The Second Apocalypse
Miscellaneous Chatter => Philosophy & Science => Topic started by: TLEILAXU on November 13, 2017, 03:23:32 pm
-
I believe that there is a God, in a very trivial and general sense. And free will is trivially false.
Life (capital L) as we know it is basically a system that works towards two things: increased complexity (intelligence) and decreased chaos (entropy).
Entropy will always increase for an isolated system.
In that sense, life is not ontologically different from the rest of matter. Free energy goes in, the system consumes to maintain a steady state, heat comes out.
What is special about is that we are configurations of matter aware of ourselves and the universe. I would love to live long enough to see how it all ends.
-
Evolution didn't make you, Hershey - you're too cute!
(https://i.imgur.com/O880BP6.jpg)
-
I forgot to answer the question: What do you believe?
No gods. No demons. Just people who think they are.
-
I forgot to answer the question: What do you believe?
No gods. No demons. Just people who think they are.
You and I have talked a little about our disdain for religion. But, I do believe in a higher being or what have you. I think Karma is an actual thing. In fact, I preach it to my kids. Example - my daughter said or did something wrong to me, can remember exactly what and when she turned around and went in the kitchen, turned the corner, she fell flat on her face. I laughed and said that's what Karma is all about. Then tried explaining it to her, who is only 7 and my son (5). Now, Isaiah thinks that when you do something bad, you'll fall on the kitchen floor...lol.
I just can't stand organized religion when they try and push it in your face. I hate it. I will be ignorant and rude to the Jehovah's Witness who shows up on my porch and tells me I'm going to he'll if I don't follow their religion.
Its basically this. I'd call myself a Christian, because that's what I was raised. I am deeply torn when it comes to what I believe in that book and what I don't. But, I know that Jesus, if he was even real or what have you, laid out a lot of ways to lead a good life. Simple things. Treat everyone the same, help out each other and so on. I just wanna be the best human being I can be, and I admit, its tough sometimes.
My daughter and son go to church every Sunday with their Grandma. She is hugely devote, and it has rubbed off more on my daughter than son. But, I have no problem with it. To each his own, I say. Just don't come knocking on my door telling me how to live my life.
-
I forgot to answer the question: What do you believe?
No gods. No demons. Just people who think they are.
Pretty sure my son falls in the latter category ( i.e. he thinks he's a demon )
-
When I was in college, I answered the door naked once when JW showed up knocking. The mother slapped her hand on her daughter's eyes, her daughter was trying to squirm out of her hold exclaiming, "let me see, let me see!". I wouldn't do that now, of course.
In my current incarnation, I'm what you would call a liberal christian ( to overly generalize for ease of conversation ) - which is a christian who doesn't believe people go to hell just because they aren't Christians. A quick run down of the 3 basic categories ( again, overly simplifying for conversation - there are over 1600 denominations around the world, all full of texture, depth and identity ). Fundamentalists place going to church as or more important than the bible. Evangelicals put the bible ( as written word, verbatim best they can ) above going to church. Both F and E typically believe you have to "accept" Christ to be saved ( again, some texture - some believe Jews are exceptions, etc ). Liberal Christians believe it's not important to be a bible scholar to enter heaven ( a criticism of the Evangelicals ), but anyone who "walks" the life of Christ is saved ( or at least values/aims for that walk, nobody is perfect ). When Jesus says the only way to the father is through him ( bp ), we take that to mean living his life/living a "good" life, not requiring one to "accept him as lord and savior". We view the ( to use Bakker language ) endless disputation on the meaning of passages of the bible, the infighting among Christians on the "specifics" to be a waste of time and worse leading down the wrong path, driving away others. So Liberal Christians agree with the major tenets of the bible and try to shirk off the self-inflicted wounds of traditional Christendom ( hypocrisy, cafeteria sin tolerance, license for bad behavior ) ... so those really badly behaving people out there that claim they're saved giving them the green light to do whatever they like ... liberal Christians have news for them, they're not. Atheists can be saved to our point of view ( questioning God's existence gives God a ping of pride, to our way of thinking ). If you can follow just the one ( hardest ) directive of Christ, to love your enemies, the rest all falls into place and you need not read more on how to live from the bible or anything else. Of course, it can be a lot of fun to do so, but not required if you can actually love your enemies. The "proselytizing" we do is to walk that walk among others, lead by example - spread "good" if you will, not try to "turn" anyone.
Your position on religion is understandable - religion is run by massive numbers of humans, all fraught with error and evil. Bit of advice, don't let your sour view on religion deprive you of some cool stuff. Like reading the rich texts from various "gurus" for example. The mistake ( some ) evangelicals make is to disregard the amazing reads out there which dispute or criticize religion with some even "avoiding" science, which is sad to miss out on so much humanity. Atheists can make the same mistake in the other direction - some of the spiritual history and texts are wild, fun stuff to read. Religious history is the history of humanity - to avoid/disregard them is to miss out on some seriously cool history and exposure to wild-ass intellectuals.
-
I believe I have a lot to do and very little time to get it all done.
-
I believe I have a lot to do and very little time to get it all done.
Great, H - just drop the "I believe I'll have another beer" response - bring it on, man! WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?
-
WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE?
Fixed that for you ;)
-
I believe that Starcraft 2 30GB download is stupid as fuck, and completely blame William for this.
-
I forgot to answer the question: What do you believe?
No gods. No demons. Just people who think they are.
Did you really not participate in this thread the first time around :P?
-
I forgot to answer the question: What do you believe?
No gods. No demons. Just people who think they are.
Did you really not participate in this thread the first time around :P?
Indeed until just now I hadn't gone through it all. Some topics I consciously avoided in th epast, this was one of them.
Fascinating topic. I'm glad I wasn't around to ruin it with my drivel - its a great brick in the monument.
Also identifies a rather morose picture of what the forum has become. Good-tempered deep conversations with different perspectives maintained over pages of posts in the days of old, now new posts are short and silly one liners with longer posts totally ignored.
We are but a shadow. [/overly dramatic]
-
What do I believe? As in what waiting there for us in the afterlife? I don't know. I have my preconceived notions of what should happen through my Christian upbringing. Heaven, hell, the whole deal. Do I truly believe it? No, no I don't.
As I've gotten older, and looked at it in my own deductive ways and thought through these things, here is what I believe.
I believe that our body's rot and become part of the earth again. Simple.
I believe that there is a part of us, our consciousness/soul, what have you, that is something that will always be yours. It is you, in the cosmic scheme of things. I've read a whole lot and watched on near death experiences. Many see a white light that beckons them, what we could perceive as heaven, not me. I do believe it is a higher being though and that our soul goes out into the cosmos, to become something else, to get an upgrade or something like that.
I've also seen near death experiences where people felt that they went to hell. Maybe this is the opposite of the light, the darkness. And wether corny or not, that in the cosmos there is a battle off light vs darkness, evil vs good.
All, I know is there is a part of me that will always be around, forever. Where it goes, what becomes of it, I have no clue. I just believe there is more after death and a part of all of us will survive death.
-
..., now new posts are short and silly one liners with longer posts totally ignored.
We are but a shadow. [/overly dramatic]
... a part of all of us will survive death.
I'm taking my games and miniatures with me, motha fuckas!
-
What do I believe? As in what waiting there for us in the afterlife? I don't know. I have my preconceived notions of what should happen through my Christian upbringing. Heaven, hell, the whole deal. Do I truly believe it? No, no I don't.
As I've gotten older, and looked at it in my own deductive ways and thought through these things, here is what I believe.
I believe that our body's rot and become part of the earth again. Simple.
I believe that there is a part of us, our consciousness/soul, what have you, that is something that will always be yours. It is you, in the cosmic scheme of things. I've read a whole lot and watched on near death experiences. Many see a white light that beckons them, what we could perceive as heaven, not me. I do believe it is a higher being though and that our soul goes out into the cosmos, to become something else, to get an upgrade or something like that.
I've also seen near death experiences where people felt that they went to hell. Maybe this is the opposite of the light, the darkness. And wether corny or not, that in the cosmos there is a battle off light vs darkness, evil vs good.
All, I know is there is a part of me that will always be around, forever. Where it goes, what becomes of it, I have no clue. I just believe there is more after death and a part of all of us will survive death.
What would you do if you woke up tomorrow absolutely certain that death was absolute? How would your beliefs, your goals and your drives change?
-
What would you do if you woke up tomorrow absolutely certain that death was absolute? How would your beliefs, your goals and your drives change?
Absollute as there is nothing? Well, one, how could that be proved? Other than that, nothing would change. Is live my life to the fullest, being the best person I can be. And, well, it is what it is. I just don't see how that could ever be certain.
-
What would you do if you woke up tomorrow absolutely certain that death was absolute? How would your beliefs, your goals and your drives change?
All a guess, of course. Relieved and terrified. The terror would subside rather quickly and probably continue living on the way I've been, but with less "concern".
-
What would you do if you woke up tomorrow absolutely certain that death was absolute? How would your beliefs, your goals and your drives change?
Absollute as there is nothing? Well, one, how could that be proved? Other than that, nothing would change. Is live my life to the fullest, being the best person I can be. And, well, it is what it is. I just don't see how that could ever be certain.
Interesting. Of course, my question was hypothetically speaking.
What would you do if you woke up tomorrow absolutely certain that death was absolute? How would your beliefs, your goals and your drives change?
All a guess, of course. Relieved and terrified. The terror would subside rather quickly and probably continue living on the way I've been, but with less "concern".
Less concern because of no damnation?
-
All a guess, of course. Relieved and terrified. The terror would subside rather quickly and probably continue living on the way I've been, but with less "concern".
Less concern because of no damnation?
Good question - I guess so - just the idea of that makes it seem my self-perceived failures are finite and maybe less frustrating ( just guessing, can't say for sure what my reaction would be if I actually come to know this ). That and the idea my whole life being visible to the cosmos makes me queasy even though I know embarrassment is an illusion, but still feel it. A few of my previous incarnations have been spiritually paranoid ( is someone out there just fucking with me! ).
-
Tao, please explain to me, how in our lifetime any of these questions would be answered? Aliens? Doesn't mean there isn't an afterlife.
ETA: nnot saying it won't shock the people of Earth, lose faith and so on. It just doesn't mean that a part of us (one that I feel will never die) doesn't go on to somewhere else, as I explained. A higher consciousness, so to say. I still don't understand that in any way shape or form there can ever be definitive evidence of nothing in the afterlife. You said Absolute, I would use the word Oblivion.
-
Tao, please explain to me, how in our lifetime any of these questions would be answered? Aliens? Doesn't mean there isn't an afterlife.
I can't find a previous post referencing your comment - was it directed at me mistakenly? Direct me to the post ( maybe I lied ), but I believe/know there is an afterlife and can share my explanation reconciling the physical with the meta-physical ( probably will be viewed as sad among many of you - though simplistic, I'm pretty sure I've never come across same description - original TH material for those bored enough to hear it ).
-
What would you do if you woke up tomorrow absolutely certain that death was absolute? How would your beliefs, your goals and your drives change?
...
I live my life to the fullest, being the best person I can be.
What would you do if you woke up tomorrow absolutely certain that death was absolute? How would your beliefs, your goals and your drives change?
All a guess, of course. Relieved and terrified. The terror would subside rather quickly and probably continue living on the way I've been, but with less "concern".
I think I'm somewhere along these lines regarding the initial question posed.
I honestly feel that the existence of an eternal afterlife drains all meaning from living. What is the point of your flicker of life when all that matters happens after? (rhetorical question, I'm not asking someone for an answer). I probably feel something along the lines of Koringhus and his jump off the cliff - if there is an eternity, might as well start it now. (btw, I'm not suicidal or recommending that anyone). Not sure how to articulate it otherwise, I just feel that life is far more meaningful when its all you have.
I also ultimately don't see a difference between the two options either, since a person can choose to live their life any way they like, regardless of their belief structure. People who do good, and people who do bad, exist on both sides of the line.
-
I honestly feel that the existence of an eternal afterlife drains all meaning from living. What is the point of your flicker of life when all that matters happens after? (rhetorical question, I'm not asking someone for an answer). I probably feel something along the lines of Koringhus and his jump off the cliff - if there is an eternity, might as well start it now. (btw, I'm not suicidal or recommending that anyone). Not sure how to articulate it otherwise, I just feel that life is far more meaningful when its all you have.
I also ultimately don't see a difference between the two options either, since a person can choose to live their life any way they like, regardless of their belief structure. People who do good, and people who do bad, exist on both sides of the line.
I take your point, Wilshire - there's something to that, if this is all we have, making it all the more important to live it. I suspect my survival instinct is at least above average ( making me a coward, he who runs away lives to run away another day ... point of pride with me :) ). In the beautiful words of Roy Batty, "I want more life, fucker". I so so hope there's an afterlife, even if that means you're right in that it reduces the meaning/significance of said life ( unless of course it means eternal fire - in that case, I'm with you all the way! ). But, you're not necessarily correct - an afterlife is wide open, which could be our experience here is important for our growth after death ( and not a reward/penalty phase of existence, but continuation in some fashion ).
-
Wilshire, id say, that it dosmmesnt diminish our life here on Earth, its just the next step in the evolution in what we will ultimately end up becoming. I said, I think that what you do on Earth matters and, and where you continue cosmic scheme of things might be drastically different. These are the musings of a 2 year associate degree, Quality Control worker for Coke. Don't take em seriously, just what I think. And, I don't think it makes life any less worth living.
-
]I can't find a previous post referencing your comment - was it directed at me mistakenly?
Excuse me. You never referenced anything Tao. I was simply Asking you how it could ever be proven, that's all. I'm not interested in a study, just your thoughts if you think it can be proven.
-
]I can't find a previous post referencing your comment - was it directed at me mistakenly?
Excuse me. You never referenced anything Tao. I was simply Asking you how it could ever be proven, that's all. I'm not interested in a study, just your thoughts if you think it can be proven.
We can't prove it to each other for the same reason we cannot see our souls, but we can prove it to ourselves. I'm open to I could well be deluded, but I claim I see God. I get it, the really real world has no color or sound and our brains are deliberately generating the conscious experience of color and sound for survival advantage ... but the beauty of this experience is Godly. Trees are purty. To me anyways :D
-
I just don't follow why some people (not anyone here) would think that life ending (meaning nothing is after), if true, means that life is meaningless or pointless. Consider, you know that a video game will end, but you still play it. The whole point is to go through (with) it.
I don't know, I don't predicate meaning on continuance. But I know my way of thinking about a lot of things isn't very representative...
-
Consider, you know that a video game will end, but you still play it. The whole point is to go through (with) it.
I like that
-
I also ultimately don't see a difference between the two options either, since a person can choose to live their life any way they like, regardless of their belief structure. People who do good, and people who do bad, exist on both sides of the line.
Well, in one of the options, you die - forever- and in the other you're still around albeit not in the same shape or something.
I just don't follow why some people (not anyone here) would think that life ending (meaning nothing is after), if true, means that life is meaningless or pointless. Consider, you know that a video game will end, but you still play it. The whole point is to go through (with) it.
I don't know, I don't predicate meaning on continuance. But I know my way of thinking about a lot of things isn't very representative...
I think it's because they predicate meaning on a "deeper" level of existence rather than the mundane physical reality we live in, and not having an afterlife for their souls excludes this deeper metaphysical existence.
-
I think it's because they predicate meaning on a "deeper" level of existence rather than the mundane physical reality we live in, and not having an afterlife for their souls excludes this deeper metaphysical existence.
Well said, thanks. Otherwise it seems to me we're just machines marveling that we know we are. If nothing more beyond what we can discover, why marvel at anything?
Another question: is the view there's nothing more for us preclude there's nothing more at all? Perhaps there are beings in the after, just not us ... that would be a real kick in the dick, wouldn't it?
So Wilshire/H ... let's say we definitely figured out the show doesn't go on. Would your state of being/view/self satisfaction be the same regardless if there was no metaphyscial reality at all vs there was, just for other species in the universe, but not for us? I think this is where the rubber meets the road on this ...
-
Well said, thanks. Otherwise it seems to me we're just machines marveling that we know we are. If nothing more beyond what we can discover, why marvel at anything?
Another question: is the view there's nothing more for us preclude there's nothing more at all? Perhaps there are beings in the after, just not us ... that would be a real kick in the dick, wouldn't it?
So Wilshire/H ... let's say we definitely figured out the show doesn't go on. Would your state of being/view/self satisfaction be the same regardless if there was no metaphyscial reality at all vs there was, just for other species in the universe, but not for us? I think this is where the rubber meets the road on this ...
To me? Yeah, it's all the same. I don't predicate my day to day activity on it having some deeper, higher, or metaphysical meaning, connotation, or existence. In fact, I don't predicate anything on that, because I have no idea if any of it is or could be real. I don't see why it even matters. What I do now has meaning, the meaning being to live. I take care of my wife and family. I experience life and things along the way. Why do I need a metaphysical self for this? Everything I need is contained within my body. I have systems and functions and those allow me to do what I do.
Of course I have the delusion that what I experience is real and I go on that alone. I don't entertain any idea that something happens to "me" when I am dead. Under what auspices should I think that "I" am eternal? Simply because I want that to be true?
So, if some other species out there does have a soul and lives eternally, I don't see how it has bearing on me. Does it sound neat? Sure, I guess. But I have no idea what it entails, so I have no idea if it's a superior way to be. Maybe it is and I'd be a bit jealous. Maybe it's not and it'd be an awful system, like Eärwa.
-
Indeed until just now I hadn't gone through it all. Some topics I consciously avoided in th epast, this was one of them.
Fascinating topic. I'm glad I wasn't around to ruin it with my drivel - its a great brick in the monument.
Also identifies a rather morose picture of what the forum has become. Good-tempered deep conversations with different perspectives maintained over pages of posts in the days of old, now new posts are short and silly one liners with longer posts totally ignored.
We are but a shadow. [/overly dramatic]
Lmao.
I'm taking my games and miniatures with me, motha fuckas!
"Bury me with my money" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1eNW7GG_Q8) ;).
I honestly feel that the existence of an eternal afterlife drains all meaning from living. What is the point of your flicker of life when all that matters happens after? (rhetorical question, I'm not asking someone for an answer). I probably feel something along the lines of Koringhus and his jump off the cliff - if there is an eternity, might as well start it now. (btw, I'm not suicidal or recommending that anyone). Not sure how to articulate it otherwise, I just feel that life is far more meaningful when its all you have.
And, in fact, many religions have enduring stances on suicide (for and against), which I've always found interesting as per comments like yours here.
Probably repeating Past Madness, even in this thread, but if eternal oblivion (because eternity is the given that my brain both assumes and has never been able to process, despite much anxiety over the course of my life), then it is incumbent on those living to make this life on earth thing as amazing and fulfilling in as many instances as we possibly can.
I mean, I'm by no means a utilitarian, but is this really the "best" we can do? (Obviously, not directed at you specifically, #2.)
I also ultimately don't see a difference between the two options either, since a person can choose to live their life any way they like, regardless of their belief structure. People who do good, and people who do bad, exist on both sides of the line.
Nitpicking but that's just not accurate. For instance, in context of your above suicide commentary, suicide is automatic Damnation as far as I recall my Roman Catholic upbringing but - as I poorly understand it - grants you a place with the Almighty (bonus virgins to endlessly defile) in certain sects of Islam, supposing you take a couple infidels with you.
Behaving outside of your ideological dictates just isn't possible for most *true believers.* (Which highlights once again why these conversations get so convoluted and unintelligible so quickly, especially in contexts not here, where most of us have been cracked open to certain degrees by Bakker's writings.)
But, you're not necessarily correct - an afterlife is wide open, which could be our experience here is important for our growth after death ( and not a reward/penalty phase of existence, but continuation in some fashion ).
Again, barring our own Inverse Fire, we just have no way knowing (and even in conversations regarding Earwa's reality, the IF's accuracy is subject to much debate). I happen to agree - as I believe Past Madness also did (though, I should really read his old posts before speaking for him) - that I find the idea of humans having it "all figured out" unlikely.
But again - as noted - this conversation always just brings me back to doing better now for ourselves and more importantly for any of those (un)lucky enough to come after us currently contemporary living beings. Hell, take the reincarnation stance and pay it forward to your future self, ffs (not you in specific, Tao, the Royal You - that is to say, all of us).
We can't prove it to each other for the same reason we cannot see our souls, but we can prove it to ourselves. I'm open to I could well be deluded, but I claim I see God. I get it, the really real world has no color or sound and our brains are deliberately generating the conscious experience of color and sound for survival advantage ... but the beauty of this experience is Godly. Trees are purty. To me anyways :D
Interesting, Tao. I haven't asked - though I think it came up a couple pages ago in your original post in thread - but are you devout?
I just don't follow why some people (not anyone here) would think that life ending (meaning nothing is after), if true, means that life is meaningless or pointless. Consider, you know that a video game will end, but you still play it. The whole point is to go through (with) it.
I think it becomes problematic because many of us are raised *inside* (differing) ideologies. Thus, instead of just doing playing the game as best we can, the starting conditions for most people are to quibble and quake as we worry about the possibility of our eternal souls and acting in accordance with the rules dictated by the Magical Belief Lottery Winning Ideology (something something Bakkerism ;)).
As per Fanayal, the majority of the world is still at Shimeh, screaming at each other across the fields "Who is the true voice of God?" while we fuck-kill-repeat the vicious cycle.
Perhaps, a "God-less" generation of atheists or agnostics will do much better or worse moving forward ;).
Well said, thanks. Otherwise it seems to me we're just machines marveling that we know we are. If nothing more beyond what we can discover, why marvel at anything?
Because it is absurd. Because why this rather than nothing? Because what is this? Just what the fuck is going on here?
Living should engender marvel and awe.
-
I just don't follow why some people (not anyone here) would think that life ending (meaning nothing is after), if true, means that life is meaningless or pointless. Consider, you know that a video game will end, but you still play it. The whole point is to go through (with) it.
I think it becomes problematic because many of us are raised *inside* (differing) ideologies. Thus, instead of just doing playing the game as best we can, the starting conditions for most people are to quibble and quake as we worry about the possibility of our eternal souls and acting in accordance with the rules dictated by the Magical Belief Lottery Winning Ideology (something something Bakkerism ;)).
As per Fanayal, the majority of the world is still at Shimeh, screaming at each other across the fields "Who is the true voice of God?" while we fuck-kill-repeat the vicious cycle.
Perhaps, a "God-less" generation of atheists or agnostics will do much better or worse moving forward ;).
I think it's all about the same, because while it isn't necessarily "God" it's something and that something probably isn't much better.
Well said, thanks. Otherwise it seems to me we're just machines marveling that we know we are. If nothing more beyond what we can discover, why marvel at anything?
Because it is absurd. Because why this rather than nothing? Because what is this? Just what the fuck is going on here?
Living should engender marvel and awe.
I think a grown (rather than assembled) machine that can know itself is actually pretty amazing and marvelous. But that's just me.
-
are you devout?
By my thinking, yes - not sure if I "fulfill" the definition of devout. I piss people off more than live a spiritual life. But if your ask is am I "confident", yes, I am; but, I follow no code or equation or ritual or custom or ...
Living should engender marvel and awe.
Agreed, but pointless if we sport no soul/free will. Wow, we're machines! Ain't that a kick in the head!
that something probably isn't much better.
What makes you say that? Kind of odd, thinking there's no tomorrow, but if there is it likely sucks.
I think a grown (rather than assembled) machine that can know itself is actually pretty amazing and marvelous. But that's just me.
Why so? What exactly is enabling us to see this? Or is that the marvel - that there's nothing more, yet we evolved to this level of awareness? A toaster coming to realize it toasts bread - just evolving to do something other, like burn fingers. Just doesn't sound all that impressive to me, but to each his/her own.
-
Living should engender marvel and awe.
Agreed, but pointless if we sport no soul/free will. Wow, we're machines! Ain't that a kick in the head!
Fucking Saturdays so no forum time - spent my morning in kitchen, as per usual but I saw this as we're leaving the house and needed to respond.
I'll take this experience - terror, awe, and all, over never having known this existence, whatever may come.
-
Why so? What exactly is enabling us to see this? Or is that the marvel - that there's nothing more, yet we evolved to this level of awareness? A toaster coming to realize it toasts bread - just evolving to do something other, like burn fingers.
This is the quandary of men, as also mentioned in TDTCB. We're in the circle of beasts, yet we possess intellect.
Just doesn't sound all that impressive to me, but to each his/her own.
The machinery of the world is logos my friend.
(http://queenmobs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/apoptosome.jpg)
-
Post mortem nihil este, ipsaque mors nihil.
And:
Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
-
Post mortem nihil este, ipsaque mors nihil.
And:
Life is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Noice! You're quoting one of my all time fav's in the second quote.
-
@Madness
But Catholics commit suicide all the time. People convert religions, take up new banners, act outside of the laws and constraints of the system that they pretend is absolute. So, like I said, people do what they will regardless of their belief structure - how many pedophilic priests are there? Especially for systems which allow for "oops, I'm sorry - can I go to eternal happiness afterlife now?" - "Well, since you asked, come on in!" there really isn't anything stopping people from doing whatever they want.
@TH(?)
Or whoever asked if anything would change for me if we found out the afterlife was something in-particular: Well, if we found out that there was nothing, or that we couldn't get to it, literally nothing would be different for me. I don't use metaphysics to justify my actions. If we found out that there was a 'right' afterlife, I suppose I'd play the game just like I do everything else in life - minimize work that maximizes long term positive outcomes. If that meant mass murder to achieve subjective dominance over a particular corner of eternity that I could live in happiness and control forever - I'd be all over it.
But, per Madness, absent our own IF, I don't see that happening, so I again don't see how it matters either way. I'm content with maximizing local happiness.
-
I think a grown (rather than assembled) machine that can know itself is actually pretty amazing and marvelous. But that's just me.
Why so? What exactly is enabling us to see this? Or is that the marvel - that there's nothing more, yet we evolved to this level of awareness? A toaster coming to realize it toasts bread - just evolving to do something other, like burn fingers. Just doesn't sound all that impressive to me, but to each his/her own.
But we assembled a toaster, to toast bread. I mean, it would impress me if the toaster suddenly gained self-awareness without someone building it in.
What's amazing to me is that we can do some pretty crazy things with our monkey brains that weren't even assembled, but rather grown. To me, that is astounding. That I can even convey this idea to you is pretty astounding.
-
That I can even convey this idea to you is pretty astounding.
If no soul, no after, no identity - then simple complexity. I would say your astonishment is evidence there is more than what is visible/learnable. What evolutionary advantage does astonishment lend? Not saying all evolutionary driven outcomes ( are there any other? ) are for advantage, of course - just suspect it's your "free will" that finds this all astonishing :) ... for which mine does too!
-
I've seen what I can only describe as astonishment in many pets. Ever see a magic trick done for a dog?
Not sure why you need free will, a soul, eternal life, and a god, to feel things...
Emotions are felt, whether we're machines or not.
-
I've seen what I can only describe as astonishment in many pets. Ever see a magic trick done for a dog?
Not sure why you need free will, a soul, eternal life, and a god, to feel things...
Emotions are felt, whether we're machines or not.
Agreed, you don't need those things to feel things. I concede consciousness can probably be achieved without free will/soul. My point is we don't have free will if we have no soul. Our perception of free will is the result of complex calculations ( the darkness that comes before ). "Holy shit, I'm a machine!" is not enough for me to "believe" we have free will. There's more to it.
-
@Madness
But Catholics commit suicide all the time. People convert religions, take up new banners, act outside of the laws and constraints of the system that they pretend is absolute. So, like I said, people do what they will regardless of their belief structure - how many pedophilic priests are there? Especially for systems which allow for "oops, I'm sorry - can I go to eternal happiness afterlife now?" - "Well, since you asked, come on in!" there really isn't anything stopping people from doing whatever they want.
True say.
If at any time they are "right" (momentarily winning the Magical Belief Lottery) and act outside of their ideology, though, they're no less Damned? I suppose I was more trying to highlight that even people who don't "follow the rules" of their particular belief system, still - at least in some cases - experience cognitive dissonance as per their behaviors, probably... I would think.
Why so? What exactly is enabling us to see this? Or is that the marvel - that there's nothing more, yet we evolved to this level of awareness? A toaster coming to realize it toasts bread - just evolving to do something other, like burn fingers. Just doesn't sound all that impressive to me, but to each his/her own.
But we assembled a toaster, to toast bread. I mean, it would impress me if the toaster suddenly gained self-awareness without someone building it in.
"What is my purpose?" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7HmltUWXgs)
If no soul, no after, no identity - then simple complexity. I would say your astonishment is evidence there is more than what is visible/learnable. What evolutionary advantage does astonishment lend? Not saying all evolutionary driven outcomes ( are there any other? ) are for advantage, of course - just suspect it's your "free will" that finds this all astonishing :) ... for which mine does too!
Agreed, you don't need those things to feel things. I concede consciousness can probably be achieved without free will/soul. My point is we don't have free will if we have no soul. Our perception of free will is the result of complex calculations ( the darkness that comes before ). "Holy shit, I'm a machine!" is not enough for me to "believe" we have free will. There's more to it.
I'll admit to being slightly confounded by your perspective, Tao.
-
I've seen what I can only describe as astonishment in many pets. Ever see a magic trick done for a dog?
Not sure why you need free will, a soul, eternal life, and a god, to feel things...
Emotions are felt, whether we're machines or not.
Agreed, you don't need those things to feel things. I concede consciousness can probably be achieved without free will/soul. My point is we don't have free will if we have no soul. Our perception of free will is the result of complex calculations ( the darkness that comes before ). "Holy shit, I'm a machine!" is not enough for me to "believe" we have free will. There's more to it.
We've spoken before about this, several times, and while I get that that's the crux of your perspective, I'm not sure how you're applying it to this discussion specifically.
Madness, to summarize TH belief before things get too tangled:
If the universe is all cause-effect, then it doesn't make sense that humans have something that exists outside of that. If, though, a soul exists, then the the cause-effect chain is broken and free will can exist.
-
Madness, to summarize TH belief before things get too tangled:
If the universe is all cause-effect, then it doesn't make sense that humans have something that exists outside of that. If, though, a soul exists, then the the cause-effect chain is broken and free will can exist.
You said it better than I can, Wilshire - you're now my official spokesperson ;)
Did I derail the discussion? Apologies, the title is something about what do we believe: we having a soul/free will is what I believe and if I'm wrong, then we do not have free will. But I'll shut up now if I'm derailing ( not being defensive ).
-
Uh, maybe not quite yet. Probably just because I've had this exact conversation with you a few times already, but you're right its topically relevant :) .
-
I've seen what I can only describe as astonishment in many pets. Ever see a magic trick done for a dog?
Not sure why you need free will, a soul, eternal life, and a god, to feel things...
Emotions are felt, whether we're machines or not.
Agreed, you don't need those things to feel things. I concede consciousness can probably be achieved without free will/soul. My point is we don't have free will if we have no soul. Our perception of free will is the result of complex calculations ( the darkness that comes before ). "Holy shit, I'm a machine!" is not enough for me to "believe" we have free will. There's more to it.
We've spoken before about this, several times, and while I get that that's the crux of your perspective, I'm not sure how you're applying it to this discussion specifically.
Madness, to summarize TH belief before things get too tangled:
If the universe is all cause-effect, then it doesn't make sense that humans have something that exists outside of that. If, though, a soul exists, then the the cause-effect chain is broken and free will can exist.
The thing is, our worldviews are shaped by our cultures, by the things preceding us. Just notice how we speak about these things. "We are just machines" "With no free will it's simply complexity" "The mundane world vs. a deeper metaphysics". We are haunted by the spectre of a dualism that has followed us for thousands of years, and we feel reduced when we think about the notion that there is "nothing more".
But there's a World out there, a world that defies our notion of what it should be. What would a God of the physical be like?
-
Tao, if we are machines, then id like to know in the hell the scientific community is trying to build fully functioning AI's? By your line of thinking we are the AI's.
I'm not a scientist and far from learned on a lot of the things. But, my layman thinking and all I've ever been taught is that the human body is biological, not mechanical. To me, pretty cut and dry, and the arguments that we are machines are nonsense.
We have free-will. Thats my stance. I can go out today and make a million different decisions. Those decisions will effect my life in various ways. We have the ability to make choices, to me, that's all that's needed to have free-will. I think people want to be the one who learns that were mechanical robots and controlled by the "universe", aliens or whatever. I find it all to be total Bullshit.
ETA: excuse me if I'm reading your argument wrong. Kinda hard to see who said what when 5 posts are quoted in a post. If I am, sorry. Could you explain it better. Or, whoever believes we're fucking machines, is love to know where that line of thinking comes from.
-
Tao, if we are machines, then id like to know in the hell the scientific community is trying to build fully functioning AI's? By your line of thinking we are the AI's.
*insert Madness comments about language*
We can't even communicate unless we have agreed upon what we roughly mean when we say "machine"!. As for AIs, as far as I know what people in the scientific community are working on is machine learning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_learning
I'm not a scientist and far from learned on a lot of the things. But, my layman thinking and all I've ever been taught is that the human body is biological, not mechanical. To me, pretty cut and dry, and the arguments that we are machines are nonsense.
But what exactly is biological? Every living being consists of one or more cells, each which takes in inputs as environmental/metabolic signals and produce an output. You could maybe say this could fit the definition of a machine. Going deeper, the molecules in cells that carry out biochemical reactions can be termed molecular machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine#Biological
So the argument would be that, except for the presence of a divine component, we are machines in the sense that we take in an input and produce an output, according to physical laws.
-
Tao, if we are machines, then id like to know in the hell the scientific community is trying to build fully functioning AI's? By your line of thinking we are the AI's.
I'm not a scientist and far from learned on a lot of the things. But, my layman thinking and all I've ever been taught is that the human body is biological, not mechanical. To me, pretty cut and dry, and the arguments that we are machines are nonsense.
We have free-will. Thats my stance. I can go out today and make a million different decisions. Those decisions will effect my life in various ways. We have the ability to make choices, to me, that's all that's needed to have free-will. I think people want to be the one who learns that were mechanical robots and controlled by the "universe", aliens or whatever. I find it all to be total Bullshit.
ETA: excuse me if I'm reading your argument wrong. Kinda hard to see who said what when 5 posts are quoted in a post. If I am, sorry. Could you explain it better. Or, whoever believes we're fucking machines, is love to know where that line of thinking comes from.
No worries. I'll be clear. I BELIEVE/KNOW we have a soul and have free will.
That aside, if I discover we don't have a soul ( or any permutation of that, no outside, no meta-physical reality ) ... than I say we don't have free will. This caveat on the above leads to my discussion we're complex machines, nothing more. The meta-physical allows for more, nothing else does. So, yes, in this scenario, we are the AI.
I could be wrong about all if it. Could be we don't have a soul, but sport free will. I simply don't buy into this, is all.
-
So the argument would be that, except for the presence of a divine component, we are machines in the sense that we take in an input and produce an output, according to physical laws.
If we don't have a soul ( no divine ), than I concur with the above. Carbon based, but still machines nonetheless.
-
So the argument would be that, except for the presence of a divine component, we are machines in the sense that we take in an input and produce an output, according to physical laws.
If we don't have a soul ( no divine ), than I concur with the above. Carbon based, but still machines nonetheless.
Yep, we're on the same page regarding this.
-
I'm Roman Catholic. Grew up loving the art, music, and philosophy but it's only the last few years since really I got into the practice. The more I read the Gospel and the meaning behind it, the more I'm blown away. I really think the reason why Christianity has transcended all cultural barriers and epochs is because Jesus Christ really was the Word Incarnate, revealing the logic behind the cipher of the human paradox. I also really believe that if you try to orient yourself towards the kind of life He's describing, you absolutely nurture a closer relationship between yourself and the objective truth/good - God. It's awesome watching your spirituality grow when you take the time to study scripture, do good works, and to meditate and pray.
As far as an afterlife, I trust the Word, so it seems to me we might go to sleep after death, there really is oblivion, but at the end of time, we're reincarnated and some of us will make it to the second Creation while the rest evaporate forever. The sole entry criteria is how you treated people worse off than you. That's not to say it's the only motivation behind my charity and volunteering. The Gospel teaches that many people less spiritually-inclined or who came to religion late will absolutely get in before I do.
As far the free will discussion in this thread, it just seems blatantly axiomatic to me that we have it. We wouldn't be typing about it on an online discussion forum if we didn't. From a naturalistic point of view, it doesn't make sense that the only animal that evolved to have self-expression wouldn't in fact have a self to express. The idea that the soul is blind to itself is completely nonsensical - we can easily apprehend our behavior and our motivations and change ourselves to become better. Prey that's really bad at evading predators can't go to a self-help class to become a better escapist - it just dies off and its genes are discarded from the population. It's important to note that I don't need a religious argument for free will. Catholics don't believe in the theology because it's been dictated to us from the bishops - we believe it because it's true. The notion that we can use logic and reasons to understand the universe is not a secular scientific ideal - it's entirely premised on the Thomistic science and Augustinian philosophy of the Middle Ages.
I just don't see how things like language, abstractions, creativity, and civilization otherwise came to be - these entirely artificial ecosystems we've created according to our sensibilities as much as our environmental necessity. Too much of what defines us is completely unhinged from our survival programming and indeed goes against it. That's why I think the Cross, among other things, is the ultimate refutation of determinism. It's incontrovertible evidence that you can choose to supersede your survival programming, the social pressures of your culture, and even the laws of a legitimate state. That's not to say it's natural or easy for mankind to break our inclinations - the first among the apostles lost his shit when Christ told him he was going to Jerusalem to sacrifice himself.
I suspect the attack on free will is wholly motivated to support the fallacy that science undermines religious meaning. This view is woefully mistaken - marine biology and thermodynamics have no stake in your inherent value or purpose in life. The vast majority of neuroscience is devoted to the altruistic endeavor of recovering mobility and cognition in people suffering from disabilities. It's only these weird public personalities cultivating a commercial brand that misconstrue it to opine on metaphysics, without any training or credentials to back up their agenda. And even then, free will has no inherent bearing on religion or meaning. My wife is Buddhist-Taoist-Confuscist. She believes in all kinds of crazy supernatural and superstitious stuff. She honestly believes her Taoist masters have magical powers to see the future and into the afterlife. But she scoffs and ridicules videos I watch about free will.
The life and teachings of Jesus Christ have permanently and irreversible changed this world for the better. Those who attack the philosophical foundations of our society do so at the peril of us all.
-
I'm in Bolivar's corner on this debate. Very well said. I'd just note, as did Bolivar, that the existence of a soul (or, to use a term less religiously-charged, a self) and its free agency does not require a divine foundation. Our nature as independent selves arises from our self-consciousness, our ability to use the first-person case, and our ability to look at others as subjects possessing the same abilities as us.
As for free will, if one believes that the only valid method for studying human nature is the mechanistic, cause/effect, reductionist approach of science, then there is no room for free will. Fortunately, there are other valid methods.
Bolivar, that's a beautiful post. You mentioned Catholic music, so I thought I'd add that I sing Gregorian Chant at my church, where we are blessed to attend the traditional Latin Mass.
-
I have deep concerns with anything that makes Humans special above all other things. It implies the kind of self-centered thinking that almost certainly leads astray more than it reveals.
-
I have deep concerns with anything that makes Humans special above all other things. It implies the kind of self-centered thinking that almost certainly leads astray more than it reveals.
Humanism. In a manner of thinking, it is probably the most popular religion by far.
-
I have deep concerns with anything that makes Humans special above all other things. It implies the kind of self-centered thinking that almost certainly leads astray more than it reveals.
Humanism. In a manner of thinking, it is probably the most popular religion by far.
Well, there's a cost to everything. Human special conceit has allowed for some horrible acts of sadism with impunity. That said, it's not out of bounds to think/realize there is something to our consciousness beyond any animal we've encountered. I've been pulling for dolphins and apes to "make that jump" so we can socialize with them, but best we've been able to do is train/interact on words/sounds for reactions, etc. The book Congo alluded to advancement with gorillas, but guess that was just fantasy, nothing has seemed to come of it.
-
That's the main trouble though, isn't it? If we think we're special, by definition nothing else can be.
Just as astronomers spent millennia developing maths to explain how stars move around the Earth, because they assumed they were the center.
Once you have a hammer, all your problems become nails. There's no guarantee that someone will come along and point out we're wrong, or that we'll listen if they do.
I fully expect us to genocide every species on the planet, and if it comes to it, the Universe, should we continue to believe we are special (especially given how we treat fellow humans).
Just as I feel that an eternal afterlife, and a personal god, drains all meaning from the world, so to does Humanity being special deny us a civil place among the universe. I hope we either learn better, or are exterminated for our folly, before we do irreparable harm.
-
Well, there's a cost to everything. Human special conceit has allowed for some horrible acts of sadism with impunity. That said, it's not out of bounds to think/realize there is something to our consciousness beyond any animal we've encountered. I've been pulling for dolphins and apes to "make that jump" so we can socialize with them, but best we've been able to do is train/interact on words/sounds for reactions, etc. The book Congo alluded to advancement with gorillas, but guess that was just fantasy, nothing has seemed to come of it.
Well, yes, our consciousness is certainly something aside any other animal we know of. Here is the thing though, our "Humanist" bent places the modifier of "beyond" to that though. What I mean is that we are absolutely biased toward thinking that being conscious is "better"/"preferable" to not being so. While my position most probably seems negative, I'm far more neutral on the question of "is this a good thing?"
-
That's the main trouble though, isn't it? If we think we're special, by definition nothing else can be.
We can think that we are "special" and still recognize the limits of how we are "special". More importantly, we can recognize the implications of our "specialness"Just as astronomers spent millennia developing maths to explain how stars move around the Earth, because they assumed they were the center.
And yet that assumption was superseded, somehow.
Once you have a hammer, all your problems become nails. There's no guarantee that someone will come along and point out we're wrong, or that we'll listen if they do.
I agree that a larger toolkit is a good idea. That's why I keep banging on about cognitive dualism and the need for (at least) two methods of talking about reality and human nature. The "hammer" of mechanistic materialism is as limited as the "hammer" of faith or of philosophy. I fully expect us to genocide every species on the planet, and if it comes to it, the Universe, should we continue to believe we are special (especially given how we treat fellow humans).
Just as I feel that an eternal afterlife, and a personal god, drains all meaning from the world, so to does Humanity being special deny us a civil place among the universe. I hope we either learn better, or are exterminated for our folly, before we do irreparable harm.
Well, if you take Cixin Liu's speculative cosmology seriously, the guiding principle of the universe is "Exterminate or be exterminated". His assumption is that humanity is not uniquely genocidal, and that irreparable harm might be inevitable.
Nice post, Wilshire. My main thrust is that humanity can recognize that we have "special" characteristics without reading those characteristics as a free pass to do any damn thing that occurs to us.
Note: I finally figured out how to work the quote tags!
-
Great points @Wilshire + @H
I agree ( I thought I was saying "spe-shial", as in species, but spells out special ... nevermind ).
I absolutely agree a great deal of damage has resulted from our species conceit and believe systems in the after-life callously treating this world from it ( not all, but some have ). So you have accurately pointed out some awful things, which sucks big time. That said, awful things resulting from disrespect/recklessness does not in itself disprove those beliefs ( not saying you're doing that, just making it clear ).
As I've said, you have a tall hill to climb in proving a negative ( doesn't mean you're wrong, just make take a very long time to prove your position that there is no meta-physical reality ) ... but maybe not 8) ... in the spirit of others so heroically exposing themselves, I will do so now with what may appear an inane point.
Maybe, it's easier to prove you're right than we first thought ... if you are correct, than I put forth we should've been able to scientifically resurrect people by now. I'm not talking about bringing someone back after 6 minutes of a controlled environment ... say 24 hours dead. If we have no soul, shouldn't be that hard to keep a body in the proper temperature to avoid decomposition for 24 hours and we can use jumper cables to jump start the human again. Take heart disease - could be less traumatic to simply not revive the human, perform the heart transplant while they're dead, then revive them. If there is no soul, this should not be a mountain to climb to achieve this. Scientific resurrection would go a long way proving your stance on this.
-
That's the main trouble though, isn't it? If we think we're special, by definition nothing else can be.
Just as astronomers spent millennia developing maths to explain how stars move around the Earth, because they assumed they were the center.
Once you have a hammer, all your problems become nails. There's no guarantee that someone will come along and point out we're wrong, or that we'll listen if they do.
I fully expect us to genocide every species on the planet, and if it comes to it, the Universe, should we continue to believe we are special (especially given how we treat fellow humans).
Just as I feel that an eternal afterlife, and a personal god, drains all meaning from the world, so to does Humanity being special deny us a civil place among the universe. I hope we either learn better, or are exterminated for our folly, before we do irreparable harm.
You can believe you are special without believing you have to exploit corrupt African leaders extract their natural resources for cheap. You can believe you are special without insisting global warming is a hoax. You can believe you are special without burning GMO test crops or trying to manipulate poor African countries to abandon GMO crops because they offend your feelings.
What exactly do we mean by special anyway 8) ?
Also, our sacred nucleic acids and amino acids should cover the cosmos.
-
BFK: Thanks. As you may pretty well know by now, I don't spend much time educating myself on other's works. I don't know if I'd agree with Cixin Liu or not, but I would hope that humanity might rise above abject genocide.
That said, I don't personally believe we as a species can do that while simultaneously seeing ourselves as special. I think that being special, whether its humans over humans, or humans over other things, is central to much of the evil in the world.
I don't think that particular difference can be reconciled, but at least we've identified the major sticking point, right?
TH: I'm not sure your logic makes much sense regarding revival:
We can't revive a flower once its dead ... does that mean flowers now have souls?
What of dead animals? Horse? Dogs? Chickens? Fish? Ants?
So now everything that we can't revive has a soul?
What of rocks and nonliving things. We can't animate them, so does that mean their souls have left?
I don't think you intended to imply any of that, but that's where that argument concludes in my mind. Since the conclusion is nonsensical, the logic doesn't really apply. If I've misinterpreted you, please redirect me.
But, even if what you said was true and correct, you've now defined god, or metaphysics, or souls, as the absence of scientific knowledge. So then, millennia ago souls and magic filled everything, now they fill less as human understanding of reality increases, and millennia into the future they disappear entirely? ... I assume this isn't your intent, I'm just pointing out that using ignorance, or absence of knowledge, as the crux of an argument doesn't make much sense.
As above, I'm certain these are not the conclusion you intended, so please show me where I went astray.
Tleilaxu: I agree. Those things are possible. But, as I said up above to BFK, evil and special seem axiomatic to me. Others, obviously, feel the opposite is true.
In fact, probably most everyone feels the opposite of much of what I said. I'm not attempting to sway anyone. These are just my beliefs :) .
Special being anything that sets humanity permanently and irrevocably apart from the rest of the universe. Be that the idea that we're the only thing with a soul, or the only things with free-will, etc.
-
You can believe you are special without believing you have to exploit corrupt African leaders extract their natural resources for cheap. You can believe you are special without insisting global warming is a hoax. You can believe you are special without burning GMO test crops or trying to manipulate poor African countries to abandon GMO crops because they offend your feelings.
What exactly do we mean by special anyway 8) ?
Also, our sacred nucleic acids and amino acids should cover the cosmos.
Agreed, well said!
-
TH: I'm not sure your logic makes much sense regarding revival:
We can't revive a flower once its dead ... does that mean flowers now have souls?
What of dead animals? Horse? Dogs? Chickens? Fish? Ants?
So now everything that we can't revive has a soul?
What of rocks and nonliving things. We can't animate them, so does that mean their souls have left?
I don't think you intended to imply any of that, but that's where that argument concludes in my mind. Since the conclusion is nonsensical, the logic doesn't really apply. If I've misinterpreted you, please redirect me.
But, even if what you said was true and correct, you've now defined god, or metaphysics, or souls, as the absence of scientific knowledge. So then, millennia ago souls and magic filled everything, now they fill less as human understanding of reality increases, and millennia into the future they disappear entirely? ... I assume this isn't your intent, I'm just pointing out that using ignorance, or absence of knowledge, as the crux of an argument doesn't make much sense.
As above, I'm certain these are not the conclusion you intended, so please show me where I went astray.
No, no - didn't mean to say just because we haven't figured out how to scientifically resurrect that you must be wrong - just that if you are correct, this should be doable ( I expressed myself poorly there, sorry ). I did caveat with proper temperature to avoid decomposition - but yes, we should be able to revive any animal as with no soul/Outside, they/we are all just complex machines waiting to be "solved". What exactly is stopping us for cranking up the car when the batteries dead?
More crazy shit for you: I believe all mammals are conscious and suspect they have souls ( including vermin ) - could be dead wrong, I have no objective proof. I believe once evolution yielded a "kind" of life with the neural capability/capacity to house consciousness, a soul may well show up :)
@TL/Wilshire - I really stepped in shit on this special usage ... I meant species conceit when using it ( species as an adjective, came out spelled "special" ... pronounced spee sheal ... but not a word, so I fuck-headed that one ). I agree completely that considering ourselves as "special" is a mistake, but also agree with TL regardless of how we view ourselves, we should not allow that perception to drive self destructive behaviors/actions.
-
While I understand how seeing ourselves as special might possibly provide a justification for destructive behavior, I'm not convinced that it's a primary motivator of it. If someone wants to do something fucked up, they'll find a way to rationalize it regardless. It's just a fact that in the world today, and what we can glance from the geological strata, that we're the only ones who have this. Telling the truth should not be inherently dangerous. I'll take responsibility over ignorance any day of the week.
I'm also not convinced that trivializing ourselves would somehow place a safeguard against atrocity. Industry reduces the human person to units of production and consumption but it has had no problem brutalizing the planet over the last 150 years.
Bolivar, that's a beautiful post. You mentioned Catholic music, so I thought I'd add that I sing Gregorian Chant at my church, where we are blessed to attend the traditional Latin Mass.
That's awesome and you're lucky. We can only get a Latin Mass by us every once in a while for certain holy days of obligation. I went to our cathedral for the Immaculate Conception of Mary and was blown away. I still think the Novus Ordo has it's own beauty but it's clear that we lost a lot along the way. What really surprises me is how, from what I saw that day and what I've read about it elsewhere, it's really young people who are filling the pews for these Latin Masses. This really is a generation starving for tradition.
-
While I understand how seeing ourselves as special might possibly provide a justification for destructive behavior, I'm not convinced that it's a primary motivator of it. If someone wants to do something fucked up, they'll find a way to rationalize it regardless.
...
I'm also not convinced that trivializing ourselves would somehow place a safeguard against atrocity. Industry reduces the human person to units of production and consumption but it has had no problem brutalizing the planet over the last 150 years.
Again, baseline assumption disconnect here. Helpful when identified, but unfortunately difficult to reach past.
You're of course correct, the absence of 'being special' does not make for a perfect utopia in all things. However, I still think that thinking oneself above others is what drives those most negative behaviors. Industry has brutalized the planet for far more than 150 years. But slavery didn't arise out of treating all humanity as equal. Similarly, one wouldn't brutalize the planet if they thought it matter as much as they did.
I'm not saying that everything is equal in all things, just that a healthy dose of humility - and absent a writ direct from god - would be far more likely a chance of harmony than otherwise.
As I mentioned previously, my fundamental belief that any God and/or afterlife removes any semblance of meaningfulness from worldly actions makes our two belief structures difficult (impossible probably) to reconcile. I do appreciate the discourse though :)
It's just a fact that in the world today, and what we can glance from the geological strata, that we're the only ones who have this. Telling the truth should not be inherently dangerous. I'll take responsibility over ignorance any day of the week.
I'm not really sure where this fits in, if it was directed in response to me in some way.
Certainly, we're not the only animals that kill eachother.
Generally speaking, telling the truth is only ever dangerous when the truths being told don't match up and the recipients decided recourse is violence. This becomes more and more an issue as connectivity between disparate groups with different cultural heritage increases.
Personal responsibility is key. Shunting it off to a scapegoat, be it some other person, group, or some deity, or anything else, is unacceptable.
it's really young people who are filling the pews for these Latin Masses. This really is a generation starving for tradition.
Just curious, how old is a young person in your mind?
-
it's really young people who are filling the pews for these Latin Masses. This really is a generation starving for tradition.
Just curious, how old is a young person in your mind?
I won't speak for Bolivar, but in my church, we have a growing number of young families with husbands and wives in their 20s and 30s.
Bolivar, that's a beautiful post. You mentioned Catholic music, so I thought I'd add that I sing Gregorian Chant at my church, where we are blessed to attend the traditional Latin Mass.
That's awesome and you're lucky. We can only get a Latin Mass by us every once in a while for certain holy days of obligation. I went to our cathedral for the Immaculate Conception of Mary and was blown away. I still think the Novus Ordo has it's own beauty but it's clear that we lost a lot along the way. What really surprises me is how, from what I saw that day and what I've read about it elsewhere, it's really young people who are filling the pews for these Latin Masses. This really is a generation starving for tradition.
The Novus Ordo rite can be done with solemnity and beauty, true, but the intense rapidity of the changes made after Vatican II was a tragic mistake. I was going to remark that vernacular Masses could have been celebrated alongside Latin Masses, until I realized that perhaps the truly disastrous change was "turning the priest around". It makes the new rite more of an interchange between the congregation and the priest. The traditional rite has the priest acting on behalf of the congregation, with all facing the high altar.
-
it's really young people who are filling the pews for these Latin Masses. This really is a generation starving for tradition.
Just curious, how old is a young person in your mind?
I won't speak for Bolivar, but in my church, we have a growing number of young families with husbands and wives in their 20s and 30s.
Thanks. From context here, I think young person would probably refer to someone in their 20s-30s as you described, but figured I'd ask.
Only tangentially related (or indeed entirely off topic), so often the term millennial is used to describe a generic 'young person', which wasn't used in this case but I still find it interesting to know what people from various ages call young (as I'm sure one of these day's I'll cease to be young by most any reasonable measure and will then ask the opposite, 'how old is old'). Recently read an article which defined "millennial" as 23-37 years old. Most people probably use that term (incorrectly) to describe a person between the ages of maybe 16 or 18 to <30. I'd guess people forget that 'millennial' is supposed to describe a particular generation, which gets older every year just like all the others, rather than being a direct substitute for young person.
-
I also really believe that if you try to orient yourself towards the kind of life He's describing, you absolutely nurture a closer relationship between yourself and the objective truth/good - God. It's awesome watching your spirituality grow when you take the time to study scripture, do good works, and to meditate and pray.
Great post and in a way I am envious of the kind of faith that you have, because I have never had any of that, nor ever experienced anything like it. That being said, I don't really feel badly about it. Surely I can't "know" what I am "missing" but I certainly just don't see it for myself. Of course, your post illuminates many of those things, despite being raised Catholic and my wife being rather religious I do practice, it still is not to me what it is to her (and seemingly, to you).
I honestly think this is the worst possible way to discuss the subject here, because I am in no way articulate enough, especially in text to really convey what I think about "all of it" and in a way, I probably come across as "against" religion, which I am not. This is why I quoted what you said above, because it is, to me, the full "distillation" of what it's all about.
We can debate until the end of time if Jesus was really the son of God, or not, and arrive no where, our lives literally the same as they were when we started. It hardly proves anything. Rather, what I focus on is what is doctrine telling people and what are people doing. So, as you quote, if we look at what the Gospels are telling us, it's generally some pretty good advice. But where things break down, of course, is what people are doing. Of course, there are great people, doing great things in Jesus' name. But there are also people doing not great things in Jesus' name. I am not trying to make an equivalence though, there is no way to know what the sum total of "good" to the sum total of "bad" done would or could ever be. My only point is, like any human endeavor, religion is often a mixed bag.
That isn't to say that people shouldn't be religious. In fact, just the opposite, if it helps people be better people, they absolutely positively should be religious. The problem I have, and it's the same problem I have with every single human (religious or not), is when people use something as an excuse to specially not be better people. Which is exactly why I quoted what you said above. Because that is the whole point. Showing up to church has little meaning if you don't do what you said above.
I am for whatever helps people do two things: first, make the world more psychologically palatable to them while also, two, making them better, more responsible people. If it's not doing both, then I have an issue. So, I never have an issue with religion. I have an issue with people, that sometimes applies to religious people, sometimes non-religious people.
I could go on and on, but I'll cut this short here.
-
Great post, H! I especially like the way that you express the unimportance of "proving" the claims of a religious belief system. To me, what's way more important is to belong to a faith community.
-
Great post, H! I especially like the way that you express the unimportance of "proving" the claims of a religious belief system. To me, what's way more important is to belong to a faith community.
Faith is definitely important for collective organization, coherence etc. and the people who rant against religion are ignorant of the fact that virtually every human community has some kind of shared mythology, whether it's religious or ideological.
That being said, faiths are not equal.
There's a brilliant line in Heretics of Dune where Tylwyth Waff exclaims "The sun is not God!". The implications here are tremendous imo.
-
Great post, H! I especially like the way that you express the unimportance of "proving" the claims of a religious belief system. To me, what's way more important is to belong to a faith community.
Faith is definitely important for collective organization, coherence etc. and the people who rant against religion are ignorant of the fact that virtually every human community has some kind of shared mythology, whether it's religious or ideological.
That being said, faiths are not equal.
There's a brilliant line in Heretics of Dune where Tylwyth Waff exclaims "The sun is not God!". The implications here are tremendous imo.
No, faiths are not equal, or perhaps we could say that all faiths are equally "nonsensical"; i.e., they all have a resistance to being disproved.
I don't get your point with the quote from HoD, Tleilaxu. Could you expand upon the implications and the context?
-
Madness, to summarize TH belief before things get too tangled:
If the universe is all cause-effect, then it doesn't make sense that humans have something that exists outside of that. If, though, a soul exists, then the the cause-effect chain is broken and free will can exist.
If, then. Lots of presupposing happening here.
...
I'm not a scientist and far from learned on a lot of the things. But, my layman thinking and all I've ever been taught is that the human body is biological, not mechanical. To me, pretty cut and dry, and the arguments that we are machines are nonsense.
...
ETA: excuse me if I'm reading your argument wrong. Kinda hard to see who said what when 5 posts are quoted in a post. If I am, sorry. Could you explain it better. Or, whoever believes we're fucking machines, is love to know where that line of thinking comes from.
Not supporting either argument but there are plenty of examples regarding biological computation, MSJ. Even extreme, for instance, Rat Brain Robot (https://singularityhub.com/2010/10/06/videos-of-robot-controlled-by-rat-brain-amazing-technology-still-moving-forward/#sm.0001hkc3w5yhefobxj71niu39tut1)/Worm Brain Robot (https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-put-worm-brain-in-lego-robot-openworm-connectome)
*insert Madness comments about language*
Lol. I appreciate that that is communicated through my blathering.
But what exactly is biological? Every living being consists of one or more cells, each which takes in inputs as environmental/metabolic signals and produce an output. You could maybe say this could fit the definition of a machine. Going deeper, the molecules in cells that carry out biochemical reactions can be termed molecular machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_machine#Biological
C. elegans. I wish I had otherwise remembered to remember better examples from one of my biopsych courses regarding simple nervous systems.
...
As I said to Wilshire, I was very surprised to read this post from you, Bolivar.
I have deep concerns with anything that makes Humans special above all other things.
+1
We can think that we are "special" and still recognize the limits of how we are "special". More importantly, we can recognize the implications of our "specialness"
Contextually unique?
I agree that a larger toolkit is a good idea. That's why I keep banging on about cognitive dualism and the need for (at least) two methods of talking about reality and human nature. The "hammer" of mechanistic materialism is as limited as the "hammer" of faith or of philosophy.
At this juncture the thread seems to be getting into the minutia of Bakker territory so I hesitate to repeat views I don't necessarily have the capacity to argue effectively but...
Faith and philosophy don't have the pedigree that "science!" does, does it? Even as someone who pays attention to anomalous human behaviours, I've not yet encountered the priest or philosopher who spake and thus produced a nuclear reaction.
I absolutely agree a great deal of damage has resulted from our species conceit and believe systems in the after-life callously treating this world from it ( not all, but some have ). So you have accurately pointed out some awful things, which sucks big time. That said, awful things resulting from disrespect/recklessness does not in itself disprove those beliefs ( not saying you're doing that, just making it clear ).
Those are two separate contexts, no? I hesitate to speak for Wilshire but I don't think he cares to invalidate anyone's belief.
Maybe, it's easier to prove you're right than we first thought ... if you are correct, than I put forth we should've been able to scientifically resurrect people by now. I'm not talking about bringing someone back after 6 minutes of a controlled environment ... say 24 hours dead. If we have no soul, shouldn't be that hard to keep a body in the proper temperature to avoid decomposition for 24 hours and we can use jumper cables to jump start the human again. Take heart disease - could be less traumatic to simply not revive the human, perform the heart transplant while they're dead, then revive them. If there is no soul, this should not be a mountain to climb to achieve this. Scientific resurrection would go a long way proving your stance on this.
I'm not even sure what to make of this. Are you suggesting that the only reason we don't have immortality by science now, today (!!), is because we have souls?
TH: ... If I've misinterpreted you, please redirect me.
+1
No, no - didn't mean to say just because we haven't figured out how to scientifically resurrect that you must be wrong - just that if you are correct, this should be doable ( I expressed myself poorly there, sorry ). I did caveat with proper temperature to avoid decomposition - but yes, we should be able to revive any animal as with no soul/Outside, they/we are all just complex machines waiting to be "solved". What exactly is stopping us for cranking up the car when the batteries dead?
Scientific progress? Give or take a hundred years ago, anomalies aside, we hadn't conceived "batteries," unless you were talking about assault and battery.
More crazy shit for you: I believe all mammals are conscious and suspect they have souls ( including vermin ) - could be dead wrong, I have no objective proof. I believe once evolution yielded a "kind" of life with the neural capability/capacity to house consciousness, a soul may well show up :)
A panpsychist, then ;)?
...
I could go on and on, but I'll cut this short here.
How you act give commitment to your belief/ideology? (The Royal You, of course.)
-
I agree that a larger toolkit is a good idea. That's why I keep banging on about cognitive dualism and the need for (at least) two methods of talking about reality and human nature. The "hammer" of mechanistic materialism is as limited as the "hammer" of faith or of philosophy.
At this juncture the thread seems to be getting into the minutia of Bakker territory so I hesitate to repeat views I don't necessarily have the capacity to argue effectively but...
Faith and philosophy don't have the pedigree that "science!" does, does it? Even as someone who pays attention to anomalous human behaviours, I've not yet encountered the priest or philosopher who spake and thus produced a nuclear reaction.
Dear me, Madness, apples and oranges! You're downgrading priests and philosophers because they don't do science? If they did, they'd be scientists! As it happens, a priest named Martin Luther changed the course of human history by nailing tattooed tree pulp to a wooden door. Different tools for different tasks.
Yes, we're living in an age where the method of "science!" is more highly regarded than the methods of faith and philosophy. It's the "Revenge Of The Alchemists". The point that I'm trying to make is that we need faith and philosophy (and art, for that matter) as well as science to fully explore reality. I believe* that it's very dangerous to use the "hammer" of science to reduce the tools of art, faith, and philosophy to rubble.
(*Hey, I finally managed to address the question posed by the thread!)
-
Great post, H! I especially like the way that you express the unimportance of "proving" the claims of a religious belief system. To me, what's way more important is to belong to a faith community.
Faith is definitely important for collective organization, coherence etc. and the people who rant against religion are ignorant of the fact that virtually every human community has some kind of shared mythology, whether it's religious or ideological.
That being said, faiths are not equal.
There's a brilliant line in Heretics of Dune where Tylwyth Waff exclaims "The sun is not God!". The implications here are tremendous imo.
No, faiths are not equal, or perhaps we could say that all faiths are equally "nonsensical"; i.e., they all have a resistance to being disproved.
I don't get your point with the quote from HoD, Tleilaxu. Could you expand upon the implications and the context?
It's significant for me because it signifies an abstraction. The sun, an object of worship for pre-historic cultures, is not God. It's just another construct. And from here you could potentially abstract further.
Also, take this line:
"I can say God, but that is not my God. That is only a noise and no more potent than any other noise."
It is God alone which is the object of worship.
Perhaps the most significant line is this No other people have mastered the genetic language as well as have the Bene Tleilax, he reassured himself. We are right to call it "the language of God," for God Himself has given us this great power.
Their faith is a faith that wreaks miracles.
-
Yes, we're living in an age where the method of "science!" is more highly regarded than the methods of faith and philosophy. It's the "Revenge Of The Alchemists". The point that I'm trying to make is that we need faith and philosophy (and art, for that matter) as well as science to fully explore reality. I believe* that it's very dangerous to use the "hammer" of science to reduce the tools of art, faith, and philosophy to rubble.
:slow clap:
Out of all this conversation, that is the most sensible comment, that I've seen(excuse me I skim over a lot that really just goes over my head), in this thread.
To fully be human we need all of that. Science to dig deep and create things and also expand our knowledge. Thing is a lot of science, is just theories. So how is a theory any different from faith? Its just the way I look at it. Not saying I have the strongest faith, but I do find myself leaning on it at times. And, maybe that's my problem, I should lean on it all the time. I've seen and heard miracles through faith. Giving people the strength to change their lives and such. Thats the same type of proof, if not more, that you find in some fields of science. Arts and philosophy expand our minds and make us more creative. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, BFK.
-
How you act give commitment to your belief/ideology? (The Royal You, of course.)
Humans are highly capable of holding and acting on two contradictory ideas (or beliefs) and through the kind of neglect that Bakker always talks about, or other factors, never feel an ounce of that cognitive dissonance. So, they can actually believe that "all men are created equal" and simultaneously own slaves (to give a historical example). This can be done through simple neglect, i.e. not actually attending to "the issue," or creative interpretation and deployment of language, among other tactics.
So, you define "men" as males only and gives reason to deny women rights, you operationalize "created equal" to mean literally just that, you start equal, but through various means some people are favored and thus "superior" and others are not. There are plenty of other ways to spin it as well, to justify nearly anything you want.
So, do actions denote a commitment? Maybe, but I don't think it's an absolute signifier. People are highly capable of commitment with no action and action without commitment.
-
Yes, we're living in an age where the method of "science!" is more highly regarded than the methods of faith and philosophy. It's the "Revenge Of The Alchemists". The point that I'm trying to make is that we need faith and philosophy (and art, for that matter) as well as science to fully explore reality. I believe* that it's very dangerous to use the "hammer" of science to reduce the tools of art, faith, and philosophy to rubble.
:slow clap:
Out of all this conversation, that is the most sensible comment, that I've seen(excuse me I skim over a lot that really just goes over my head), in this thread.
To fully be human we need all of that. Science to dig deep and create things and also expand our knowledge. Thing is a lot of science, is just theories. So how is a theory any different from faith? Its just the way I look at it. Not saying I have the strongest faith, but I do find myself leaning on it at times. And, maybe that's my problem, I should lean on it all the time. I've seen and heard miracles through faith. Giving people the strength to change their lives and such. Thats the same type of proof, if not more, that you find in some fields of science. Arts and philosophy expand our minds and make us more creative. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, BFK.
"If MSJ is with me, who can stand against me?"
MSJ presents the case for faith well. Faith can give us a way of coping with or even overcoming the bleak truths presented to us by science, as believers who have received a discouraging prognosis from a doctor might confirm.
-
Indeed I don't think anyone has argued that faith/religion/etc. provide no value. There's absolutely no reason for them to exist if no one got anything from them. Its as much a part of our society evolution as anything else, probably more so than most things.
I doubt we'll ever get away from people needing 'a higher order' to make sense of life. Its something that some people need. Strangely though, not something everyone needs.
I find it suspicious that there are so many beliefs, so many forms of religion, spirituality. Suspicious that one's man self-evident truths are so different than another. If there was a 'one true power', I am very confused as to how its possible so few agree on what it is.
The trouble I have, what worries me about the situation, is that there is no means to question. Either you believe or you don't. What's worse though, is that as immovable ideologies clash, death comes swirling down. There doesn't seem room in the world for so many powerful people to claim divine hegemony over the world. Since no one can prove one way or the other, and since no means exist to probe deeply into one's faith from the outside, we're ultimately left with violent outcomes. Either MY god is the true one, or YOUR god is, and whichever one is left standing is correct. Its the worst kind of Might makes Right, and it terrifies me.
-
"If MSJ is with me, who can stand against me?"
Why.....noone! I AM THE BREAKER OF HORSES AND MEN! MSJ & BFK would just murder the world to find the dissenting voices.
-
The trouble I have, what worries me about the situation, is that there is no means to question. Either you believe or you don't. What's worse though, is that as immovable ideologies clash, death comes swirling down. There doesn't seem room in the world for so many powerful people to claim divine hegemony over the world. Since no one can prove one way or the other, and since no means exist to probe deeply into one's faith from the outside, we're ultimately left with violent outcomes. Either MY god is the true one, or YOUR god is, and whichever one is left standing is correct. Its the worst kind of Might makes Right, and it terrifies me.
Agree 100%. Me liking BFK's just really hit home to my previous question about us being machines (whoever was touting that line of thinking). We so obviously are not. We are biological beings with feeling, concerns, needs, wants, etc, etc. Those things (faith, science, Art, philosophy), are pretty dann good evidence that we ain't robots homie. It was a precise, concise statement that spoke to me.
One problem I have with your argument about religion is if your smart enough to look, almost all the major religions and minor, stem from ancient religions. Christmas isnt Baby Jesus's B-Day, its the winter solstice. In the end most religions core values are very similar, their stories down right eerily similar. Its just they've changed them up little by little to aid their political needs. In my mind, I do believe that there is only ONE GOD, and its just worshipped in a multitude of ways. Wilshire, we've had a few talks about how we both hate that probably more bad then good comes from religion, its just fact.
-
"If MSJ is with me, who can stand against me?"
Why.....noone! I AM THE BREAKER OF HORSES AND MEN! MSJ & BFK would just murder the world to find the dissenting voices.
Lmao.. .yeah, I'm right behind you on that "murder the world" mission, MSJ...right behind you and running like hell in the opposite direction!
Still laughing...... ;)
-
Lmao.. .yeah, I'm right behind you on that "murder the world" mission, MSJ...right behind you and running like hell in the opposite direction!
Still laughing...... ;)
Come now...“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds."
-
Lmao.. .yeah, I'm right behind you on that "murder the world" mission, MSJ...right behind you and running like hell in the opposite direction!
Still laughing...... ;)
Come now...“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds."
<huff, puff> "What do I believe?" <huff, puff> "I believe that I'm not running fast enough!"
-
I am half Christian, half Cnaüirist!
-
Dear me, Madness, apples and oranges! You're downgrading priests and philosophers because they don't do science? If they did, they'd be scientists! As it happens, a priest named Martin Luther changed the course of human history by nailing tattooed tree pulp to a wooden door. Different tools for different tasks.
I'm not sure how I've "downgraded" priests or philosophers? There are plenty of "christian scientists" (or any other faith/sect/whichever), Dr. Damadian (http://www.icr.org/article/raymond-damadian-inventor-mri/), for instance, who precipitated MRI and fMRI.
Sure, Martin Luther, MLK Jr., the Suffragists, etc, etc, all effect change within the human sociocognitive arena (or in a certain cognitive ecology, Bakker might say).
It's bothersome being "put into a box," though I suppose it an inevitable consequence of perception and caricature. I find it kind of funny that anyone might suggest I devalue the words of anyone considering that I've been led to my personal strange and arbitrary crux by thinkers of all creeds and ideologies, secular and faithful.
Yes, we're living in an age where the method of "science!" is more highly regarded than the methods of faith and philosophy.
I don't think this is accurate. If science was more prevalently accepted than faith or philosophy, we wouldn't be seemingly overwhelmed with sociocultural dysfunction of that type.
It's the "Revenge Of The Alchemists". The point that I'm trying to make is that we need faith and philosophy (and art, for that matter) as well as science to fully explore reality. I believe* that it's very dangerous to use the "hammer" of science to reduce the tools of art, faith, and philosophy to rubble.
(*Hey, I finally managed to address the question posed by the thread!)
Again, I'm really confused as to why I'm being perceived as discounting faith, philosophy, or art as worthwhile practices and pursuits?
:slow clap:
Out of all this conversation, that is the most sensible comment, that I've seen(excuse me I skim over a lot that really just goes over my head), in this thread.
Not trying to detract from BFK's words but I find that terribly insensitive to the previous thread (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=1046.0). Understanding or otherwise, I think you'd appreciate giving a deep read to the last incarnation, MSJ.
To fully be human we need all of that. Science to dig deep and create things and also expand our knowledge. Thing is a lot of science, is just theories. So how is a theory any different from faith?
Because priests and philosophers and artists aren't manifesting nuclear explosions.
I was never contesting that these things are important and impactful regarding human behavior. Obviously, all the above effect how we speak and act, negatively or positively.
Its just the way I look at it. Not saying I have the strongest faith, but I do find myself leaning on it at times. And, maybe that's my problem, I should lean on it all the time. I've seen and heard miracles through faith. Giving people the strength to change their lives and such. Thats the same type of proof, if not more, that you find in some fields of science. Arts and philosophy expand our minds and make us more creative. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, BFK.
I don't understand why it has to be either/or. Community yields us positive dividends. Whatever form that takes.
How you act give commitment to your belief/ideology? (The Royal You, of course.)
Humans are highly capable of holding and acting on two contradictory ideas (or beliefs) and through the kind of neglect that Bakker always talks about, or other factors, never feel an ounce of that cognitive dissonance. So, they can actually believe that "all men are created equal" and simultaneously own slaves (to give a historical example). This can be done through simple neglect, i.e. not actually attending to "the issue," or creative interpretation and deployment of language, among other tactics.
Ugh... my post should have read "given," which may have changed your response.
People have an almost infinite capacity for self-delusion, yes.
So, do actions denote a commitment? Maybe, but I don't think it's an absolute signifier. People are highly capable of commitment with no action and action without commitment.
Again, my error in typing may well have prompted a miscommunication here. Actions don't denote a commitment, I don't think. But commitment absolutely prompts a certain percentage of behaviors, prosocial or antisocial.
Creed/ideological commitments very well might engender more prosocial than antisocial behaviors but the damage done by those symptomatic antisocial behaviors seems to cause far more damage overall.
Destruction takes a fraction of the time or effort as creation.
MSJ presents the case for faith well. Faith can give us a way of coping with or even overcoming the bleak truths presented to us by science, as believers who have received a discouraging prognosis from a doctor might confirm.
I suppose I'm more H in this context than otherwise. I lived inside the Roman Catholic story until I was thirteen and was still thinking in terms of a soul as late as seventeen. But I've never experience faith as described by others.
But to these words, BFK, I've basically been permanently switched on by an awareness of my mortality since I was about seven. I don't need faith to forfend any resulting emotional residue. As far as I'm concerned, we seem to all agree that we can do better, here and now.
Indeed I don't think anyone has argued that faith/religion/etc. provide no value. There's absolutely no reason for them to exist if no one got anything from them. Its as much a part of our society evolution as anything else, probably more so than most things.
I doubt we'll ever get away from people needing 'a higher order' to make sense of life. Its something that some people need. Strangely though, not something everyone needs.
I find it suspicious that there are so many beliefs, so many forms of religion, spirituality. Suspicious that one's man self-evident truths are so different than another. If there was a 'one true power', I am very confused as to how its possible so few agree on what it is.
The trouble I have, what worries me about the situation, is that there is no means to question. Either you believe or you don't. What's worse though, is that as immovable ideologies clash, death comes swirling down. There doesn't seem room in the world for so many powerful people to claim divine hegemony over the world. Since no one can prove one way or the other, and since no means exist to probe deeply into one's faith from the outside, we're ultimately left with violent outcomes. Either MY god is the true one, or YOUR god is, and whichever one is left standing is correct. Its the worst kind of Might makes Right, and it terrifies me.
+1
Somewhere between seventeen and twenty-one that was my takeaway. There are so many competing beliefs that our three pounds have cooked up, competing beliefs that people embody until murder and death. I find it very unlikely that we can grok it all, life, the universe, and everything.
I'll continue to err on the side of mundane empathy and compassion.
-
One problem I have with your argument about religion is if your smart enough to look, almost all the major religions and minor, stem from ancient religions. Christmas isnt Baby Jesus's B-Day, its the winter solstice. In the end most religions core values are very similar, their stories down right eerily similar. Its just they've changed them up little by little to aid their political needs.
And there's the rub. Whatever message might have been handed down by whoever, it certainly was revised over time. At this point, who's to say what is the word of god and what has been revised by humans (for better or worse?). So now, since we can't know, and we can't question, anyone can claim the divine right of anything and be, as far as I can tell, equally correct. If we did ever have the writ of god, it was torn asunder millennia ago.
Catholicism itself claims the Anti-Christ will appear to be exactly like Jesus until he starts doing something that's evil (conveniently not clearly defined). So really, anyone who challenges the status quo of the institution can be labeled as the literal devil incarnate and crucified. Far too convenient, it seems to me, to have a mechanism in your religion that allows for absolute, unquestionable power to be maintaining by a single group for the rest of time.
In my mind, I do believe that there is only ONE GOD, and its just worshipped in a multitude of ways. Wilshire, we've had a few talks about how we both hate that probably more bad then good comes from religion, its just fact.
I think that's great, really I do. And, in fact, many major religions splinted off due to one group believing in a latter prophet. Jesus splintering Christianity from Judaism. Muhammad splintering further into Islam (I think?). It does seem to make sense that the hundred that are worshiped are all portions of the Absolute.
If everyone could agree that 'we' (humans) are all worshiping the same entity, that might be helpful. Even more so if we could agree on what he/she/they/it says. But there are so many rules, so many dogmas. So many people who believe so fervently that they'd kill, or themselves die, rather than question or be questioned, that I don't see how humanity can continue to exist along this path.
I am very interested in what BFK/Bolivar/others who seem to have a deep relationship with religion feel about that. Again, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, just seeking opinions from those who think differently than me. I'd not otherwise speak frankly with anyone of one faith or another, so I find this conversation of particular interest.
-
One problem I have with your argument about religion is if your smart enough to look, almost all the major religions and minor, stem from ancient religions. Christmas isnt Baby Jesus's B-Day, its the winter solstice. In the end most religions core values are very similar, their stories down right eerily similar. Its just they've changed them up little by little to aid their political needs.
And there's the rub. Whatever message might have been handed down by whoever, it certainly was revised over time. At this point, who's to say what is the word of god and what has been revised by humans (for better or worse?). So now, since we can't know, and we can't question, anyone can claim the divine right of anything and be, as far as I can tell, equally correct. If we did ever have the writ of god, it was torn asunder millennia ago.
Clearly, then, faith claims of divine inspiration and exclusive truth status are highly problematic from a philosophical standpoint. And taking these faith claims as "hammers" to assault nonbelievers, infidels, science, etc. would be wrong. Imho, faith claims do not "travel" well; again, I'm trying to demarcate the areas where faith is a valid method and where it is not.
Catholicism itself claims the Anti-Christ will appear to be exactly like Jesus until he starts doing something that's evil (conveniently not clearly defined). So really, anyone who challenges the status quo of the institution can be labeled as the literal devil incarnate and crucified. Far too convenient, it seems to me, to have a mechanism in your religion that allows for absolute, unquestionable power to be maintaining by a single group for the rest of time.
I don't believe this is an accurate representation of Catholic belief; however, it's very possible that some Catholics do believe this. The whole Antichrist/Book of Revelations/End Times matter doesn't rise to the level of Church doctrine, AFAIK. We are simply instructed to "live each day as if it might be our last" for "no man knows the hour of His coming". But I'm just a layman; the authoritative source would be the "Catechism Of The Catholic Church".
In my mind, I do believe that there is only ONE GOD, and its just worshipped in a multitude of ways. Wilshire, we've had a few talks about how we both hate that probably more bad then good comes from religion, its just fact.
I think that's great, really I do. And, in fact, many major religions splinted off due to one group believing in a latter prophet. Jesus splintering Christianity from Judaism. Muhammad splintering further into Islam (I think?). It does seem to make sense that the hundred that are worshiped are all portions of the Absolute.
If everyone could agree that 'we' (humans) are all worshiping the same entity, that might be helpful. Even more so if we could agree on what he/she/they/it says. But there are so many rules, so many dogmas. So many people who believe so fervently that they'd kill, or themselves die, rather than question or be questioned, that I don't see how humanity can continue to exist along this path.
I find it heartening that Christianity as a worldly political power is a thing of the past. Even the violent post-Reformation conflicts between Protestants and Catholics have ended; perhaps the "Troubles" in Ireland are even over.
Every Good Friday, the Catholic liturgy includes prayers for Christian unity. The collegial, respectful attitude that you foster here at the TSA Forum is an example of what all Christians, indeed, all people should strive for.
I am very interested in what BFK/Bolivar/others who seem to have a deep relationship with religion feel about that. Again, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, just seeking opinions from those who think differently than me. I'd not otherwise speak frankly with anyone of one faith or another, so I find this conversation of particular interest.
This is marvelous, Wilshire, and I am happy to share ideas and beliefs with you. I, too, am interested in what you and others believe and in what you and others make of my beliefs.
-
I agree that a larger toolkit is a good idea. That's why I keep banging on about cognitive dualism and the need for (at least) two methods of talking about reality and human nature. The "hammer" of mechanistic materialism is as limited as the "hammer" of faith or of philosophy.
At this juncture the thread seems to be getting into the minutia of Bakker territory so I hesitate to repeat views I don't necessarily have the capacity to argue effectively but...
Faith and philosophy don't have the pedigree that "science!" does, does it? Even as someone who pays attention to anomalous human behaviours, I've not yet encountered the priest or philosopher who spake and thus produced a nuclear reaction.
Dear me, Madness, apples and oranges! You're downgrading priests and philosophers because they don't do science? If they did, they'd be scientists! As it happens, a priest named Martin Luther changed the course of human history by nailing tattooed tree pulp to a wooden door. Different tools for different tasks.
I'm not sure how I've "downgraded" priests or philosophers? There are plenty of "christian scientists" (or any other faith/sect/whichever), Dr. Damadian (http://www.icr.org/article/raymond-damadian-inventor-mri/), for instance, who precipitated MRI and fMRI.
Sure, Martin Luther, MLK Jr., the Suffragists, etc, etc, all effect change within the human sociocognitive arena (or in a certain cognitive ecology, Bakker might say).
It's bothersome being "put into a box," though I suppose it an inevitable consequence of perception and caricature. I find it kind of funny that anyone might suggest I devalue the words of anyone considering that I've been led to my personal strange and arbitrary crux by thinkers of all creeds and ideologies, secular and faithful.
Yes, we're living in an age where the method of "science!" is more highly regarded than the methods of faith and philosophy.
I don't think this is accurate. If science was more prevalently accepted than faith or philosophy, we wouldn't be seemingly overwhelmed with sociocultural dysfunction of that type.
It's the "Revenge Of The Alchemists". The point that I'm trying to make is that we need faith and philosophy (and art, for that matter) as well as science to fully explore reality. I believe* that it's very dangerous to use the "hammer" of science to reduce the tools of art, faith, and philosophy to rubble.
(*Hey, I finally managed to address the question posed by the thread!)
Again, I'm really confused as to why I'm being perceived as discounting faith, philosophy, or art as worthwhile practices and pursuits?
I think that I misunderstood what you meant by "pedigree", Madness. To me, your sentence implies some sort of ranking where science is privileged over faith and philosophy. But, upon consideration, I see that one could indeed consider science the superior method (or even the "ruling" method), while still valuing the contributions of the "lesser" methods. I hope I'm understanding you correctly now.
(God, I hope I got the quote tags right on this Frankensteinian post!)
-
I am very interested in what BFK/Bolivar/others who seem to have a deep relationship with religion feel about that. Again, I'm not trying to persuade anyone of anything, just seeking opinions from those who think differently than me. I'd not otherwise speak frankly with anyone of one faith or another, so I find this conversation of particular interest.
I think it's all cherry-picking, sensationalism, and propaganda (the evidence that gets brought up for those arguments, not your post!). I don't think the prototypical Believer who's willing to kill and unwilling to question is representative of any real segment of religious practitioners. It's a caricature.
Although it's true many Muslims would like to live under theocratic rule which some of us might find harsh, the number of them willing to kill innocent people for that is miniscule. Don't get me wrong, I do believe the political left is burying it's head in the sand on the Muslim immigration issue for misguided self-serving reasons but I've always thought terrorism was primarily geopolitically motivated. I've read the religious knowledgability of the average Jihadist is actually very low.
In Anglo-America, almost all of the public imagination of religious violence and persecution can be directly traced to anti-Catholic nativist propaganda. The imagery of the crusades as xenophobic zealots launching unprovoked invasions to steal land from cultured arabs is just not in line with the academic scholarship. They were pre-emptive, penitential wars against perennial conquerors who had already destroyed the Persian Empire and had now subjugated Spain in the west, Anatolia in the east, and North Africa to the south. The Christian nobles who led the first crusade bankrupted themselves to do it and didn't proclaim themselves rulers after they had won, most of them went on pilgrimages. We have primary evidence that the knights who took up the cross knew they had led sinful lives and wanted a way to use their skills to help other people instead of themselves. The sources about the butchery during the siege of Jerusalem were exaggerations, often by people who weren't there. The data suggests it was in line with standard medieval warfare and the casualty numbers have been continually revised further down over time as we learn more.
Even the works that first advanced the notion that science and religion are in contention with eachother, the "Conflict Thesis," have been refuted by the academic consensus as misleading and ahistorical. For most of human history, the perception of a conflict was not something naturally apparent to the average person. It's a fabrication and we can actually trace the actors and rationale through history as to why it was fabricated. I don't know about you Canucks but in America, they teach children that Europeans believed the earth was flat before Columbus, despite the fact no one really did. Their navigation would have been impossible, and clergy scholars actually had a pretty good approximation of the earth's circumference. This misinformation entered our public school system to make the German and Irish Catholic immigrants at the time look like they were bringing a repressive religion with them.
None of this is to say nothing bad ever has come out of religion ever! I just think a lot of it is based on outliers, the exceptions and not the rule. The monks at my church run the only homeless shelter in my neighborhood, a school for immigrant children with all kinds of after-school programs, and arrange companionship for people who are sick and alone. That's the average religious experience, not hopping into boats to go kill us some infidels. I just don't understand the calculus when anti-theists allege religion does more harm than good (I know many of you have denounced that proposition here). Yes, belonging to different denominations is inherently a division but so is rooting for different sports teams (actually dangerous) or graduating from different universities, I don't think it's something uniquely endemic about religion.
Now, as far as whether all faiths are the same and what deference we owe to religious hierarchy and teachings... I have A LOT to say about that but thats maybe for a different time.
-
I guess for me its the cases of misuse that are of particular importance.
Any form of governance is about as good as any other. Nothing demands that a Monarchy, a Democracy, Oligarchy, or any other should be better or worse the the other. We have stupendous examples of democracies select piss poor leaders, just as there have been bad Popes, Monarchs, etc.
Its that system's resistance to corruption that really sets one apart from the other. To me though, a religious order is the most highly susceptible to corruption, as it relies on small groups of people with absolute authority, and I have so little faith in people. The old saying power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, seems to be particularly poignant in this case.
I speak of governance, because major religions indirectly govern more people than any particular single country or government. This makes them extraordinary dangerous to the existence of humanity at large, again imo, regardless of how well - or unwell - they make the communities they are in. Its not the little things, the orphanages and the charitable donations, that worry me.
I would think, absent origin stories of our divine right over all things, a more peaceful humanity would develop. Burying good will, kindness, morality, inside of old doctrines that also carry within them a deep penchant for violence seems like a bad idea to me. Modern major religions seem largely as a means of mass control - through beliefs, they control thoughts, and therefore actions. Its easy to wind people up when religious lines start getting drawn, and nothing could be more terrifying, in my mind, than a call to arms by a major religious power.
-
I find it suspicious that there are so many beliefs, so many forms of religion, spirituality. Suspicious that one's man self-evident truths are so different than another. If there was a 'one true power', I am very confused as to how its possible so few agree on what it is.
I find this to be beautiful. The richness in religious diversity mirrors the richness of human life.
The trouble I have, what worries me about the situation, is that there is no means to question. Either you believe or you don't. What's worse though, is that as immovable ideologies clash, death comes swirling down. There doesn't seem room in the world for so many powerful people to claim divine hegemony over the world. Since no one can prove one way or the other, and since no means exist to probe deeply into one's faith from the outside, we're ultimately left with violent outcomes. Either MY god is the true one, or YOUR god is, and whichever one is left standing is correct. Its the worst kind of Might makes Right, and it terrifies me.
The "pulls" of this lies deeper than "religion" - all in the name of religion, it would still occur without religion.
Agree 100%. Me liking BFK's just really hit home to my previous question about us being machines (whoever was touting that line of thinking). We so obviously are not. We are biological beings with feeling, concerns, needs, wants, etc, etc. Those things (faith, science, Art, philosophy), are pretty dann good evidence that we ain't robots homie. It was a precise, concise statement that spoke to me.
OMG - I don't believe we are machines, goddamit! I said we are machines in the absense of the meta-physical ... mother fucker ( this comment is meant as humor addressing a "small" misunderstanding ).
I would think, absent origin stories of our divine right over all things, a more peaceful humanity would develop
I think you're off on this point, Wilshire. Could well be without origin stories things would be far worse/more violent. We simply do not know and I put forth that religion is not specifically the cause, but the accelerate ( the "cover", if you will ). Bolivar explains this more beautifully than I.
Why was I left out of the gang of spirituals/contemplatives on this forum ( ref someone asking why/what they believe as they religiously do )? I believe in Gawd ( as we say in the south ).
EDIT: Checked again, see I was lopped in as "others"
The long and short ... all the history and disparity and violence and control, blah blah blah - does not address the every day spiritual experience of a parishioner; the human abuse of religion does not negate the authenticity of individual experience. The "conundrum" of why so much variety in religious faith can be easily reconciled by accepting time/place/culture impacting human perception of the divine ... all of them are a beautiful expression of connection to the meta-physical, so it makes perfect sense they would all appear different - but the participants share the same connection, that internal experience/joy of seeing god, being with god and elevation. Could be manipulation, but for those of us "in it", it appears not.
-
But there are so many rules, so many dogmas. So many people who believe so fervently that they'd kill, or themselves die, rather than question or be questioned, that I don't see how humanity can continue to exist along this path.
Wilshire, Indont believe that's faith. In not a strong religious man. But, when I went through withdrawal of pain-killers, I met with my Pastor (only 2 years older than me) weekly. Those kinda messages were never messages passed onto me. Not even close.
What those are, are excuse to gain political power through religion, and coercing the followers of those religions.
-
OMG - I don't believe we are machines, goddamit! I said we are machines in the absense of the meta-physical ... mother fucker ( this comment is meant as humor addressing a "small" misunderstanding ).
Dude I'm seriously not ripping you. I wasn't even sure you made the statement. Just, to me, in any context, us humans are not machines. Relax, in not after you over a throw away comment.
-
I find this to be beautiful. The richness in religious diversity mirrors the richness of human life.
I agree with this to an extent. Judeo-Christianity, (Christianity, Judism and I'm probably forgetting one), account for the most followers by far on this planet. Not as much diversity as most seem to think. While there are plenty of other religions, the vast majority peaceful, I find it fascinating that all these religions basically have the same origin stories.it truly blows my mind. That's why I said there is only ONE GOD, and religions are just offshoots from those original teaching way back when.
-
I find this to be beautiful. The richness in religious diversity mirrors the richness of human life.
I agree with this to an extent. Judeo-Christianity, (Christianity, Judism and I'm probably forgetting one), account for the most followers by far on this planet. Not as much diversity as most seem to think. While there are plenty of other religions, the vast majority peaceful, I find it fascinating that all these religions basically have the same origin stories.it truly blows my mind. That's why I said there is only ONE GOD, and religions are just offshoots from those original teaching way back when.
I agree, but to be fair, there are over 1600 denominations of Christianity across the planet ( many for customs, but many for differing interpretations of the bible ). So I can see how an "outsider" would see a panacea of religious expression across the world.
For those concerned about the tyranny of religion, while you have been presented a different view of historical evidence of said tyranny, has re-examination eased your alarm? Are you sure it's not driven by your personal experience? I wouldn't blame you if that was the case, we've all probably been traumatized by a Jesus freak at one time or another. I was working in the mall earlier in life and this freak show came up to me and started shouting at me that he sees the demon inside of me - for which I presented my best demonic smile and deep voice I could muster and demanded he yield me his soul. There was another time I purposely answered the door naked addressing Jehovah's Witnesses. It was a mother and daughter team for which the mother slammed her hand over her daughter's eyes in shock with the daughter squirming demanding, "let me see, let me see!". Had another fucker come up to me saying he could see my life was led by darkness and I turned the tables on him responding that he should should accept Christ as his lord and savior and it devolved into each other begging the other to join the other's church ( cheap trick, I know, but still funny ).
Maybe for cathartic purposes, we can all share our "strangers harassing strangers" encounters. Or just for laughs.
Sincerely,
The Original Tao in the Machine ;D
-
I have never been harassed, accosted, or otherwise abused (mentally, physically, emotionally, spiritually, etc.) by any person who might be considered a religious leader in any faith. Or further, not even a serious practitioner of any faith. My concerns are specific to my observations of people and how they act. I grew up catholic, fwiw.
Again, I get that people do good things. But good people don't need religious institutions to be good people. Granted, society doesn't presently have a replacement for all the useful functions a decent local church, or whatever centralized entity that locals call their place of worship, but that doesn't mean we can't work to replace them. Again, fundamental disagreement: that all that's good about religion is in spite of all its metaphysical baggage, not because of.
I don't like zealotry, and nothing quite makes a fanatic like believing god has told you its OK to do what you're doing.
Somewhat unrelated, but Psatma's fictional words resonate with me, when she spoke about how giving is not selfless when you're actually trying to purchase your way into heaven.
I also hate when people offload responsibility to an entity outside themselves. Good or bad, people excuse all actions to their deity, and that makes me sad.
(Sorry TH, didn't mean to leave you out. I'm not 100% clear, other than your train thing and your pro-soul argument, where you stand relative to your faith. Of course, please comment :) )
-
Human can and will use anything they can get their "hands" on to manipulate the world toward pragmatic ends. Religion is absolutely no different than anything else in this respect. That isn't a knock on religion though, that's a comment on human nature. Science can and has been used for the same purpose throughout human history, consider things like "phrenology" and other nonsense like that. Indeed, when it comes to science it is "easier" to debunk some of those things, but again, my point isn't that science is better than religion, it's that humans (in general) are manipulative and heavily, heavily biased.
-
Again, I get that people do good things. But good people don't need religious institutions to be good people. Granted, society doesn't presently have a replacement for all the useful functions a decent local church, or whatever centralized entity that locals call their place of worship, but that doesn't mean we can't work to replace them. Again, fundamental disagreement: that all that's good about religion is in spite of all its metaphysical baggage, not because of.
You noted yesterday, in a different context, that destruction is easy compared to creation. I suppose I can understand your interest in replacing churches with secular community centers of some kind, given your rejection of the metaphysical "baggage" of religion. I know that St. Louis has an institution called the "Ethical Society" which I imagine is in line with your thinking. So, the work of replacement is underway, but it will be slow work at best.
Today's pressing problem is the alienation of individuals and the lack of community, so any and all attempts to build new ways to connect are welcome, in my opinion. And I hope you'll agree that the preservation of what's good within faith communities is worth the toleration of idiosyncratic metaphysical preoccupations.
-
Today's pressing problem is the alienation of individuals and the lack of community, so any and all attempts to build new ways to connect are welcome, in my opinion. And I hope you'll agree that the preservation of what's good within faith communities is worth the toleration of idiosyncratic metaphysical preoccupations.
Slow work, indeed. The easy part is disparaging entire groups and saying 'get rid of all of it!' (basically what I've more/less said so far). The hard work is actually trying to find a workable solution that is possible within the confines of the reality that we live in.
To that end, I'd absolutely admit that identifying and preserving what's been done correctly in faith communities is a worthy endeavor. Prayer, as an obvious example, when done in groups (like before dinner), is a suburb way of telling people you care about them. Being told you're cared about is deeply satisfying and I'm sure has all kinds of measurable positive psychological effects, but I don't imagine most people would willing hold hands in a group and tell those people they love them - family or not. Its somehow easier when you're speaking affirmations and being grateful, to do so at/to a third part, rather than directly to a person/group.
-
Today's pressing problem is the alienation of individuals and the lack of community, so any and all attempts to build new ways to connect are welcome, in my opinion. And I hope you'll agree that the preservation of what's good within faith communities is worth the toleration of idiosyncratic metaphysical preoccupations.
This is why my own personal belief is to categorize "what people believe" and "what people do" separately.
I really don't care what people need to think in order to be better humans, I care that they are actually act better.
-
Today's pressing problem is the alienation of individuals and the lack of community, so any and all attempts to build new ways to connect are welcome, in my opinion. And I hope you'll agree that the preservation of what's good within faith communities is worth the toleration of idiosyncratic metaphysical preoccupations.
Slow work, indeed. The easy part is disparaging entire groups and saying 'get rid of all of it!' (basically what I've more/less said so far). The hard work is actually trying to find a workable solution that is possible within the confines of the reality that we live in.
To that end, I'd absolutely admit that identifying and preserving what's been done correctly in faith communities is a worthy endeavor. Prayer, as an obvious example, when done in groups (like before dinner), is a suburb way of telling people you care about them. Being told you're cared about is deeply satisfying and I'm sure has all kinds of measurable positive psychological effects, but I don't imagine most people would willing hold hands in a group and tell those people they love them - family or not. Its somehow easier when you're speaking affirmations and being grateful, to do so at/to a third part, rather than directly to a person/group.
Very astute observation, Wilshire. The sad fact is that we are all isolated selves, and it is so hard to trust/connect/love others. We want to reach out, but we fear rejection. So, eventually, we look beyond this world for help. Your example of praying at dinner is so on-target. Other examples abound: gathering for weddings and funerals. Similar impulses apply; we want to express our love, concern and hopes for the new couple, and we want to honor the life of the one who has passed. But so many uncertainties assail us, so we unite under the protection of a third party, and petition in His name
-
Hey, how 'bout ol' BFK referring to the tenets of his faith as "idiosyncratic metaphysical preoccupations"?
Now that's philosophical detachment!
-
So many people who believe so fervently that they'd kill, or themselves die, rather than question or be questioned, that I don't see how humanity can continue to exist along this path.
+1
Theology as we've exercised it so far seems very infantile.
again, I'm trying to demarcate the areas where faith is a valid method and where it is not.
Curious about this quest of yours.
I find it heartening that Christianity as a worldly political power is a thing of the past.
Do you really believe that? I don't think that's accurate. If nothing else (you know, despite that faithful still being a third of all humanity), the Vatican still commands prodigious wealth and is one of the few legitimate City-States remaining.
Interestingly enough, I have a worthwhile anecdote about the Vatican's wealth for later.
The collegial, respectful attitude that you foster here at the TSA Forum is an example of what all Christians, indeed, all people should strive for.
I'd like to think we aspire so.
I think that I misunderstood what you meant by "pedigree", Madness. To me, your sentence implies some sort of ranking where science is privileged over faith and philosophy. But, upon consideration, I see that one could indeed consider science the superior method (or even the "ruling" method), while still valuing the contributions of the "lesser" methods. I hope I'm understanding you correctly now.
I'm not even sure that's accurate (and I don't believe pedigree has positive or negative connotations).
For me, referring to science or faith or philosophy as "superior" than other methodologies is unnecessary. As Wilshire has said a couple times, these phenomenon exist because they fulfill some functional crux in human sociocultural behavioral output. As Bakker might say, whether or not these cognitions are concurrent/harmonious/whatever within a given cognitive ecology has no warrant for "superior/inferior/better/worse" attributions.
I don't think the prototypical Believer who's willing to kill and unwilling to question is representative of any real segment of religious practitioners. It's a caricature.
Likely but those caricatures also still exist and do harm for real.
I just don't understand the calculus when anti-theists allege religion does more harm than good (I know many of you have denounced that proposition here). Yes, belonging to different denominations is inherently a division but so is rooting for different sports teams (actually dangerous) or graduating from different universities, I don't think it's something uniquely endemic about religion.
This thread has certainly ranged.
I think you might have hit something of a crux in this conversation. The problem is that religion does harm at all. As does science, philosophy, basically any type/grade/spectrum/etc of certainty. Again, I don't like to speak for Wilshire, but I'm fairly sure we're not saying anything about harm being uniquely endemic in religion - but it does seem that religion has far more adherents than science (or philosophy for that matter).
I *feel* (and data could very easily prove me wrong) like more people punch each other out over religion than sports.
Its that system's resistance to corruption that really sets one apart from the other. To me though, a religious order is the most highly susceptible to corruption, as it relies on small groups of people with absolute authority, and I have so little faith in people. The old saying power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, seems to be particularly poignant in this case.
I speak of governance, because major religions indirectly govern more people than any particular single country or government. This makes them extraordinary dangerous to the existence of humanity at large, again imo, regardless of how well - or unwell - they make the communities they are in. Its not the little things, the orphanages and the charitable donations, that worry me.
+1
I would think, absent origin stories of our divine right over all things, a more peaceful humanity would develop. Burying good will, kindness, morality, inside of old doctrines that also carry within them a deep penchant for violence seems like a bad idea to me.
It especially riles me when it is suggested that without organized religion "the beast that is human simply couldn't 'behave' itself."
The "pulls" of this lies deeper than "religion" - all in the name of religion, it would still occur without religion.
Would this violence occur as much or with such vehemence?
The long and short ... all the history and disparity and violence and control, blah blah blah - does not address the every day spiritual experience of a parishioner; the human abuse of religion does not negate the authenticity of individual experience. The "conundrum" of why so much variety in religious faith can be easily reconciled by accepting time/place/culture impacting human perception of the divine ... all of them are a beautiful expression of connection to the meta-physical, so it makes perfect sense they would all appear different - but the participants share the same connection, that internal experience/joy of seeing god, being with god and elevation. Could be manipulation, but for those of us "in it", it appears not.
I'm not sure anyone is purposefully trying to invalidate the "everyday spiritual experience" of faithful individuals.
Otherwise, Blind Men and the Elephant (https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/blind-men-and-the-elephant.htm).
I agree with this to an extent. Judeo-Christianity, (Christianity, Judism and I'm probably forgetting one), account for the most followers by far on this planet. Not as much diversity as most seem to think. While there are plenty of other religions, the vast majority peaceful, I find it fascinating that all these religions basically have the same origin stories.it truly blows my mind. That's why I said there is only ONE GOD, and religions are just offshoots from those original teaching way back when.
Anecdote, neither here nor there, really, but my Dad was a protestant who gave up his faith for my Mom (poor choice, either way, I'm fairly sure they married because of me and were never good together). A couple of years ago he decides that he's going to read the primary texts of every major religion he can source.
Not news to any of us, I think, but, of course, he - on the rare occasion that he talked to me - reported "they're all saying the same thing!" with the incredulity of the horrified. "Why is anyone fighting over these texts?!"
It's important to remember that the average person of any creed/ideology isn't able to have the conversation we're having right now. This might render us all heretics to the average embedded faithful.
For those concerned about the tyranny of religion, while you have been presented a different view of historical evidence of said tyranny, has re-examination eased your alarm? Are you sure it's not driven by your personal experience?
For my part, I'll simply repeat what I've over and over. No matter what your belief, up to and including Bakker's Semantic Apocalypse, "so what?" How do individuals act because of or in spite of what creed/ideological/philosophical commitments they maintain?
...
+1
Human can and will use anything they can get their "hands" on to manipulate the world toward pragmatic ends. Religion is absolutely no different than anything else in this respect. That isn't a knock on religion though, that's a comment on human nature. Science can and has been used for the same purpose throughout human history, consider things like "phrenology" and other nonsense like that. Indeed, when it comes to science it is "easier" to debunk some of those things, but again, my point isn't that science is better than religion, it's that humans (in general) are manipulative and heavily, heavily biased.
"Science!" has been used as an excuse to do some terribly unethical things, just as religion has, just as philosophy has, etc, etc.
You noted yesterday, in a different context, that destruction is easy compared to creation.
I think that was me.
Today's pressing problem is the alienation of individuals and the lack of community, so any and all attempts to build new ways to connect are welcome, in my opinion.
That problem is more a direct result of technology than it is embodied creed/ideology, no?
To that end, I'd absolutely admit that identifying and preserving what's been done correctly in faith communities is a worthy endeavor. Prayer, as an obvious example, when done in groups (like before dinner), is a suburb way of telling people you care about them. Being told you're cared about is deeply satisfying and I'm sure has all kinds of measurable positive psychological effects, but I don't imagine most people would willing hold hands in a group and tell those people they love them - family or not. Its somehow easier when you're speaking affirmations and being grateful, to do so at/to a third part, rather than directly to a person/group.
Song, hymn, etc., like prayer, is likewise beneficial. Communal oscillation. The content can safely differ, I think, though.
This is why my own personal belief is to categorize "what people believe" and "what people do" separately.
I really don't care what people need to think in order to be better humans, I care that they are actually act better.
+1
-
The wealth of the Vatican doesn't give it worldly political power. Wealth is not a source of political power. Plutocracies, if they exist, are not powerful. I would consider them the equivalent of gated communities or tax-shelter nations. Powerful enough to be left alone, and that's pretty much the geopolitical status of the Vatican.
-
I *feel* (and data could very easily prove me wrong) like more people punch each other out over religion than sports
-1
alcohol is number 1
Would this violence occur as much or with such vehemence?
Don't know.
I'm not sure anyone is purposefully trying to invalidate the "everyday spiritual experience" of faithful individuals.
Not the point. The ( complaints? critiques? ) of religion in this thread appear to denote Religion is more trouble than it's worth. Per H, religion is following et al with corruption, abuse, etc. So singling it out is an error. The point is the experience is desired, so the failed leadership of religion(s) should not fall upon followers to pay for that. I think those of us defending religion are selling it short by saying it "only" does some good ( although should be good enough, reducing human misery is awesome, connection and fellowship is powerful ), but it's massive footprint simply cannot be fathomed what it would be like to be without it. Some of the drive to learn/be more/better can be owed to spiritual experience of "dreaming" the cosmos. "Being" with God can be an impressive driver. I suspect we would still be throwing shit at each other in caves if not for religion.
fairly sure they married because of me and were never good together
The spouse is the first to be interviewed after a murder ... all you need to know about marriage.
It's important to remember that the average person of any creed/ideology isn't able to have the conversation we're having right now. This might render us all heretics to the average embedded faithful.
Think I covered this before, but to re-articulate, most faithful are not like this and as you connect within ( a church for example ), you would be surprised ( pleasantly, I hope ) at the diversity of people/interests you find. Unfortunately, too diverse in that criminals participate as well. There's a cost to everything, most religions are inclusive ( not completely, there's the common error of rejecting on sexual orientation - mean this in the sense they want to "spread" and anyone not showing up in pink pants is likely welcome ) and that inclusiveness opens them to being taken advantage of. I get it, there are freaks out there - but most of the Christians I've shared my life with sport an interest in many things secular.
-
The collegial, respectful attitude that you foster here at the TSA Forum is an example of what all Christians, indeed, all people should strive for.
It's important to remember that the average person of any creed/ideology isn't able to have the conversation we're having right now. This might render us all heretics to the average embedded faithful.
No, its a testament to what you and Wilshire and many other have created. A place discuss an issue like Religion and someone not totally flip out.
Hey, your dad could've just watched Ancient Aliens! ;)
-
Tao, you must remember that more people have died in wars fought with an religious agenda than all other wars combined. Right now, we a tetering on the edge of a global war because Islam and the West (Christianity) don't see eye to eye. There is plenty of merit to having a disdain of religion, for that reason alone.
-
The wealth of the Vatican doesn't give it worldly political power.
Oh, what would pay/give to see their coffers? The Holy Coffers, Boys!
The Vatican is a worldly power because of the amount of followers they have and its.....A LOT.
-
Tao, you must remember that more people have died in wars fought with an religious agenda than all other wars combined. Right now, we a tetering on the edge of a global war because Islam and the West (Christianity) don't see eye to eye. There is plenty of merit to having a disdain of religion, for that reason alone.
That's not true. A lot of US involvement which later led to terrorist groups, destabilization of countries etc. was due to the fear of communism and/or economic reasons. It has little to do with Islam vs Christianity.
-
The wealth of the Vatican doesn't give it worldly political power.
Oh, what would pay/give to see their coffers? The Holy Coffers, Boys!
The Vatican is a worldly power because of the amount of followers they have and its.....A LOT.
Yes, but those followers are scattered all over the world and, more importantly, they are citizens of actual nations. The Vatican's worldly power is limited to its ability to influence actual worldly political powers. It has no geopolitical power. Influence, yes. Power, no. In fact, I seriously doubt that the Vatican could survive as a city-state if it hadn't been "grandfathered" in as a result of its historic location in Old Europe.
-
That's not true. A lot of US involvement which later led to terrorist groups, destabilization of countries etc. was due to the fear of communism and/or economic reasons. It really has pretty much nothing to do with Islam vs Christianity.
You being serious? Did you skip history in school? Wars have been fought over religion since the B.C.'s. Rome's treatment of early Christianity. The 55 crusades over a hill in Jerusalem. Persians, whom were Islamic, having Jihad and conquering most of the known world. And many, many more that I can't think of. Its has nothing to do with the Cold War. Hell even WWII was sort of a religious war. As the Germans thought the Aryan(sp?) race superior and oh you know basically exterminated the Jewish population, who they thought less. Look close enough and religion is involved in damn near every war, now that I think of it. My first statement, which you quoted, was wrong. Religion is the reason for 90%, if not more of all wars across time.
-
The collegial, respectful attitude that you foster here at the TSA Forum is an example of what all Christians, indeed, all people should strive for.
It's important to remember that the average person of any creed/ideology isn't able to have the conversation we're having right now. This might render us all heretics to the average embedded faithful.
No, its a testament to what you and Wilshire and many other have created. A place discuss an issue like Religion and someone not totally flip out.
Hey, your dad could've just watched Ancient Aliens! ;)
^ Can't reiterate this enough. I've been on a number of forums but this is the first one where I could discuss my religious views and have this kind of discussion. This is not normal for the internet or maybe even real life for that matter. Truth be told, you guys have likely given my posts more courtesy than their content actually deserves.
It probably helps that you make an effort to include new members on the podcast. I suspect establishing that vocal connection fosters a bit more civility than we would otherwise have.
-
Yes, but those followers are scattered all over the world and, more importantly, they are citizens of actual nations. The Vatican's worldly power is limited to its ability to influence actual worldly political powers. It has no geopolitical power. Influence, yes. Power, no. In fact, I seriously doubt that the Vatican could survive as a city-state if it hadn't been "grandfathered" in as a result of its historic location in Old Europe.
I stand corrected, influence is a much better word. But, influence does yield power. For the Vatican, it keeps them safe as you said, as a autonomous nation.
You still didn't answer....what would give or pay to visit their coffers?
-
Yes, but those followers are scattered all over the world and, more importantly, they are citizens of actual nations. The Vatican's worldly power is limited to its ability to influence actual worldly political powers. It has no geopolitical power. Influence, yes. Power, no. In fact, I seriously doubt that the Vatican could survive as a city-state if it hadn't been "grandfathered" in as a result of its historic location in Old Europe.
I stand corrected, influence is a much better word. But, influence does yield power. For the Vatican, it keeps them safe as you said, as a autonomous nation.
You still didn't answer....what would give or pay to visit their coffers?
Not really an interest of mine, to be honest. Isn't a lot of Vatican wealth in the form of valuable artworks? So.....a truly excellent museum? Unless.....there's a mysterious black Sarcophagus..... ;)
-
Bolivar, even when politics is discussed here its fairly civil, more so than another forum I can name.
I think its the environment created, your point of a LOT of us verbally communicating for Casts or just to chat. And, its a different breed that likes Bakker, as we do here. I think a LOT of us are more open minded and tolerant. Its a great place.
-
Not really an interest of mine, to be honest. Isn't a lot of Vatican wealth in the form of valuable artworks? So.....a truly excellent museum? Unless.....there's a mysterious black Sarcophagus..... ;)
Artwork, yes. But a treasure trove of documents, books and other things that are locked away for a reason. I think there is a reason its closed off and not public. And, its to protect the church, for one reason or another.
-
That's not true. A lot of US involvement which later led to terrorist groups, destabilization of countries etc. was due to the fear of communism and/or economic reasons. It really has pretty much nothing to do with Islam vs Christianity.
You being serious? Did you skip history in school? Wars have been fought over religion since the B.C.'s. Rome's treatment of early Christianity. The 55 crusades over a hill in Jerusalem. Persians, whom were Islamic, having Jihad and conquering most of the known world. And many, many more that I can't think of. Its has nothing to do with the Cold War. Hell even WWII was sort of a religious war. As the Germans thought the Aryan(sp?) race superior and oh you know basically exterminated the Jewish population, who they thought less. Look close enough and religion is involved in damn near every war, now that I think of it. My first statement, which you quoted, was wrong. Religion is the reason for 90%, if not more of all wars across time.
Tao, you must remember that more people have died in wars fought with an religious agenda than all other wars combined. Right now, we a tetering on the edge of a global war because Islam and the West (Christianity) don't see eye to eye. There is plenty of merit to having a disdain of religion, for that reason alone.
Right now, we a tetering on the edge of a global war because Islam and the West (Christianity) don't see eye to eye. There is plenty of merit to having a disdain of religion, for that reason alone.
we a tetering on the edge of a global war because Islam and the West (Christianity) don't see eye to eye.
-
The collegial, respectful attitude that you foster here at the TSA Forum is an example of what all Christians, indeed, all people should strive for.
It's important to remember that the average person of any creed/ideology isn't able to have the conversation we're having right now. This might render us all heretics to the average embedded faithful.
No, its a testament to what you and Wilshire and many other have created. A place discuss an issue like Religion and someone not totally flip out.
Hey, your dad could've just watched Ancient Aliens! ;)
^ Can't reiterate this enough. I've been on a number of forums but this is the first one where I could discuss my religious views and have this kind of discussion. This is not normal for the internet or maybe even real life for that matter. Truth be told, you guys have likely given my posts more courtesy than their content actually deserves.
It probably helps that you make an effort to include new members on the podcast. I suspect establishing that vocal connection fosters a bit more civility than we would otherwise have.
The judicious brandishing and occasional application of the BanHammer certainly helps.... ;)
-
Unless.....there's a mysterious black Sarcophagus....
I laughed hard at this one, BFK - brilliant response :)
TL, I think your mutilated your post, it's just quotes, don't see your comments on them.
Tangent to the discussion on the history of religious war, I proffer that religion is so ingrained in human history, so much of the human experience, that to say what it would be like without it is like saying what would we have been like if we didn't have the opposable thumb, prohibiting the grasp of a gun. Even if any/all religions "are wrong", it's significance saturates human reality so much so it transcends the significance of it's accuracy. So much is going on with religion on so many levels, to dismiss it as mere manipulation is to overly simplify perhaps the most powerful moving sociological force in human history with several of you yielding so much ground to it that you're "blaming" it for most of the wars.
-
Unless.....there's a mysterious black Sarcophagus....
I laughed hard at this one, BFK - brilliant response :)
Well, MSJ informs us that there's all kinds of random crap hidden away, most of it valuable. There's gotta be a sealed room with a sign saying "Open ONLY in the event of extraterrestrial invasion!"
Tangent to the discussion on the history of religious war, I proffer that religion is so ingrained in human history, so much of the human experience, that to say what it would be like without it is like saying what would we have been like if we didn't have the opposable thumb, prohibiting the grasp of a gun. Even if any/all religions "are wrong", it's significance saturates human reality so much so it transcends the significance of it's accuracy. So much is going on with religion on so many levels, to dismiss it as mere manipulation is to overly simplify perhaps the most powerful moving sociological force in human history with several of you yielding so much ground to it that you're "blaming" it for most of the wars.
Exactly right, my friend. The fact that the religious impulse is so ingrained in humanity is the only way it makes any sense at all to blame a modern war like WWII on religion.
-
Well, MSJ informs us that there's all kinds of random crap hidden away, most of it valuable. There's gotta be a sealed room with a sign saying "Open ONLY in the event of extraterrestrial invasion!"
I'm not getting what you mean here?
-
Well, MSJ informs us that there's all kinds of random crap hidden away, most of it valuable. There's gotta be a sealed room with a sign saying "Open ONLY in the event of extraterrestrial invasion!"
I'm not getting what you mean here?
Sorry, MSJ, that's a reference to our Vatican discussion (the Coffers!) and to my little joke about a mysterious black Sarcophagus hidden among the valuables. Wouldn't that be something?
-
The wealth of the Vatican doesn't give it worldly political power. Wealth is not a source of political power. Plutocracies, if they exist, are not powerful. I would consider them the equivalent of gated communities or tax-shelter nations. Powerful enough to be left alone, and that's pretty much the geopolitical status of the Vatican.
I'm not sure that's accurate.
I *feel* (and data could very easily prove me wrong) like more people punch each other out over religion than sports
-1
alcohol is number 1
I didn't suggest religion is the "number one" reason people punch each other out.
I'm not sure anyone is purposefully trying to invalidate the "everyday spiritual experience" of faithful individuals.
Not the point. The ( complaints? critiques? ) of religion in this thread appear to denote Religion is more trouble than it's worth.
Really?
Per H, religion is following et al with corruption, abuse, etc. So singling it out is an error. The point is the experience is desired, so the failed leadership of religion(s) should not fall upon followers to pay for that. I think those of us defending religion are selling it short by saying it "only" does some good ( although should be good enough, reducing human misery is awesome, connection and fellowship is powerful ), but it's massive footprint simply cannot be fathomed what it would be like to be without it. Some of the drive to learn/be more/better can be owed to spiritual experience of "dreaming" the cosmos. "Being" with God can be an impressive driver. I suspect we would still be throwing shit at each other in caves if not for religion.
And as follow up to "really?," I'm not reading the same thread you are apparently.
I get it, there are freaks out there - but most of the Christians I've shared my life with sport an interest in many things secular.
Lol, I feel like a zoo feature or a museum exhibit.
Hey, your dad could've just watched Ancient Aliens! ;)
Nah, he'd dismiss that as garbage. Something something "the word of god(s)" or GTFO.
The collegial, respectful attitude that you foster here at the TSA Forum is an example of what all Christians, indeed, all people should strive for.
It's important to remember that the average person of any creed/ideology isn't able to have the conversation we're having right now. This might render us all heretics to the average embedded faithful.
No, its a testament to what you and Wilshire and many other have created. A place discuss an issue like Religion and someone not totally flip out.
...
^ Can't reiterate this enough. I've been on a number of forums but this is the first one where I could discuss my religious views and have this kind of discussion. This is not normal for the internet or maybe even real life for that matter. Truth be told, you guys have likely given my posts more courtesy than their content actually deserves.
It probably helps that you make an effort to include new members on the podcast. I suspect establishing that vocal connection fosters a bit more civility than we would otherwise have.
Aw-shucks.
So.....a truly excellent museum?
And (mostly) unread primary texts (outside of the hierarchical scholarship of the Vatican itself). The Vatican "Coffers" might very well equal a contemporary Alexandria.
...
Was "we a tetering on the edge of a global war because Islam and the West (Christianity) don't see eye to eye" what you wanted to highlight here, tleilaxu?
Tangent to the discussion on the history of religious war, I proffer that religion is so ingrained in human history, so much of the human experience, that to say what it would be like without it is like saying what would we have been like if we didn't have the opposable thumb, prohibiting the grasp of a gun. Even if any/all religions "are wrong", it's significance saturates human reality so much so it transcends the significance of it's accuracy. So much is going on with religion on so many levels, to dismiss it as mere manipulation is to overly simplify perhaps the most powerful moving sociological force in human history with several of you yielding so much ground to it that you're "blaming" it for most of the wars.
I'm curious how you reconcile these thoughts with pre-historical (written record) shamanism/matriarchies/etc/etc/etc, Tao.
Exactly right, my friend. The fact that the religious impulse is so ingrained in humanity is the only way it makes any sense at all to blame a modern war like WWII on religion.
I don't think I necessarily agree with either MSJ or Tao but the rhetoric on the part of the Allies certainly seemed to rely on religiosity.
-
The wealth of the Vatican doesn't give it worldly political power. Wealth is not a source of political power. Plutocracies, if they exist, are not powerful. I would consider them the equivalent of gated communities or tax-shelter nations. Powerful enough to be left alone, and that's pretty much the geopolitical status of the Vatican.
I'm not sure that's accurate.
Well, since one of the many areas of discussion in this thread has become whether or not Christianity is still a worldly political power, I would argue that the reduced geopolitical status of Vatican City (at one time part of the Papal States) is a political fact of our times. My other points (e.g., the relationship between wealth and political power) are certainly debatable. Tangent to the discussion on the history of religious war, I proffer that religion is so ingrained in human history, so much of the human experience, that to say what it would be like without it is like saying what would we have been like if we didn't have the opposable thumb, prohibiting the grasp of a gun. Even if any/all religions "are wrong", it's significance saturates human reality so much so it transcends the significance of it's accuracy. So much is going on with religion on so many levels, to dismiss it as mere manipulation is to overly simplify perhaps the most powerful moving sociological force in human history with several of you yielding so much ground to it that you're "blaming" it for most of the wars.
Exactly right, my friend. The fact that the religious impulse is so ingrained in humanity is the only way it makes any sense at all to blame a modern war like WWII on religion.
I don't think I necessarily agree with either MSJ or Tao but the rhetoric on the part of the Allies certainly seemed to rely on religiosity.
So, Madness, would your perception of Allied rhetoric during WWII being reliant on "religiosity" then lead you to a conclusion that Christianity is still a worldly political power?
My point is that Christendom as a worldly political entity no longer exists. There's no Holy Roman Empire. There's no Holy Roman Emperor. Those days are over. I suppose I should have specified "Christendom" at the outset, but I truly thought my description of Christianity as a "worldly political power" was sufficient.
In other words, I'm not saying that Christianity is politically irrelevant. I'm saying that Pope Francis cannot realistically wage war against another geopolitical state...well, maybe Malta.... ;).
(Unless I'm overlooking something, "Quick Reply" doesn't seem to have a "cut and paste" feature. That would really help me cope with these multiquote posts.)
-
In other words, I'm not saying that Christianity is politically irrelevant. I'm saying that Pope Francis cannot realistically wage war against another geopolitical state. (Well, maybe Malta.... ;))
I agree with this as an accurate state of Christianity. Though, I can see where others would just say the U.S. is basically a Christian power. Were overwhelmingly Christian, and hell, good ol' Dubya waged a war with God on our side a decade and some change ago.
Its relevant in the U.S. and plays a major role in who is in office. But, I know you know this.
I mean right now I could very well claim that we are in a endless war of Islam vs the West. The bombings and killings haven't stopped.
Call me crazy, but I've read a few books on Revelation and the "end times". It paints a very accurate description of the war/standoff going on right now. That it would start in Syria and a showdown between a Russia/Islam/Chinese vs the West/USA would be the end result of what we're seeing right now. I read the book ten years ago and I'm sure it was written way before that. Do I believe it? No. Not wholly. But, its eerie as shit when you see it playing out like it said it would. I believe we control our own future though. What scares the shit outta me for definite is a president that tweets nuclear threats. Scary stuff.
-
I don't get where one might claim catholicism, or christianity, isn't a political power.
Wealth prescribes power in a world that turns on capitalism, and as such, major religious institutions are some of the wealthiest entities in the world. (Secretly, of course, wouldn't want to make public the ledgers).
Most major world powers follow , in many respects, the religious doctrine setforth therein. As pointed out above, the declaration of a particular allegiance to a religion is a massive deciding factor in who gets elected president in the US - and I imagine something similar in most countries.
Perhaps reality if far different, but that's the conclusion I've drawn from what I've seen.
If the Pope called for a crusade, an army would show up where he pointed, the place on the map would disappear. Choosing not to use power does not mean that power isn't held. And nothing could be more dangerous on a worldwide level than such a declaration. No way to test this difference in opinion until it happens - I hope I'm wrong. (beating a dead horse on that one, I'll stop bringing it up lol)
The altruistic view of religious people largely 'doing good' is illusory, in my experience. Plenty of other entities perform such functions - declaring 'god' and putting a cross on the deed doesn't make it inherently more or less good. Or actually, if I'm being honest, it makes it less good. Unfortunately, for me I see such declarations as selfish, a means to buy one's way into heaven, a method of placing oneself in higher regard to other's. Using religion, or god, to back up ones actions is a power play. In my mind it has no other use than to manipulate people's minds and thoughts, or a cheap recruitment tactic. It rankles.
Example: Want to donate to a charity? Great! Calling it a tithe really ruins it for me.
While I might feel that a future where any religion as a major power no longer exists, and is no longer used to excuse actions, I don't think such a reality will exist. Nor do I think that there is anything to be gained by trying to force that change in any way.
I think the practice of restricting any religion is ridiculous. IMO, there are no differences between banned death cults and the trillion dollar industry of catholicism. No difference between extremest terror groups and the parent religions they come from. No one claim to divine inspiration is any more legitimate than any other. I think they are all equally invalid, but if for those who believe in one, it seems hypocritical to not accept all of them. (that's not really fair, more like hypocritical to not accept most major views that don't appear to be purposefully created for personal gain). How can you possibly sort them out? ... So to me better none than all.
But that's the easy part ;) . *Wilshire:* declares "I think this!", affects nothing, then moves on to other forum posts. Lol. I should stick to watching for a while, I think of my 'belives' have been put down at this point.
-
I don't get where one might claim catholicism, or christianity, isn't a political power.
Wealth prescribes power in a world that turns on capitalism, and as such, major religious institutions are some of the wealthiest entities in the world. (Secretly, of course, wouldn't want to make public the ledgers).
Most major world powers follow , in many respects, the religious doctrine setforth therein. As pointed out above, the declaration of a particular allegiance to a religion is a massive deciding factor in who gets elected president in the US - and I imagine something similar in most countries.
Perhaps reality if far different, but that's the conclusion I've drawn from what I've seen.
If the Pope called for a crusade, an army would show up where he pointed, the place on the map would disappear. Choosing not to use power does not mean that power isn't held. And nothing could be more dangerous on a worldwide level than such a declaration. No way to test this difference in opinion until it happens - I hope I'm wrong. (beating a dead horse on that one, I'll stop bringing it up lol)
The altruistic view of religious people largely 'doing good' is illusory, in my experience. Plenty of other entities perform such functions - declaring 'god' and putting a cross on the deed doesn't make it inherently more or less good. Or actually, if I'm being honest, it makes it less good. Unfortunately, for me I see such declarations as selfish, a means to buy one's way into heaven, a method of placing oneself in higher regard to other's. Using religion, or god, to back up ones actions is a power play. In my mind it has no other use than to manipulate people's minds and thoughts, or a cheap recruitment tactic. It rankles.
Example: Want to donate to a charity? Great! Calling it a tithe really ruins it for me.
While I might feel that a future where any religion as a major power no longer exists, and is no longer used to excuse actions, I don't think such a reality will exist. Nor do I think that there is anything to be gained by trying to force that change in any way.
I think the practice of restricting any religion is ridiculous. IMO, there are no differences between banned death cults and the trillion dollar industry of catholicism. No difference between extremest terror groups and the parent religions they come from. No one claim to divine inspiration is any more legitimate than any other. I think they are all equally invalid, but if for those who believe in one, it seems hypocritical to not accept all of them. (that's not really fair, more like hypocritical to not accept most major views that don't appear to be purposefully created for personal gain). How can you possibly sort them out? ... So to me better none than all.
But that's the easy part ;) . *Wilshire:* declares "I think this!", affects nothing, then moves on to other forum posts. Lol. I should stick to watching for a while, I think of my 'belives' have been put down at this point.
I thought about attempting to counter your post paragraph by paragraph, but I will limit myself to a couple of observations.
1. Imho, your view of the Pope's ability to call for a crusade demonstrates the real-world limits of the power of the Papacy. What army, in actual fact, would show up? Presumably, some nation's army. What nation would literally take "marching orders" from the Vatican? As Vizzini would say, "Inconceivable!"
2. I'm really disheartened to read that you view religiously-motivated charitable activity as "manipulative" and "a cheap recruitment tactic". As for the "buy your way into heaven" accusation.....all I'll say is that it would take a pretty ignorant Catholic to try that long-discredited method. Besides, charitable activity shouldn't be "shouted from the rooftops", and certainly not private individual charity. I realize that some public acknowledgement seems to be unavoidable, mostly due to the hecklers inside and outside the Church asking "Where's the money going?"
Thanks for sharing, Wilshire!
-
I think everyone should listen to, or watch, this lecture, even if you aren't religious, or if you are:
Introduction to the Idea of God (https://jordanbpeterson.com/2017/05/episode-18/)
A very short synopsis: a psychological look at the Bible. Seriously though, even if you are not at all spiritual, this is a must hear. My own views would be pretty much in line, no doubt because I, like Peterson, studied clinical psychology, read Jung and so on. Still, bias aside, it's a very astute analysis.
-
I believe that there is a God, in a very trivial and general sense. And free will is trivially false.
Life (capital L) as we know it is basically a system that works towards two things: increased complexity (intelligence) and decreased chaos (entropy).
Entropy will always increase for an isolated system.
In that sense, life is not ontologically different from the rest of matter. Free energy goes in, the system consumes to maintain a steady state, heat comes out.
What is special about is that we are configurations of matter aware of ourselves and the universe. I would love to live long enough to see how it all ends.
I don't think the thread ever got around to really tackling Tleilaxu's OP. I was wondering if Tleilaxu could expand on what he means by God being trivially true and free will being trivially false.
Also, is it true that the universe is a closed system and that entropy applies to the universe as a whole?
-
Also, is it true that the universe is a closed system and that entropy applies to the universe as a whole?
It is hard for me to imagine the universe as anything but a closed system. What is outside the system and where does it enter?
I also have a hard time imagining that entropy is increasing in the universe. Stars are massive engines and they specifically work to decrease entropy. In fact, such a decrease might well be the "primary function" of life itself. I believe the predicted future "heat death" is the exact prediction of such low entropy that free energy is almost nonexistent.
-
I was wondering if Tleilaxu could expand on what he means by God being trivially true
That's not exactly what I said though. I believe there is a god in a general sense, as in there is some sort of creator. This is just personal belief though, I have no evidence of such. The part about free will has been addressed in other posts.
Also, is it true that the universe is a closed system and that entropy applies to the universe as a whole?
It is hard for me to imagine the universe as anything but a closed system. What is outside the system and where does it enter?
I also have a hard time imagining that entropy is increasing in the universe. Stars are massive engines and they specifically work to decrease entropy. In fact, such a decrease might well be the "primary function" of life itself. I believe the predicted future "heat death" is the exact prediction of such low entropy that free energy is almost nonexistent.
It's exactly the other way around, i.e. stars and life increase entropy, but that's probably what you meant to say.
-
Then what do you mean by saying that free will is trivially false, Tleilaxu?
-
We addressed that in the Thorsten thread, see e.g. the last two pages of that thread http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=30.45
-
We're having a communication breakdown, unfortunately, Tleilaxu. When you use the phrase, "Free will is trivially false.", I read that to say "There is a trivial sense in which free will is false, but in a deeper sense, it is true." Which is not your view, unless I'm mistaken.
Do you see my point? Sorry to be annoying, but I'm just trying to understand.
-
It's exactly the other way around, i.e. stars and life increase entropy, but that's probably what you meant to say.
Yeah, I had my theoretical conception reversed in my head, because I wasn't thinking of entropy as temperature, rather I was conceptualizing ordered states, i.e. fusion making hydrogen into helium and the like, in a molecular sense, not regarding the obvious issue of the whole system...
-
We're having a communication breakdown, unfortunately, Tleilaxu. When you use the phrase, "Free will is trivially false.", I read that to say "There is a trivial sense in which free will is false, but in a deeper sense, it is true." Which is not your view, unless I'm mistaken.
Do you see my point? Sorry to be annoying, but I'm just trying to understand.
What I meant to say is that trivially, there is no such thing as free will.
It's exactly the other way around, i.e. stars and life increase entropy, but that's probably what you meant to say.
Yeah, I had my theoretical conception reversed in my head, because I wasn't thinking of entropy as temperature, rather I was conceptualizing ordered states, i.e. fusion making hydrogen into helium and the like, in a molecular sense, not regarding the obvious issue of the whole system...
I think another nice way to look at it could be that the potential energy of the system is continually decreasing.
-
We're having a communication breakdown, unfortunately, Tleilaxu. When you use the phrase, "Free will is trivially false.", I read that to say "There is a trivial sense in which free will is false, but in a deeper sense, it is true." Which is not your view, unless I'm mistaken.
Do you see my point? Sorry to be annoying, but I'm just trying to understand.
What I meant to say is that trivially, there is no such thing as free will.
In short, the modifier "trivially" has no effect on the sentence, and your position is that there is no such thing as free will. Got it now, thanks.
-
:Evil laughter: Dibs on Tleilaxu's soul in the Outside. Hahahahahahaha. Shit, ignorance is holy!