are asserting. But, again, string theory is not some "wild flyer" of an idea. It actually HAS more mathematical beauty and elegance than the bare standard model (unless, of course, Kaku is an idiot or flagrantly incorrect in asserting such).
However, there are many speculative theories regarding gravity, and in the end it will be the collective efforts of both theorists and experimentalists to resolve.
Granted. But meanwhile, in the words of Clint Eastwood, the bare standard model "ain't makin' it." So, there is reason to think that it's inadequate in some way, and that something "more" is needed as a "complete explanation."
So, these "other" theoretical projects continue, and each one has "some reason" to recommend it over the others and over the bare standard model.
So there are things you could identify as "rational" and "empirical" processes involved; however, parsing the process into a philosophical context will have to wait until the process is complete. As philosophy has no way of "predicting" the outcome, it will only offer an explanation after the fact.
Ah, yes, the predictable dig at the "productivity" of philosophy, even as you employ it to make your own points. However, you assume too much.
What philosophy can, right now, predict is that whatever science does come up with will remain incomplete and unverifiable. "Dreams of a Final Theory" will forever remain unrealized dreams. The more you "discover," the more you will realize you don't know and can't explain.
You will forever have "more" "predictive power" without having any more reason than you had before to "believe" that your then-present theory is "true."
In spite of the great success of particle physics in explaining the universe after 120 years (the discovery of the electron starting the whole thing), there is an abundance of evidence that we have only been looking at a small part of the entire universe, the luminous parts... diverted as it were by the shinny objects, while the bulk remained largely undetected.
My point exactly. And philosophy of science has long-predicted this realization, even while most physicists were publicly stating that "we're really, really close" and sentiments to that effect. Have you read Dreams of a Final Theory? In that book you have Weinberg acting like physicists traditionally act in public: Strident, "knowledgeable," assured, and confident that the public has "every reason to believe" that science is "right on the brink" of answering all philosophical questions in purely empirical fashion.
If Kuhn was right about anything, he was right in stating (my close paraphrase): Science is always progressing, but not toward anything.
Now, you come across as a scientific realist. But you actually have no "evidence" upon which to "believe" in that perspective. It's merely (in your opinion) the best meta-scientific "working model," as it is more "motivational" than the alternative: scientific anti-realism.
But my point is that you are building a LOT of meta-presumptions into your efforts, and the "results" build all of those presumptions in.
There is "reason to believe" that our theories are correct, those reasons largely rest on the ability to predict the outcome of experiment and anticipate observation.
But that's just one sense of "evidence," as we are more teasing out in this present discussion. And we do have to be careful with all that "believe" implies. Again, Kaku presumable does not "believe" in string theory. It is more proper to say that he has "reason to suggest" or "reason to assert" that string theory will "ultimately prove to be productive in the absence of better alternatives."
And the very reason that "alternative" accounts of gravity are "motivated" IS that the bare standard model has "proved" to be inadequate to its stated (presumed) task. So, just as you talk about "reasons to believe" in the standard model, there are corresponding "reasons to believe" in the negative: the standard model is inadequate and is almost certainly not a complete explanation. Thus, there is strong "evidence" to "believe" that the bare standard model is NOT "correct," as you say. It is deeply and fundamentally lacking AT LEAST a "bolt on" if not a paradigm shift.
Again, so Kaku "believes." Now, again, you may dispute this. But Kaku is no idiot.
For the philosophical discussion we're having here, the difference between falsification and confirmation are held up as if they are absolute arbiters of "truth."
No! Quite the contrary. You have not "oversimplified" this point. You have entirely missed it. The point is that "truth" is not even at issue here!
Science is NOT doing metaphysics. It cannot in principle be telling us the "truth" about what "really exists," the "real, underlying furniture of the universe."
While the likes of Bob are naive realists, believing directly in tables, chairs, and walls, more sophisticated scientists recognize that such objects are NOT the actual metaphysical objects that we "package up" into such. The ACTUAL metaphysical objects are (crudely stated) something like "probability clouds," whereby a "wall" is something like a "stronger probability field" than a "doorway," and where even that is a very crude description, because a "doorway" has "strong probability" in its own sense.
But even dispensing with naive realism, the scientific realism to which you subscribe itself presumes many, many things that science itself can NEVER "verify" in the slightest. You presume the "real existence" of certain fundamental physical entities, and you "take these" to be the "real metaphysical entities," and in this crucial sense you do claim that metaphysics IS JUST physics.
But you have no SCIENTIFIC reason to believe this. It is a philosophical commitment on your part, and it is motivated by other factors than science itself.
What the Popper/Carnap discussion revealed (and what's been revealed since then) is that scientific reductionism DEPENDS UPON a subtle commitment to verificationism (which is why you physicists perpetually slip into talking in such terms). Yet, such commitment is inadmissible in principle.
So, yes, while science appears to be always progressing, it is indeed always progressing toward "nothing" (thought of as metaphysical "truth"). Due to the "advances" of science, we humans "can do" more and more cool things. But NONE of this equates to "knowledge" of the metaphysical facts.
Now, you have repeatedly asserted statements along the lines of "Yes, 'truth' in the strong sense is not the object; but 'it works' is very much good enough as a stand-in for 'truth.'"
But such pragmatism is really an admission of scientific anti-realism, and admission that science is not in-principle doing metaphysics. Your response would, presumably, be: "Fine. But, then, metaphysics so-defined is a fool's errand, pursued only by speculative philosophers."
And my response would be: "Fine. Then quit stridently asserting that science 'knows' anything, which would imply that you have NOT 'settled the boundaries' of what human beings can 'know' about 'real entities' or what counts as 'fictional entities.'" The standard model is itself chock-full of "fictional entities." Your "reason to believe" in them is pure pragmatics rather than genuine metaphysics.
And your "standard of 'evidence'" is NOT the same thing as "legitimate reason to 'accept' or 'assert' or 'pursue.'" Your own theorists have good reason to "assert" or "pursue" lines of inquiry for which they as yet have no "evidence," and that "reason" is, flatly, grounded in the quite apparent inadequacy of the bare standard model.
Popper may have proposed that science can only falsify theory, he left undiscussed the use of the results of non-falsified theory, the calculations so necessary to realize technological application of the theory.
Wait! Now you're totally changing the rules of the game!
We WERE talking about "facts" and "truth" and the presumption that science is somehow doing genuine metaphysics. Now, suddenly, you're firmly embracing engineering and pragmatics! But those are NOT the same things, nor are their "rules of evidence" the same.
I would be the FIRST one to agree with the "successes" of "science" THUS-construed! But THAT is not metaphysics (nor theoretical physics), and it makes NO strident claims about "truth" or "universal laws" or any such thing!
One could say these calculations are not-true, and if so said, how could you use them to, say, build a bridge?
Again, wait! People were building bridges, cathedrals, and other such projects LONG, LONG before there was the SLIGHTEST hint of general relativity or the standard model ANYWHERE on the horizon. In fact, your present theories are such recent inventions that they are not even a sliver on the time-scales represented by some human constructions that IN NO WAY depended upon them!
Instead, you are really appealing to the "objective validity" of, say, geometry. But THAT is not derived scientifically in the SLIGHTEST! Indeed, science DEPENDS UPON the objective validity of various geometries, without in the slightest contributing toward the production nor demonstration of such objective validity.
And if you say that they are an approximation to "truth," you are changing the meaning of truth in some fundamental way.
My friend, YOU are the one changing up the meanings of "truth" (which according to you really means, "it works"), "evidence" (which according to you really means, "empirical, experimental results"), and even what metaphysics IS (which according to you really means "the entities presently presumed to exist by our 'best' present physical theory).
Yet you and others have no qualms about using these calculations, sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly, in all sorts of activities, some of which have life-or-death consequences.
And now your basic conflation is fully revealed. As stated above, what I (qua some engineer) is "using" has NOTHING whatsoever to do with general relativity, the standard model, or any other theory of physics. Planes fly today, NOT because the standard model has been "productive," because NOBODY yet really understands why "lift" works as it does! Buildings have stood for millennia completely apart from the "truth" of ANY theory of physics! And so on.
"What appears to work" is indeed a POWERFUL approach to engineering, and we humans have achieved a LOT by trial-and-error (which results get documented for the foundation of other engineers to stand upon). But these trial-and-error results are NOT fundamentally a function of ANYTHING like "scientific metaphysics). MUCH/MOST of what are life-and-death dependencies (such as the lift of an airplane wing) are NOT functions of this or that scientific theory.
And the "calculations" to which you refer are not PRODUCTS of science! Science itself rests on the objective validity of the mathematics/geometry that is not PRODUCED by scientists. So, you have no special claim to such "calculations" in the slightest.
To sum up, science CAN be "productive" insofar as it "better" explains (after the fact) why engineering "works." In relatively RARE cases it can even offer engineering a "productive" suggestion about a direction in which to pursue its trial-and-error investigations. But "what works" has NOTHING to do with "what metaphysical entities really exist." And the "evidence" of "what works" only barely and obliquely maps onto "reasons to believe," as there are sweepingly good "reasons to 'assert'" theories (and entities, such as strings) that as yet have NO "evidence" in their favor.
Physics is FOREVER inadequate, and will forever be, because it is not in principle a truth-seeking endeavor.
I completely grant that most religionists are strident, arrogant in their unsupported assertions, and cling to "belief" that is falsely associated with "knowledge."
However, if books like Dreams of a Final Theory and The Theory of Everything are to be taken as indicative of the perspectives of leading physicists, then physicists are no better.
Apparently the philosophical notion of falsification and confirmation, at least as are being discussed here, do not capture the full picture.
Correct, as just stated above. These concepts are windows into the broader issue, which is that scientific anti-realism is the really sustainable perspective of science, which implies that scientists should be MUCH less strident about what constitutes "evidence," "truth," "reason to believe," and a host of other epistemological constructions.
The REALLY proper response to metaphysical questions (put to both religionists and physicists alike) should be: I really don't know and cannot in-principle know! And what counts as "reason to assert" is a moving target that is NOT shared across paradigms!
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 04:20pm PT
|
:-D
Like +1
A real pleasure for me to read, MB1. Instructive and says things that I felt but could not explicate halfway decently.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 04:36pm PT
|
Thank you, Mike. Much appreciated.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:10pm PT
|
Physics is FOREVER inadequate, and will forever be, because it is not in principle a truth-seeking endeavor.
Sheesh, you all deserve one another!!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:14pm PT
|
So... I don't know it for a fact, but I just know it's true... you guys are not on the ball any more than WB, lol.
Sorry if it hurts... but not sorry.
Really, in light of these posts, is it any wonder at all the General Public is confused about science!
Hear hear! for engineering physics!!!!!
...
So, I took a year in Statics and Dynamics in engineering physics... I am curious if either MikeL or MB1 took same? I got A's in these courses, what did you guys get?
What the public seems to forget, no doubt encouraged by the extraordinary focus on particle physics and quantum mechanics, is that there is a lot more to physics then just particle physics or string theory or quantum mechanics or the standard model.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:18pm PT
|
Here here for engineering physics!!!!!
Not even an attempt at an actual reply. Instead, just an incorrect idiom. What you're looking for is... "Hear, hear...."
Sorry for being a bit snarky in response to your snark; not really sorry.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:25pm PT
|
So that was autocorrect, mv-1, it should read hear hear, lol!
...
Hilarious! And I posted even before reading your post, lol!
If it's any consolation, mv-1, I still like you! 😄
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:29pm PT
|
He's a lot smarter and intelligent than you'll ever be HFCS .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:30pm PT
|
actually most navigation is done today and depends on general relativity, that navigation wouldn't work without it... most planes make use of that navigation, and especially more and more on approach and landing.
the "standard model" of particle physics was never intended to explain everything, and we knew that when we built it, and almost immediately started discussing physics "beyond the standard model."
what the physics of BSM was and is an open question... and many people had many good ideas, and none of them have succeeded. All of them had very good reasons to work on their ideas, that's how physics progresses.
more and more engineering depends on the results of fundamental physics, and more and more you depend on the "truth" of that physics in your daily life.
but as you say, philosophy teaches us that we cannot verify a physical theory, only falsify it, yet you verify physics every day... to you it may be just as valid as magic... how could you tell the difference?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:32pm PT
|
re Wb comment... Consider the source.
...
"and more and more depends on the "truth" of that physics in your daily life."
Thank you.
"Truth" and "belief" are not bad words. It is time some scientists stopped treating them as such. Religion doesn't own these words, it is time some scientists and others stopped treating them as though it does.
That is, if you want to maximally encourage science (as opposed to minimally encourage science) in the public eye.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:45pm PT
|
Regarding Mv-1's post and MikeL's post, is it any Wonder that academic philosophy in recent times has fallen out of favor - usefulness wise? productivity wise? Not to my thinking.
No offense intended, just candid dialoguing here.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 06:59pm PT
|
"Regarding Mv-1's post and MikeL's posts, is it any Wonder that academic philosophy in recent times has fallen out of favor - usefulness wise? productivity wise? Not to my thinking.'
Maybe going the way of Latin. :-)
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:01pm PT
|
"He's a lot smarter and intelligent than you'll ever be HFCS ....."
If the duck says it, it must be true...not.
On another note, I'll plug my new book, Boulder Canyon Rock Climbs, third edition. Just got one in the mail, should be in the stores in a few weeks.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:07pm PT
|
yet you verify physics every day... to you it may be just as valid as magic... how could you tell the difference?
False.
Nobody's arguing that engineering doesn't "work," and to the limited extent that engineering's results emerge "from" theoretical physics, nobody's denying that physics doesn't "work."
But "the theory works" is not the same thing as "the theory is true."
No physical theory has been "verified." Even Newton's "works" in its sphere, but it's false. General relativity is not an "extension" or "refinement" of Newton; it's a falsification of it. The universe is NOT the universe of Newton's theory. It's just a "reasonably good approximation that's close enough for rock and roll most of the time." So, it's still "useful," even though it's false.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:08pm PT
|
Wonder that academic philosophy in recent times has fallen out of favor - usefulness wise? productivity wise? Not to my thinking.
LOL... you use philosophical methods every time you post; you just do it badly.
To my way of thinking.
No offense.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:13pm PT
|
Bob, congratulations! I didn't know.
Third edition, too. That's mighty cool!
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:19pm PT
|
Look, MB1... If academic philosophy... that is, philosophy in academia, had been truly on the ball any time in the last 200 years, it would not have rested, it would not have invested so much in "theist philosophy"... it would've divined the tea leaves, formed a more intimate relation with science (in the manner of Uncle Dennett) and last but not least, would have, given the poverty of language, invented a term for the "philosophy of life" to distinguish this important branch of philos from others. But did it? No. So it deserves to get what it's earned. IMO.
Succinctly, does academic philosophy have a term for "the philosophy of life" or "the philosophy of living" or "the wisdom of living" or "the school of living" to distinguish this important subject matter from other forms? and to give it fresh blood in these challenging 21st century times. No, it does not.
So it's up to others, those outside academic philosophy, to invent such a term, to flesh it out, to give it meaning, to give it structure and form. Poor "academic philosophy" - it lost its opportunity. Sad.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:24pm PT
|
What philosophy can, right now, predict is that whatever science does come up with will remain incomplete and unverifiable. "Dreams of a Final Theory" will forever remain unrealized dreams. The more you "discover," the more you will realize you don't know and can't explain.
You will forever have "more" "predictive power" without having any more reason than you had before to "believe" that your then-present theory is "true."
if my theory predicts the outcome of experiment, I will use that theory in a positive way, that is, I will "believe" the theory is "true" and use it to calculate...
is General Relativity "true" well, we don't have a quantum theory for it, so there are aspects of the theory we know will change once we understand it as a quantum theory.
but GR has passed many tests, and now even in the dynamic domain of the theory as observed in the various black-hole mergers observed by the LIGO collaboration..
predictions that turn out to be true are confirmatory of any theory.
fortunately there is no metaphysical domain, as far as I know, from philosophy, there are reasons to believe there may be a metaphysics, and reasons to believe there is no metaphysics, and they are good reasons, there is no way to confirm or falsify those those reasons.
Philosophy is not empirical as currently practiced, but the idea that geometry, and other mathematics is not is still an open question in science at least, and good physical reasons to believe that they may be empirical.
I know you wouldn't agree, and you might have really good reasons.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:35pm PT
|
No physical theory has been "verified." Even Newton's "works" in its sphere, but it's false. General relativity is not an "extension" or "refinement" of Newton; it's a falsification of it. The universe is NOT the universe of Newton's theory. It's just a "reasonably good approximation that's close enough for rock and roll most of the time." So, it's still "useful," even though it's false.
while a compelling historic narrative, this is an absurd statement, especially for a philosopher to make.
what aspect of Newtonian physics was falsified? It was not by General Relativity but Special Relativity. As a test of elementary physics, which of Newton's "laws" is a statement of relativity? and how was it "falsified"?
this is an important point that you are making, you should use a bit more precision in your argument.
As for GR vs. Newtonian Gravity, one can extend NG in ways to explain general relativistic effects, in so called post-Newtonian gravitational theories. Physicists prefer GR because it provides a coherent physical explanation for the various calculations, many of which could be viewed as perturbations on NG. The problem with adopting PNG is that the perturbations appear ad-hoc, with no reason in the theory for them to be included.
However, we totally understand the domain of application of NG, and use it with confidence in those domains, and not only that, but NG can be derived from GR as a limiting case. How does your "falsification" jibe with that? if NG were "false" then so would be GR... so there must be something much more sophisticated going on that you have not understood.
I hope you are a better philosopher than a physicist.
Fortunately, physicists don't require a philosophical affirmation for all this, and do make progress in understanding the universe, I don't think that is in question at all.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:43pm PT
|
ouch
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:45pm PT
|
Poor "academic philosophy" - it lost its opportunity. Sad.
LOL. What a dream world you live in.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:46pm PT
|
predictions that turn out to be true are confirmatory of any theory.
Either you are simply mistaken, or you are using "confirmation" in a non-standard way, like your sometimes use of "truth."
No point in arguing. It's now clear what the nature of the paradigms are, which I all I was trying to accomplish.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:51pm PT
|
yes, in philosophy, apparently, you believe what you think...
I.I. Rabi once told me he saw physics as a conversation with nature. And a physicist had to listen carefully to what nature was saying.
That isn't a problem for your philosophy, you seem to have conversations with yourself.
I'll ask again, what does madbolter1 know?
this is a serious question.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:56pm PT
|
what aspect of Newtonian physics was falsified? It was not by General Relativity but Special Relativity. As a test of elementary physics, which of Newton's "laws" is a statement of relativity? and how was it "falsified"?
I'll answer your question with a simple question: Do you believe (since Einstein) that gravity is an "attractive force" or a distortion of space/time? Newton claimed the former. Einstein "proved" the latter. (Right?)
I could get into more Newtonian problems, but we've been talking about gravity, so let's stick with that one issue. What "gravity" IS is very different in Newton's theory and Einstein's theory. The two notions of gravity are not "the same," nor are they compatible. The falsehood of Newton's account of gravity becomes more and more obvious as one approaches the speed of light.
It's not that Newton's theory becomes "less accurate" or "less applicable" as one approaches the speed of light. It's that the ERROR in Newton's entire mechanics become more and more obvious as one approaches the speed of light.
this is an important point that you are making, you should use a bit more precision in your argument.
Well, how much "precision" do you expect in a simple statement of fact? Newton's mechanics is not referring to "the same" forces or entities as are Einstein's, despite using "the same" terms (like "gravity"). You can make this as "complicated" as you wish, but the fact remains the same. Newton is "useful" at low velocities, but his mechanics can be and has been entirely supplanted by Einstein. The fact that Newton's mechanics are still useful in "coarse-grained" ways (because at low velocities the calculations are easier) does not make the theory true.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 07:59pm PT
|
I hope you are a better philosopher than a physicist.
I hope you are a better physicist than philosopher.
You see, the difference is that I don't claim to be a physicist. But you (and other physicists) perpetually use philosophy and act like philosophers. Again, you guys do it badly, as you perpetually help yourselves to the very issues that are in question.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:00pm PT
|
I'll ask again, what does madbolter1 know?
Very, VERY little.
The same as physicists, except that I apparently know ONE more thing than they do: That I don't know.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:02pm PT
|
you guys do it badly...
Since it seems it's all being laid out on the table tonight forthrightly, I'll participate.
Neither of you, Mb1 or Edh, imo, are very good** at a) apologizing; b) correcting your mistakes; c) considering things from alternate povs or frames (contextual frames).
Room for improvement?
**Grade C at best, imo.
....
Food for thought...
Could anyone imagine getting a degree nowadays - that is, today, in the 21st century - in theist philosophy?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:06pm PT
|
Newton had no "notion of gravity" he offered a law to calculate gravitational force. His deep insight was that things falling on the surface of the Earth where affected by the same forces that act on astronomical bodies. How that all worked he famously declared hypothesis non fingo.
this is so well known that it is startling that you don't know it. Newtonian gravity is obtained from General Relativity, and that appears in the problems at the end of the first chapter of almost every text on General Relativity.
Newton's first law is a restatement of Galilean Relativity. The first law was shown to be inconsistent with Electrodynamics, which Einstein concluded in his paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", where he shows that relativistic transformations are given by the Lorentz transformations, not the Galilean transformations.
As you point out, this happens when things are moving fast, and it is easy to calculate the Galilean cases in the limit of velocities smaller than the speed of light, quantifying how "wrong" those calculations are.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:19pm PT
|
I do know a thing or two...
I knew that if I calculated the time and bearing of the Moon rise on a particular day from the West end of the Ahwanhee meadow that I would catch the Moon exactly here:
and using what madbolter1 has stated is the "falsified" Newtonian theory of gravity.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:45pm PT
|
Ed...how do you know that is the moon????
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 08:54pm PT
|
How do I know that's the Moon?
experience I guess...
I hope you are a better physicist than philosopher.
I am, and certainly to the extent that when a philosopher makes erroneous statements about physics that I am likely to point it out.
I don't claim to be a philosopher, sycorax has certainly stated many times that I do not demonstrate a mastery of that subject (and I agree) and so, she continues, philosophical discussions with me are a waste of time. But if you want to talk about physics, which you seem to, I'm all in.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 09:34pm PT
|
HFCS: So, I took a year in Statics and Dynamics in engineering physics... I am curious if either MikeL or MB1 took same? I got A's in these courses, what did you guys get?
I only got this lousy Ph.D. in Strategic Management! But I did get to hang out with some other really smart people who had a thing or two to say about the philosophy of science.
But aside, hanging out with the chemistry doctoral students made for some wonderful parties. They had access to pure alcohol, and other things.
Seriously, when you get to hang out over a few beers with other doctoral students from other departments in a university setting, you begin to take the common world apart. It begins to open up to you like a flower. Instead of certainty, mystery emerges. I was the poorest in my life, but probably enjoyed it the most.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 10:01pm PT
|
Could anyone imagine getting a degree nowadays - that is, today, in the 21st century - in theist philosophy?
Yikes! Your cluelessness is epic. There is no such thing as "theist philosophy." There's just philosophy, mostly of the analytic variety, some of the continental variety. Some philosophers are theists; most aren't. "Philosophy" is not "theist" or "not theist."
Wowwww
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 10:04pm PT
|
using what madbolter1 has stated is the "falsified" Newtonian theory of gravity.
Ed, you dance around, seemingly intentionally missing the point. It grows tedious.
Newton had a "metaphysics" of the universe. It was a "mechanistic" universe, and the hypotheses non fingo notwithstanding, classical physics is not "extended" by Einstein nor quantum mechanics.
You perpetually conflate "it works" with "it's true," even in your latest snarky post. They are not the same thing, and you know that they are not.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 10:10pm PT
|
But if you want to talk about physics, which you seem to, I'm all in.
What would be best is if physicists would not try to be philosophers. You do what you do very well. But many of us aren't going to stand by and agree that you can essentially define away the very possibility of God by defining "evidence" and "truth" in a narrow way that suits only your perspective.
|
|
Contractor
Boulder climber
CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 10:11pm PT
|
This thread has somehow become the Venice Beach of academia.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 24, 2017 - 11:09pm PT
|
If you read Newton, hypothesis non fingo is a significant statement. Perhaps the best indication of his "metaphysics" with regard to his physics. The Universal Law of Gravitation, was so named because it "worked," Newton had no idea where it came from, none, and said so.
Newton's metaphysics (if metaphysics exists) is largely irrelevant to what Newton did scientifically. It might matter to you, but it doesn't matter to the science.
General Relativity is in the domain of "classical physics" it is not a quantum theory. Quantum Mechanics is not in the domain of "classical physics." Those domains are well known, and the physics we use in them provide calculations that agree with experiment to the precision expected (which is calculable also).
We use all this physics in the appropriate domains. Apparently the philosophical concept of "falsification" is not adequate to describe what is going on in science.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 12:31am PT
|
Newton's metaphysics (if metaphysics exists) is largely irrelevant to what Newton did scientifically. It might matter to you, but it doesn't matter to the science.
Ed, the problem with your perspective of physics is that you do smuggle in metaphysics without admitting it. And Newton's metaphysics was far from "irrelevant to what Newton did scientifically."
For example, you used your moonrise example to indicate that Newton's theory is "true," also poking fun at the claim that it's been falsified.
Well, the Mayans could do the same prediction as you did, and they had that capacity for over a millennium before Newton. Their causal system (theory) had tremendous predictive capacity. No need for Newton at that level of predictive power. Does that make their system of causes "true"?
Of course not. You'll say something like, "Well, as our demand for more granularity (and our capacity to measure perceived regularities) increased, nothing like the Mayan 'science' would prove adequate. Newton provided much more accuracy, and then Einstein provided even more."
But two points emerge here. First, your moonrise example doesn't "indicate" anything about the "truth" of Newton's account of gravity, whether you used him or not (the Mayans certainly didn't appeal to him). Second, this is a classic example of the fact that multiple theories (in fact, an infinite number) are consistent with any set of empirical facts. Both Newton and the Mayans could predict the same moonrise to which you refer. The moonrise indicates nothing about the "truth" of either theory.
Now, if you increase the range/set of facts, increasing the granularity of measurements, you now simply have a new infinite set of theories that are consistent with that set of facts.
What "works" entirely fails to differentiate among those theories in the sense of "verifying" or "confirming" any of them.
I could get into the implications of the Newtonian quote you make so much of, but it's really quite irrelevant. You wrongly sense "blood in the water," so you think that this is something to magnify. But, as I said, it entirely misses the point.
Your emphasized quote has FAR less import than you make it seem. Newton DID have a metaphysics, and it was incorrect. You KNOW this stuff, so don't be disingenuous. For example:
* Newton's theory revolves around discrete space and time. Einstein's theory combines them into spacetime. NOT some "insignificant" distinction! And even if you combine Newton's space and time into spacetime equations, you do NOT get the Einsteinian results, which point is related to the next one.
* Newton's theory famously posits instantaneous action-at-a-distance, with gravity being a "force" entirely unlike what "the force of gravity" means in Einstein's equations. Again, you KNOW this. You KNOW that what "gravity" MEANS to Newton is entirely, completely different from what it MEANS to Einstein! This alone makes your emphasis on your now-favored quote quite irrelevant. Newton DID have a "theory" that was really a metaphysics, regardless of his denial of same. The term, "gravity" had an entirely different meaning to Newton than it did to Einstein, and the very nature of the universe that emerged from that meaning was vastly different.
* Newton's theory depends upon a mechanistic universe. His equations are filled with constants that must be replaced in the Einsteinian "conversions" with "wave formulas." The very essence of the universe was vastly different in the two theories, as much as "mechanistic" has entirely different implications than "relativity." Again, you KNOW this, so don't play dumb about the fact that the posited "structure of the universe" is ENTIRELY different in the two theories.
The "furniture of the universe" is vastly different between Newton and Einstein, and those posited entities and forces just are the "metaphysics" of the two theories.
The Newtonian universe is as different from Einstein's universe as the Mayans was from Newtons. And the fact that you can make this or that granularity of prediction from this or that theory says NOTHING about the TRUTH of the theoretical implications of what the universe IS (the metaphysical claims that a theory implies).
Einstein did falsify Newton's metaphysics regarding the points I mention above, along with others. And you cannot "immerse" Newton into Einstein without doing a lot to "fix up" the theory, literally changing the metaphysics from one set of entities and forces to another. You have to entirely abandon action-at-a-distance and the mechanized notion of how things "work."
Whatever level of granularity of measurement you prefer, you'll find some extant theory consistent with the emergent experimental results. Change the data, and you merely change the set of "true" theories (plural). "What works" or "what the data is" cannot in principle distinguish between the multitude of theories consistent with that data. And, as stated, when you increase the granularity or set of data, you simply change the set of theories that are consistent with it by falsifying some and adding others.
Mayans, Newton, Einstein... all can predict the moonrise. Einstein can predict more than Newton. But, just as the Mayan metaphysics has been falsified, the Newtonian metaphysics has been falsified, and the Einsteinian metaphysics will ultimately be falsified. See, philosophy can make empirical predictions. And this one will come true, probably in our lifetimes.
You'll then recast that falsification as a "refinement," but you'll then simply be (conveniently) ignoring that the posited entities, forces, and even structure of the universe will have entirely changed in the new theory, just as they did from Newton to Einstein. And such fundamental "changes" are exactly what we mean by a "metaphysical falsification." The Newtonian universe simply wasn't true, despite the predictive power of the theory that posited it.
General Relativity is in the domain of "classical physics" it is not a quantum theory. Quantum Mechanics is not in the domain of "classical physics." Those domains are well known, and the physics we use in them provide calculations that agree with experiment to the precision expected (which is calculable also).
I'm well aware of that. I made that very point to note one of the primary motivations for string theory.
We use all this physics in the appropriate domains. Apparently the philosophical concept of "falsification" is not adequate to describe what is going on in science.
Now, again, that's just disingenuous, and you know it, Ed. THE thing we're discussing is not "use" but "truth." If you want to just stipulate that your theories are not TRUE, then we're on the same page, and there's no more reason to argue!
But you do NOT stipulate that. You perpetually (even with your moonrise example) conflate "usage" with "truth." And that conflation is not correct.
Furthermore, you cannot "neatly" claim that "the domains are different," as though that "settles" something! Classical physics and quantum mechanics do have overlapping "domains," and their equations are (at present) incompatible. So, physicists are seeking theories that can combine the equations, treating both theories as true, and string theory is just one such approach. There is no need to do this if you can "neatly" just "package up" discrete "domains" of the universe and treat the "domains" as somehow entirely non-overlapping.
But you can't do that. So a unified field theory is needed in order to provide a complete picture. And that theory, if it ever emerges, will have more predictive power and broader "usage" than anything before it.
And it will be no more "true" than either the Mayan theory, Newton's theory, Einstein's theory, or quantum mechanics.
Predictive usage does not equal truth.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:21am PT
|
For example, you used your moonrise example to indicate that Newton's theory is "true," also poking fun at the claim that it's been falsified.
yes, because you seem to go to great lengths to make your point, trying to stuff what goes on in physics into some philosophical framework which apparently does not fit it.
Please provide the Mayan (or references) calculations of the Sun rise/set and Moon rise/set tables. It would be interesting to see if they could have predicted, even in principle, the event that I predicted for that time and place.
You make this claim, but it is all words, from a science point-of-view its about the ability to make the calculation and test that calculation against what actually happens.
The very first issue with your assertion is the lack of decimals in the Mayan system, and the apparent lack of hour:minutes:seconds in their formal time calculations. That they might predict the day of the first Moon, eclipses probabilities, and enumerate the age of the Moon is far from saying they could have predicted the conditions of that image above. (See F. G. Loundsbury, "Maya Numeration, Computation and Calendrical Astronomy" in the Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography)
But if you can use the Mayan calendar to calculate it, please do so, and show your math. Failure to do so pretty much renders your argument incorrect.
As far as appropriating Newton's theory of gravity into the "modern" theory of Einstein (now over 100 years old), this is something that is done in physics, and it certainly involves changing the "meaning" of Newton's description.
However, Newton's space-time is actually a modern construction, one that was built to show the differences between the two theories and the implications of our notions of space-time. I do not believe that Newton actually had a well defined notion of it in the modern sense. I have not come across any of it in his writing (but I'm also not a historian). What you are holding up as Newton's "metaphysical" assumptions about space-time are pure speculation on your part, and you should acknowledge them as so. Or reference Newton.
Interestingly, while space-time were subjects of "metaphysical" investigation in Greek philosophy, the implications of Einstein's theory brought them firmly into "physics," how does that happen? This has nothing to do with a philosophical argument and everything to do with Einstein's ability to calculate, to make predictions, and have those predictions tested. Successful tests very much strengthened the case for General Relativity, or perhaps in the twisted logic of the PoS, it was the "non-falsfied" status of the theory.
Mach, who tread similar ground, though philosophically, is essentially unknown to physics, except in the historic association with Einstein. If there were a "metaphysics" that pointed to modern relativity, someone had to translate that into physics, had to make a physical theory of it, and philosophy certainly was no guide.
The very connection of space and time is modern, and are a result of Special Relativity.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:34am PT
|
The sun comes up in the morning and goes down later in the day
Science has proven that the earth rotates on it's axis. Fact
The ocean is very deep in places.
Science took depth measurements and proved that it is deep. fact
Space is vast.
our space ships could not reach the end of space, fact
Quartz is hard.
Science measured the hardness at 7 on the Mohs scale, harder than all substances that have a Mohs scale of less than 7. Fact
There are millions of these types of FACTS.
No complicated theories are involved in these scientific facts, just plain old scientific observation.
No argument can disprove these facts other than the solipsism "The Wall doesn't exist".
Science says the wall exists, you can touch it, end of argument.
There is No proof that the outside real world doesn't exist and that the only thing that exists is your mind,
so it can be disregarded completely as an explanation for the rejection of scientific information as being true or false.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:06am PT
|
Is there a convincing philosophical rebuttal to solipsism - the theory that the self is all that you can know to exist? Or are you all figments of my imagination?
The use of the work 'my' gives it away: if the world exist only in your mind then you and the world are one and the same; there can be no real 'me'. It follows that, relative to your perceived 'me', whether the rest of the world actually exists externally or internally is irrelevant. Solipsism is a rather bland theory.
D Doran, London
Dr Johnson would rap you hard on the head and say: "Thus I refute you!"
David Dreaming Bear, Horsethief Canyon, California USA
Although solipsism may SEEM appealing, in terms of irrefutable truths, Descartes assertion 'Cogito ergo sum' - 'I think therefore I am' (although he actually said, 'I think, I exist') has many problems. It seems that no logical argument can follow from this, supposedly a priori statement, that GUARANTEES the existence of others. However, we can refute that it is an a priori statement to start with. For, because there is a thought occurring at this moment, it does not follow from any rules of logic that there were any thoughts before, or there will be any after, this thought. Also, just because there is a thought, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is necessarily a 'self', or the 'I' who is observing this thought. However, one can appeal simply to 'common sense philosophy', or 'logical positivism' as it's become known, and we can see that it is simple common sense that we are not the only beings that exist. For more read A.J. Ayer's 'Language, Truth and Logic'.
Sam Reed, Brockley, London Britain
Solipsism is Descartes' famous first axiom (I think therefore I am) taken to extremes. It is remarkably difficult to move beyond this first inspired piece of philosophy to go on to prove that everything (anything?) else exists. This is the problem solipsists wrestle with. It is, of course, much simpler (under Occam's razor) to assume that the external world we perceive through our senses actually exists. The untenability of the solipsists argument is best demonstrated by a quote from a devoted solipsist who, at a philosophers convention, stated, "I'm a solipsist. And quite frankly I'm surprised there aren't more of us."
The most convincing solution to solipsism is to realise that it really doesn't matter. Since this is the world as we experience it, this is the world that matters to us. Though one can never be certain that anything exists beyond ones own consciousness, they still must experience the world as they do, which includes the existence of others.
Seth, Edinburgh Scotland
One night in Dublin, many years ago, a friend (who was very much under the infuence of Magic Mushrooms) asked me: "Are you real?" I took his hand, looked into his eyes and said: "I assure you with my heart and soul that, yes, I am real". He was neither reassured nor convinced. The next day at work he said: "Last night was very weird, I was convinced that everything in my life was only part of my imagination and it scared me." I told him that Solipsism was something he had to work at. He looked at me and said: "Now I know you are not real!"
Hedley McConnell, Tenerife Spain
Sartre held that the feeling of shame proved solipsism, and idealism to be false. If we are caught peeping at someone undressing in the toilet then we feel ashamed. If solpsism or idealism were true, this feeling would be false. But since we all have this feeling at one time or another Sartre held that there must exist other conscious bodies. The trouble with this is it reduces proof to emotion. It then follows that our opinion of what is real reduces to how we feel about it.
Andrew J Turner, Forestville, South Australia
__It seems to me that, because other people have asked the same question - "Am I the only thing in the Universe that exists?" - that we all exist.
Mike, Haddonfield USA__
Yes, there is a convincing rebuttal to YOUR solipsism - me. Unfortunately I do not find YOU to be a convincing rebuttal to MY solipsism. This proves that I am all that exists. Probably.
Jack Rawlinson, New York, USA
https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-24820,00.html
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:15am PT
|
define away the very possibility of God by defining "evidence" and "truth" in a narrow way that suits only your perspective.
Every atheist defines God as any possible God, which includes all Gods that anyone and everyone defines as God or believe in as their God, which is the exact opposite of a narrow way that suits some perspective.
Give us your definition of God, and we will accept your definition and include it with the Gods that we do not accept as existing.
Can God exist as some type of God essence in everything?
No.
For this to be true, God would have to be some type of essence smaller that subatomic particles, since God would be part them as well.
God would be part of the vacuum of space, and more of God would exist inside Black Holes, since they are so dense, the God essence would be dense as well.
How would this essence be able to create or act as God?
It wouldn't, it would have no affect on anything other than being an essence of God, since the essence doesn't assemble itself into a form that is a sum of essence that is bigger than a subatomic particle.
Why define God as part of everything?
It's just another way hide God from the investigation of God's existence, all other Gods have failed under scientific scrutiny so they keep speculating on a possible God that can't be found, it's beyond detection!
Speculation on the possibility of these hidden Gods always reveal the real intent, adding more and more possible unknowns so they can avoid detection by scientific investigation so the beleivers can maintain their belief in God.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:39am PT
|
Science will continue to march forward, ever expanding knowledge of our planet and beyond.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:46am PT
|
Why define God as part of everything?
The simpleton Fry has it backward.
Everything is part parcel of One God .......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 10:01am PT
|
Predictive usage does not equal truth.
I can totally understand why you reject this, but if "truth" has any meaning at all, "predictive usage" is a means of determining it.
Unfortunately, such a concept absolutely demolishes your philosophical beliefs. It is the reason that science makes progress and philosophy continues to discuss every idea that had been produced by philosophers, there is no way determine what you would call "truth" in philosophy, once faulty logic has been removed. To wit:
A) The Mayan metaphysics produces a physics capable of calculating the altitude and azimuth of the Moon at any position on planet Earth's surface at any specified time;
B) The Newtonian metaphysics produces a celestial dynamics capable of calculating the altitude and azimuth of the Moon at any position on planet Earth's surface at any specified time;
C) The Einsteinian metaphysics produces a celestial dynamics capable of calculating the altitude and azimuth of the Moon at any position on planet Earth's surface at any specified time;
since all these calculations are identical, calculation alone cannot determine which of the metaphysics is correct.
However, A) is incorrect, the Mayan calendric calculation is not capable of making the calculation, so whatever the metaphysics, the physics is not adequate to address this issue. It is not a relevant physical theory.
B) also fails to correctly predict various celestial observations. The best example is the perihelion shift of Mercury's orbit, known since 1845 to be in contradiction with Newtonian celestial mechanics.
C) correctly calculates this shift, and also it has been shown more recently, that it correctly calculates the motion of inspiraling black-holes as they merge, and in so doing release a tremendous amount of energy as gravitational radiation, the detection of which provides the quantitative measure, and test, of Einstein's gravity [see Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 221101 (2017)].
Now we can actually get from C) to B) and understand why Newton came up with his physical theory, we find that the metaphysics is irrelevant, but the physics is not. We also can quantify the difference in the predictions, and this allows us to define the domain in which B) and C) provide equivalent results to some specified precision. Using B) we can also see how A) could work, and this knowledge helps us to understand what the Mayan astronomers were up against in their calculations.
As for metaphysics, it's a non-issue. However, let's say that A), B) and C) provide equivalent results at the precision of all of our tests, then we could not rule any of the physical theories out, they are all equivalent in their predictive power.
As a scientist, I'm interested in understanding the universe, and "prediction" and "experimental/observational testing" are the ways I go about it. That way I do not become attached to ideas that are wrong, as demonstrated by their failure to predict.
I'm not the one calling this "truth" you are, and you like setting me up as a strawman philosopher, but we are all clear that I am not a philosopher.
You and Largo seem to convey on me that title... it's an interesting rhetorical tactic.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 10:48am PT
|
Can God exist as some type of God essence in everything?
No.
I don't think this is much of an argument, but, look, what exists as an essence in everything? There is in the universe an order to which all material, energy and force must be obedient. I don't think prediction is possible without that order. What is it and where did it come form? Wouldn't it be possible to describe it as a final term? Certainty in the face of mystery doesn't seem much of a virtue.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 11:37am PT
|
"There is in the universe an order to which all material, energy and force must be obedient."
Hey that's my idea, rule mechanics, aka ordinate mechanics, gleaned from science, and my phrasing. You copycat!!
"obedient to" physics, chemistry and biology...
http://www.supertopo.com/forumsearch.php?ftr=obedient
In turn, I got it from E.O. Wilson, some 20 years ago.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 11:59am PT
|
What is it and where did it come from?
Certainly not God Jehovah (aka the God of Abraham) in any literal sense - as thousands of theologians and religious leaders tried to palm off, as an idea or truth-claim, often to great success unfortunately, to our millions of ancestors.
Times are changing. New perspectives now.
You want to call Mother Nature, or Grandma Nature, "God"? Or this Order you speak of "God"? Fine. Just be clear to distinguish this new-age, modernity-inspired God from that old iron-age God (that was jealous, that smited infidels, that intervened in biology, etc) - in the interest of clarity, better understanding, best practices, and greater life wisdom.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 12:10pm PT
|
Could anyone imagine getting a degree nowadays - that is, today, in the 21st century - in theist philosophy? -hfcs
Yikes! Your cluelessness is epic. There is no such thing as "theist philosophy." -mv1
And what's this speak to? ANS Progress. Cultural evolution. Changing times. Thank goodness.
There certainly used to be theist(ic) philosophy or religious philosophy or Christian philosophy 100-300 years ago. Just as there was astrology, theology and Christian seminary.
You should know as well as I do: Philos and religion, otherwise philos and theism and theology, were (joyously and happily) in bed with each other for centuries before, and right up to, the modern age.
How's that saying go? I think academic philos fits it perfectly: it made its bed, now it must lie in it.
I could just as easily had phrased the question... Could anyone (raised and educated in 21st century science and school of life studies) imagine getting a degree nowadays in Christian seminary or Christian theology?
Let's remember: just one generation ago, we had the first lady of the united states consulting astrology charts and astrologers for clues to her future. This should indicate the state of mentation (mental activity) just a short time ago in our species development.
Thank goodness, the vast majority in the higher edu demographics have reached a point in their development where they see these "fields" of study, more or less like astrology or witchcraft, as irrelevant.
|
|
StahlBro
Trad climber
San Diego, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 12:58pm PT
|
"In ordinary life, we are not aware of the unity of all things, but divide the world into separate objects and events. This division is useful and necessary to cope with our everyday environment, but it is not a fundamental feature of reality. It is an abstraction devised by our discriminating and categorizing intellect. To believe that our abstract concepts of separate 'things' and 'events' are realities of nature is an illusion."
Fritjof Capra
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 01:01pm PT
|
"...not a fundamental feature of reality. It is an abstraction devised by our discriminating and categorizing intellect. To believe that our abstract concepts of separate 'things' and 'events' are realities of nature is an illusion."
Capra I don't think won't be convincing to the gazelle just tackled and about to be eaten by a lion.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 01:57pm PT
|
yes, because you seem to go to great lengths to make your point, trying to stuff what goes on in physics into some philosophical framework which apparently does not fit it.
I'm not "stuffing" physics into a "box." Physics IS an empirical enterprise, and that, flatly, DOES have various implications regarding what it in principle can and cannot accomplish.
You are trying to "slip through a wormhole" and thereby avoid the implications, which is why I'm having to be "relentless" in saying, "There's no wormhole you can employ to escape the implications."
Please provide the Mayan (or references) calculations of the Sun rise/set and Moon rise/set tables. It would be interesting to see if they could have predicted, even in principle, the event that I predicted for that time and place.
That's a ridiculous demand, and you know it. As soon as I say, "They predicted with a 'high' degree of accuracy the orbits of a number of planets, solar and lunar eclipses, and new moons," you'll say, "Ah, but see, they couldn't have predicted with the ACCURACY I did the exact moment the moon would rise."
I'll say, "True, but YOU are the one constantly moving the target regarding the expected degree of accuracy. And the FACT is that they would have been 'close,' maybe not to the minute or second, but this was over 1,100 years before Newton."
You make this claim, but it is all words, from a science point-of-view its about the ability to make the calculation and test that calculation against what actually happens.
And my point has been that as you gain in accuracy, you necessarily abandon a set of metaphysics. Newton's mechanized universe had no need for the Mayan metaphysics, and he achieved a much greater level of accuracy. Einstein abandoned the Newtonian metaphysics, and he achieved a much greater level of accuracy than did Newton (even regarding sub-light-speed permutations, such as the orbit of Mercury).
You keep emphasizing the "results" and "greater accuracy," but my point is that this is NEVER achieved without abandoning all or significant parts of a given theory's metaphysics.
You can dance around the fact all you want, but the fact remains: EVERY theory carries with it metaphysical implications (whether science wants to own those or not), and THOSE are the claims about "the way the universe REALLY is." THOSE are the big-picture "truth-seeking" claims that matter most to the population that is supporting the scientific method. And, whether science owns them or not, science MAKES such claims without justification.
Newton's universe is NOT how "the universe REALLY is." And, I predict that physics will find that neither is Einstein's. And that's the point: Physics (science in general) is not doing metaphysics in the sense of telling us the REAL "furniture of the universe."
Science deals in models and "fictional entities" that can come or go as science progresses. And, perhaps you'd even be happy at this point to agree with that statement. It certainly doesn't impinge upon your idea of what science's role is and what its accomplishments rest upon!
So, yes, if you're happy to accept that science is NOT telling us "how the universe REALLY is," then I'm happy to concede the argument.
Of course, the implication, then, is that physics has no role in telling us about God or the lack thereof. The most physics can say is, "We have a fairly complete model of how the universe appears to work to us now, and in that model there is not need for the metaphysical entity most people think of as 'God.'"
Cast in such careful terms, I would instantly agree!
But THAT was not the subject of the argument. And THAT throws the doors WIDE for theists to agree with not only that statement but to say, "Yeah, and all that said, we have very good reasons to think that science is NEVER going to have a complete model including reference to a wide range of phenomena that will forever be firmly in the realm of the 'non-natural.'"
But if you can use the Mayan calendar to calculate it, please do so, and show your math. Failure to do so pretty much renders your argument incorrect.
LOL... I think not. Or, at least, for you to say that pretty much indicates that you're just not willing to grapple with the main point I keep making.
As far as appropriating Newton's theory of gravity into the "modern" theory of Einstein (now over 100 years old), this is something that is done in physics, and it certainly involves changing the "meaning" of Newton's description.
Now we're getting somewhere. This is a point you didn't seem willing to grant several iterations ago. And it is the primary point I've been trying to make: THIS is what I mean by "metaphysical falsification." Flatly, the universe as we know understand it is NOT Newton's mechanistic, instantaneous action-at-a-distance universe.
However, Newton's space-time is actually a modern construction, one that was built to show the differences between the two theories and the implications of our notions of space-time. I do not believe that Newton actually had a well defined notion of it in the modern sense.
Hence the quote you've kept emphasizing. I get that. But it's not the point. The point is that Newton's theory DID have metaphysical implications, whether he was claiming them or not! And the same is true today: Your theories HAVE metaphysical implications, whether you own them or not. Of course, some well-known physicists totally own these implication in the popular books they write. And on threads just like these, people read this material and, like HFCS and CF (among others here), harp endlessly on the metaphysical implications, using pejorative terms and essentially calling theists idiots.
People like me get tired of being told that we're ignorant and idiots, because, flatly we're not. I'll be the FIRST to agree that most religionists are ignorant and even idiots. I've dealt with my share of their pathetic, shallow thinking in many contexts. But that's the HUMAN condition, not isolated to theists! As I've said, people that read the popular physics literature and then stridently say things like, "Physics has pretty much proved that there's not God," and other such tripe. Such "thinkers" are in the SAME BOAT intellectually as the "idiot theists" they decry.
I have not come across any of it in his writing (but I'm also not a historian). What you are holding up as Newton's "metaphysical" assumptions about space-time are pure speculation on your part, and you should acknowledge them as so. Or reference Newton.
Wait. So NOW your bar I must get over is to show that NEWTON understood all of the implications of his theory? That's ridiculous.
There's no debating what the implications were. I've listed some of them, and you have quite apparently agreed. You've flatly agreed that Einstein changed the meanings of some key terms, and that's (whether YOU recognize it or not) entirely giving the game away.
The universe is NOT Newton's universe. Period. Regardless of how you may "use" his theory in this or that context. We do NOT live in a Newtonian universe.
Interestingly, while space-time were subjects of "metaphysical" investigation in Greek philosophy, the implications of Einstein's theory brought them firmly into "physics," how does that happen? This has nothing to do with a philosophical argument and everything to do with Einstein's ability to calculate, to make predictions, and have those predictions tested. Successful tests very much strengthened the case for General Relativity, or perhaps in the twisted logic of the PoS, it was the "non-falsfied" status of the theory.
I really don't understand your point here. You seem to be admitting that metaphysical implications were introduced with GR, but that (finally) science was able to do it well. Something like, "Finally, with the advent of Einstein's much greater capacity to calculate, physics really can do metaphysics."
If that's what you're saying, then, again, you keep missing the point, which is that, whether or not science recognizes its metaphysical implications, ALL scientific theories HAVE them! Philosophy of science has LONG recognized them. Science HAS been "doing philosophy" all along, just very badly (particular to the extent that it, apparently, was not aware that it was doing it).
And if you think that now, post-Einstein, science CAN now do "really good" metaphysics, I can only say that we have exactly zero historical reason to believe that's true. Moreover, the ENTIRE history of science, without exception, has been one long train of falsifications, and it necessarily always will be. That's because science CAN never "confirm" anything, and the truth of theories is always underdetermined by the experimental observations. So, science, in-principle, cannot tell us "how the universe REALLY is," which means that science cannot, in-principle, be doing metaphysics. Einstein didn't change what science IS or what it DOES.
Mach, who tread similar ground, though philosophically, is essentially unknown to physics, except in the historic association with Einstein. If there were a "metaphysics" that pointed to modern relativity, someone had to translate that into physics, had to make a physical theory of it, and philosophy certainly was no guide.
I guess that's true, given your ultra-narrow definition of what "philosophy" is. But that's just another dig at "philosophy" rather than a useful argument against the fact that sciences is NOT telling us "how the universe REALLY is."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:02pm PT
|
they see these "fields" of study, more or less like astrology or witchcraft, as irrelevant.
And that impinges upon contemporary analytical philosophy, how?
If you're saying, "Philosophy used to be entirely theistic," I'd respond, "Really??? When and where?"
It's true that IN EUROPE, during the Middle Ages, philosophy was "theistic," but if you think that its only analysis was "theistic" in nature, you are misinformed. And that was a subset of all the philosophy that was being done around the world.
The same points could be made about science during the same eras. Does the fact that science has that same history invalid the entire history of science or somehow impinge upon the current practice of science?
I really don't get what useful, true, and relevant point you think you're making.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:26pm PT
|
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:30pm PT
|
"Physics has pretty much proved that there's not God,"
I haven't said that, all I've said is that I don't see the need to invoke a God to understand the universe. You can take that as a personal statement, it isn't intended to represent the thoughts of all physicists.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:39pm PT
|
I can totally understand why you reject this, but if "truth" has any meaning at all, "predictive usage" is a means of determining it.
Unfortunately, such a concept absolutely demolishes your philosophical beliefs.
NO! Again you help yourself to the very point under contention! You are so inured in your empiricism that you honestly DO believe (without, by the way, ANY scientific evidence) that empirical knowledge is the ONLY knowledge there can be. But that's a PHILOSOPHICAL position, not a scientific one. If Hume demonstrated anything, he demonstrated that you CANNOT believe as you do ON empirical grounds!
So, seriously, if there are ANY beliefs that are "demolished" by your own scientism they are yours. I'm guessing that you have not read Hume in any depth. After all, that's just "useless philosophizing." But the problem you face in such discussions is that you are DOING philosophy! You are just doing it very badly, because you do not have the background in the implications of the concepts you are just helping yourself to.
If you want to be an empiricist about "truth." Fine! More power to you. But you then should be aware of what "truth" actually does mean under your model. You can't escape the implications. Or, at the very least, you CANNOT just blithely foist them off on people who know better.
Another problem with your idea is that you are not actually defining "truth" at all with it. Your phrase "predictive usage" IMPLIES "truth" rather than defines it. For you to even recognize "as true" a particular prediction MEANS that you have an independent "meter" for "truth" rather than defines what "truth" is. Thus, you ARE employing some OTHER metric for what the "truth" predicate means.
I could go into what it necessarily is for you, but that's a tangent, and these discussions are already WAY too lengthy for these forum posts.
But I DO appreciate your engagement, and I would give you a hug, as DMT suggest. Seriously. These are important topics, and we are BOTH arguing with verve. I appreciate your end of the discussion, Ed!
I'm not going to discuss the rest of your post, because, given the above facts, it rests upon faulty assumptions.
I will say, however, that your idea that science makes progress and philosophy doesn't is ridiculous for two reasons:
1) Science always "progresses" but not toward anything.
2) Philosophy does make progress and is forever spinning off entire academic departments devoted to further refining and investigating the subjects upon which is has made adequate progress. "Ph.D." is not just a historical throwback; it still, today, indicates the fact that academic research is grounded in the philosophical method.
You do make a couple of ending points that are worth addressing....
As for metaphysics, it's a non-issue. However, let's say that A), B) and C) provide equivalent results at the precision of all of our tests, then we could not rule any of the physical theories out, they are all equivalent in their predictive power.
I find it fascinating that you (finally) agree with me about the underdetermination of theories by facts. However, that you say "metaphysics is a non-issue" is the most fascinating part. I conclude that you still don't grasp what I mean by that term.
For our purposes, "metaphysics" means: "the study of the way reality REALLY is." And I would think that this would be the MOST important aspect of what you think science (particularly physics) is doing!
If not, then, great! we're on the same page! But if you DO think that physics is doing metaphysics, then that is the KEY aspect of our debate, not some non-issue!
As a scientist, I'm interested in understanding the universe, and "prediction" and "experimental/observational testing" are the ways I go about it. That way I do not become attached to ideas that are wrong, as demonstrated by their failure to predict.
And here you seemingly (pretty clearly) indicate that you DO think that you are engaged in metaphysics. You just believe that physics is the ONLY productive way in which to do it.
My arguments have been directed at making two major points:
1) Science cannot in-principle be doing metaphysics.
2) Science lacks the "machinery" to even be a truth-seeking enterprise.
Obviously, you'll continue to fight both of those points. But you'll do so PHILOSOPHICALLY.
I'm not the one calling this "truth" you are, and you like setting me up as a strawman philosopher, but we are all clear that I am not a philosopher.
And, again, I'm confused. In one paragraph you sure seem to be saying that you believe that physics is the ONLY productive way to do metaphysics. Yet in this paragraph you seem to be saying that you don't think that physics is doing metaphysics (as I've clearly defined it).
The terms matter! Either science IS telling us the way the universe REALLY is, or it's not. You believe one or the other. I THINK (but am not sure) that you think the former rather than the latter. If I'm correct about that, then you are simply mistaken, but it's a PHILOSOPHICAL discussion about why you are mistaken.
Unfortunately for you, then, you really need more education in philosophy of science, because you keep helping yourself to ideas that imply other ideas that you would immediately disown.
So, I for one (and I believe I could speak for John on this point) are NOT trying to "strawman" you! I take you seriously and respect you, Ed!
But when you DO do philosophy, you ARE doing it badly as a result of the fact that you are not widely-read regarding the subjects you want to argue. I do NOT say that with even the slightest pejorative content or intent. If I tried to immerse myself in physics discussions that you have your mind completely around, it would be LAUGHABLE! For one thing, I simply don't have at my disposal that level of mathematical acumen. And I certainly don't understand the nuances that people at your level take for granted.
But, when you are doing philosophy of science here on this forum, you are in a similar position. Unlike what most people (clearly the people here) believe, contemporary analytical philosophy is HIGHLY technical, very, very rigorous, and has its own nuances and "common language" that make it difficult to penetrate.
I'm sure that you have at times felt frustrated that you couldn't explain to THIS audience the things you wanted to, because you knew that you could never cast the matter both rigorously and make it accessible. I have felt that same frustration. Thus, it can feel like you are being "strawmanned" simply because you CANNOT explain without insisting that the audience also read 10,000 pages on a small part of the subject as you have.
I get that, Ed! But I'm trying to convey that, while you are, I'm sure, a stellar physicist, when arguing philosophy of science points, you are not seeing the implications of what you are suggesting.
You and Largo seem to convey on me that title... it's an interesting rhetorical tactic.
I hope I've explained: It's not a "tactic." If you are going to do philosophy, then philosophers are going to rise to that challenge. And you ARE helping yourself to all sorts of concepts that you're either not entitled to or that actually undermine other concepts that you also hold dear.
I'm being serious about this point: The BEST thing that physicists could say is something like, "Screw this philosophizing! We'll just keep making progress, and you'll all enjoy the benefits! THAT'S what we do, and I really don't care what philosophical implications our work has, because, you know, SCREW philosophy."
And I'll say, "Yayyyy! Right on! I LOVE physics and any engineering that emerges from it! Keep making the 'progress' you are making! If you need to THINK that you are doing metaphysics in order to be so motivated, then, yes, keep on thinking that. Keep doing what you do!"
Meanwhile, I'll know that you are NOT doing metaphysics. And because of that, I'll have independent reason to "assert," or "suggest," or (gasp) "believe" that there are non-natural aspects of reality that science will NEVER touch upon, and that the attributes of those phenomena tell us something about what has been widely called "God." And that perspective of mine will be a FAR cry from "blind faith." (I can't speak to the basis of the "faith" of others).
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:42pm PT
|
I don't see the need to invoke a God to understand the universe.
That's fine, Ed. Where things go astray is when others "derive" from such statements that:
theist = idiot
science = "there IS no God"
physics = "PROOF that there is no God"
And so on.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:43pm PT
|
The point is that Newton's theory DID have metaphysical implications, whether he was claiming them or not! And the same is true today: Your theories HAVE metaphysical implications, whether you own them or not.
as far as I know, philosophers are not sure that there is metaphysics. So I guess you could interpret anything anyone says as a metaphysical statement.
What's the point? You are going to decide on the validity of some physical statement in terms of its metaphysical interpretation? Good luck with that.
There are a number of competing theories regarding what physics may come next to explain those things we are sure are incomplete in the current theories.
However, the current theories provide a sound way to predict the behavior of the universe within the precision of what we can presently measure. When we measure better, we might actually find variance at that level, and then study it and explain it.
If those calculations provide a precise description of how the universe works, it would seem that the "truth" of how the universe works is an antiquated question. What we know now works, and what we will know in the future will explain why that is so.
I understand that that point of view doesn't have a very interesting metaphysical implication, but I'm not interested in metaphysics, I'm interested in physics.
as for the Mayans, they couldn't have done the similar calculation even in their own location, their lunar calendar was not up to the task. I don't know about their metaphysics, it seems to have been based on the birth and death of the universe on a 63My cycle, if they had picked 63By cycle we could align it with physical cosmology predictions.
On the other hand, there are interesting speculation in modern cosmology that would make the universe eternal (just not our part of it). This would be another problematic issue for your metaphysics, not so for physics, which has gone back and forth regarding this issue as long as physical cosmology has existed. It depends on observation, data, and our theory, all of which change.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 02:58pm PT
|
Again you help yourself to the very point under contention! You are so inured in your empiricism that you honestly DO believe (without, by the way, ANY scientific evidence) that empirical knowledge is the ONLY knowledge there can be.
I don't believe that, it is a commitment that I have made, my choice. And I am totally open to the test of the end of empiricism.
One could rightly ask the question that if the complex instrumentation and facilities required to "experience" the Higgs Boson is the only way to do it, who could verify the results, independently of the team that did. We did have at least two teams that did, independently verify the result, but that leaves the rest of us out in the cold, reading the NYTimes and trying to glean information reported from "the front."
One could rightly ask of physics beyond the Planck Scale, which sets a limit of our knowledge, at least as far as we know now.
There are many issues regarding empiricism, if you want to be philosophical (which you do) but in practice our science (and you can catalog it as "empirical") has been the most successful method for increasing our knowledge of the physical universe, it has provided a solid foundation on which to build the many technologies we enjoy today. No other methodology has come close to matching it.
If it cannot make "metaphysical statements" it is not a loss. Those important parts of metaphysics seem to be incorporated into physics.
The SEP doesn't help matters,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
'"It is not easy to say what metaphysics is. Ancient and Medieval philosophers might have said that metaphysics was, like chemistry or astrology, to be defined by its subject matter: metaphysics was the “science” that studied “being as such” or “the first causes of things” or “things that do not change”. It is no longer possible to define metaphysics that way, for two reasons. First, a philosopher who denied the existence of those things that had once been seen as constituting the subject-matter of metaphysics—first causes or unchanging things—would now be considered to be making thereby a metaphysical assertion. Second, there are many philosophical problems that are now considered to be metaphysical problems (or at least partly metaphysical problems) that are in no way related to first causes or unchanging things—the problem of free will, for example, or the problem of the mental and the physical.'
I presume a philosopher wrote that...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:26pm PT
|
as far as I know, philosophers are not sure that there is metaphysics. So I guess you could interpret anything anyone says as a metaphysical statement.
Please let me know how you arrive at that notion. Metaphysics is one of the four primary branches of philosophy. And even radical skepticism makes a metaphysical claim: Ontology consists of the empty set. Or some such statement.
Beyond such radical skepticism, the set of ontological commitments is going to be more or less "large." And physics HAS its own set of ontological commitments.
It's really ridiculous to say that anything anyone says is a metaphysical statement. But it IS true that many things people say have metaphysical implications (saying something about their ontological commitments).
What's the point? You are going to decide on the validity of some physical statement in terms of its metaphysical interpretation? Good luck with that.
I'm honestly becoming surprised that you are arguing this way. I am CLEARLY not putting the logical order the way you are stating it.
What I have been arguing is that every physical theory HAS metaphysical implications. When one theory replaces another as a "working model," the ontological commitments of physics changes.
Frankly, the universe IS NOT Newtonian. It DOES NOT have the "forces" and "effects" (and for the reasons) that Newton's theory said it did. That's a whole set of metaphysical implications that went out the window post-Einstein.
If those calculations provide a precise description of how the universe works, it would seem that the "truth" of how the universe works is an antiquated question. What we know now works, and what we will know in the future will explain why that is so.
And, just when I think we're making progress, you pitch off the cliff like this. I'm really surprised. You are simply DETERMINED to conflate pragmatism with truth, even given the clear-cut evidence that "what works" in physics is NOT the same as "the way the universe really is."
If you cling to this conflation, then I really don't think that there's any point in continuing this discussion. The only "good" I guess I'll have to think came out of it is that for REASONABLE minds, it clearly cannot be the case that "what works" is THE SAME as "the way the universe really is."
I understand that that point of view doesn't have a very interesting metaphysical implication, but I'm not interested in metaphysics, I'm interested in physics.
And THAT is precisely where I think that physicists OUGHT to reside! The problem is that too many of you then proceed to make very strident metaphysical claims, telling us ALL about "how the universe REALLY is." And THAT you simply are not entitled to do.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:37pm PT
|
There are many issues regarding empiricism, if you want to be philosophical (which you do) but in practice our science (and you can catalog it as "empirical") has been the most successful method for increasing our knowledge of the physical universe, it has provided a solid foundation on which to build the many technologies we enjoy today. No other methodology has come close to matching it.
Again and again and again, you repeat the same conflation: "what works" = "true".
You can repeat it as often as you care to, and it is NOT TRUE.
For you to even recognize what "works," PRESUMES some independent notion of what "true" means. So, you cannot legitimately "define" what is "true" BY appealing to "what works."
Physics is NOT doing genuine metaphysics. It has not "subsumed" metaphysics (or "the important parts") in the slightest! It cannot in-principle do metaphysics, because it cannot in principle DERIVE from "what seems to work at present" the actual truth of "what the universe REALLY is."
As I said before, keep believing (and even arguing, if it makes you feel better) that physics IS doing metaphysics in the only "important" way. I WANT physicist to believe whatever they need to in order to stay motivated to do what they do.
But you are NOT (and in principle cannot be) telling us what "the universe is REALLY all about." Whatever forces and entities you presently believe "really" exist are merely "fictional entities" in a "working model" that does (at present) appear to "work." But there are an infinite number of other "working models" that would have entirely different ontological commitments, and you have NO purely empirical reason to prefer yours over any of those others. You guys settle on one "guess," and you play it until it is falsified. By then, another "better" guess has emerged, and you move over to that one. But that one has very different ontological commitments.
You seamlessly move from one set of ontological commitments to another, never tumbling to the fact that you have abandoned (or radically "refined") sweeping claims about "how the universe REALLY is" for another set of just as sweeping claims.
I'll just end with: The universe IS NOT a Newtonian universe. The universe DOES NOT have the entities and forces (unless you're going to be ambiguous in your meanings) that Newton's theory implied "really" existed.
But, again, just keep thinking that you're doing the only "important" metaphysics. Just understand that non-idiots don't buy it, and we have VERY good reasons for not buying it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:38pm PT
|
Ed...you are feeding the beast.
Well, you have surely showed up without any food in your pocket. LOL
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:46pm PT
|
Alrighty, I think we've looped the loop often enough at this point. I've got better things to do than circumnavigate the loop again.
Now y'all can return to your regularly-scheduled "theist = idiot" echo chamber.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 03:51pm PT
|
"Ed...you are feeding the beast.
Well, you have surely showed up without any food in your pocket. LOL"
Maybe because I don't feel the need to justify anything to him. Sadly you do, he could less what you are writing, he just wants to argue till he wears you out.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 04:54pm PT
|
What can get pretty muddled in these conversations is the words, "understanding," and what we are trying, or NOT trying to understand.
Science looks at what we perceive as physical reality and seeks to "understand" the causal (define it as you will) and mechanistic relations between discrete things and forces to the extent that they can predict what X or Y will do, or where it will be at T1. The means by which they conduct their business is held to be "observer-independent," or objective. That is, WHAT they measure and so forth is what it is outside of consciousness and any subjective taint. It is not only objective in this sense, but it also bears no trace element whatsoever of subjectivity or consciousness itself. A scientific description is, by definition, solely objective. The objective picture of reality gives a remarkably accurate picture of that strata of reality that is syntactic, that is, having to do with structure. The mechanics of physical reality.
All of these discussions of consciousness and God and values and knowing and so forth are not discussions about syntax, but semantics, the realm of consciousness and value and so forth. And every schoolboy knows that syntax and semantics are not selfsame, and that semantics do not create or source syntax, and vica versa.
So it's curious that people would reference physics - a field built on observer (experiential, semantic) independent analysis - in a conversation about consciousness, God, or any other phenomenon that objective analysis is designed to exclude.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 05:29pm PT
|
another metaphysicist heard from...
one wonders why someone would advance an idea which is solely the result of their thought process with no regard for their experience dealing with the world outside of them, and the experiences of others.
were that you could just think the whole thing up on your own and get it right.
curious that idealists and rationalists feel they are apart from their tangible surroundings, and could ignore all that because of a pretty idea they just had...
...and interesting that most of the modern philosophical references distinguishing syntactic and semantic swirl around this issue of a consciousness, it's as if the definitions were intended to make a distinction that an objective approach to understanding consciousness was not possible.
seems convenient.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 06:49pm PT
|
Consciousness is the root of life itself of which without,
all your physics becomes useless and non-existant ......
Life comes from life and never from matter.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:24pm PT
|
Just chant and be happy....https://krishna.org/life-comes-from-life/
Kinda hard to discuss/argue with this logic. "Srila Prabhupada. This material world is a composition of three qualities — sattva, rajas and tamas (goodness, passion and ignorance) — which are working everywhere. These three qualities are present in various proportions in all species of life. For example, some trees produce nice fruit, while others are simply meant for fuel. This is due to the association of particular qualities of nature. Among animals also, these three qualities are present. The cow is in the quality of goodness, the lion in passion, and the monkey in ignorance. According to Darwin, Darwin’s father is a monkey. [Laughter.] He has theorized foolishly.
Dr. Singh. Darwin has said that some species become extinct in the struggle for survival. Those which are capable of surviving will survive, but those which are not will become extinct. So he says survival and extinction go side by side.
Srila Prabhupada. Nothing is extinct. The monkey is not extinct. Darwin’s immediate forefather, the monkey, is still existing.
Karandhara. Darwin said there must be a natural selection. But selection means choice. So who is choosing?
Srila Prabhupada. That must be a person. Who is allowing someone to survive and someone to be killed? There must be some authority with discretion to give such an order. That is our first proposition. Who that authority is, is explained in Bhagavad-gita. Krsna says, mayadhyaksena prakrtih: “Nature is working under My supervision.” (Bg. 9.10)
Dr. Singh. Darwin also says that the different species were not created simultaneously, but evolved gradually.
Srila Prabhupada. Then what is his explanation for how the process of evolution began?
Karandhara. Modern proponents of Darwinism say that the first living organism was created chemically.
Srila Prabhupada. And I say to them, “If life originated from chemicals, and if your science is so advanced, then why can’t you create life biochemically in your laboratories?”
Or read and learn...https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 07:35pm PT
|
There are some things that are self-verifying .... if that's important to you.
MikeL - thanks. Nolo contendre. Is it important to me? Kind of debatable, though I always enjoy hearing your perspective.
But yes, I can see for myself that some things are self-verifying. Like the belief that human achievements are rare and singularly magnificent in the universe is self-verified by our ignorance and inability to determine what, if any, other such achievements exist in the universe. But IMHO, just because we've self-verified our beliefs doesn't mean that they're true.
My point was more about our human speech and belief processes, and how they relate to the question of whether religion is still good for us.
One human said one thing ("And you have no way of testing that religious belief."). Why did they say it? Did they believe it was true (FYI - I'm agnostic about it - I wasn't saying it because I believed it was true)? And if they did believe it was true, why did they believe it was true - how did they arrive at their belief in its truth?
Then a second human said another thing ("Only a complete ignorant total fool says that."). Why did that human say that? Because they believed it was true, or because of some other reason? Did that human honestly believe that another human could only say it because they were a fool? But that foolish belief - that a human can't say (or believe) something unless they believe that it's true - that doesn't make the second speaker a fool?
Why I said what I said was because I was trying to show that the truth value of either statement was not necessarily the reason why we said (or believed) those things - that humans can say and believe things (actually believe things, not just believe them metaphorically) for reasons that are not subsumed by their truth value.
Which seems to me to be the central issue with respect to whether or not religion is still good for us. Do those beliefs help us form more advantageous beliefs and behaviors, or do they not? I don't understand how we can answer that question without understanding how and why we believe things in the first place.
(And sure, humans understand that religion is just metaphor, so the Incas understood that they were only metaphorically sacrificing virgins, and Muslims understand that they're only metaphorically rewarded with 72 virgins in heaven, and our Christian friend understood that the reason his car was no longer out of gas was because Jesus had metaphorically filled his gas tank ...)
But for me, it seems like a big biasing reason we believe things is self-confirmation - to strengthen our belief in our own ... what? ... intelligence, perceptiveness, righteousness, rightness?
And how much do we still need to do that? How much do we need to keep stroking our egos by saying we humans are the singular greatest thing in the universe because humans have not yet been able to detect even one other intelligent species in the universe, and aren't we truly and obectively simply magnificent as a result of how rare our achievements seem to us because of our ignorance of other such achievements? That we (still) need to form beliefs as artifacts of our ego and ignorance rather than artifacts of our information and intelligence.
For me, as Paul said, it's exhausting - the constant relentless self-congratulatory self-confirming self-righteous logically laughable nature of our belief processes.
Ugh - really, we haven't spent enough time pleasuring our brains by admiring our own magnificence, convincing ourselves that we humans are truly a remarkably singular awesome achievement, because of our marvelous inability to detect even a single other intelligent species in the universe, when we could have been spending our belief processes on figuring out how this whole thing (including ourselves) works? And even the best and the brightest among us still need to believe in this human way - these self-confirming logically laughable belief processes?
Ok, if that's how it is then that's how it is. When humans tell you who they are, believe them. This is who we are.
Well maybe not the best and the brightest - IMHO, you and Ed and some others seem to think pretty straight, most of the time. :-)
Thanks for your thoughts.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 08:23pm PT
|
"It's true that IN EUROPE, during the Middle Ages, philosophy was "theistic," but if you think that its only analysis was "theistic" in nature, you are misinformed. And that was a subset of all the philosophy that was being done around the world." -mb1
I knew we could find some common agreement.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 - 09:49pm PT
|
So it's curious that people would reference physics - a field built on observer (experiential, semantic) independent analysis - in a conversation about consciousness, God, or any other phenomenon that objective analysis is designed to exclude
Indeed. That's never been done on What is Mind?.
Or am I mistaken?
Welcome back, Preacher. May the spirit move you!
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2017 - 10:51am PT
|
and Preacher will be on again tonight !!
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2017 - 11:27am PT
|
^^^ How quickly we forget what we've written. Embarrassing.
;>)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2017 - 09:17am PT
|
one wonders why someone would advance an idea which is solely the result of their thought process with no regard for their experience dealing with the world outside of them, and the experiences of others.
Aren't all physical observations mediated by reason?
Australian police charge Vatican cardinal with sex offences
Well then, all religion must be evil.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2017 - 09:39am PT
|
When religions repress people and natural urges
deviance is the natural outcome
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2017 - 11:28am PT
|
Madbolter1 had another meltdown, seems to be a common thing on these threads.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2017 - 06:13pm PT
|
Well said, DMT.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
This one's worth a looksie at least once a year...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWfHkLbMm6w
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Richard, you are amazing. Thanks for keeping the charge.
Lest we forget.
"I care about the truth." Richard Dawkins
I can see perfectly well how a journalist, political scientist, businessman, lawyer, politician etc - one just as articulate and "educated" as Medhi Hasan here - even in the 21st century - could have a worldview that includes winged horse transport to heaven, angels and demons and demonic possession, etc - insofar as he was raised somehow, one way or another, alas, without science edu and training.
...
Above piece was referenced by Sarah Haider in the podcast...
https://www.samharris.org/podcast/item/leaving-islam
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Hogg's Boson on an individual's relationship to religion?
This little piggy went to Planck's scale?
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
Has religion ever done any good???
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
HFCS: "There is in the universe an order to which all material, energy and force must be obedient."
If this were true (and it would be impossible to prove for an entire universe), I wonder why it would be true. Axiomatic? Ideology? What assumptions are being made?
rbord: I can see for myself that some things are self-verifying. Like the belief that human achievements are rare and singularly magnificent in the universe is self-verified by our ignorance and inability to determine what, if any, other such achievements exist in the universe. But IMHO, just because we've self-verified our beliefs doesn't mean that they're true.
You go far far beyond what I would call self-verifying or self-authenticating. What you’ve offered seems to me to be assessments, interpretations, evaluations—all oriented to self-interests, to aggrandizement, to achievements, to extrinsic objectives. Those seem to require concepts, frameworks, measurements, and definitions. One cannot seem to go after objectives without them.
Consciousness is self-verifying and self-authenticating (even though we cannot come to an agreement about what consciousness is here). The same could be said for any emotion. When you have one, you know it, even though you cannot say or define what that emotion is specifically. I suggest that light appears to be self-verifying for most people. I would also say that grace, spirit, etc. (all somewhat religious or spiritual notions) are also self-verifying when folks experience them. It doesn’t matter if they are delusions.
The problem that I see here oftentimes occurs when it folks feel compelled to say what a religious or spiritual notion *really is* or *is not.* Among some folks, it appears to be necessary that one must say what things are or must necessarily be in terms of objectivity, measurability, conceptualization, describability, finitely, etc. If a person cannot say what a thing or notion is in those terms, they must either not know what they are talking about or are unjustified to claim so.
On the other hand, it appears to be common that people talk about all sorts of things that they cannot pin down accurately, completely, or finally.
On my side, I’m fine with all that conventionally. However, in an ultimate sense, I’m not. In the first sense, I’ve gotten clear advice (ahem) from my wife that I need to be nice and friendly with regular people, and not to alienate her. So I make sure I can listen to other people’s stories and tell an occasional interesting story to others that they can relate to. I express friendliness, compassion, and interest in them personally. I try to show family members that we are still all the same people with the same personalities as we were when we were growing up together 60 years ago. I try to talk to my mother-in-law and professional and sports friends in ways that assure them that I am a card-carrying member in their community.
I find this especially easy to do with strangers. But it’s another thing with people the more I am expected to know them. Then, it’s all bullsh*t as far as I’m concerned. It’s just not real.
(i) Solipsism is an undeniable fact as far as I can make out. It’s indisputable. (ii) Nihilism is the same. I see no reason to argue that any particular value is intrinsically more significant than another other value because those items are all pretty much contextualized by community and other cultural elements. I don’t see anything ultimately good or bad, right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, high or low, left or right. I just don’t. It all seems to depend upon self-interested preferences. That’s fiat as far as I’m concerned, and it’s bullsh*t. (iii) There is no interpretation or narrative that is true from what I can make out, and I’ve been really trying to find one that stands all for circumstances for decades now. That includes spirituality, religion, science, the humanities, and whatever else people laud. Where does this leave me?
What “I” see is a display (phenomena) that I cannot fully describe or explain. (But it can be known and experienced.) The display is infinitely detailed: it’s turtles all the way up and down, my lord. (Do you know this parable?) The Bhagavad Gita perhaps best resonates with my personalized experience: I’m a kind of actor in an unbelievably intelligent play or dance. It appears to be my job to fulfill my role as expressively as I can, without subordinating either what I seem to be intrinsically or the role. Neither is paramount.
In that light, religion or spiritual notions are neither good nor bad. The question or declaration seems naive and mis-informed. Things just are.
Myths (such as religion or Greek mythology, for example) inform me of what appears to be what human life is. One just cannot say. Science (and philosophy) *tries* to say what things are and how those entities relate to one another (in somewhat structural ways). However, science or philosophy don’t tell me all that much about how to live, what’s worthy or important, or what I appear to be. From what I can make out, life as I experience it appears to be some kind of cosmic joke—and an absurd one at that. LOL. I appreciate the humor, but I probably take it far too seriously or concretely to become very enlightened by it just yet.
My view today seems to have gotten to . . . : the first part of life is learning what one needs to know to get through life in the external world, objectively. The second part of life appears to be disassembling that knowledge that I gained in the first part. (But I’m told not to worry: if I’m lacking motivation to deconstruct all that Learned in the first part, age and death will do it for me in the second part.)
Hence, I (and some other folks) would suggest a distinction between representation and expression when it comes to the different views of science and religion and their antagonisms. Science intends to find better means of representation. “Here’s what things are (in terms of abstractions.)” Religion, myth, the humanities, and spirituality appears to be more oriented to expressiveness than representation: “Here’s what things feel like (e.g., in terms of stories or narratives or images).”
Which is more truthful to one?
Well, . . . that sort of depends what you’re looking for.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Thanks MikeL. It may be that understanding is beyond my pay grade, or mental abilities.
IMHO, we self-verify beliefs that we don't understand, or can't prove. And again, maybe that's the best we can do - that's just part of our human condition and ability to form beliefs (and more importantly, believe them!) in an environment of incomplete information.
IMHO, as we gain more information, we're able to verify things on a wider level, and we don't need to self-verify beliefs that we need to believe, but that may not be true. Sacrificing virgins? The unparalleled awesomeness of our consciousness? The unbearable lightness of blue? That a 5 year old black girl is less innocent and less in need of protection than a 5 year old white girl? Sure, ok. Belief? Sure. Truth? I'm not so sure.
Absent our self-verifying belief processes, I expect that we'd find ourselves in the corner sucking our thumbs, which may not have worked out so well for us in an evolutionary sense. And who knows - maybe dolphins wouldn't be as good as we humans (with our self-verifying consciousness) are at ruling the world; they probably don't even know what blue looks like!
But how would we know? What information or evidence do we have that the remarkable singularity of our consciousness is not matched by the self-verified belief that a rock has about itself?
IMHO, we just believe our beliefs for the reasons that we believe them, not necessarily because our beliefs are true. I wonder what those reasons are, and whether we'd be able to believe them if we did learn what they are?m
For me, that our belief in our consciousness is self-verified and can only be self-verified is evidence that we humans have the ability to believe something just by telling ourslves to believe it. Pretty handy ability, if you're a human, or if your daughter is white.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
HFCS: "There is in the universe an order to which all material, energy, and force must be obedient."
Yes, 100% correct ......
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
Except I didn't write it. Those are Paul's words. MikeL per usual, misquotes. But I did agree with it. That, btw, WB, is causation / mechanistics. Welcome to the club.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Nobody ever denied causation.
Maybe idiots.
But God is de facto absolute fact of which there is absolutely no escape.
Only brainwashed idiots deny ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
rbord: . . . That a 5 year old black girl is less innocent and less in need of protection than a 5 year old white girl? Sure, ok. Belief? Sure. Truth? I'm not so sure. . . . we just believe our beliefs for the reasons that we believe them, not necessarily because our beliefs are true. I wonder what those reasons are, and whether we'd be able to believe them if we did learn what they are?
Ha-ha. You’re in the mix, my friend. You’re thinking, feeling, sensing your own consciousness. You do not seem to be espousing dogma or ideology. You question whether there is truth, and you seem to be looking candidly at beliefs. You could be a student of either Derrida or Socrates.
(Pssst, . . . there are no pay grades that matter. What matters to you is what matters. Look at DMT.)
HFCS: MikeL per usual, misquotes.
My apologies, really.
Duck: Nobody ever denied causation.
And nobody ever proved it, either. We might need to learn how to live in that ambiguous space.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
Ambiguous space is tough for a lot of people to wrap their heads around.....they want clarity even the made up kind.
|
|
Craig Fry
Trad climber
So Cal.
|
|
I was thinking of you MikeL when I saw this
If a single person exists beside You
Then the solipsism argument completely dissolves
because you can collaborate between minds
I think this should be debated on the mind thread and really has no application when discussing science and Facts
which depend on more than one mind existing
which is a Fact
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
And nobody ever proved it, either. (Causation)
I can prove it instantly when you hit the brick wall at 100 mph in your car .....
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
Has religion ever done any good???
Yes. (back to the original question)
But you don't want to hear about and it would be very very boring.
Much more interesting to worry and talk about how horrible it is.
If the majority of people recognized the truth about religion, this thread would not exist.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Craig: I think this should be debated on the mind thread and really has no application when discussing science and Facts.
(Unbelievable. Do you have any idea what you’re talking about when you write?)
Here we are talking about the value of religion. How does science and Facts (mind the capitalization) have a place in the conversation?
What is a “fact,” Craig?
Your ideas about science is naive. I think MB1 has made it clear if you understood anything he wrote in this thread.
Duck: I can prove it instantly when you hit the brick wall at 100 mph in your car .....
No you can’t, and you should know that. You’d be reporting the content of your experience of your perceptions, that’s all.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Nope.
You'd prove it to yourself right then and there .....
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
You're speculating.
P.S. I'm told that indicates a poor fund of knowledge.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 1050 of total 1050 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!