What do you believe? (Redux)

  • 140 Replies
  • 34386 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • The 8-Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #90 on: January 25, 2018, 07:18:06 pm »
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, 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!)
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 08:01:35 pm by BeardFisher-King »
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

Bolivar

  • *
  • Great Name
  • ****
  • The Articulate Guy
  • Posts: 345
    • View Profile
« Reply #91 on: January 25, 2018, 07:31:45 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 07:36:16 pm by Bolivar »

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #92 on: January 25, 2018, 08:41:02 pm »
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.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 1152
  • whore
    • View Profile
« Reply #93 on: January 25, 2018, 09:05:08 pm »
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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 ).

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 10:23:43 pm by TaoHorror »
It's me, Dave, open up, I've got the stuff

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2298
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #94 on: January 25, 2018, 10:10:43 pm »
Quote from:  Wilshire
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.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2018, 10:54:32 pm by MSJ »
“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. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2298
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #95 on: January 25, 2018, 11:06:36 pm »
Quote from:  TaoHorror
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.
“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. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2298
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #96 on: January 25, 2018, 11:24:13 pm »
Quote from:  TaoHorror
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.
“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. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 1152
  • whore
    • View Profile
« Reply #97 on: January 26, 2018, 03:14:11 am »
Quote from:  TaoHorror
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
« Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 03:16:47 am by TaoHorror »
It's me, Dave, open up, I've got the stuff

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #98 on: January 26, 2018, 12:59:53 pm »
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 :) )
One of the other conditions of possibility.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #99 on: January 26, 2018, 01:25:38 pm »
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.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • The 8-Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #100 on: January 26, 2018, 01:28:14 pm »
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.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 01:31:29 pm by BeardFisher-King »
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5935
  • One of the other conditions of possibility
    • View Profile
« Reply #101 on: January 26, 2018, 01:44:57 pm »
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.
One of the other conditions of possibility.

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #102 on: January 26, 2018, 01:48:34 pm »
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.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • The 8-Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #103 on: January 26, 2018, 01:58:01 pm »
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
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson

BeardFisher-King

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 599
  • The 8-Trackless Steppe
    • View Profile
« Reply #104 on: January 26, 2018, 03:05:31 pm »
Hey, how 'bout ol' BFK referring to the tenets of his faith as "idiosyncratic metaphysical preoccupations"?

Now that's philosophical detachment!
"The heart of any other, because it has a will, would remain forever mysterious."

-from "Snow Falling On Cedars", by David Guterson