First let me say that I had a Roman Catholic upbringing, having been baptized as an infant and receiving Holy Communion at the age of 8 but in my late teens I could no longer take the Judao-Christian worldview seriously.... I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis.
On the other hand I can't reject belief in supernatural beings and do find the idea of polytheism to be rational... At least a better overall reflection of the real world.
I recently came across this interesting piece and found a lot to agree with:
http://www.ethnikoi.org/lefkowitz.htm
Here are some of her statements:
1. The poison is not religion; it's monotheism.
2. The Greeks and Romans did not share the narrow view of the ancient Hebrews that a divinity could only be masculine. Like many other ancient peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, the Greeks recognized female divinities.
3. Humans were free to speculate about the character and intentions of the gods. By allowing them to ask hard questions, Greek theology encouraged them to learn, to seek all the possible causes of events. Philosophy -- that characteristically Greek invention -- had its roots in such theological inquiry. As did science.
4. In the monotheistic traditions, in which God is omnipresent and always good, mortals must take the blame for whatever goes wrong, even though God permits evil to exist in the world he created.
5. The god of the Hebrews created the Earth for the benefit of humankind. But as the Greeks saw it, the gods made life hard for humans, didn't seek to improve the human condition and allowed people to suffer and die. There was no hope of redemption, no promise of a happy life or rewards after death.
6. The existence of many different gods also offers a more plausible account than monotheism of the presence of evil and confusion in the world. A mortal may have had the support of one god but incur the enmity of another, who could attack when the patron god was away.
7. Greek theology openly discourages blind confidence based on unrealistic hopes that everything will work out in the end.
*******
Do you agree with some of these viewpoints and/or see advantages to them ?
Why believe in the supernatural at all?
Guido,
I don't know....I just find the teleological argument very convincing and I don't care what the scientists and intellectuals have to say about it.
uhhh...... no comment. I'm with Guido on this one.
I don't know.
You don't know.
No one knows.
(I'm an Agnostic, you see... ;))
I firmly believe Atheism would be better for us.
Hehe, "all gods are right" seems even more perverse to me than "all the other gods are wrong".
polytheism is as silly as atheism.
monotheism is the way.
God bless,
dj
Atheism for me. 0:)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 25, 2009, 06:20:19 PM
I don't know....I just find the teleological argument very convincing and I don't care what the scientists and intellectuals have to say about it.
It's sad to hear someone talk like that. :'(
In terms of better as 'efficient', you would probably go for something like Islam: simple and to the point.
In terms of better as 'conducive to the quality of human life', I don't think playing around with the number of supreme beings after settling the existential debate ('is there one?') would do much. Unless you turn to pantheism, which seems closer to what Lefkowitz is advocating: in which case you're back to where you started. Only there's now a fancy epiphenomenal metaphysics to contend with, too. :D
'Atheism for me.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 25, 2009, 06:20:19 PM
I don't know....I just find the teleological argument very convincing and I don't care what the scientists and intellectuals have to say about it.
It's sad to hear someone talk like that.'
------------------------------------------------------------------
and equally sad to hear the non-believers echo such sentiments toward believers.
dj
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 25, 2009, 06:20:19 PM
Guido,
I don't know....I just find the teleological argument very convincing...
Really? Wow.
Quote from: david johnson on April 26, 2009, 04:16:24 AM
and equally sad to hear the non-believers echo such sentiments toward believers.
dj
Really? How should I react when someone say it's ok to ignore what scientists and intellectuals say?
Quote from: 71 dB on April 26, 2009, 01:01:30 AMIt's sad to hear someone talk like that. :'(
71db and Guido,
Look, all I'm saying is that it is easier for me to accept the possibility of supernatural beings behind the creation of the universe rather than nothing.
Quote from: david johnson on April 26, 2009, 12:35:56 AMPolytheism is as silly as atheism.
Why ?
QuoteMonotheism is the way.
Does the deathgrip that monotheism has had on Western culture for so many centuries not bother you ?
Quote from: Renfield on April 26, 2009, 03:21:55 AM
In terms of better as 'efficient', you would probably go for something like Islam: simple and to the point.
In terms of better as 'conducive to the quality of human life', I don't think playing around with the number of supreme beings after settling the existential debate ('is there one?') would do much. Unless you turn to pantheism, which seems closer to what Lefkowitz is advocating: in which case you're back to where you started. Only there's now a fancy epiphenomenal metaphysics to contend with, too. :D
I agree with you. "Conducive to the quality of life" is not a truth condition unless you make knowing the truth in itself a quality of life measure, which is a minority position in any era, I would think.
If you want religion on the grounds that it's good for you stick with what you have and make it better. Just don't imagine that anything is made true that way. This is a common misconception among intelligent people, and I have to admit that I'm befuddled by it. Why is this mistake so easy to make? Eric thinks that polytheism might be better for him, so that makes it somehow more true, and then when Catholicism beckons to him a few years from now no doubt its "truth" will glow brighter, and then more feebly when the Crisis of Faith
TM arrives. Could it possibly be that something other than the truth is the variable here? I think this shows the wisdom of decoupling ideas of truth from ideas of usefulness and letting truth conditions stand on their own. That truth will be defined pragmatically remains the case, but by criteria chosen for the purpose.
Quote from: drogulus on April 26, 2009, 05:18:48 AM
I agree with you. "Conducive to the quality of life" is not a truth condition unless you make knowing the truth in itself a quality of life measure, which is a minority position in any era, I would think.
If you want religion on the grounds that it's good for you stick with what you have and make it better. Just don't imagine that anything is made true that way. This is a common misconception among intelligent people, and I have to admit that I'm befuddled by it. Why is this mistake so easy to make? Eric thinks that polytheism might be better for him, so that makes it somehow more true, and then when Catholicism beckons to him a few years from now no doubt its "truth" will glow brighter, and then more feebly when the Crisis of FaithTM arrives. Could it possibly be that something other than the truth is the variable here? I think this shows the wisdom of decoupling ideas of truth from ideas of usefulness and letting truth conditions stand on their own. That truth will be defined pragmatically remains the case, but by criteria chosen for the purpose.
This intrigues me too because, as you say, it is
such a common mistake.
Quote from: drogulus on April 26, 2009, 05:18:48 AMEric thinks that polytheism might be better for him, so that makes it somehow more true, and then when Catholicism beckons to him a few years from now no doubt its "truth" will glow brighter, and then more feebly when the Crisis of FaithTM arrives.
Well I can assure you that Catholicism will never beckon to me. It never really did actually. I simply had some of its rituals performed on me as a boy....that's it.
Eric, do you think that if a religion appeals to you it's more likely to be true? I think this would be the case only if the truth of it could be judged independently of what you like about it. It's like folk medicine where you take a potion which relieves your symptoms and then ask the shaman how/why it works and get some "metaphysical" reply. Religion is in that sense folk belief. Does it work? To some extent, it does, especially as a powerful tool of social organization, at times a rival to the nation state. Like the nation state ideologies have grown up to defend and promote it, and not everything stated on behalf of these institutions is necessarily false. I think it's a good idea to examine these package deals closely and try to separate out what can stand on its own.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 26, 2009, 05:55:12 AM
Well I can assure you that Catholicism will never beckon to me. It never really did actually. I simply had some of its rituals performed on me as a boy....that's it.
Are you sure?
;D I would say you are a person with a very strong attraction to various forms of absolutism. Some people go shopping for one truth after another, all of them absolutely 100% guaranteed. I think it's the guarantee that is attractive, not so much what is being guaranteed, which is always a little fuzzy if it's discernible at all.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 26, 2009, 05:13:13 AM
71db and Guido,
Look, all I'm saying is that it is easier for me to accept the possibility of supernatural beings behind the creation of the universe rather than nothing.
It's not supernatural beings vs. nothing. Scientists seek for an explanation instead of nothing.
Whatever the truth of it may be, nothing doesn't appear to be an option. I think that was the point of some pre-Socratic speculation about an existent ground producing the various properties which are in opposition to each other but can't destroy each other. It sounds a little like the properties coming out of the expansion after the Big Bang. Stenger thinks that properties are intrinsic and simply are what is observed as things cool down and are allowed to differentiate by energy levels (I hope I have that right).
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 26, 2009, 05:13:13 AM
71db and Guido,
Look, all I'm saying is that it is easier for me to accept the possibility of supernatural beings behind the creation of the universe rather than nothing.
Only if you posit that something
has to be behind it. I can't see why it does. The university as we know it is not a necessity.
Quote from: erato on April 26, 2009, 07:03:11 AM
Only if you posit that something has to be behind it. I can't see why it does. The university as we know it is not a necessity.
erato, have I mentioned how much I love you?
;)
Quote from: erato on April 26, 2009, 07:03:11 AM
Only if you posit that something has to be behind it. I can't see why it does. The university as we know it is not a necessity.
Certainly not for everyone.
:D Yes, I agree with your point. It comes down to how you deal with this:
There has to be an explanation! As a human psychological imperative this is true. We do have to explain things somehow. However, there is a problem with applying or possibly misapplying the notion of causality beyond the scope of its known efficacy, which is the relation of parts to a whole where we can observe the interactions. We have no idea if/how this concept is properly applied to a Universe. What is the Universe in relation with? And what is in relation to
that? And so on and on down to the last elephant or turtle.
I think Polyphony would be better for us. If fact i think Polytonal would be better.
Quote from: Renfield on April 26, 2009, 07:17:11 AM
erato, have I mentioned how much I love you?
;)
No, but it was high time! ;D
Quote from: c#minor on April 26, 2009, 08:03:04 AM
I think Polyphony would be better for us. If fact i think Polytonal would be better.
Why didn' I think of that? A solid state Universe! No wonder you can't find a Mullard ECC83 at a decent price!
(http://music.jondreyer.com/polytone/angle.jpg)
:(
Quote from: 71 dB on April 26, 2009, 06:28:57 AM
It's not supernatural beings vs. nothing. Scientists seek for an explanation instead of nothing.
I don't think it's even 'versus'; I think the whole 'theism versus science' debate is based on a misconception. Science is a particular kind of process pursuing a particular kind of method, in the hope of producing more predictive models of a particular kind. Science has been so successful because it works so well, statistically speaking. It tends to make reliable predictions about certain kinds of events, and we like that; it works so much better than reading tea-leaves, or alchemy. But you can't get a viable philosophy out of it, I think, or use it to find 'meaning' in the shape of an alternative to a world view that includes the spiritual. At least, I can't.
Going back to the question - I'm not sure that the
number of gods would make much difference, would it? As long as I remain so bemused about the concept of what a 'god' might be, wondering about how many there are doesn't seem to be my most pressing problem..
Quote from: Elgarian on April 26, 2009, 09:26:40 AM
I don't think it's even 'versus'; I think the whole 'theism versus science' debate is based on a misconception. Science is a particular kind of process pursuing a particular kind of method, in the hope of producing more predictive models of a particular kind. Science has been so successful because it works so well, statistically speaking. It tends to make reliable predictions about certain kinds of events, and we like that; it works so much better than reading tea-leaves, or alchemy. But you can't get a viable philosophy out of it, I think, or use it to find 'meaning' in the shape of an alternative to a world view that includes the spiritual. At least, I can't.
Going back to the question - I'm not sure that the number of gods would make much difference, would it? As long as I remain so bemused about the concept of what a 'god' might be, wondering about how many there are doesn't seem to be my most pressing problem..
You can derive science from a viable philosophy, though. That's just as important. Science is philosophy, just not all of it. As far as methods go the so-called scientific method has never been precisely defined, and that's because it's an "open architecture" kind of thing. What constitutes verification of propositions is specific to what the propositions state, and even supposed limitations like "it must concern matter and energy" or "it presupposes materialism" are just assertions. If nothing shows up that defies our ever expanding categories about what might exist, then hooray! I said elsewhere that a sufficiently flexible classification system never needs to break. What we find will always be material so long as material is what we call what we find. And since we don't predetermine the contents of material theories this escapes the criticism that we only find what we look for. I think this is important, since the charge is so frequently made against scientists that they are blinkered in only considering the material. First, they don't and second, this misunderstands material.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 26, 2009, 05:15:23 AM
Why ?
Does the deathgrip that monotheism has had on Western culture for so many centuries not bother you ?
you are free to think they are not silly. one is superstitioous, the other is convinced it is the only way...monoatheism.
deathgrip? anyone on the board dying of monotheism? of course not. instead, several tend to wish to strangle it.
dj
'Quote from: david johnson on Today at 04:16:24 AM
and equally sad to hear the non-believers echo such sentiments toward believers.
dj
Really? How should I react when someone say it's ok to ignore what scientists and intellectuals say?'
---------------------------------------------
???
you really don't know how people should act/react?
dj
Quote from: drogulus on April 26, 2009, 10:37:39 AMWhat we find will always be material so long as material is what we call what we find.
I'm trying to persuade myself that this isn't a tautology, and I'm not sure that I'm managing to succeed - though I agree with what you say about the shifting definition of 'materialism', and the fact that it's accommodated by the system.
QuoteAnd since we don't predetermine the contents of material theories this escapes the criticism that we only find what we look for. I think this is important, since the charge is so frequently made against scientists that they are blinkered in only considering the material. First, they don't and second, this misunderstands material.
The blinkering (I'm uneasy about the word in this context) that troubles me is not so much about science and materialism; but about the restriction on the kinds of questions that can be asked of science; and therefore, potentially, on the kinds of answers we can get.
But I'm also concerned that I'm dragging this thread way off the topic proposed by the OP, so I'd better leave it there, I think.
Here I am watching this lovely PBS documentary on cheetahs and then the channel spontaneously changes to a 3 Stooges episode. And one without Curly at that!
Quote from: Elgarian on April 26, 2009, 11:21:28 AM
I'm trying to persuade myself that this isn't a tautology, and I'm not sure that I'm managing to succeed - though I agree with what you say about the shifting definition of 'materialism', and the fact that it's accommodated by the system.
It isn't. If you call what you find materialism you change what materialism encompasses. So the best way to think of it is that the way the term is used now is as an extensible category. If something fits into the system of definitions that are generally termed "materialism" it means that we've found it and know something about what it does, changing materialism in the process. It may not seem like what a 19th century philosopher would think of as materialism.
So long as we insist on calling what we find material, as we have been doing for some time, it follows that the important arguments about what exists will occur within and not outside the boundaries. This should be easy to see, it follows from the curious history of how the growth of knowledge has been accommodated. This tends to defang the opposition, who have no point to make. Whatever is wrong with whatever constitutes a "material view" is remedied within and not outside the system. "Materialism" is the ultimate accordion file stretching to fit any concepts that might oppose it.
Why am I thinking of Johnny LaRue and
Polynesian Town?
QuoteI would say you are a person with a very strong attraction to various forms of absolutism.
True for the most part, yes.
QuoteSome people go shopping for one truth after another, all of them absolutely 100% guaranteed. I think it's the guarantee that is attractive, not so much what is being guaranteed, which is always a little fuzzy if it's discernible at all.
I can't argue with this point.
Quote from: drogulus on April 26, 2009, 06:27:39 AMEric, do you think that if a religion appeals to you it's more likely to be true?
No.
And I take your point.
Honestly, this whole idea of a supernatural being to me is, in the end, about terror.... The thought that there is no intelligent, protecting, benevolent deity behind the cause of the universe I find unspeakably bleak.
QuoteReligion is in that sense folk belief. Does it work? To some extent, it does, especially as a powerful tool of social organization, at times a rival to the nation state. Like the nation state ideologies have grown up to defend and promote it, and not everything stated on behalf of these institutions is necessarily false. I think it's a good idea to examine these package deals closely and try to separate out what can stand on its own.
What do you make of highly intelligent people who have gone through a rigorous liberal arts curriculum at university and been exposed to the 'best' that has ever been written and said (i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, James, Wittgenstein) and yet still fervently adhere to their organized religion ?
Do they, in the words of Bill Maher, have a type of "neurological disorder" ?
QuoteI think it's a good idea to examine these package deals closely and try to separate out what can stand on its own
Let's take Judaism for a moment since it's the mother religion... What are your thoughts on Zionism ? Let's examine this logically: isn't that a mostly horrible, deluded and depressing movement ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 26, 2009, 12:43:20 PM
What do you make of highly intelligent people who have gone through a rigorous liberal arts curriculum at university and been exposed to the 'best' that has ever been written and said (i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, James, Wittgenstein) and yet still fervently adhere to their organized religion ?
Do they, in the words of Bill Maher, have a type of "neurological disorder"
No, they are normal. It's normal to have some beliefs you examine and others you accept. Being in the minority is normal, too, so I'm normal. I can't say I'm more normal than you.
:) (http://www.imaginaryyear.com/raccoon/images/filmclub/2008/lolita-03.jpg)
Quote
Honestly, this whole idea of a supernatural being to me is, in the end, about terror.... The thought that there is no intelligent, protecting, benevolent deity behind the cause of the universe I find unspeakably bleak.
Yeah, but there are very good odds that this is true. The good thing about this is that at least nobody will have to ever go to hell, right? There's no soul who has ever lived that literally deserves to live in a lake of fire for
all eternity. I'd say it would be justified if Hitler or Bin Laden would get the just amount of punishment- maybe spend an hour on fire once a week for 5 years, and then it'd be equal, or so.
If Eric wants to be a polytheist, it will at least have the advantage of spreading his worship around to more than one object.
My, this is a wide-ranging thread, isn't it?
$:)Quote from: The Unrepentant Palestinian* on April 26, 2009, 12:43:20 PM
Let's take Judaism for a moment since it's the mother religion... What are your thoughts on Zionism ? Let's examine this logically: isn't that a mostly horrible, deluded and depressing movement ?
I think you may be evaluating Zionism on the wrong scale. The creation of the state of Israel was almost entirely a secular nationalist enterprise over the objection of the orthodox religious, who believed, it's said, that such an act could only be effected by the Messiah. Since the Zionists were mostly clueless about how this game is played and didn't want religious endorsement anyway it didn't occur to them to argue that the Messiah was acting through them, and that's how Messiahs work. The Zionists didn't have Bill Clinton to advise them about triangulation.
So what is deluded about a nationalist movement that succeeded in creating the state that was its goal? And how much is Zionism to blame for the decades-long stalemate of the "peace process"?
Here's my view: There comes a moment when a violent revolutionary national movement needs a leader who can go from stone cold killer to peacemaker and founder of a state. It's not an easy transition. Right now there is need of a Michael Collins on the Palestinian side, someone who is willing to fight the die-hards on his own side to establish a real state, however limited that state might be. Arafat couldn't do it. Abbas would like to, I think, but isn't strong enough. Only a strong leader can force the Israelis to confront the opportunism and zealotry on their side. Without such a figure it doesn't matter whether Zionism is an obstacle or not, since the problems on the other side are so great we never get to find out.
* ;)
Quote from: drogulus on April 27, 2009, 05:41:11 AM
Only a strong leader can force the Israelis to confront the opportunism and zealotry on their side. Without such a figure it doesn't matter whether Zionism is an obstacle or not, since the problems on the other side are so great we never get to find out.
* ;)
Norman Finkelstein says Israel should receive a major defeat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyDrP2EsYGo
Perhaps he's right, too bad it won't happen. I predict the state of Palestine will cease to exist very soon, and that will be the mere starting point.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 26, 2009, 12:43:20 PM
Let's take Judaism for a moment since it's the mother religion... What are your thoughts on Zionism ? Let's examine this logically: isn't that a mostly horrible, deluded and depressing movement ?
None of the above. ::)
Quote from: Bulldog on April 27, 2009, 06:33:20 AM
None of the above. ::)
In any event, it could not possibly be anywhere near as horrible, deluded or depressing as the OP.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 27, 2009, 06:42:09 AM
In any event, it could not possibly be anywhere near as horrible, deluded or depressing as the OP.
I was going to say something like the above, but I hesitated in calling the OP horrible. However, he certainly is deluded and depressing.
Quote from: Elgarian on April 26, 2009, 09:26:40 AM
I don't think it's even 'versus'; I think the whole 'theism versus science' debate is based on a misconception. Science is a particular kind of process pursuing a particular kind of method, in the hope of producing more predictive models of a particular kind. Science has been so successful because it works so well, statistically speaking. It tends to make reliable predictions about certain kinds of events, and we like that; it works so much better than reading tea-leaves, or alchemy. But you can't get a viable philosophy out of it, I think, or use it to find 'meaning' in the shape of an alternative to a world view that includes the spiritual. At least, I can't.
It seems Elgar's greatness is the only thing we agree about... ::)
No, wait! We both admire baroque music too! 0:)
Philosophy is science, not something "spiritual". Science is successful because it is the right way to gain information and understanding. Science does not only "predict events", it's even more important implication is the way it make us understand things, even spiritual ones. Science shows our place in the universe and the limits and the frame that defines our existence. Science explains why evolution made us spiritual and religious. It also tells us that we no longer need religion because over the time scientific conception of the world has become so much better, accurate, beneficial and intellectually satisfying than any religion. The problem is not in science trying to explain spiritual things, it's religion trying to tackle scientific questions. While doing so, religion damages human mind.
Spiritual world is subordinate to physical reality. We don't need religion for spiritual aspects. I have been an atheist all my life and I am just as spiritual person as anyone. However, my scientific conception of the world tells my all spirituality has physical background and is scientifically explicable. How advanced science it takes is another story. I'm sure anthropologists know a lot already.
Quote from: 71 dB on April 27, 2009, 07:33:42 AM
Spiritual world is subordinate to physical reality. We don't need religion for spiritual aspects. I have been an atheist all my life and I am just as spiritual person as anyone. However, my scientific conception of the world tells my all spirituality has physical background and is scientifically explicable. How advanced science it takes is another story. I'm sure anthropologists know a lot already.
I agree in general, however:
Some people can only conceive of spirit in a dualist framework. For them religion is an efficient vehicle, as it is for ethics as well. So religion can be seen as a very survivable container for ideas that have learned to travel together, so to speak. Do you really want to answer all these questions separately? Well, you and I, maybe, but what about the majority?
Likewise, would you like to decide every economic and political issue independently or would you prefer to be a liberal or conservative and pick your fights within those parameters? I choose to be a liberal and define my differences from there.
So it's only partly a matter of which ideas are true (for some ideas this is all that matters) and partly which ideas help to make life easier and more fulfilling regardless of whether a truth value can appropriately be put on them. My thermostat tells me what the temperature
is and I tell it what temperature is
good, so we have a nice partnership with no misunderstandings.
:)
There are seven gods. Send me money and I'll tell you who they are. In the meantime, chop wood, carry water.
Quote from: Mn Dave on April 27, 2009, 08:11:41 AM
There are seven gods. Send me money and I'll tell you who they are. In the meantime, chop wood, carry water.
Quote from: Cato on April 14, 2009, 08:11:45 AM
Syemero Ikh! Syemero Ikh! Syemero Ikh! Syemero Ikh! Syemero Ikh! Syemero Ikh!
Syemero Ikh! 0:)
Quote from: 71 dB on April 27, 2009, 07:33:42 AM
Philosophy is science, not something "spiritual".
1. I didn't say that philosophy is 'spiritual'; I think maybe you're arguing there with something you
think I said - not with what I
actually said; I won't try to defend a position that I don't hold.
2. I think that to equate philosophy with science is to rob both words of their meaning. I think if you were a logical positivist (it sounds as if you might be inclined that way), then I suppose you'd maintain that scientific questions were the only questions that can be meaningfully asked, but that's just one particular 'branch' of philosophy, as it were.
The whole thrust of my post was to question the value of these 'religion versus science' debates, and in that respect I don't have anything to add to my earlier post; so I don't think there's anything we can usefully discuss here, really.
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2009, 08:19:42 AM
2. I think that to equate philosophy with science is to rob both words of their meaning.
Hear, hear.
Quote from: Mn Dave on April 27, 2009, 08:11:41 AM
There are seven gods. Send me money and I'll tell you who they are. In the meantime, chop wood, carry water.
My cheque is in the post.
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2009, 08:21:27 AM
My cheque is in the post.
Thanks. Once it clears, I will reveal all to you in a dream.
In the meantime, here's a freebie: One of the gods is named Squint-eye and he is the god of tobacco, firearms and alcohol.
Quote from: Mn Dave on April 27, 2009, 08:26:49 AM
Thanks. Once it clears, I will reveal all to you in a dream.
Aw, man,
Daverino, just when we had this whole "intellectual property" thing all taped out . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 27, 2009, 08:29:28 AM
Aw, man, Daverino, just when we had this whole "intellectual property" thing all taped out . . . .
Am I trespassing? If so, I blame the man with the flaming sword down on Hennepin and 6th.
(Hmm . . . flaming sword . . . see Opus 94 . . . .)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 27, 2009, 08:39:00 AM
(Hmm . . . flaming sword . . . see Opus 94 . . . .)
No. I think his name was "Schmidty".
Cotton breathes more than Polyester.
Food for thought.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 27, 2009, 07:52:46 AM
What is it then?
An admirable movement that resulted in a Jewish homeland. Are you thinking of moving there?
Quote from: ChamberNut on April 27, 2009, 08:50:26 AM
Cotton breathes more than Polyester.
Just as well, I'd say. If it were the other way round, we'd be a dangerous step closer to polythene-ism.
Quote from: Mn Dave on April 27, 2009, 08:26:49 AMIn the meantime, here's a freebie: One of the gods is named Squint-eye and he is the god of tobacco, firearms and alcohol.
Just a moment. Is He one of the Seven? If He is, then I've been diddled, because everyone knows Him now, even though they didn't pay. On the other hand, if He
isn't one of the Seven, but an Eighth, then you couldn't have been honest when you said there were Seven.
Either way, I'm starting to doubt the veracity of your claims, and I am not a little worried about my cheque; not to mention being anxious about potential issues concerning my abuse of capital letters.
You people are not serious. >:(
Quote from: Bulldog on April 27, 2009, 09:01:00 AM
An admirable movement that resulted in a Jewish homeland.
Interesting perspective. Zionism is the only right-wing, nationalistic movement that is seen as "admirable" in this age of rabid globalism, social marxism and utopian multiculturalism. If i were to speak of Europe as the rightful homeland of the white peoples, i'd be classified as a supremacist. Could you please explain to me why is it ok for Israel to be an homeland for the Jews, where as Europeans are seen as racist when they complain about the erosion of their ethnic identity through mass immigration? Israel for the Jews, Europe for the world?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 27, 2009, 11:14:18 AM
Could you please explain to me why is it ok for Israel to be an homeland for the Jews, where as Europeans are seen as racist when they complain about the erosion of their ethnic identity through mass immigration?
Do you think those complaining Europeans are racist?
Quote from: Bulldog on April 27, 2009, 11:23:45 AM
Do you think those complaining Europeans are racist?
Of course. We all know white people are the cancer of the earth, and the sooner they face extinction, the better.
Eric, in general your tendency to create a new anti-Christianity rant-thread at about every new moon got tiresome somewhere around 2001. OTOH, you come up with lines like this:
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 26, 2009, 05:15:23 AM
Does the deathgrip that monotheism has had on Western culture for so many centuries not bother you ?
This is truly funny. (I see it delivered by Richard Pryor, ca. 1977.)
Free-thinking monotheism, for me.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 26, 2009, 05:15:23 AM
Does the deathgrip that monotheism has had on Western culture for so many centuries not bother you ?
I think that polytheism is perfect for you. If a particular god doesn't tickle your fancy at some point in time, you can look to alternative deities and become entirely confused.
You need to focus and snap out of your doldrums.
Quote from: Elgarian on April 27, 2009, 10:48:17 AM
Just a moment. Is He one of the Seven? If He is, then I've been diddled, because everyone knows Him now, even though they didn't pay. On the other hand, if He isn't one of the Seven, but an Eighth, then you couldn't have been honest when you said there were Seven.
Either way, I'm starting to doubt the veracity of your claims, and I am not a little worried about my cheque; not to mention being anxious about potential issues concerning my abuse of capital letters.
Picky. ;D
Quote from: drogulus on April 27, 2009, 11:05:08 AM
You people are not serious. >:(
Isn't that one of the ten commandments? "Thou shalt not be serious."
(http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/movie_technology_2.jpg)
Quote from: Mn Dave on April 27, 2009, 12:02:51 PM
Isn't that one of the ten commandments? "Thou shalt not be serious."
No, I think it's "Thou can'st be serious!". You have the Revised McEnroe Version, correct?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 27, 2009, 11:38:40 AM
Eric, in general your tendency to create a new anti-Christianity rant-thread at about every new moon got tiresome somewhere around 2001.
Oh, yes.
Although polytheism went out of fashion a long time ago, maybe the original poster would be interested to know there are still some like-minded people in Greece today; they have a club, scantily attired priestesses and everything. Perhaps he'd be interested in making contact with them instead of daydreaming here? :D
Quote from: drogulus on April 27, 2009, 12:06:09 PM
(http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/movie_technology_2.jpg)
snow white was a polydwarfist.
Quote from: drogulus on April 27, 2009, 12:06:09 PM
(http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/movie_technology_2.jpg)
Question for Mn Dave: Are these the Seven? And is Squint-eye the One in the bed?
She's a freethinker. Now she will pay..... (http://forums.mozillazine.org/images/smilies/lildevil.gif)
Quote from: Wanderer on April 27, 2009, 02:16:29 PM
Although polytheism went out of fashion a long time ago, maybe the original poster would be interested to know there are still some like-minded people in Greece today; they have a club, scantily attired priestesses and everything. Perhaps he'd be interested in making contact with them instead of daydreaming here? :D
He might have a strong interest in some used
peplums, methinks.
Quote from: Elgarian on April 28, 2009, 02:00:08 AM
Question for Mn Dave: Are these the Seven? And is Squint-eye the One in the bed?
I'm not returning your money.
Quote from: Mn Dave on April 28, 2009, 05:28:38 AM
I'm not returning your money.
Just as the prophet foretold!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 28, 2009, 05:36:29 AM
Just as the prophet foretold!
Verily. But the prophet spake in a language most strange, and the people heard his words, but they did not understand. And they wrote them in a Great Book, and yea, thus are the words written:
Hiho. Hiho. Itsofftu were queego.
[Dave? You got any queegoes for sale?]
Quote from: Elgarian on April 28, 2009, 07:46:49 AM
Verily. But the prophet spake in a language most strange, and the people heard his words, but they did not understand. And they wrote them in a Great Book, and yea, thus are the words written:
Hiho. Hiho. Itsofftu were queego.
[Dave? You got any queegoes for sale?]
I'm sure something can be arranged. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on April 28, 2009, 05:02:11 AM
He might have a strong interest in some used peplums, methinks.
At first glance I thought you were referring to veils, but even so... $:)
Quote from: Mn Dave on April 28, 2009, 05:28:38 AM
I'm not returning your money.
Do I smell lawsuit in the air? :D
Quote from: Wanderer on April 28, 2009, 08:15:12 AM
Do I smell lawsuit in the air? :D
I thought the only one here who seriously supposes he can take the Almighty to court to redress grievances is the OP? 0:)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on April 28, 2009, 08:25:42 AM
I thought the only one here who seriously supposes he can take the Almighty to court to redress grievances is the OP? 0:)
I believe there's also been a case in Italy but I can't recall the details. :D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 27, 2009, 11:14:18 AM
Could you please explain to me why is it ok for Israel to be an homeland for the Jews, where as Europeans are seen as racist when they complain about the erosion of their ethnic identity through mass immigration?
I think the answer to that is obvious and I am
shocked none of the
intellectuals on this forum have cared to enlighten you! It is because...wait...well...because...well...you know...um...and...and then...um...oh yeah...wait...because...well....................................................................how could you not know?...it just is, ok?
;)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on April 27, 2009, 11:31:21 AM
Of course. We all know white people are the cancer of the earth, and the sooner they face extinction, the better.
Amen to that, all they do is bring everyone else down with their
fancy music,
running water,
sophisticated medicine, and a pesky gravitation towards civilization and all of its so called "benifits"...they must be stopped before it is too late.
And "Would Polytheism Be Better For Us?" I will answer that question with a question...
Would dousing ourselves with gasoline and striking a match rather than going for a jog on sunny day be better for our health?
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 01, 2009, 10:40:17 AM
Would dousing ourselves with gasoline and striking a match rather than going for a jog on sunny day be better for our health?
Let me pause for reflection...
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 01, 2009, 10:53:48 AM
Let me pause for reflection...
As you sing "Stuck in the Middle with You". :D
Hah, Ray!
Perhaps we should send the Jews back to Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Poland and Germany where they belong. We could make a rule that all nations founded unjustly are to be dissolved and the inhabitants have to return to the lands of their ancestors.
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 01, 2009, 10:40:17 AM
And "Would Polytheism Be Better For Us?" I will answer that question with a question...
Would dousing ourselves with gasoline and striking a match rather than going for a jog on sunny day be better for our health?
The Europeans should have gone jogging in 1939. They didn't exactly douse themselves with gasoline, at least they didn't think of the victims as themselves, because they were the wrong sort of monotheist. Now the survivors who moved to Palestine are charged before history for having racist motives in creating an ethnic state. The defense should point out that ethnic and religious minorities are full citizens in that state, with representatives in the parliament. How many Jews will be represented in the new Palestinian state? Will they be allowed to live there? To move there? To become citizens? And will Christians be allowed to practice their religion in independent Palestine? What about atheists? Will they be free and full citizens? Maybe we should look around the region and see if we can find an example of a multiethnic, multireligious state with minority rights. Where should we look?
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2009, 12:44:03 PM
Perhaps we should send the Jews back to Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Poland and Germany where they belong. We could make a rule that all nations founded unjustly are to be dissolved and the inhabitants have to return to the lands of their ancestors.
Wow. As the US are cleansed for the benefit of the indians, Norway would triple its population. I can rent out some rooms at ridiculously high rates and quadruple my CD collection in no time!
(In case clarification was needed)
Through sarcasm, I was attempting to express how foolish a move to polytheism would be. Harming oneself with gasoline would be just as stupid. (but as a monotheist, I may be biased)
I am not entirely sure what that has to do with the Jewish State of Israel, but I will say this briefly (hoping not to divert the attention of this thread's subject)...if the Jews can have one (granted, Jews aren't the only ones who get to function there, but they are the overwhelming majority) why cannot/should not anybody else?
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2009, 12:44:03 PM
Perhaps we should send the Jews back to Iran, Iraq, Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Russia, Poland and Germany where they belong. We could make a rule that all nations founded unjustly are to be dissolved and the inhabitants have to return to the lands of their ancestors.
Nobody has called for a dismantling of the state of Israel. There is an Israel today, and nobody can change that. Much like there is an America today, despite the fact the nation was created by means of ethnic cleansing, a fact which the Americans simply cannot be forgiven for and have to be reminded of constantly. What an interesting double standard. On one side, we have an admirable movement that has resulted in the creation of a vibrant democracy by displacing a bunch of backward barbarians, wheres the other can't go on living without wringing constantly over having created a vibrant democracy by displacing a bunch of backward barbarians. But wait, Israel was created as an haven for a persecuted people, so everything it does is morally justified, even if it goes against international law.
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2009, 12:44:03 PM
The Europeans should have gone jogging in 1939.
Nota bene, all criticism of Israel can be silenced by citing this one single accident. It doesn't matter whether Israel's human rights record is a disaster. It doesn't matter whether they have conducted themselves like a marauding, apartheid state, causing an infinite amount of unrest in the middle east which has had severe repercussions all over the world. It doesn't even matter that unscrupulous Jewish organizations have bastardized the memory of this singular event by running a veritable Holocaust Industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_Industry), thus validating the money grubbing stereotype of this peculiar people in the grossest possible manner. All can be pardoned, when you are a victim of persecution and genocide.
At the same time, because of this very same event and several other horrors which have been committed by evil Europeans (or so our liberal media tells us), it is only natural if Europe itself is destroyed, its national borders corroded, its cultural identity attacked and suppressed, it's very people silently led to ethnic suicide. I mean, look at all the horrors that have been perpetrated by Europeans. Colonialism, slavery, the Holocaust. It is only just that they should die, for that is their atonement to the perpetration of such unmeasurable sins! And woe to those who dare to rise up against this just retribution, for to speak for the welfare of evil Europeans it is to condone all the horrors they have inflicted upon the world.
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2009, 12:44:03 PM
The defense should point out that ethnic and religious minorities are full citizens in that state, with representatives in the parliament. How many Jews will be represented in the new Palestinian state? Will they be allowed to live there? To move there? To become citizens? And will Christians be allowed to practice their religion in independent Palestine? What about atheists? Will they be free and full citizens? Maybe we should look around the region and see if we can find an example of a multiethnic, multireligious state with minority rights. Where should we look?
That's right. Palestinians have it coming for being a backward, barbaric people. The sooner Israel manages to exterminate those desert rats, the sooner the rest of the world can start breathing. What rights can those people possibly have, why, they are barely even human!
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 01, 2009, 01:24:32 PM
(In case clarification was needed)
Through sarcasm, I was attempting to express how foolish a move to polytheism would be. Harming oneself with gasoline would be just as stupid. (but as a monotheist, I may be biased)
I am not entirely sure what that has to do with the Jewish State of Israel, but I will say this briefly (hoping not to divert the attention of this thread's subject)...if the Jews can have one (granted, Jews aren't the only ones who get to function there, but they are the overwhelming majority) why cannot/should not anybody else?
It's commonly believed that it would be better to die than believe something different from what mom and dad believe right up to the day before you actually change your belief, and then you would rather die before you change again, until you do. All of this overstate peoples knowledge about what they believe as well as the consequences of changing.
Bias isn't something that worries me, and it doesn't change things much. A zealot with a good argument would be formidable. The arguments aren't usually all that good. And no, I don't really see any more benefit in becoming polytheist than there would be in becoming a different sort of monotheist. There are some benefits associated with atheism, though I don't think they are available to anyone who becomes one. I don't really want people to become atheists, because most people can't manage it. I want them to reasonably free to become atheists, so that if they can be nothing stops them. If you are one of the people who think you might become one or want to (which might indicate an ability in that direction) then what I say about it might provide a nudge. For all the monos/polys who don't have that interest, I'm more concerned about behavior. Believe what you want, just don't persecute others. And if your child shows promise of leaving the village of belief for the wider world of thought, don't try to interfere.
I don't think everyone having their own state is a good thing. The best that can happen is to improve the existing ones. The creation of a new state is bound to have tragic consequences.
Quoteaccident
You confuse a moral justification with the amoral course of history. The creation of states is never an exercise in justice. My approach is to try to improve the least bad thing and avoid the worst consequences.
QuoteThat's right. Palestinians have it coming for being a backward, barbaric people. The sooner Israel manages to exterminate those desert rats, the sooner the rest of the world can start breathing. What rights can those people possibly have, why, they are barely even human!
That would be more consistent with your ideology than mine. I want a democratic Palestine with rights for minorities alongside a democratic Israel. And if the people of these states at some point decide to create a single state with rights for all and no ethnic or religious language written into their constitution I'd be pleased. That seems rather utopian at this stage.
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2009, 02:46:01 PM
Believe what you want, just don't persecute others.
Makes sense.
Sadly, as the presence of God is denied in more and more circles, many (not all, but quite a few) of those who do not "believe" take it upon themselves to criticize those who do, calling their beliefs ignorant and blaming them for all that is wrong in the world, citing a few negative examples in human history.
"God Himself, sir, does not propose to judge a man until his life is over. Why should you and I?"
Quote from: erato on May 01, 2009, 01:17:24 PM
Wow. As the US are cleansed for the benefit of the indians, Norway would triple its population. I can rent out some rooms at ridiculously high rates and quadruple my CD collection in no time!
nah, the indians have to go back to asia.
dj
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 01, 2009, 03:38:00 PM
Makes sense.
Sadly, as the presence of God is denied in more and more circles, many (not all, but quite a few) of those who do not "believe" take it upon themselves to criticize those who do, calling their beliefs ignorant and blaming them for all that is wrong in the world, citing a few negative examples in human history.
"God Himself, sir, does not propose to judge a man until his life is over. Why should you and I?"
What's wrong with attacking beliefs? This is very curious. My position is really simple. I advocate a classic liberal position which has always been based on a freedom of belief that is incomprehensible without an underlying rationale that most beliefs are not true, but that people ought to be free to hold them. Believers, OTOH, always insist in one way or another that people should believe the one true bullshit and tolerate freedom of thought only for as long as they might prosper under it, until the blessed day when freedom is abolished forever. You think that what's wrong with the world is that everyone has their own idiotic belief instead of your idiotic one. I think what's wrong with the world is that no matter which of the idiot systems prevails people who think like you will be in the majority, so all the rest of us can do is to try and sell you on the idea that we would all be better off for now if eveyone had rights. This actually works, even for the majority who often think the right to believe makes the beliefs right.
I can sign on for poly-tea-ism.
Quote from: david johnson on May 01, 2009, 03:43:36 PM
nah, the indians have to go back to asia.
dj
;D
not to mention so many people have maybe 1 or 2 ancestors that are Indian (like me) so how would you work that out? Maybe divide it specifically- like, cut off my finger and leave it here and then send the rest of me to someplace in Europe? (preferably Germany...)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 05:08:14 PM
I can sign on for poly-tea-ism.
How does the song go?
"Poly put the kettle on, Poly put the kettle on ... etc"
Is that Poly-tea-ism?
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2009, 02:46:01 PM
You confuse a moral justification with the amoral course of history. The creation of states is never an exercise in justice.
My rant isn't against the alleged immorality of the creation of Israel, but the fact it is only Europeans and Europeans alone that have to bear the scorn of the "amoral course of history".
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2009, 02:46:01 PM
And if the people of these states at some point decide to create a single state with rights for all and no ethnic or religious language written into their constitution I'd be pleased. That seems rather utopian at this stage.
No, no and no. One Israel, one Palestine, each run by a single ethnic and cultural paradigm, each able to fulfill it's own unique destiny. It isn't merely utopian, it is suicidal. No nation or civilization on earth has survived or thrived under "diversity". One body, one mind. One culture, one destiny. That is the core of my "ideology". The hatefulness of it all...
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2009, 04:33:07 PM
freedom of belief
Except when it comes to people like me. An oddly selective conception of freedom that. You are free to question all dogma, except for our dogma.
I skipped here to the last page...oh, not talking polytheism anymore (which I was only going to say, seems "redundant")?
Poor Josquin always seems to be fighting alone here (I haven't read the thread yet). I have "painful questions" to ask sometimes, but I suppose I also struggle with cowardice...not wanting to ruffle the gentry. I suppose a name change and a visit to a more politically oriented forum...
red meat like bait hangs before me...or, is that "enough" rope?
Let's all form a cult and just believe in belief.
Quote from: Bahamut on May 02, 2009, 07:31:38 PM
Let's all form a cult and just believe in belief.
I believe Theosopy got there first... :(
An interesting thing to note (and something I don't see mentioned at all) is the recurring motif of the original poster starting a new (mostly ridiculous and inflammatory) thread such as this only to disappear in the shadows reveling in the disturbance it might cause. I think it would be interesting to see what would happen if everyone stopped answering altogether to the initial inanities; would he be forced to answer his own questions? :D
Personally, I'm going to effect this tactic more rigorously from now on.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 01, 2009, 05:08:14 PM
I can sign on for poly-tea-ism.
On a beautiful sring day like this I'd rather go for poly-tee-ism.
Which is the proper way to respond to inflammatury threads like this. Wanderers observations are well taken.
Wanderer,
I have wanted to reply to several members here DAYS ago but I've been so incredibly busy at work all this week.
Even this post of mine is being sent from my Blackberry as you can see from the top left.
Later this afternoon I will have more time since it's my day off.
You are back! And probably still unrepentant!
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 03, 2009, 02:09:05 AM
. . . but I've been so incredibly busy at work all this week.
Excellent!
Quote from: drogulus on May 01, 2009, 04:33:07 PM
What's wrong with attacking beliefs? This is very curious. My position is really simple. I advocate a classic liberal position which has always been based on a freedom of belief that is incomprehensible without an underlying rationale that most beliefs are not true, but that people ought to be free to hold them. Believers, OTOH, always insist in one way or another that people should believe the one true bullshit and tolerate freedom of thought only for as long as they might prosper under it, until the blessed day when freedom is abolished forever. You think that what's wrong with the world is that everyone has their own idiotic belief instead of your idiotic one. I think what's wrong with the world is that no matter which of the idiot systems prevails people who think like you will be in the majority, so all the rest of us can do is to try and sell you on the idea that we would all be better off for now if eveyone had rights. This actually works, even for the majority who often think the right to believe makes the beliefs right.
I thought we may have reached a compromise, but I do not believe that is the case. :)
When the Christian attacks the beliefs of the atheist, he is an ignoramus, but when the atheist attacks the beliefs of the Christian, he is an intellectual. So you don't think that after this has gone on for a little while, the Christian just
might become a little defensive and, because the tenants of his religion (thanks to Ol' King James) or fairly clear to him, make them known to those who criticize? (this is not inviting to hold up and attack the various semantical differences relating to Christianity as a whole). If you do not want to be attacked, do not invite the battle. I, for one (like many I know), do not make it my life's goal to press my religion upon others. Put when we are challenged, we will not take the abuse for long.
"Would Polytheism Be Better For Us?"
Obviously not...I think it is very clear that it would only confuse the issue. :)
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 03, 2009, 06:55:10 AM
If you do not want to be attacked, do not invite the battle. I, for one (like many I know), do not make it my life's goal to press my religion upon others. Put when we are challenged, we will not take the abuse for long.
Amen, brother!
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 03, 2009, 06:55:10 AM
When the Christian attacks the beliefs of the atheist, he is an ignoramus, but when the atheist attacks the beliefs of the Christian, he is an intellectual.
I feel that attacks from either side are inappropriate and give off a stench of intolerance. It is funny how each side feels that the other side dumps on them. Just stop the attacks, follow your own beliefs and show a little respect for others.
As for our OP working hard in recent weeks, that's great. It likely stops him from his usual regimen of thinking far too much about very little.
Guido,
Quote from: Guido on April 25, 2009, 05:58:47 PMWhy believe in the supernatural at all?
Here is a concise argument for the existence of a supreme being(s) that I've read on this forum. It was written by Al Moritz:
"Something must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else. In the case of the theist it is God, in the case of the atheist it has to be eternal matter (that a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is absurd I have explained elsewhere). The problem with eternal matter is that, in order to be not just eternal but also eternally functional, it has to have miraculous properties that we know ordinary matter does not possess (e.g. not obeying the second law of thermodynamics). So if the atheist proclaims that his views (in fact, beliefs) are more "scientific" than the theist position, I have to laugh. Whatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".
Quote from: Bulldog on April 27, 2009, 11:54:51 AMI think that polytheism is perfect for you. If a particular god doesn't tickle your fancy at some point in time, you can look to alternative deities and become entirely confused.
Don,
You and many others here are misconstruing my original post... Also Karl, this is not an "anti-Christianity" thread.
All I'm saying is that as far as the problem of evil is concerned I find the polytheistic 'explanation' much more reasonable than the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent Judao-Christian God...which is just narrow-minded and not very natural.
As Lefkowitz writes:
The existence of many different gods also offers a more plausible account than monotheism of the presence of evil and confusion in the world. A mortal may have had the support of one god but incur the enmity of another, who could attack when the patron god was away.****
Why makes this absurd but monotheism 'correct' ?
Quote from: drogulus on April 26, 2009, 06:27:39 AMEric, do you think that if a religion appeals to you it's more likely to be true? I think this would be the case only if the truth of it could be judged independently of what you like about it. It's like folk medicine where you take a potion which relieves your symptoms and then ask the shaman how/why it works and get some "metaphysical" reply.
Religion is in that sense folk belief. Does it work? To some extent, it does, especially as a powerful tool of social organization, at times a rival to the nation state. Like the nation state ideologies have grown up to defend and promote it, and not everything stated on behalf of these institutions is necessarily false. I think it's a good idea to examine these package deals closely and try to separate out what can stand on its own.
Precisely... Now here is my question:
How is it that
a fully grown and rational human being can take the doctrines and rituals of organized religion so seriously ? Don't they understand that their religious books were written by flawed humans over many centuries ? Why can't they simply put their faith in reason and weigh all options ? Why do they find the Judao-Christian God so compelling ? And why aren't Plato and Aristotle 'comforting' enough for them ?
Why can't they simply say:
"I don't know"... in response to most of life's basic questions ?
Have they never glanced at a history of philosophy book and come away with some appreciation of the complicatedness of so many issues ?
These people truly dumbfound me sometimes.
Ernie,
Quote from: drogulus on April 27, 2009, 05:41:11 AMSo what is deluded about a nationalist movement that succeeded in creating the state that was its goal?
Why did the Jews have the right to displace certain people and create their own state in 1948 ?
All they had to do was hold up their religious book which claims that they are special in the eyes of God and that God is also a type of real-estate broker. Aren't those the bottom-line reasons ?
Does that sound right to you ? This is why I find the whole matter very depressing.
Thomas,
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 01, 2009, 01:24:32 PMThrough sarcasm, I was attempting to express how foolish a move to polytheism would be.
Although I am generally not a fan of their political/cultural views, Kirsch and Vidal makes some good observations here:
Nothing in human nature suggests the inevitability of the notion that there is only one god. On the contrary, men and women in every age and throughout the world have offered worship to literally thousands of gods, goddesses and godlings, male and female alike, and they still do. Only very late in the development of Homo religiosus did monotheism - "one-god-ism" - first emerge, and whenever some visionary king or prophet sought to impose the worship of one deity to the exclusion of all others, he would discover that ordinary people so cherished their many beguiling gods and goddesses that the very idea of monotheism was appalling. That is why the very first recorded experiment in monotheism was an abject failure, and polytheism has survived every effort to destroy it.
But, fatefully, monotheism turned out to inspire a ferocity and even a fanaticism that are mostly absent from polytheism. At the heart of polytheism is an open-minded and easygoing approach to religious belief and practice, a willingness to entertain the idea that there are many gods and many ways to worship them. At the heart of monotheism, by contrast, is the sure conviction that only a single god exists, a tendency to regard one's own rituals and practices as the only proper way to worship the one true god. The conflict between these two fundamental values is what I call the war of God against the gods - it is a war that has been fought with heart-shaking cruelty over the last thirty centuries, and it is a war that is still being fought today.
The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved --Judaism, Christianity, Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal --God is the omnipotent father-- hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is in place not for just one tribe but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good. Ultimately, totalitarianism is the only sort of politics that can truly serve the sky-god's purpose. Any movement of a liberal nature endangers his authority and that of his delegates on earth. One God, one King, one Pope, one master in the factory, one father-leader in the family home. http://www.enotalone.com/article/6760.html
http://www.isebrand.com/Gore_Vidal_Monotheism_1992.htm
Maybe 1948 had more to do with 1899 than...
and, How is polytheism NOT redundant?
I like to think these questions will all be answered whensoever after the questionee takes their last breath. Of course, according to some, by then it may be too late.
So,ya gotta ask yourself, ya feel lucky?
21grams.
I believe that unbelievers will never understand believers, but believers were usually unbelievers once, and so, should be that much more willing to go the extra mile with the unbeliever.
ARE there atheists in foxholes?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 03, 2009, 07:27:38 PM
Guido,
Here is a concise argument for the existence of a supreme being(s) that I've read on this forum. It was written by Al Moritz:
"Something must be the ultimate explanation that is the basis for everything else. In the case of the theist it is God, in the case of the atheist it has to be eternal matter (that a naturalistic "creation out of nothing" is absurd I have explained elsewhere). The problem with eternal matter is that, in order to be not just eternal but also eternally functional, it has to have miraculous properties that we know ordinary matter does not possess (e.g. not obeying the second law of thermodynamics). So if the atheist proclaims that his views (in fact, beliefs) are more "scientific" than the theist position, I have to laugh. Whatever way you twist and turn things, the atheist has to assume new, unobserved and unobservable properties of matter, which makes his position anything but scientific, rather, a modern fairy tale. That this fairy tale is materialistic, and dressed up in (pseudo-) scientific language, does not in any way help to make it "scientific".
Yeah, I just don't buy it though; to me it's a false dichotomy. I'm still sort of astonished, as I was at the time when this was first posted, at how clear cut and certain Al was about this - where that comes from, I'm not sure - and I don't think that there are many physicists who would be so certain as to lay out the supposed options like this...
Even if we accept that there might be a supernatural creator, I think the evidence that that being has interacted with humans is extremely poor indeed (or any other supernatural phenomena happening in the physical world for that matter - psychics, lycanthropy, resurrections etc. etc.), and all arguments that I have seen trying to link an impersonal creative force with some benevolent moral promulgator have been exceedingly weak, sometimes laughably so.
That's why it's called faith.
Physicists seem to be just as hard to pin down to a "yes" or "no" as politicians are. I mean, they'll tell you, they don't know WHAT's going on. The amount of faith they place in their ideas can seem astronomical! And they (and psychiatrists and lawyers) are the high priests of the modern world, the people in whom we place OUR faith?
How DO you get a rose from a rock?
Yes, methinks once the questioners realize how much literal faith they place in the mechanisms of classical evolutionary "theory", they might start to realize that believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny would be just as viable an alternative as getting a rose from a rock.
also...
If our universe is up to, what, 23 dimensions, or wot not, then the creator of that universe would have to be an entity of at least 24 dimensions, so...I don't know why us mere 3Ders would even care to argue about the subject.
Quote from: snyprrr on May 04, 2009, 03:54:54 AM
That's why it's called faith.
Physicists seem to be just as hard to pin down to a "yes" or "no" as politicians are. I mean, they'll tell you, they don't know WHAT's going on. The amount of faith they place in their ideas can seem astronomical! And they (and psychiatrists and lawyers) are the high priests of the modern world, the people in whom we place OUR faith?
How DO you get a rose from a rock?
Yes, methinks once the questioners realize how much literal faith they place in the mechanisms of classical evolutionary "theory", they might start to realize that believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny would be just as viable an alternative as getting a rose from a rock.
You are very wrong about evolutionary theory, which is not a theory of physics for a start, and is also one of the most overwhelmingly verified theory in all of science. And I don't think too many people put their trust in physicists.
Hark, fundamental Christians!!!
Hark!!
I am an angel mesenger unto you!!
Read these passages...
Exodus 20:3
Deuteronomy 10:17, 13:2
Psalm 82:6
Daniel 2:47
Which God is yours?
Had we lived in a polytheistic civilization, the OP would have surely asked: "Would monotheism be better for us?" ;D
When this topic will be exhausted, Eric, I suggest you try the next question:
Would Arianism be better for us?
Quote from: snyprrr on May 04, 2009, 03:54:54 AMPhysicists seem to be just as hard to pin down to a "yes" or "no" as politicians are. I mean, they'll tell you, they don't know WHAT's going on.
I'm a physicist, and I can confirm that I don't have a clue what's going on.
QuoteThe amount of faith they place in their ideas can seem astronomical!
Well, I can't speak for other physicists, but I don't have
faith in any of the 'ideas' in physics. 'Faith' isn't an appropriate response to them. (That's why this eternal 'religion v science' conflict is misconceived; it's based on what seems to be a series of category errors.)
Quote from: Elgarian on May 04, 2009, 05:53:35 AM
That's why this eternal 'religion v science' conflict is misconceived; it's based on what seems to be a series of category errors.
An intelligent comment. How rare and unexpected on these threads. ;)
Quote from: Florestan on May 04, 2009, 05:09:04 AMWhen this topic will be exhausted, Eric, I suggest you try the next question: Would Arianism be better for us?
As usual with Eric's threads, the topic was exhausted years ago. For him and his fellow rocket scientists who never tire of beating this dead horse with their willfully ignorant prejudices, the next question is not whether
Arianism is better for us, but whether
Onanism is all they're capable of.
Quote from: Florestan on May 04, 2009, 05:09:04 AM
Had we lived in a polytheistic civilization, the OP would have surely asked: "Would monotheism be better for us?" ;D
When this topic will be exhausted, Eric, I suggest you try the next question:
Would Arianism be better for us?
My question:
Would
Pelleastrianism be better for us?
Oh!
Dave got there first:
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 04, 2009, 06:37:55 AM
. . . whether Onanism is all they're capable of.
Quote from: John on May 04, 2009, 04:44:34 AM
Hark, fundamental Christians!!!
Hark!!
I am an angel mesenger unto you!!
Read these passages...
Exodus 20:3
Deuteronomy 10:17, 13:2
Psalm 82:6
Daniel 2:47
Which God is yours?
I would like to leave this thread on the humorous note sounded by the last few posters, but I feel this post warranted response.
The verses cited above are in fact examples of references to various "gods" (not "Gods") that our Angel Messenger is not the first to point out. This subject has been addressed often and is explained that in Ancient Israel, the idea of many false gods had not yet been completely eradicated (hence the "no other
gods before me" business). They would, however, come to understand that Monotheism was/is the Way.
Deuteronomy 6:4
Deuteronomy 4:35
II Kings 19:18
Psalms 82:6
Psalms 96:5
Ephesians 4:6
James 2:19
I Corinthians 8:6
I Timothy 2:5
Take this brother...may it serve you well.
Quote from: Wilhelm Richard on May 04, 2009, 06:34:48 PM
Take this brother...may it serve you well.
John Lennon, wasn't that?
Close... :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wCJ9WmX9Zw
Though he doesn't say it, he may very well have written it.
Quote from: Elgarian on May 04, 2009, 05:53:35 AM(That's why this eternal 'religion v science' conflict is misconceived; it's based on what seems to be a series of category errors.)
That's what I meant to say ;D.
Still like to know how you get a rose from a rock. The "first" cell?
So...how's the weather on the West coast these days? My, it's just raining here, and yes, uncle John is fine, thanks for asking.
Why do people who don't drink milk walk funny?
Cause the lack toes.
There, the thread ends humorously. Continue at your own peril.
yes, of course polytheism is better for us. Then we can all follow the one true way of Wicca. My personal favorite gods are the Horn God (obviously), and the Triple Moon Goddess.
Quote from: c#minor on May 05, 2009, 06:25:07 AM
. . . and the Triple Moon Goddess.
That's the signature cocktail of a local Thai restaurant.
Triple Moon Goddess?
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/204/450700424_efa39591e0.jpg?v=0)
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 05, 2009, 07:20:08 AM
Triple Moon Goddess?
Of whom, no doubt, Arthur Frampton is a devotee.
http://www.youtube.com/v/TbN9doxZusQ
Quote from: c#minor on May 05, 2009, 06:25:07 AMMy personal favorite gods are the Horn God (obviously), and the Triple Moon Goddess.
Interesting Fact number 746:On the island of Triplikos, where the inhabitants count to base three, there are 10 Triple Moon Goddesses.
Not many people know that.
Quote from: snyprrr on May 04, 2009, 11:38:44 PM
Still like to know how you get a rose from a rock. The "first" cell?
A huge amount of literature on this, and it's not strictly part of evolutionary theory, but Al (on this foum) has written a very nice introduction to the subject which I can't currently locate (he's a christian, don't worry!).
Andrei,
Quote from: Florestan on May 04, 2009, 05:09:04 AMHad we lived in a polytheistic civilization, the OP would have surely asked: "Would monotheism be better for us?" ;D
Not at all.... Again, monotheism does a horrible job of explaining the staggering differences among humans.
QuoteWhen this topic will be exhausted, Eric, I suggest you try the next question:
Would Arianism be better for us?
Excuse me ? When have I ever brought up race ? I couldn't care less about race/ethnicity...
And one more thing: Plato believed in the gods. If it's good enough for Plato, it's good enough for me.
Guido,
Quote from: Guido on May 04, 2009, 03:26:16 AMEven if we accept that there might be a supernatural creator, I think the evidence that that being has interacted with humans is extremely poor indeed (or any other supernatural phenomena happening in the physical world for that matter - psychics, lycanthropy, resurrections etc. etc.), and all arguments that I have seen trying to link an impersonal creative force with some benevolent moral promulgator have been exceedingly weak, sometimes laughably so.
I agree but what do you make of the following:
a. Unless there is a benevolent supernatural being, there probably cannot be objectively binding moral obligations.
b. Objectively binding moral obligations exist.
c. Therefore there probably is a benevolent supernatural being.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 04, 2009, 06:37:55 AMFor him and his fellow rocket scientists who never tire of beating this dead horse with their willfully ignorant prejudices.
What are you talking about ?
I happen to find the arguments for the existence of the Judao-Christian God and the truth of their texts invalid... How does that make me willfully ignorant ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 05, 2009, 05:25:48 PM
Excuse me ? When have I ever brought up race ? I couldn't care less about race/ethnicity...
Arianism ≠ Aryanism
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 05, 2009, 05:25:48 PM
Excuse me ? When have I ever brought up race ? I couldn't care less about race/ethnicity...
One more proof --- if needed --- that your knowledge about Christianity and its historical development is very weak. Arianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) has nothing to do with race or ethnicity and, as WR pointed out, should not be confused with Aryanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryanism)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 05, 2009, 05:25:48 PM
And one more thing: Plato believed in the gods. If it's good enough for Plato, it's good enough for me.
Pascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky believed in God. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
Have you ever read Plato? I mean, not newspaper commentaries about Plato, but his own work.
Plato seemed to believe in the divine, loosely construed, and away enough from the prevalent dogma of the time as to have based one of his most elegant arguments on 'the good' around the possibility that it (the good) predates the gods, partly implying that the common-belief gods would then be unnecessary. His own view would seem to have been closer to pantheism, from where I see it.
(This in a nutshell since he was brought up, and according to my reading of him ('reading' as in 'interpretation') - needless to say, I am not a leading classical scholar! But I am somewhat allergic to good philosophy being mangled; even potentially, and/or by accident.)
Religion for the Greeks was something different from what we imagine. In it's highest manifestation, the religious feeling of the Greek reached to Homer. The Greeks were an artistic race (unlike the Romans, who never understood the Greeks, no matter how much they borrowed from them), and for them religion was yet another form of artistic expression. Try some of the great dramatists, like Sophocles for instance. It is in those works that the religious spirit of the Greek shines the brightest, and it is a great and noble spirit.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 05, 2009, 05:26:27 PM
What are you talking about ?
I happen to find the arguments for the existence of the Judao-Christian God and the truth of their texts invalid... How does that make me willfully ignorant ?
Maybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man. The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person. However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.
Your choice.
Quote from: Franco on May 06, 2009, 06:36:17 AM
Maybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man. The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person. However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.
Your choice.
I'm chuckling at the above, because that's exactly how my wife sees the matter.
Quote from: Franco on May 06, 2009, 06:36:17 AM
Maybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man. The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person. However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.
Your choice.
So, religion then is simply about the "fear factor"? Believe in religion, only because of fear?
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 06, 2009, 07:21:31 AM
So, religion then is simply about the "fear factor"? Believe in religion, only because of fear?
One billion catholics can't be wrong $:)
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 06, 2009, 07:21:31 AM
So, religion then is simply about the "fear factor"? Believe in religion, only because of fear?
See Pascal's Wager. It's about belief in God, which has nothing to do with religion.
Quote from: Lethe on May 06, 2009, 07:36:05 AM
One billion catholics can't be wrong $:)
Right. Just misled.
From a former Roman Catholic.
Quote from: Lethe on May 06, 2009, 07:36:05 AM
One billion catholics can't be wrong $:)
Oh, dear . . . .
Just a note, friends Sara & Ray: that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).
Somewhere in his dank darkness, the whingemeister is smiling now.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 06, 2009, 07:43:13 AM
Just a note, friends Sara & Ray: that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).
Somewhere in his dank darkness, the whingemeister is smiling now.
I won't disagree that the OP is a Catholic-basher, but I see him more as a confused puppy who doesn't know what's going on or who he is. More unfortunate, he insists on remaining confused.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 06, 2009, 07:43:13 AM
Just a note, friends Sara & Ray: that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).
But Eric's not all negative, Karl. Don't forget the other topics of his perennial obsessions: praise for Wagner, Debussy's P&M, and the aroma of women's panties.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 06, 2009, 07:49:14 AM
I won't disagree that the OP is a Catholic-basher, but I see him more as a confused puppy who doesn't know what's going on or who he is. More unfortunate, he insists on remaining confused.
. . . and starting threads is just his way of saying
Hello!
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 03, 2009, 07:28:56 PM
How is it that a fully grown and rational human being can take the doctrines and rituals of organized religion so seriously ?
Without something irrational, there is no leap of faith, and there is subsequently no religion. If you could explain it, you wouldn't be able to believe in it. As for rituals, maybe it just makes people feel good? Religion is an inward, personal thing....rituals don't pose any benefits here, but maybe there's a coolness factor you're missing.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 03, 2009, 07:28:56 PM
Don't they understand that their religious books were written by flawed humans over many centuries ? Why can't they simply put their faith in reason and weigh all options ?
Yes. To put faith in reason would eliminate all religious options. Believing in something you can't reason away is the whole point of religion. How could you be passionate about 2+2=4?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 03, 2009, 07:28:56 PM
Why do they find the Judao-Christian God so compelling ?
Its a pretty damn good story for one, and the Old Testament consists of some remarkable writings if studied from any perspective.
QuoteDon't they understand that their religious books were written by flawed humans over many centuries?
I love Eric's whingeing "don't they understand" questions . . . they're like knock-knock jokes!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 06, 2009, 08:55:52 AM
I love Eric's whingeing "don't they understand" questions . . . they're like knock-knock jokes!
And Eric questioning others' understanding is like Josquin explaining "genius." ;D
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 06, 2009, 09:28:05 AM
And Eric questioning others' understanding is like Josquin explaining "genius." ;D
(* vacuums tea out of computer keyboard *)
Sorry, Karl.
Eric's right! Polystyrenism is better for us!
I have it on good authority from the Big Fellow pictured below:
(http://www.instablogsimages.com/images/2008/04/14/giant-styrobot_5784.jpg)
Inexplicably, I am overcome with an intense desire to visit a coffee shop . . . .
Quote from: Frumaster on May 06, 2009, 08:19:00 AM
How could you be passionate about 2+2=4?
Because beauty=truth?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 05, 2009, 05:26:05 PM
Guido,
I agree but what do you make of the following:
a. Unless there is a benevolent supernatural being, there probably cannot be objectively binding moral obligations.
b. Objectively binding moral obligations exist.
c. Therefore there probably is a benevolent supernatural being.
This argument seems the wrong way round to me - with that line of reasoning and thought - b would usually follow from c rather than the other way round - why would you suppose they exist before deciding why they exist? And there have been many moral systems suggested that do not require supernatural authority - lots of people think these work, I have no strong opinions on them. Essentially I don't buy (b), and again even if it was true I'm not sure how clear it is that (a) was true.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 06, 2009, 09:47:48 AM
Polystyrenism is better for us!
Polystyrenism is really just Polythenism with a load of hot air mixed in. It's a lightweight religion, by comparison.
Not only is Eric's preposterous syllogism above false (c does not follow from a and b), but a and b are ludicrous premises. It's typical of what passes for reason with Eric, however. :P
If there are no flying unicorns, then there are no tangerine-flavored BS detectors.
There are tangerine-flavored BS detectors.
But even if the second premise were factual instead of just another empty assertion, that still would tell us nothing about flying unicorns since even if the first premise bore any relationship to reality then flying unicorns would still be only a necessary and not a sufficient condition for tangerine-flavored BS detectors.
See the following instructional video on critical thinking by Eric's logic tutor:
http://www.youtube.com/v/zrzMhU_4m-g
Quote from: Elgarian on May 06, 2009, 11:59:33 AM
Polystyrenism is really just Polythenism with a load of hot air mixed in. It's a lightweight religion, by comparison.
:D
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 06, 2009, 12:00:46 PM
If there are no flying unicorns, then there are no tangerine-flavored BS detectors.
Well, this old and battered BS detector on the table by my side has always tasted distinctly of tangerine. I am watching the skies.
Quote from: Elgarian on May 06, 2009, 12:58:21 PM
Well, this old and battered BS detector on the table by my side has always tasted distinctly of tangerine. I am watching the skies.
Carry a stout umbrella.
Quote from: Guido on May 06, 2009, 11:48:07 AM
Because beauty=truth?
Great, but there are subjective thruths too, which allow room for passions, which in turn affirm our existence. Objective truths do none of these things but enslave us.
QuoteAnd one more thing: Plato believed in the gods. If it's good enough for Plato, it's good enough for me.
lol didn't everyone believe in "the Gods" back then?
Either way, I still find it amusing how such a smart person like him could believe in imaginary fairy tale Zeus... i wonder if he ever questioned whether Zeus was real or not? And if he did, probably the only reason he didn't express doubts was because of fear? (maybe, that he might end up like Socrates and just wanted to live?) idk...
Polytheism would lead to wars.
Then we'd have to consult the Taoist "Art of War".
Then we would all be living the Tao.
;D Hurrah!!
Quote from: Bahamut on May 06, 2009, 07:02:11 PM
lol didn't everyone believe in "the Gods" back then?
Either way, I still find it amusing how such a smart person like him could believe in imaginary fairy tale Zeus... i wonder if he ever questioned whether Zeus was real or not? And if he did, probably the only reason he didn't express doubts was because of fear? (maybe, that he might end up like Socrates and just wanted to live?) idk...
Plato didn't believe in the "gods", but he did have a metaphysical understanding, and much of his thinking in that direction was influenced by the ancient Indians (who possessed the greatest metaphysics in the history of mankind), something not everybody seems to know.
People of liberal persuasion (and i don't want to make this a political issue, but it is usually the liberals that reject religion) have a purely materialistic outlook, and have a poor feeling for the "other" world, the conceptual world. This is why liberals are drawn to relativistic philosophies. If you cannot project your mind into the ether, into the world that isn't, focusing entirely on the world that is, then it's obvious the truth, universal truth holds no attraction. But to an individual who's consciousness is stretched towards the ether, things will appear in a different light. What for some is a mere set of arbitrary ideas, the other will find meaningful symbols and abstractions abound.
It is also common for liberals to reduce religion to the superstition of the simple man. A lesser mind will never be able to fully understand the forces that drive his own nature and guides his experiences in life, so he ascribes simple meanings to things which for him or her appear to be vague and mysterious, sometimes terrifying. Yet, do you really believe that superstition is all there is to religion? Then why is it that considerably greater minds then the average man have demonstrated religious feelings? How could a genius like Dostoevsky believe in the bible, unless he found something in it which compelled even a mind such as his? Do you sense superstition when you read
Crime and Punishment? Was superstition the primary theme in a film like
Andrei Rublev? Things just aren't what they seem...
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 06, 2009, 07:38:50 PM
People of liberal persuasion (and i don't want to make this a political issue, but it is usually the liberals that reject religion) have a purely materialistic outlook, and have a poor feeling for the "other" world, the conceptual world. This is why liberals are drawn to relativistic philosophies. If you cannot project your mind into the ether, into the world that isn't, focusing entirely on the world that is, then it's obvious the truth, universal truth holds no attraction. But to an individual who's consciousness is stretched towards the ether, things will appear in a different light. What for some is a mere set of arbitrary ideas, the other will find meaningful symbols and abstractions abound.
I think there's something worthwhile in this paragraph trying to get out, but it's obscured by the misleading first two sentences. I see no reason to link liberalism with relativism in this way. If there is a real universal truth out there beyond the world of the physical senses (let's say), then our separate understandings of it are likely to be different, because incomplete; indeed, our knowledge of the diversity of understandings expressed by other human beings tells us that they
are different. A liberal response is the only sensible outcome of such an outlook, which is neither materialistic, nor relativistic (because the existence of an absolute is acknowledged).
QuotePlato didn't believe in the "gods"
Really? That's good to know, it'd make more sense if he didn't. I'm going to read more of his writings, so I guess I'll learn more about this... :)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 06, 2009, 07:38:50 PM
Plato didn't believe in the "gods", but he did have a metaphysical understanding, and much of his thinking in that direction was influenced by the ancient Indians (who possessed the greatest metaphysics in the history of mankind), something not everybody seems to know.
People of liberal persuasion (and i don't want to make this a political issue, but it is usually the liberals that reject religion) have a purely materialistic outlook, and have a poor feeling for the "other" world, the conceptual world. This is why liberals are drawn to relativistic philosophies. If you cannot project your mind into the ether, into the world that isn't, focusing entirely on the world that is, then it's obvious the truth, universal truth holds no attraction. But to an individual who's consciousness is stretched towards the ether, things will appear in a different light. What for some is a mere set of arbitrary ideas, the other will find meaningful symbols and abstractions abound.
It is also common for liberals to reduce religion to the superstition of the simple man. A lesser mind will never be able to fully understand the forces that drive his own nature and guides his experiences in life, so he ascribes simple meanings to things which for him or her appear to be vague and mysterious, sometimes terrifying. Yet, do you really believe that superstition is all there is to religion? Then why is it that considerably greater minds then the average man have demonstrated religious feelings? How could a genius like Dostoevsky believe in the bible, unless he found something in it which compelled even a mind such as his? Do you sense superstition when you read Crime and Punishment? Was superstition the primary theme in a film like Andrei Rublev? Things just aren't what they seem...
You're quite right. I don't know that Plato got his metaphysics from the East Indians. I still don't. Neither do I accept that they had the greatest metaphsyics ever--which metaphysics, one might ask?
I have no idea what a consciousness stretched toward the ether might be, and fail to see the expression makes any sense whatsoever.
I don't give much cognitive value to religious feelings of people, no matter how great.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 09, 2009, 08:12:22 AMI have no idea what a consciousness stretched toward the ether might be, and fail to see the expression makes any sense whatsoever.
I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I think your statement is a good illustration of the point he's trying to make. His 'consciousness stretched towards the ether' is a metaphor; but to get any sense out of a metaphorical statement like 'the camel is the ship of the desert', we need to be aware of certain aspects of camels, ships, and deserts, otherwise it seems like nonsense - as his expression would also, if we have no conception of what he means by 'the ether'.
Of all beliefs that I saw on the Internet, this one seems to be very intelligent:
http://www.anus.com/zine/philosophy
Back to the topic:
Religion doesn't matter. How it affects our lifes DOES. I don't have time to type what I think but this guy has written some smart articles about the Paganism:
http://www.burzum.com/burzum/library/text/ (total 15 articles)
I think that it is important to understand the first article before reading these Paganism articles.
cheers
Quote from: Contrapunctus666 on May 09, 2009, 10:02:11 AM
http://www.anus.com/zine/philosophy
Ho good grief, NOT anus.com.
Quote from: Elgarian on May 09, 2009, 08:49:34 AM
I don't want to put words into his mouth, but I think your statement is a good illustration of the point he's trying to make. His 'consciousness stretched towards the ether' is a metaphor; but to get any sense out of a metaphorical statement like 'the camel is the ship of the desert', we need to be aware of certain aspects of camels, ships, and deserts, otherwise it seems like nonsense - as his expression would also, if we have no conception of what he means by 'the ether'.
Do you have a conception of what he means by "the ether?" If so, please explicate. I am only too well aware it is meant as a metaphor, but it is not a metaphor which makes a great deal of sense to me as it presupposes worldviews which I and many others in the modern world, do not share.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(classical_element)
If you know what point he was "trying to make," please tell us what it is.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 09, 2009, 01:27:22 PM
If you know what point he was "trying to make," please tell us what it is.
Actually, that isn't the point that
I was trying to make. I'd prefer him to answer for himself, but I think he's trying to describe a certain kind of experience - an extension of consciousness/awareness, which he can only express metaphorically as 'stretched towards the ether'; and he's acknowledging that this won't make sense unless you do have a certain kind of world view: the implication may be that one needs to experience this 'extension into the ether' rather than be persuaded by argument.
Quote from: Elgarian on May 09, 2009, 01:56:41 PM
Actually, that isn't the point that I was trying to make. I'd prefer him to answer for himself, but I think he's trying to describe a certain kind of experience - an extension of consciousness/awareness, which he can only express metaphorically as 'stretched towards the ether'; and he's acknowledging that this won't make sense unless you do have a certain kind of world view: the implication may be that one needs to experience this 'extension into the ether' rather than be persuaded by argument.
He expects me to share the worldview of the ancient Greeks? Or whatever?
We must all invoke the metaphysical at some point to survive. Science doesn't equal Truth for free, you know...
Anyways, have you seen Polythene Pam?
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 10, 2009, 12:50:05 PM
He expects me to share the worldview of the ancient Greeks? Or whatever?
No. I don't think he expects anything at all - and that's the point he's making. I think it's the same kind of situation Blake is talking about in his famous bit of dialogue:
"When the Sun rises, do you not see a round disk of fire somehwat like a guinea?"
"Oh no, no, I see an innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying 'Holy, Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty'"
It's no use the questioner asking for further clarification in terms of his own world view. It isn't to be had. The only way to 'understand' what Blake is saying is to try somehow to enter
his world view. We may of course not wish to do that - but in making that decision we exclude any possibility of understanding what he's saying.
I think something of that sort is what Josquin de Pres is getting at. But it would be much better coming from him, than me. I'm just trying to explain how
I see it.
Quote from: Elgarian on May 11, 2009, 12:27:41 AM
No. I don't think he expects anything at all - and that's the point he's making. I think it's the same kind of situation Blake is talking about in his famous bit of dialogue:
"When the Sun rises, do you not see a round disk of fire somehwat like a guinea?"
"Oh no, no, I see an innumerable company of the Heavenly host crying 'Holy, Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty'"
It's no use the questioner asking for further clarification in terms of his own world view. It isn't to be had. The only way to 'understand' what Blake is saying is to try somehow to enter his world view. We may of course not wish to do that - but in making that decision we exclude any possibility of understanding what he's saying.
I think something of that sort is what Josquin de Pres is getting at. But it would be much better coming from him, than me. I'm just trying to explain how I see it.
Well, at least Blake was speaking in an idiom still used. An acquaintance of mine is a retired English professor, something of an expert on Blake. I heard him give a talk on him, but aside from snatches, Blake has never much appealed to me. He has a whole system makes little sense to me. But "Holy, Holy, Holy" is from the liturgy, the Sanctus, which is taken roughly from Isaiah 6:3. So Blake is explaining his reaction to the sun in terms of images he has learned from his tradition, and some of this tradition is still alive today. Actually, he notes two ways of looking at the rising sun, one in terms of sensible awareness and another in terms of his faith and perhaps vision. We also have different ways of looking at the sun and other things, through our senses, through our sciences, through poetry and art, through our faith. But ether?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 25, 2009, 04:29:47 PM
First let me say that I had a Roman Catholic upbringing, having been baptized as an infant and receiving Holy Communion at the age of 8 but in my late teens I could no longer take the Judao-Christian worldview seriously.... I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis.
On the other hand I can't reject belief in supernatural beings and do find the idea of polytheism to be rational... At least a better overall reflection of the real world.
I recently came across this interesting piece and found a lot to agree with:
http://www.ethnikoi.org/lefkowitz.htm
Here are some of her statements:
1. The poison is not religion; it's monotheism.
2. The Greeks and Romans did not share the narrow view of the ancient Hebrews that a divinity could only be masculine. Like many other ancient peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, the Greeks recognized female divinities.
3. Humans were free to speculate about the character and intentions of the gods. By allowing them to ask hard questions, Greek theology encouraged them to learn, to seek all the possible causes of events. Philosophy -- that characteristically Greek invention -- had its roots in such theological inquiry. As did science.
4. In the monotheistic traditions, in which God is omnipresent and always good, mortals must take the blame for whatever goes wrong, even though God permits evil to exist in the world he created.
5. The god of the Hebrews created the Earth for the benefit of humankind. But as the Greeks saw it, the gods made life hard for humans, didn't seek to improve the human condition and allowed people to suffer and die. There was no hope of redemption, no promise of a happy life or rewards after death.
6. The existence of many different gods also offers a more plausible account than monotheism of the presence of evil and confusion in the world. A mortal may have had the support of one god but incur the enmity of another, who could attack when the patron god was away.
7. Greek theology openly discourages blind confidence based on unrealistic hopes that everything will work out in the end.
*******
Do you agree with some of these viewpoints and/or see advantages to them ?
There has been some criticism of Lefkowitz's article, and I found this one on the net.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-capetz10nov10,0,2789423.story?coll=la-opinion-center
I fail to see that the history shows polytheism has been notably peaceful and tolerant. The empires of the ancient Middle East encouraged the worship of their own high gods. Of course, they assimilated the gods and traditions of others and changed them (but then, the scholars say the ancient Hebrews did, also). I once read J. B. Bury's History of Greece, and that history was not notably peaceful, even though they shared the Olympian pantheon. There were many wars in East Indian history, too.
The Greek gods did not stand up very well to criticism from my own good self (modest blush) and other even greater philosophers and poets.
1) I have already dealt with this one.
2) Female gods or no, the ancient societies were pretty much male dominated. The ancient Hebrews did attribute a number of femine traits to God and Yahweh (ask Phyllis Trible!).
3) There is something to this. According to one major interpretation (Cornford), Greek philosophy did originate in attempts to come to a rational interpretation of religion. But we also have to remember that John Burnet thought the early Greek philosophers (presocratics) were basically natural scientists. But there are other ways of looking at them, too, and I don't regard them as mutually exclusive.
However, anyone who thinks the ancient Hebrews did not ask questions simply hasn't looked into the matter seriously. There are a number of different viewpoints expressed in the Bible and other ancient Jewish literature, and some of them come under strong criticism in Job and Ecclesiastes, as prime examples.
Moreover, Jewish and Christian traditions did assimilate philosophy as well, and it is in Christian Europe that a good deal of science developed.
4) It is true that many people find evil difficult to reconcile with a good God, and as mentioned, but it is not necessary to say that human beings are responsible for everything that goes wrong. Some have maintained this, but others have not. And as I suggested, the authors of Job and Ecclesiastes seem well aware that they do not know how to explain this.
5) The Greek view does seem pretty hopeless to us, so stated. On the other hand, the ancient Hebrews did not have a hope of life after death. (You might read C. Lewis's book on the Psalms, or any standard reference work.) However, the Greeks also had traditions (notably the Mysteries) which offered hope of happiness after death, and this much influenced some of the Greek philosophers, notably the Platonists. Indeed, this strain seems to have influenced later Judaism.
6) Certainly many people do find great evils difficult to reconcile with their own concepts of God. As I have pointed out, this is already in Judaeo-Christian tradition. Divergent powers and aims can result in evil, but one need not go to the gods to find an explanation. Polytheism is, after all, is speculatively unsatisfactory.
One could arrive at a different conception of God, for example, in which God is not all powerful but limited in power and function, as is the god in Plato's Timaeus. Process philosophy and theology tend to such a view.
On the other hand, it could be that God's ways are not our ways, and cannot be held to human standards.
7) A typical Greek view is to keep your head down, don't stand out. That's hybris and the Greek gods frown on that. I'm not sure that leads to improvements in life.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 11, 2009, 06:05:57 AM
I fail to see that the history shows polytheism has been notably peaceful and tolerant.
Quoted for truth.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on April 25, 2009, 04:29:47 PM
I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis.
There's something pathological in your persistent belief that statements like this are about objective reality rather than about the limits of your own intellect and imagination.
Word.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 11, 2009, 04:38:01 AMHe [Blake] has a whole system makes little sense to me.
That's why I chose Blake as my example; because there's a reasonably close parallel there, and Blake is a great artist, so I thought maybe there was a better chance of getting to the root of the business. In this case you have knowledge of a tradition that you can use to rationalise what he's saying, but Blake would call that 'single vision' (the first step towards what he calls 'fourfold vision'). He's not interested in that; he's interested in seeing beyond it. To the rationalist there is no 'beyond it' - and therein lies the problem.
QuoteBut ether?
Well, I don't agree that it's completely unintelligible. The ether was a notion put forward at one time in physics as the medium filling the universe that permits light waves to travel through what appears to be a vacuum. So it was something we couldn't detect directly, but through which information was carried. 'Extending the consciousness into the ether' is not a very well-defined metaphor, but it conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 11, 2009, 06:05:57 AM
it is in Christian Europe that a good deal of science developed.
It is in Christian Europe that
the main deal of science developed; this is a fact that no amount of intellectual acrobacy will ever be able to circumvent.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 09, 2009, 10:49:02 AM
Ho good grief, NOT anus.com.
Oh, but it's very appropriate for all that BS. ;D
[ no sniff zone ]
Don,
Quote from: Bulldog on April 27, 2009, 09:01:00 AMAn admirable movement that resulted in a Jewish homeland.
This past Sunday there was an article in
The Guardian that gave an excellent perspective now and which shows why I often find it depressing and sometimes deluded.
Many Jews no longer believe that the Zionist concept of entitlement, based first upon Biblical history, and latterly upon the Holocaust, suffices to justify perpetuating historic injustice upon the Arabs of Palestine. Benny Morris's excellent recent history of the events of 1948 shows that even a respected Israeli historian is today ready to acknowledge the scale of Israeli ethnic cleansing at the time, and of the deceits employed since to conceal what took place. The Israeli myth, that the Palestinians displaced in 1948 voluntarily abandoned their homes and property, is unsustainable in the face of such evidence.The paradox of Israel's pursuit of mighthttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/israel-middle-east-max-hastings
Karl and Don,
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 06, 2009, 07:43:13 AMJust a note, friends Sara & Ray: that's exactly what the OP trolls for, Catholic-bashing (oh, he'll take Evangelical-bashing as a substitute).
QuoteI won't disagree that the OP is a Catholic-basher, but I see him more as a confused puppy who doesn't know what's going on or who he is. More unfortunate, he insists on remaining confused
Excuse me but what is wrong with questioning my Judao-Christian heritage ? And how are my opening and subsequent posts 'Catholic-bashing' ?
"First let me say that I had a Roman Catholic upbringing, having been baptized as an infant and receiving Holy Communion at the age of 8 but in my late teens I could no longer take the Judao-Christian worldview seriously.... I cannot reconcile the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God with the various perversions of the subconscious mind, strange personality characteristics, wide inequality of cognitive abilities... not to mention the existence of earthquakes and filariasis."
Andrei,
Quote from: Florestan on May 05, 2009, 11:41:04 PMPascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky believed in God. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
Yes, of course and they were awesome writers but they were also second-rate intellects compared to Plato, Spinoza and Hume.
QuoteHave you ever read Plato? I mean, not newspaper commentaries about Plato, but his own work.
I have 3 books on Plato on my bookshelf:
A Introduction to The Republic by Julia Annas (Oxford University Press),
The Laws, and
Philebus. How much was I able to comprehend ? Not a lot.... :-[ But for some reason I still get a warm and fuzzy feeling when reading him. The lack of dogmatism and his always setting out to follow wherever the argument may lead is so appealing.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 11, 2009, 07:02:51 AMThere's something pathological in your persistent belief that statements like this are about objective reality rather than about the limits of your own intellect and imagination.
Why pathological ?
Are you really able to accept the 4 attributes of the Judao-Christian God - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence - without any problems ?
Franco,
Quote from: Franco on May 06, 2009, 06:36:17 AMMaybe not ignorant, but definitely not a betting man. The better bet is to behave as if there is a God, since if you are wrong, you have lost little and lived as a decent person. However, if you live as if there is no God and you are wrong, the cost is potentially much higher.
Your choice.
This is a bit silly I think.... I am not convinced that the monotheistic religions makes people more moral or allows them to truly become themselves.
Frumaster,
Quote from: Frumaster on May 06, 2009, 08:19:00 AMWithout something irrational, there is no leap of faith, and there is subsequently no religion. If you could explain it, you wouldn't be able to believe in it. As for rituals, maybe it just makes people feel good? Religion is an inward, personal thing....rituals don't pose any benefits here, but maybe there's a coolness factor you're missing.
Yes. To put faith in reason would eliminate all religious options. Believing in something you can't reason away is the whole point of religion. How could you be passionate about 2+2=4?
Its a pretty damn good story for one, and the Old Testament consists of some remarkable writings if studied from any perspective.
That is all probably true but still don't you believe that the
philosophical worldview is richer and the best way for humanity to go ?
Drogulus,
Here is a letter by Einstein written a year before his death:
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are better protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1951333/Einstein-thought-religions-were-childish.html
What do you make of it and was he being platitudinous here in your view ?
Andrei,
Quote from: Florestan on May 11, 2009, 10:17:51 AMIt is in Christian Europe that the main deal of science developed; this is a fact that no amount of intellectual acrobacy will ever be able to circumvent.
Yes but a question if I may:
Do you believe that the Christian religion, as represented in
The Sermon on The Mount and
The Lord's Prayer is the truth... the ultimate truth ?
Xenophanes,
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 11, 2009, 06:05:57 AM
There has been some criticism of Lefkowitz's article, and I found this one on the net.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-capetz10nov10,0,2789423.story?coll=la-opinion-center
Thanks for the link and the the replies... But I'd like to know what you make of Richard Dawkins when he says that theology shouldn't even be considered a real subject ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 14, 2009, 07:47:36 PM
But I'd like to know what you make of Richard Dawkins when he says that theology shouldn't even be considered a real subject ?
Boring. The intellectual sophistication of western society has been reduced to journalistic mediocrities like Richard Dawkins and all the other second rate hacks favored by the media. To think there was a time when a genius like Otto Weininger was a wildfire best seller. Today, we have to deal with intellectual lightweights like Richard Dawkins as if they really had anything interesting to say that anybody with an IQ higher then room temperature hasn't thought about it on his own a million times before.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 10, 2009, 12:50:05 PM
He expects me to share the worldview of the ancient Greeks? Or whatever?
No, i expect you to share the worldview employed by western intellectuals, from Plato to Schopenhauer, before the worship of mechanics replaced real
thought and reduced the human mind into a boring atomata, a mere collection of processes, unable to comprehend anything that any machine wouldn't comprehend.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 14, 2009, 07:36:47 PM
Karl and Don,
Excuse me but what is wrong with questioning my Judao-Christian heritage ?
FWIW, the problem isn't that you question your heritage but that you question everything, leave it all hanging in the air and end up without any foundation.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 14, 2009, 07:36:07 PM
Don,
This past Sunday there was an article in The Guardian that gave an excellent perspective now and which shows why I often find it depressing and sometimes deluded.
Many Jews no longer believe that the Zionist concept of entitlement, based first upon Biblical history, and latterly upon the Holocaust, suffices to justify perpetuating historic injustice upon the Arabs of Palestine. Benny Morris's excellent recent history of the events of 1948 shows that even a respected Israeli historian is today ready to acknowledge the scale of Israeli ethnic cleansing at the time, and of the deceits employed since to conceal what took place. The Israeli myth, that the Palestinians displaced in 1948 voluntarily abandoned their homes and property, is unsustainable in the face of such evidence.
The paradox of Israel's pursuit of might
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/09/israel-middle-east-max-hastings
That's one article expressing the views of one person. If you stopped reading this stuff, you might find yourself less depressed and deluded.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 14, 2009, 07:38:04 PM
I have 3 books on Plato on my bookshelf: A Introduction to The Republic by Julia Annas (Oxford University Press), The Laws, and Philebus. How much was I able to comprehend ? Not a lot....
That's a very frank and commendable admittance of your little knowledge about Plato's philosophy.
But then you come up with this:
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 14, 2009, 07:38:04 PM
Yes, of course and they were awesome writers [Pascal, Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky] but they were also second-rate intellects compared to Plato, Spinoza and Hume.
Eric, be honest until the end: you have no clue about anyone of the above (or anyone else or any other topic, for that matter) other than truncated, half-digested quotes from newspaper articles or little understood books
about them. You hide your pathological inability of thinking and acting on your own behind the authority of some of the greatest minds in Western philosophy, with which you have in common nothing except belonging to the same species.
You have written a lot of ridiculous things in the last few years, but your assessing Pascal, Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky as "second-rate intellects" beats them all.
Enough is enough, don't you think?
Andrei,
You are right and I should not have characterized them as 'second-rate'... What I meant to say is that they haven't contributed as much to our understanding as Plato, Spinoza and Hume.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 15, 2009, 12:42:39 AM
Andrei,
You are right and I should not have characterized them as 'second-rate'... What I meant to say is that they haven't contributed as much to our understanding as Plato, Spinoza and Hume.
Eric, you're very fond of using "we", "us", "our"... What did Spinoza contribute to
your understanding?
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2009, 12:47:11 AM
Eric, you're very fond of using "we", "us", "our"... What did Spinoza contribute to your understanding?
That we can save ourselves by always striving to be objective and rational and that getting our passions under control is all-important.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 15, 2009, 12:58:02 AM
getting our passions under control is all-important.
Do you practice that?
Quote from: Florestan on May 15, 2009, 01:00:40 AM
Do you practice that?
No...
Practicing the Spinoza philosophy is very hard... It's very high-minded.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 15, 2009, 01:03:53 AM
No...
Practicing the Spinoza philosophy is very hard... It's very high-minded.
Then please, stop parading this or that philosopher as if you were a devoted disciple.
I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. :D
Quote from: Guido on May 15, 2009, 02:54:09 AM
I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. :D
Well, everyone oversimplifies, doesn't he?
Quote from: Guido on May 15, 2009, 02:54:09 AM
I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. :D
I beg your pardon!
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 15, 2009, 05:31:10 AM
I beg your pardon!
Sure; but
Guido was simply taking the thread as an occasion for scorn upon people of faith; which is entirely in harmony with the OP. Doesn't especially become him, to disregard Eric's long (and godawfully tedious) track record. But then, we endure it with a patient spirit.
Quote from: Guido on May 15, 2009, 02:54:09 AM
I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. :D
An extraordinary claim, contrary to all the evidence I've witnessed in several years on this forum. Naming names might put us in hot water with the authorities, but I cannot think of a single poster who's identified himself as a Christian who fits this description, let alone to the extreme routinely evinced by several posters, all of whom
habitually go out of their way to attack and mock Christians and other people with faith in God.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2009, 08:10:56 PM
No, i expect you to share the worldview employed by western intellectuals, from Plato to Schopenhauer, before the worship of mechanics replaced real thought and reduced the human mind into a boring atomata, a mere collection of processes, unable to comprehend anything that any machine wouldn't comprehend.
I find it strange you cannot actually tell me anything about that alleged worldview.
So what is that worldview shared by Western intellectuals from Plato to Schopenhauer? I think that period witnessed a number worldviews. Besides, a lot has happened since Schopenhauer, and after all, there is quite a variety in philosophy, theology, natural science, social sciences, and the arts since then.
Besides, I am not convinced that worldviews are all of a piece, anyway. What is stretching to the ether supposed to mean? Which meaning did you have in mind?
In any case, if you wish to communicate with modern people, you will have to speak in language they can understand. For example, Christianity had to speak to people in their own languages, not just Hebrew or Aramaic, and the New Testament is in Greek and even quoted the Old Testament from a Greek translation.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 15, 2009, 06:14:12 AMWhat is stretching to the ether supposed to mean? Which meaning did you have in mind?
I offered a possible interpretation of his metaphor in #190:
"The ether was a notion put forward at one time in physics as the medium filling the universe that permits light waves to travel through what appears to be a vacuum. So it was something we couldn't detect directly, but through which information was carried. 'Extending the consciousness into the ether' is not a very well-defined metaphor, but it conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well."
But I say again (trying not actually to take sides in this discussion, but just observing what's happening) that when two world views conflict (as here), it's unlikely that any progress can be made so long as both parties maintain entrenched positions. In this case, you're requiring that what one might call 'spiritual insights' (choose a better expression if you can think of one) be transposed into a rationalist world view; and however reasonable that may seem from your point of view, it can't be done. You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blue, you have to see it (if it exists).
Quote from: Guido on May 15, 2009, 02:54:09 AM
I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. :D
Well, it's a two-way street. I find that folks at both ends of the spectrum can be rather nasty and disrespectful.
I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?
Quote from: Brian on May 15, 2009, 07:22:53 AM
I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?
The same as the purpose of every other thread about religion (pro or con) - verbal masturbation.
Quote from: Brian on May 15, 2009, 07:22:53 AM
I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?
Like virtually all the other threads having to do with religion, God, faith, spirituality, etc--most of which are started by Eric--the purpose is to ridicule and sneer at people of faith, Christians particularly.
Quote from: Brian on May 15, 2009, 07:22:53 AM
I just clicked directly onto this page of posts without reading the first eleven, and the tone of the discussion felt like I was being slapped in the face. What is the purpose of this thread?
Slapped and slapped and slapped again.
The thread began as a question between polytheism and whateverism and became a general debate on the nature of religion...Unfortunately, comments such as...
Quote from: Guido on May 15, 2009, 02:54:09 AM
I find it hilarious that the 'Christian' posters here are the snidest, most condemning, unnaccepting and most ready to ridicule of anyone here. :D
...are tolerated when...
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 15, 2009, 05:57:52 AM
An extraordinary claim, contrary to all the evidence I've witnessed in several years on this forum. Naming names might put us in hot water with the authorities, but I cannot think of a single poster who's identified himself as a Christian who fits this description, let alone to the extreme routinely evinced by several posters, all of whom habitually go out of their way to attack and mock Christians and other people with faith in God.
...actually seems to be the case.
I cite a moderator's previous post that states that "views offensive to the majority of the board that are frequently aired are regarded as spam and against the interests of this board and the majority of its members."
The "discussion" (as it is currently being continued) should be ended as many potentially less harmless discussion topics have been. For some, religion can be the most important aspect of their life, more important than their views on, say, race or the State of Israel (for example).
Brian,
The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.
Quote from: Elgarian on May 15, 2009, 06:49:19 AM
I offered a possible interpretation of his metaphor in #190:
"The ether was a notion put forward at one time in physics as the medium filling the universe that permits light waves to travel through what appears to be a vacuum. So it was something we couldn't detect directly, but through which information was carried. 'Extending the consciousness into the ether' is not a very well-defined metaphor, but it conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well."
But I say again (trying not actually to take sides in this discussion, but just observing what's happening) that when two world views conflict (as here), it's unlikely that any progress can be made so long as both parties maintain entrenched positions. In this case, you're requiring that what one might call 'spiritual insights' (choose a better expression if you can think of one) be transposed into a rationalist world view; and however reasonable that may seem from your point of view, it can't be done. You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blueness, you have to see it (if it exists).
I do not think that spiritual insights are confined to just one world view.
What makes you think I am a rationalist?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 15, 2009, 08:00:44 AM
Brian,
The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism . . .
A bizarre purpose, but entirely characteristic.
Quote from: Eric. . . and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.
You are at your very funniest when you are being smug, and in accusing others of the selfsame vice!
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 15, 2009, 08:00:44 AM
Brian,
The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.
But you have only shown that you're adrift and unsettled.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 15, 2009, 08:00:44 AM
Brian,
The purpose of this thread is to show that monotheism is not superior to polytheism and that adherents of monotheistic religions should not be so smug.
I think there is a certain amount of smugness in the very title of this thread. Where do you get the "us" from? No system of beliefs is right for "us", although any number of them may be right for "you" (singular).
That statement has griped my cookies since you first started this thread, and now I have got it off my chest. Thanks for the impromptu therapy session, Eric. :)
8)
We are amused.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 14, 2009, 07:47:36 PM
Xenophanes,
Thanks for the link and the the replies... But I'd like to know what you make of Richard Dawkins when he says that theology shouldn't even be considered a real subject ?
What does he know about it?
Here is Dawkins' interview (7 parts) with an eminent astronomer, Father George Coyne, the former head of the Vatican Observatory, who among other things, is a critic of intelligent design.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=965C53D2B4BCCCF5
Richard Dawkins isn't in a position to take Father Coyne on either scientifically (astronomy is not his field of expertise) or theologically. Or do you think he is just being polite to the old guy? Anyway, a nice conversation.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 15, 2009, 08:24:43 AM
I do not think that spiritual insights are confined to just one world view.
Neither do I. It doesn't have a bearing on what I was saying.
QuoteWhat makes you think I am a rationalist?
It doesn't matter what the labels are. Choose different ones (as I invited). The key point is still that no progress can be made by demanding that insights dependent upon one world view must be transposable into another. I repeat: "You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blueness, you have to see it (if it exists)." The reality of the colour blue may indeed be a mere fantasy, but the issue can't be resolved by talking about it. The same goes for 'the extension of consciousness into the ether'. As I explained, I can form some kind of understanding of what he may mean by that metaphorical expression; but he, like Blake, would insist that truly to understand it, one needs to experience it.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 14, 2009, 07:38:58 PM
Why pathological ?
Are you really able to accept the 4 attributes of the Judao-Christian God - omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence - without any problems ?
that's what I'm wondering...
"Without any problems" just isn't the "gotcha" that Eric imagines it to be.
Is acceptance of divine omnibenevolence a "problem"? I shouldn't think so.
And (by the bye) here is a divine attribute, where I fail to see polytheism as at all "superior." There (I should think) the "selective benevolence" is more obviously a moral problem.
Man, this is a great thread. Of course all discussions about religion are great in that -- after are all the rational arguments have been explored -- irrational belief prevails. I find this perversely amusing. >:D
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 15, 2009, 05:57:52 AM
An extraordinary claim, contrary to all the evidence I've witnessed in several years on this forum. Naming names might put us in hot water with the authorities, but I cannot think of a single poster who's identified himself as a Christian who fits this description, let alone to the extreme routinely evinced by several posters, all of whom habitually go out of their way to attack and mock Christians and other people with faith in God.
That's the great thing about being a Christian (or other religionist), is when you hear someone who professes the same religion but doesn't agree with you, you can just say the he/she
isn't a "real" Christian, (Hindu, Buddist, Jew, whatever).
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2009, 08:08:40 PM
... Today, we have to deal with intellectual lightweights like Richard Dawkins as if they really had anything interesting to say that anybody with an IQ higher then room temperature hasn't thought about it on his own a million times before.
Right on, Jos.
You hit the nail on the head then. I for one, upon reading
The God Delusion, found that there was no siginificant point of Dawkins' that I
hadn't thought of
and agreed with, decades before. And I make no intellectual pretense.
Well we all see things differently - I guess that there is snideness from both sides, but I notice it a damned shade more when it comes from the Christians, as it's not very 'Christian' of them. It's not a point I want to labour, but it does amuse me. (And yes, its obviously not all the Christians.) I'm not aware of the OP poster ever being particularly hateful, though I may very well be wrong.
I think Eric suffers more from selective listening than hatefulness...
Quote from: Guido on May 15, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
Well we all see things differently - I guess that there is snideness from both sides, but I notice it a damned shade more when it comes from the Christians, as it's not very 'Christian' of them. It's not a point I want to labour, but it does amuse me. (And yes, its obviously not all the Christians.) I'm not aware of the OP poster ever being particularly hateful, though I may very well be wrong.
Well, when he goes on one of his "How can any sentient being
really believe" so-&-so riffs, I guess it's a fine point whether there is
hatred in there.
Don has a good point with the OP's being muddled.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 15, 2009, 01:48:26 PM
Well, when he goes on one of his "How can any sentient being really believe" so-&-so riffs, I guess it's a fine point whether there is hatred in there. Don has a good point with the OP's being muddled.
Quite - I read that as being perplexed, rather than as an intended insult.
Nah, it's textbook passive-aggressive hatefulness.
Quote from: Elgarian on May 15, 2009, 11:27:18 AM
Neither do I. It doesn't have a bearing on what I was saying.
It doesn't matter what the labels are. Choose different ones (as I invited). The key point is still that no progress can be made by demanding that insights dependent upon one world view must be transposable into another. I repeat: "You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blueness, you have to see it (if it exists)." The reality of the colour blue may indeed be a mere fantasy, but the issue can't be resolved by talking about it. The same goes for 'the extension of consciousness into the ether'. As I explained, I can form some kind of understanding of what he may mean by that metaphorical expression; but he, like Blake, would insist that truly to understand it, one needs to experience it.
Catholic: how's that? :P
Well, if getting beyond the ether can't be understood without the experience, how does one gain the experience? According to you, one can't explain what is meant anymore than one can explain sight to who can't see at all. This brings us to Wittgenstein:
"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
You and Josquin have talked yourself into a quandary.
Gurn,
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 15, 2009, 09:58:53 AMI think there is a certain amount of smugness in the very title of this thread. Where do you get the "us" from? No system of beliefs is right for "us", although any number of them may be right for "you" (singular).
Correct, it should be 'me' not 'we'... Duly noted. :)
QuoteThat statement has griped my cookies since you first started this thread, and now I have got it off my chest
And I know you've been recuperating too.... :( My apologies.... :)
Xenophanes,
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 15, 2009, 10:46:35 AMWhat does he know about it?
Just enough to be able to argue about it, yes ?
QuoteRichard Dawkins isn't in a position to take Father Coyne on either scientifically (astronomy is not his field of expertise) or theologically. Or do you think he is just being polite to the old guy?
But when has theology ever been right ? Sometimes it seems that theologians 'play games' with us.
:-\
Josquin and Feanor,
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 14, 2009, 08:08:40 PMBoring.
The intellectual sophistication of western society has been reduced to journalistic mediocrities like Richard Dawkins and all the other second rate hacks favored by the media. To think there was a time when a genius like Otto Weininger was a wildfire best seller. Today, we have to deal with intellectual lightweights like Richard Dawkins as if they really had anything interesting to say that anybody with an IQ higher then room temperature hasn't thought about it on his own a million times before.
O.k. perhaps Voltaire was wittier and more sophisticated than all of these these guys on this topic but if I remember correctly Dawkins wrote
The God Delusion for the general public, specifically those who still questioned the religion of their upbringing and were still sort of 'on the fence' ..... It wasn't written for academics.
By the way, do you consider Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens second rate hacks as well ?
Either way, I find what they've done refreshing... I think that some vigorous questioning of religious beliefs in our culture is a bit overdue.
What do you propose be done instead ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 15, 2009, 05:24:20 PM
Gurn,
Correct, it should be 'me' not 'we'... Duly noted. :)
And I know you've been recuperating too.... :( My apologies.... :)
:) (Accepted)
You really need to leave the Christians alone. Unless you were sent as a test for them. If you have been, then it is interesting to see that many have passed with flying colors. The remainder have some opportunities. 0:)
8)
----------------
Listening to:
Royal PO / Previn Ax - Bia 337 Op 37 Concerto #3 in c for Piano 2nd mvmt - Largo
Quote from: Guido on May 15, 2009, 01:23:16 PM
as it's not very 'Christian' of them.
Why do people think Christianity = Gandhi?
"I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword".
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2009, 06:21:22 PM
Why do people think Christianity = Gandhi? "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword".
"...and the sword was God."'
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 15, 2009, 03:52:16 PM
You and Josquin have talked yourself into a quandary.
No, the quandary is not mine. I'm merely observing two people failing to communicate and exploring why that might be happening.
QuoteWell, if getting beyond the ether can't be understood without the experience, how does one gain the experience?
How one
gains the experience is a separate issue. That isn't what we were talking about.
However, we mustn't
distort Josquin de Pres's metaphor while attempting to understand it; I can form some understanding of what he means when he speaks of 'consciousness stretched towards the ether', or 'projecting your mind into the ether' (based on my acquaintance with the concept of 'ether' in physics, as I explained previously); but to speak of 'getting
beyond the ether', as you misquote it, would be incomprehensible even to me. If we're going to discuss the issue at all, we need to discuss what he said, not what we mistakenly
think he said.
Quote"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
You're right to quote Wittgenstein at this point, though I fancy we almost certainly have different notions of what he meant by his famous statement, and what its implications are for this discussion. But that's another story, and life is short.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 15, 2009, 06:21:22 PM
Why do people think Christianity = Gandhi? "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword".
because Christ's example teaches compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, not to be judgemental etc.
Quote from: ' on May 15, 2009, 07:57:09 PM
"...and the sword was God."'
You're a genius! ;D
Quote from: Guido on May 16, 2009, 01:48:49 AM
You're a genius! ;D
I appreciate the irony of that comment, given the fascination that some folks here have with that concept. '
It's all that matters (so I'm told).
Xenophanes,
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 15, 2009, 10:46:35 AMWhat does he know about it?
Richard Dawkins isn't in a position to take Father Coyne on either scientifically (astronomy is not his field of expertise) or theologically.
Btw, here is a concise, humorous and wonderful reply from Dawkins when questioned on perhaps being wrong about the Judao-Christian God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&feature=related
Quote from: Elgarian on May 15, 2009, 11:27:18 AM
Neither do I. It doesn't have a bearing on what I was saying.
It doesn't matter what the labels are. Choose different ones (as I invited). The key point is still that no progress can be made by demanding that insights dependent upon one world view must be transposable into another. I repeat: "You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blueness, you have to see it (if it exists)." The reality of the colour blue may indeed be a mere fantasy, but the issue can't be resolved by talking about it. The same goes for 'the extension of consciousness into the ether'. As I explained, I can form some kind of understanding of what he may mean by that metaphorical expression; but he, like Blake, would insist that truly to understand it, one needs to experience it.
OK, so you just offer this comparison as part of your interpretation of what Josquin said.
Quote
You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blue, you have to see it (if it exists).
OK. So you propose that somehow that the experience is open to those who keep their eyes open (another metaphor), so that somehow not experiencing "the extension of consciousness into the ether" is somehow their own fault. Now, you also propose of the phrase that:
Quoteit conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well.
Therefore, my formulation (not a quote) of getting beyond the ether makes sense, since the ether in the interpretation you propose (but don't say you accept) is only a medium through which one might learn something besides itself. Neither, however, makes sense if we don't know what 'ether' means and Josquin isn't saying.
However, those who do not have the alleged experience may find it strange that people blame them for not having it, along with some particular interpretation of it. It seems rather insulting and I can hardly blame people for objecting to it. Not the way to make friends and influence people.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 16, 2009, 12:27:58 PM
Xenophanes,
Btw, here is a concise, humorous and wonderful reply from Dawkins when questioned on perhaps being wrong about the Judao-Christian God:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&feature=related
You keep changing the ground. But in any case, Dawkins stated a fairly obvious truth. What makes you think theologians, religious historians, and sociologists of religions don't know that? The questioner deserved the answer she got. Who is she to make theological threats?
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 16, 2009, 05:03:51 PM
You keep changing the ground.
Ah, I see you've met Eric!
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 16, 2009, 05:03:51 PMYou keep changing the ground.
I am sorry Xenophanes, but I've just had it, I've absolutely had it with organized religion in this country, especially orthodox Judaism
and the Jewish lobby.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 17, 2009, 11:34:38 AM
I am sorry Xenophanes, but I've just had it, I've absolutely had it with organized religion in this country, especially orthodox Judaism and the Jewish lobby.
So, what's your next move? Does "absolutely had it" mean you're going to do something about it, or are you just going to keep wagging your tongue?
Quote from: Bulldog on May 17, 2009, 11:42:48 AM
So, what's your next move? Does "absolutely had it" mean you're going to do something about it, or are you just going to keep wagging your tongue?
Nota bene, when threatened with reprisal for your bad behavior, never fail to mention the
final solution.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 17, 2009, 11:42:48 AMSo, what's your next move? Does "absolutely had it" mean you're going to do something about it ?
Not at all.
The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?
Andrei, Xenophanes and other Christians here,
A question:
Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's Ethics ?
Here is a brief overview:
"Spinoza abjured both the God of Israel and the people of Israel, and replaced his old religion with an audacious faith in the supreme power of human reason. Spinoza's radicalism begins in his critique of religion. In the anonymously published Theological-Political Treatise, he insists on the distinction between philosophy, which aims at truth, and theology, which aims, he says, at obedience. He revolts against revelation as a source of truth, and rejects fundamental doctrines like divine providence, free will, reward and punishment, election, the possibility of miracles, and the immortality of the soul. Although Hobbes, in his Leviathan, had already taken a swipe at the Mosaic authorship of the "Five Books of Moses," Spinoza more or less fathers biblical criticism by rejecting the Bible's divine authorship. Though he stops well short of endorsing a religion-free polity, and though he cautions against expressing such an opinion to the masses, Spinoza deems adherents to organized religion slavish and superstitious. He articulates a radical determinism that banishes purpose and contingency and chance, and allows into the world no arbitrary or spontaneous events. (It is in this sense that Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God.") He also famously posits a God who is identical with the totality of nature. This God-or-Nature, this infinite substance outside of which nothing exists, is eternal, necessary, self-caused, self-sufficient, perfect, and perfectly indifferent to us"
******
What do you feel are the problems with the Spinozistic worldview ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 17, 2009, 05:55:02 PM
Andrei, Xenophanes and other Christians here,
A question:
Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's Ethics ?
Here is a brief overview:
"Spinoza abjured both the God of Israel and the people of Israel, and replaced his old religion with an audacious faith in the supreme power of human reason. Spinoza's radicalism begins in his critique of religion. In the anonymously published Theological-Political Treatise, he insists on the distinction between philosophy, which aims at truth, and theology, which aims, he says, at obedience. He revolts against revelation as a source of truth, and rejects fundamental doctrines like divine providence, free will, reward and punishment, election, the possibility of miracles, and the immortality of the soul. Although Hobbes, in his Leviathan, had already taken a swipe at the Mosaic authorship of the "Five Books of Moses," Spinoza more or less fathers biblical criticism by rejecting the Bible's divine authorship. Though he stops well short of endorsing a religion-free polity, and though he cautions against expressing such an opinion to the masses, Spinoza deems adherents to organized religion slavish and superstitious. He articulates a radical determinism that banishes purpose and contingency and chance, and allows into the world no arbitrary or spontaneous events. (It is in this sense that Einstein said, "I believe in Spinoza's God.") He also famously posits a God who is identical with the totality of nature. This God-or-Nature, this infinite substance outside of which nothing exists, is eternal, necessary, self-caused, self-sufficient, perfect, and perfectly indifferent to us"
******
What do you feel are the problems with the Spinozistic worldview ?
Well, Spinoza would have you seek peace of mind and control over your emotions, as did the Stoics, but you don't seem to be there.
QuoteI've just had it, I've absolutely had it with organized religion in this country, especially orthodox Judaism and the Jewish lobby.
That seems to be good advice, as you seem to need to come to terms with whatever is bothering you. No one can really do that for you.
I'm not an expert on Spinoza, but I have in the past read a bit of him and some of the histories of philosophy.
I know Spinoza has some place in the history of biblical criticism (most of which has been carried out be religious believers, contrary to the summary provided). It is easy enough to doubt Moses wrote the Pentateuch (it recounts his death, for one thing), but others seem to have had more to do with actually analyzing and coming up with four bodies of literature in it providing different presentations and theologies is another. He doesn't seem to have had much to do with that.
Spinoza appears to expect philosophy to achieve salvation in the intellectual love of God. Such projects are exceedingly difficult, and so are open only to elites, not the common people.
I believe Christianity is more of a bhakti or devotional and practical religion, and as such is open to ordinary people.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 17, 2009, 05:55:02 PM
What do you feel are the problems with the Spinozistic worldview ?
The individual promoted by Spinoza is a cold, objective, never-weeping, never-laughing, always rational, passionless and lifeless robot.
My sympathy goes entirely with the full humanity of Dostoyevsky, whose heroes are the exact opposite of the Spinozian machines: they are hot, subjective, they weep, they cry, they are sometimes irrational, they are passionate, and life pulsates in their every thought and action.
I'd rather have dinner with Ivan Karamazov than with... wait, I can't think of any embodiment of the Spinozian ideal. So I guess I'll invite Myshkin as well. :)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 17, 2009, 05:55:02 PM
Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's Ethics ?
Jesus was not only a religious figure, but a historical figure. This is unique among world religions. So if we examine the evidence of the gospels in the New Testament as a statement of historical fact, we find that Jesus was in fact God. Being Catholic, I also believe that Jesus himself established a Church (as it is written by St. Matthew), and this Church proclaims the truth of the New Testament as it extends beyond the historical representation of Jesus in the gospels to the theology of St. Paul's epistles through Revelation. This is somewhat different the protestant understanding of the Bible, for which is a matter of faith that it contains truth. Of course, that is not to say that the Catholic understanding does not involve faith, but that it is a different faith.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 17, 2009, 04:22:46 PM
The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?
Could be there are many people like you.
Quote from: Catison on May 18, 2009, 12:13:40 AM
Jesus was not only a religious figure, but a historical figure. This is unique among world religions. So if we examine the evidence of the gospels in the New Testament as a statement of historical fact, we find that Jesus was in fact God. Being Catholic, I also believe that Jesus himself established a Church (as it is written by St. Matthew), and this Church proclaims the truth of the New Testament as it extends beyond the historical representation of Jesus in the gospels to the theology of St. Paul's epistles through Revelation. This is somewhat different the protestant understanding of the Bible, for which is a matter of faith that it contains truth. Of course, that is not to say that the Catholic understanding does not involve faith, but that it is a different faith.
Erm... Mohammed?
Quote from: Guido on May 18, 2009, 01:25:46 AM
Erm... Mohammed?
Mohammad never claimed to be God. And, as far as I understand it, the Quran is not historical, because it was dictated to him by the angel Gabriel. What is unique about Jesus is that his authority is not based on a written text, but upon actions. Jesus did not write a word of the Bible, of course, but the historical nature of the New Testament (a limited historicity, as this was not its primary purpose) is a witness to these actions.
You're not going to deny that he was a historical figure though are you? (which was my contention)
The Haddith, the Sunnah?
Quote from: Guido on May 18, 2009, 01:41:42 AM
You're not going to deny that he was a historical figure though are you? (which was my contention)
The Haddith, the Sunnah?
No, I'm not denying that he was historical in that he actually existed. I am saying that his religious theology is not based on a historicity. Sorry, I realize I wasn't be very clear.
Ah, I see! I think we've argued on this board about the historicity of the new testament before, so lets not bother to do it again! :)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 17, 2009, 04:22:46 PM
Not at all.
The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?
You find hostility in every forum you frequent... Why is that?
Socrates said it best:
The unexamined life is not worth living. Some of us are too busy whingeing to examine the life we live.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 17, 2009, 05:55:02 PM
Why do you believe in the truth of the New Testament as opposed to, say, Spinoza's Ethics ?
Why "as opposed to"?
Quote from: more copy-&-paste-age
. . . He also famously posits a God who is identical with the totality of nature.
Which is either pointless (since there is alread the word,
Nature) or a statement of faith ("I believe that God is just Nature"). Christians (we can probably say, to tie this in with your nominal subject-header, all monotheists) believe in a God Who created Nature. In the Christian view, then (nor should it take any
great imagination on your part to have understood long, long before today, that this is the Christian view, but you've never yet displayed any talent for actually
listening to anyone whose opinion you do not perceive — rightly or wrongly — as neatly aligning with yours), to posit a God who is identical with nature, is not much different than to posit a watchmaker who is identical with the watch.
You
do see that the latter viewpoint is an error?
Quote
Why "as opposed to"?
Mind you, one could conceivably find value in Spinoza's discussion of ethics, without endorsing his theology . . . .
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 17, 2009, 04:22:46 PM
...
The Jews will always be too powerful... But I find it interesting that they really are the only people who have found hostility in every country that they settled in... Why is that ?
Jews know perfectly well, though very few will admit, that it is
their own sense of separation,
their own sense of superiority, that has alienated them time and again from the indigenous populations amongst whom they live.
Does this justify the oppression they have suffered? No, but it explains it.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 18, 2009, 03:37:50 AM
Which is either pointless (since there is alread the word, Nature) or a statement of faith ("I believe that God is just Nature"). ...
The word is "Pantheism". No, it is not at all the Judeo-Christian-Muslim perspective.
Quote from: Feanor on May 18, 2009, 03:53:27 AM
The word is "Pantheism". No, it is not at all the Judeo-Christian-Muslim perspective.
Right; and from my viewpoint, "It's just
all God" is more problematic than (for example) "How can an all-powerful God be good, and yet permit evil in the world?"
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 18, 2009, 06:03:33 AM
"How can an all-powerful God be good, and yet permit evil in the world?"
Yes, it's hard to understand why this question troubles anyone over the age of, say, fourteen.
Quote from: Feanor on May 18, 2009, 03:43:31 AM
Jews know perfectly well, though very few will admit, that it is their own sense of separation, their own sense of superiority, that has alienated them time and again from the indigenous populations amongst whom they live.
It's good to see that Feanor has the inside track on the knowledge that Jews possess. ::)
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 18, 2009, 06:18:22 AM
Yes, it's hard to understand why this question troubles anyone over the age of, say, fourteen.
And yet it is the first of the Objections St. Thomas Aquinas gives to the article, "Does God exist?". More interestingly, Thomas has only two objections, and the other is a not an actual proof against God, but merely says that God is superfluous. It is not as if Thomas was unaware of other arguments, but that he thought that the "argument from evil" was the only real candidate as a proof against God.
His objection goes something like this: Both a thing and its opposite cannot both be infinite. God is infinitely good and therefore His opposite, evil, cannot exist. Yet we see that evil does exist, therefore God does not exist.
He then proceeds to give his famous five proofs for God. His reply the to the argument from evil is that the existence of evil is not a contradiction because God allows evil to exist so that He can work through it for good. In other words, evil is somehow a part of God's infinite goodness although it is not created by Him.
Another way I have heard this objection is that if God is the highest creator and evil exists then God must have created evil, yet this is a contradiction. The reply here is that evil is not a thing in itself but the absence of good, like a vacuum is not a thing but an absence of matter. God then uses this moral vacuum as a conduit of His infinite goodness.
Well condensed, Brett.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 18, 2009, 06:18:22 AM
Yes, it's hard to understand why this question troubles anyone over the age of, say, fourteen.
Possibly because there has never been a truly satisfactory answer.
Quote from: Feanor on May 18, 2009, 07:32:30 AM
Quote from: DavidRossYes, it's hard to understand why this question troubles anyone over the age of, say, fourteen.
Possibly because there has never been a truly satisfactory answer.
Sure.
There remain questions of the significance of the dissatisfaction.
Quote from: Feanor on May 18, 2009, 07:32:30 AM
Possibly because there has never been a truly satisfactory answer.
Free will.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 01:12:30 AM
Could be there are many people like you.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 18, 2009, 03:26:13 AM
You find hostility in every forum you frequent... Why is that?
Socrates said it best: The unexamined life is not worth living. Some of us are too busy whingeing to examine the life we live.
I like these replies.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 06:19:06 AM
It's good to see that Feanor has the inside track on the knowledge that Jews possess. ::)
Are Jews so inscrutable? I think not: I am a non-Jew but I have know hundreds of Jews, some on a very friendly basis, and I am passably familiar with Jewish history of many eras and locations.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 18, 2009, 07:38:13 AM
Free will.
Free will
is a problem. Why should anyone be allowed
not to love
Stravinsky?! 8)
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 18, 2009, 07:38:13 AM
Free will.
Assuming it explains human evil, (which I don't necessarily grant), how does it explain
natural evils: floods, earthquakes, tsunamis?
Quote from: Feanor on May 18, 2009, 07:54:28 AM
Assuming it explains human evil, (which I don't necessarily grant), how does it explain natural evils: floods, earthquakes, tsunamis?
Those are natural phenomena. To call them "natural evils" is a moral misnomer; they are evil not in "intent" (the flood has none), but we call them "evil" when human catastrophe is the result.
yah.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 18, 2009, 07:38:13 AM
Free will.
That's not very satisfactory if you think about it (and I've heard this answer a million times).
If I decided to create my own room of little action figures that come to life and have feelings and told them to worship me because I am their creator, that's fine. Let's just say that at first, they have no choice because they are programmed to. But after awhile, I'm getting hungry for some genuine affection, because I honestly deserved to be loved, for real, through choice. So, I make a separate group of toy soldiers that have feelings, and free will. I figure, hey, you know what- they better choose to worship me or else I'm going to tie them up onto a table and use a magnifying glass to direct the sun onto them, so they can slowly burn forever. If they choose me, then they'll just get pretty much the same as what the originals get (or roughly, who knows exactly).
It turns out I know which ones will not accept me before I even create them. So, I see their future lives flash through before my eyes, and then their eternal demise. Yet, I create them anyway because I love them.
What is love, by the way?
Quote
Love means being patient even when you'd like the other person to hurry up already!
Love means being kind when being mean might seem more satisfying.
Love means not being jealous -- of your spouse or of others.
Love means not being pompous or inflated, not thinking yourself so important.
Love means not being rude but rather speaking and acting with courtesy to everyone.
Love means caring about others before one's own self-interests.
Love means not showing one's temper, no matter how angry you are.
Love means not brooding, not holding on to hurts.
Love means not gloating when the other is wrong or makes a mistake.
Makes sense, right?
Love means never having to say you're sorry. At least, that's what I've heard.
I think evil has gotten a bad rap - think of all the good that comes as a response to evil. If there were no evil, we would be unable to determine what was good. If there were no free will man could not choose to do good, thereby creating the moral choice. There is no morality when there is no evil choice that is denied.
Quote from: Bahamut on May 18, 2009, 08:07:30 AM
That's not very satisfactory if you think about it (and I've heard this answer a million times).
If I decided to create my own room of little action figures that come to life and have feelings and told them to worship me because I am their creator, that's fine. Let's just say that at first, they have no choice because they are programmed to. But after awhile, I'm getting hungry for some genuine affection, because I honestly deserved to be loved, for real, through choice. So, I make a separate group of toy soldiers that have feelings, and free will. I figure, hey, you know what- they better choose to worship me or else I'm going to tie them up onto a table and use a magnifying glass to direct the sun onto them, so they can slowly burn forever.
You're extrapolating a God Who thinks,
What Would Greg Do? 8)
Your illustration (which, I am sure it has not escaped you, is a bit simplistic on a number of points) imputes a questionable motivation to God: that He created us because He
needs our love. But God is perfect; there is nothing He lacks (and the love among Persons in the Trinity is — without being quite the polytheism which might be better for Eric — an example of Love in the Godhead, without a "need" to create Man in order for God to receive love). It is true (in Christian thought) that God made Man to love Him, but it is an error to consider this a 'lack' in God, the way no one to love us as people would be a lack.
Could write pages and pages more . . . but just one thought further. In your rather 'projective' image of God creating, you fall into the error of considering Hell a spiteful punishment which God resentingly imposes. The idea is more that: God is Love; in other words, it is God's nature to act and think and dwell in love. God created Man in His image: Man is meant, also, to love, to act and think and dwell in a condition of love. Where God by His Nature is incapable of Non-Love, Man by his nature is created for the purpose of Love, and yet has free will. The exercise of one's free will in defiance of Love, is for Man to be 'broken'. From one angle, Hell is the absence of Love. God doesn't "send" anyone to Hell; Men choose to go there.
Quote from: Franco on May 18, 2009, 08:18:56 AM
I think evil has gotten a bad rap - think of all the good that comes as a response to evil. If there were no evil, we would be unable to determine what was good.
That's an error, but it's also ground we've covered a hundred times before.
That's like saying that someone has to live in a blighted urban landsacpe, or else he could not appreciate the beauty of a forest.
Waiter: "Falefel, sir?"
Plato: "No! Philosopher!"
To my way of thinking it is more like if there were never any forest fires, we might value forests less.
But I'm sure you're right. My bad. I guess. Who knows what's good or bad anyway?
Quote from: Feanor on May 18, 2009, 07:51:59 AM
Are Jews so inscrutable? I think not:
There you go again. Your fatal flaw is that you lump together individuals into a group and make pronouncements about the qualities and characteristics of all individuals in the group. That's wrong-headed thinking that can lead to discrimination and even genocide. Every individual is unique.
Quote from: Mn Dave on May 18, 2009, 08:29:49 AM
Waiter: "Falefel, sir?"
Plato: "No! Philosopher!"
Oh, I'm quite a simple soul. Give me MS. paper and time, and I'll just happily compose . . . .
Quote from: Bahamut on May 18, 2009, 08:07:30 AM
What is love, by the way?
A lot of folks never find the answer. Love can mean different things to different individuals. For me, love is a feeling that the loved one is always by my side, regardless of physical proximity. That's how I feel about my wife, children and classical music.
Nicholson has a great line in As Good As It Gets: "If you could make her smile, you got a life."
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 17, 2009, 04:22:46 PM
The Jews will always be too powerful...
Right. Mahler was too powerful. So was Mendelssohn in his time. Stefan Zweig had a tremendous power, thank God he never used it. Yehudi Menuhin, Jascha Heifetz, Nathan Milstein, Artur Rubinstein and Lazar Berman were so powerful that all the presidents, kings and sultans of the world trembled before them. The very thought of Albert Einstein sends chills over my backbone.
"We", "us", "our" vs. "they", "them", "their"...
From Polytheism, to God, to Organized Religion in general, to the Jews........
........and I am sure that those who were only going along with the speed of traffic will be the ones who are reprimanded.
Therefore, New York I abstain, courteously.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 10:16:40 AM
I think the problem with Jews is that they need to learn how to take responsibility for their actions:
I think the problem is that you're becoming an obnoxious racist.
Quote from: Brian on May 18, 2009, 10:53:51 AM
You should be ashamed for linking to it.
There is so much he has posted, for which he ought to be ashamed. Instead, he exults in himself.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 18, 2009, 10:55:48 AM
There is so much he has posted, for which he ought to be ashamed. Instead, he exults in himself.
In that case, I'm glad I only just started reading this thread.
Quote from: Brian on May 18, 2009, 11:00:44 AM
In that case, I'm glad I only just started reading this thread.
Oh, not in this thread, alone 0:)
Tsk, you people are too easily trolled.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 18, 2009, 11:03:05 AM
Oh, not in this thread, alone 0:)
Karl, a random and distinctly off-topic thought: have you ever imagined what the second movement of Rachmaninov's Second Symphony would sound like, if the opening theme played by the horns were instead the
Odd Couple theme song? I have been contemplating this for several months now. :D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 11:06:36 AM
Tsk, you people are too easily trolled.
You are too easily a troll.
Quote from: Brian on May 18, 2009, 11:07:38 AM
Karl, a random and distinctly off-topic thought: have you ever imagined what the second movement of Rachmaninov's Second Symphony would sound like, if the opening theme played by the horns were instead the Odd Couple theme song? I have been contemplating this for several months now. :D
A
wicked thought,
Brian!
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 08:31:56 AM
There you go again. Your fatal flaw is that you lump together individuals into a group and make pronouncements about the qualities and characteristics of all individuals in the group. That's wrong-headed thinking that can lead to discrimination and even genocide. Every individual is unique.
Every individual is unique, until they band together in a group to subjugate other individuals, who lack the strength to defend themselves against those who act in numbers.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 18, 2009, 03:26:13 AM
You find hostility in every forum you frequent... Why is that?
Socrates said it best: The unexamined life is not worth living. Some of us are too busy whingeing to examine the life we live.
Is that a dig at me??! ;D
Quote from: Florestan on May 18, 2009, 08:54:03 AM
....
"We", "us", "our" vs. "they", "them", "their"...
Fine then; let's be more specific. Let's not talk about "We", "us", "our" vs. "they", "them", "their"...; let's not talk about individuals. Instead let's talk about oranizations, specifically a few that try to influence U.S. foreign policy:
- American Israeli Pulic Affairs Committee (http://www.aipac.org/)
- Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (http://www.conferenceofpresidents.org/)
- Religious Zionists of America (http://www.rza.org/)
- Zionist Organization of America (http://www.zoa.org/)
These organizations and others work relentlessly to foster and sustain an Amerian foreign policy that is pro-Isreali regardess of whether or not it is the interests of the U.S. or the world in general. Their emphasis isn't on persuading the American public nearly so much as it is on lobbying members of Congress, funding members who will uncritically support Israel, and
counter-funding those who will not.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 11:49:51 AM
Every individual is unique, until they band together in a group to subjugate other individuals.
Name one such group.
Quote from: Feanor on May 18, 2009, 12:04:45 PM
See above.
Josquin used the word "subjugate."
1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
Is this the sense you meant?
Have we answered this problem of evil thing then once and for all on GMG's very own little forum? What was the outcome?
Quote from: Feanor on May 18, 2009, 12:02:37 PM
Fine then; let's be more specific. Let's not talk about "We", "us", "our" vs. "they", "them", "their"...; let's not talk about individuals. Instead let's talk about oranizations, specifically a few that try to influence U.S. foreign policy:
- American Israeli Pulic Affairs Committee (http://www.aipac.org/)
- Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (http://www.conferenceofpresidents.org/)
- Religious Zionists of America (http://www.rza.org/)
- Zionist Organization of America (http://www.zoa.org/)
These organizations and others work relentlessly to foster and sustain an Amerian foreign policy that is pro-Isreali regardess of whether or not it is the interests of the U.S. or the world in general. Their emphasis isn't on persuading the American public nearly so much as it is on lobbying members of Congress, funding members who will uncritically support Israel, and counter-funding those who will not.
Yes, that's a legitimate criticism. But lumping together all "the Jews" under the umbrella of a universal, secret, criminal conspiracy against all the rest of the world is not, unless evidence can be produced that (a) it really exists and (b) the Jews I mentioned in my previous post, or our good friend Don here, are involved in it.
Quote from: Brian on May 18, 2009, 12:06:51 PM
Josquin used the word "subjugate."
1. to bring under complete control or subjection; conquer; master.
2. to make submissive or subservient; enslave.
Is this the sense you meant?
With respect to U.S. foreign policy, precisely.
Quote from: Brian on May 18, 2009, 11:07:38 AM
Karl, a random and distinctly off-topic thought: have you ever imagined what the second movement of Rachmaninov's Second Symphony would sound like, if the opening theme played by the horns were instead the Odd Couple theme song? I have been contemplating this for several months now. :D
Better yet if
this were played:
http://www.youtube.com/v/xL_9zdu4iVw
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 11:49:51 AM
Every individual is unique, until they band together in a group to subjugate other individuals, who lack the strength to defend themselves against those who act in numbers.
Give me a break. You're always talking about group characteristics, whether or not the group is trying to subjugate others. You pulled this crap with african-americans also, remember?
Quote from: Feanor on May 18, 2009, 12:02:37 PM
Fine then; let's be more specific. Let's not talk about "We", "us", "our" vs. "they", "them", "their"...; let's not talk about individuals.
No, you sure don't want to talk about the individual. That would detract from your insisting that all members of a group are the same.
Quote from: Florestan on May 18, 2009, 12:14:43 PM
Yes, that's a legitimate criticism. But lumping together all "the Jews" under the umbrella of a universal, secret, criminal conspiracy against all the rest of the world is not, unless evidence can be produced that (a) it really exists and (b) the Jews I mentioned in my previous post, or our good friend Don here, are involved in it.
Don is not involved with any organization; he's a registered Independent. 8)
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 01:15:08 PM
Don is not involved with any organization; he's a registered Independent. 8)
Is it true that after numerological decrypting per the Kabalah, "registered Independent" translates as "Insane Anglo Warlord?"
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 01:15:08 PM
Don is not involved with any organization; he's a registered Independent. 8)
Yes, but Independent starts with I. And so does Illuminati.
Don's a member of the Illuminati!
I knew it :o
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 18, 2009, 01:23:08 PM
Is it true that after numerological decrypting per the Kabalah, "registered Independent" translates as "Insane Anglo Warlord?"
You got that right, and it won't be long before Feanor and JdP are paying me tribute.
Quote from: Guido on May 18, 2009, 12:00:11 PM
Is that a dig at me??! ;D
Hah! You have too good a sense of humo(u)r (for only one thing).
Quote from: Brian on May 18, 2009, 12:04:00 PM
Name one such group.
Well, there is
The Henning Mob (as announced by Cuddles) . . . .
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 01:15:08 PM
Don is not involved with any organization; he's a registered Independent. 8)
Also an independent subcontractor to
Th H M
Quote from: Brian on May 18, 2009, 12:04:00 PM
Name one such group.
Jews are such a group. So are the Muslim, or the Chinese. Those people have a far better prospect for survival then the individualist west, the only ethnic group gullible enough to buy into the absurd notion of multiculturalism.
Your mind is wandering. 'The individualist west' is not an ethnic group. Whether it "buys into the notion" or not, it is multicultural.
Cor, you're a funny one!
Andrei, Xenophanes, Catison, Guido
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful replies.... Thank you.
Like I said, I am no longer a believer, but there really is nothing like The Lord's Prayer.
I've always liked this one:
http://www.aztlan.net/lordsprayer.htm
Quote from: Feanor on May 18, 2009, 03:43:31 AMJews know perfectly well, though very few will admit, that it is their own sense of separation, their own sense of superiority, that has alienated them time and again from the indigenous populations amongst whom they live.
Does this justify the oppression they have suffered? No, but it explains it.
Quite so, Feanor.
I live in a predominantly orthodox Jewish neighborhood (around 90 percent) in northern New Jersey and I can tell you that they very much keep to themselves. I no longer even make the attempt to greet them occasionally (i.e. friendly hellos or waving) since they rarely make eye contact, even when it's not the sabbath.... They are not interested in any sort of normal fellowship as far as I can tell.
Well, there is the power of a belief system I suppose... :-\
Of course it doesn't help that a good proportion of Jews tend to be intellectually/academically gifted. This just adds to their quiet assumption:
"God really does favor us.... We really are special in his eyes" On a minor point:
Do you know what I find so astonishing about Jewish culture ? That in the year 2009 they still continue with the
UTTERLY RETARDED practice of infant circumcision. They have this belief that by snipping off the foreskin of their baby boys on the eight day that somehow they become closer to God, that God demands it. No other culture performs circumcision today with the exception of some tribes in Africa and the United States.
How anyone could not see that such a practice on an infant is not a form of assault and morally wrong is beyond me.
Quote from: Florestan on May 18, 2009, 12:14:43 PM
Yes, that's a legitimate criticism. But lumping together all "the Jews" under the umbrella of a universal, secret, criminal conspiracy against all the rest of the world is not, unless evidence can be produced that (a) it really exists and (b) the Jews I mentioned in my previous post, or our good friend Don here, are involved in it.
Well, there are many different levels of criticism hurled against organized Jewry. It all depends on whether you believe in race or not. I've researched this subject extensively, and there's two current opinions regarding Jewish power. The first is the left-leaning, universalist belief that there are several Jewish organizations who, independent of Judaism as a whole, are taking advantage of their power and influence (not to mention virtual moral immunity thanks to the memory of the Holocaust) to pursuit all sorts of dishonest activities. Zionism and Israel in particular are generally the primary target for this type of criticism, and, believe or not, it is Jews themselves who often bring it about. A primary example is Norman Finkelstein.
The second point of view is the right-leaning, racialist belief that Jews are biologically different from gentiles, are more intelligent as a group (they outscore white gentiles by about 10 points on standardized IQ tests, which makes them the smartest group of people on the planet, even more then Asians, who only score 5 points above whites), have a stronger sense of ethnic cohesion (the result of an evolutionary adaptation as a nomad group) and are morally particular, that is, good and bad are rated according to what's good or bad for the Jews. Criticism from this perspective generally involves the accusation Jews tend to put their own interests above and sometimes outright against those of the nation or culture that hosts them. Professor Kevin McDonald is a primary source for this type of criticism. For example, he believes that our current immigration policies here in the states are primary the result of American Jews pressuring for them, the reason being that Jews feel more comfortable among a multicultural and multiracial environment, regardless of the destructive effects this has on the host nation. For this purpose, they have employed their superior intellect to develop theories that support their self serving goals (Marxism, Feminism, social engineering and so forth). McDonald uses the Frankfurt school as an example, particularly the works of Theodor W. Adorno such as his theory of the
authoritarian personality which, according to McDonald, was used specifically to pathologize all group affiliations among gentiles. As McDonald says in his work, "everything from patriotism to religion to family – and race – loyalty are signs of a dangerous and defective authoritarian personality". At the same time, Israel is ruled by such authoritarian personalities, which is supposed to show the double standard Jews apply to themselves.
Of course, criticism from the left is only directed at certain groups, not Judaism as a whole. Indeed, in his book the
Holocaust Industry, where Norman Finkelstein accuses certain Jewish organizations of tarnishing the memory of the Holocaust by running a veritable extortion racket, he is quick to add that regular Jews are too a victim of this organizations, particularly real Holocaust survivals, including Finelstein's own two parents, who have seen very little of the money which those organizations have hoarded for themselves under the pretext of reparations for the Nazi persecution. A refutation of this argument will involve the questioning of whether it is indeed only a small group of organized Jews who are the culprit when most Jews are wont of any form of criticism of what those organizations are doing. Finkelstein himself has been persecuted by powerful Jewish personalities like Alan Dershowitz to the point his career as a professor is essentially over. This despite the fact his distinction as an academician has been impeccable. Only Noam Chomsky and Raul Hilberg have been forthcoming to Finkelstein. Ironically, Chomsky has been attacked by Dershowitz too, and i'm sure Raul Hilberg himself would have as well, had he been alive today.
On the other end, the right-wing criticism of Judaism extends to all Jews, that even good, regular Jews have a strong sense of ethnic cohesion and will follow organized Jewry regardless whether their policies are designed to hurt gentiles. Criticism of this perspective would involve the argument that, while it may be true that Jews work as an organized group and sometimes they put their own interests above those of the gentiles that host them, it is also true that the Jews have contributed more to the development of the 20th century then any other group, for better and for worst. Everything about modernity reflects a Jewish point of view, and in so far as we are men of the modern world, we are all essentially Jewish.
This is, in a nutshell, the principal arguments against organized Jewry. Of course, you also have the conspiratorial fruit baskets who seem to think there is no evil or deception the Jews aren't capable of, but those can be found almost anywhere.
Now, i'm not advocating anything here, i'm just explaining the point of views i came across. I understand the mods want to maintain an air of respectability and not turn this forum into a breeding ground for "neo-Nazi" propaganda, or whatever they think it's going to happen here, so i'm not going to argue for any of those views. I wrote this post merely to show the type of ideas that circulate among critics of Judaism.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 18, 2009, 04:38:10 PM
Your mind is wandering. 'The individualist west' is not an ethnic group. Whether it "buys into the notion" or not, it is multicultural.
It is multicultural now, sure, and that is why the west is dying. But the west too had strong ethnic feelings at one point. You only need to look at the history of America to see that the notion of a multicultural utopia is a recent construct. I surely don't see any wish from the Anglo-Saxon portion of America to form a multicultural state with the Indians, or the Blacks, or the Chinese, or even other European immigrants, like the Irish, or the Italians.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 06:12:06 PM
It is multicultural now, sure, and that is why the west is dying. But the west too had strong ethnic feelings at one point. You only need to look at the history of America to see that the notion of a multicultural utopia is a recent construct. I surely don't see any wish from the Anglo-Saxon portion of America to form a multicultural state with the Indians, or the Blacks, or the Chinese, or even other European immigrants, like the Irish, or the Italians.
The most charitable explanation for that is willful blindness on your part.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 18, 2009, 07:24:53 PM
The most charitable explanation for that is willful blindness on your part.
Here's a brief history of the immigration laws of the United States:
http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/immigration/dates.html
Can't you just feel the gushing feelings of multiculturalism emanating from this nation? Notice how immigration appears to concern groups of European descent most of the time. Do you know why? Because other ethnic groups simply weren't welcome. Far from being a land of opportunity for people of every race or creed, America was an ethnocentric nation with strong feelings for the preservation of their own European heritage. What do you think those Jim Crow laws were all about?
Indeed, America has always been predominantly white for most of its history. Today, it is only 60% white. Tomorrow, it will be predominantly non-white. Do you think this prediction to be erroneous, or are you going to argue that it doesn't matter?
QED
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 18, 2009, 07:46:41 PM
QED
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States
Population projection from the Census Bureau:
2008 2050
Non-Hispanic whites 68% 46%
Hispanic 15% 25%
African Americans 12% 20%
Asian American 5% 9%
So we went from 90% white to 68% of today to a predicted 46% by 2050. What will the percentage of whites be by 2100? What about 2200? Too far away to care?
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 18, 2009, 08:24:24 AM
You're extrapolating a God Who thinks, What Would Greg Do? 8)
Your illustration (which, I am sure it has not escaped you, is a bit simplistic on a number of points) imputes a questionable motivation to God: that He created us because He needs our love. But God is perfect; there is nothing He lacks (and the love among Persons in the Trinity is — without being quite the polytheism which might be better for Eric — an example of Love in the Godhead, without a "need" to create Man in order for God to receive love). It is true (in Christian thought) that God made Man to love Him, but it is an error to consider this a 'lack' in God, the way no one to love us as people would be a lack.
Could write pages and pages more . . . but just one thought further. In your rather 'projective' image of God creating, you fall into the error of considering Hell a spiteful punishment which God resentingly imposes. The idea is more that: God is Love; in other words, it is God's nature to act and think and dwell in love. God created Man in His image: Man is meant, also, to love, to act and think and dwell in a condition of love. Where God by His Nature is incapable of Non-Love, Man by his nature is created for the purpose of Love, and yet has free will. The exercise of one's free will in defiance of Love, is for Man to be 'broken'. From one angle, Hell is the absence of Love. God doesn't "send" anyone to Hell; Men choose to go there.
This is a good, insightful answer.
As for the first paragraph, I can't really say what I know because I'm not sure... I have heard things like "God is a jealous God" (jealous in a good way) of wanting your acceptance, etc. in church, though I wasn't sure about the "need" part.
So, a few questions more, if you don't mind:
-If God didn't actually "need" our love, why bother creating us? Diversion?
-The "Men choose to go there" part... now really, isn't that a really huge simplification?
Choosing a religion or belief is not simply a choice based on logic. It's a partially blind choice, mainly influenced by the people and culture around that person. It's like rolling a dice, and depending on that dice, it may have more sixes or fives than others- or, one may decide to write his own number or consciously put it down on a certain number that may be unlikely.
If the correct answer is a six, everyone else is screwed. I'm not sure that's fair to be punished for this type of scenario, is it?
I'd love nothing more than for this to make sense to me. :)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 18, 2009, 05:13:34 PM
Andrei, Xenophanes, Catison, Guido
I enjoyed reading your thoughtful replies.... Thank you.
Like I said, I am no longer a believer, but there really is nothing like The Lord's Prayer.
I've always liked this one:
http://www.aztlan.net/lordsprayer.htm
Well, we have gotten rather off the topic! I know some philosophers have defended polytheism but I haven't managed to read any of them.
I suppose one can feel closer to local gods who are available for particular purposes, rather than some universal distant god. There are still many places sacred to some people. Those in village cultures may still have their family and local devotions. But even those with a modern education go to them. A couple of people I know went on a tour of mostly Celtic sacred places in Ireland. This seems nostalgia to me as it has little to do with their everyday lives.
And of course, in some branches of Christianity, there are sites devoted to saints, old mission sites, sites devoted to apparitions of Mary, and so on.
Some of the East Indians seem to be henotheists, devoting themselves to the divine under the aspect of a particular mythological god such as Vishnu or Shiva, often manifested at a particular place.
From my point of view, lesser gods still require the One or Pure Act or Ground of Being, depending on the philosophical perspective.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 07:39:31 PM
Indeed, America has always been predominantly white for most of its history. Today, it is only 60% white. Tomorrow, it will be predominantly non-white. Do you think this prediction to be erroneous, or are you going to argue that it doesn't matter?
What do you think of the prediction? I (and I am a white person) think it is a good thing.
Quote from: Brian on May 18, 2009, 08:22:27 PM
What do you think of the prediction? I (and I am a white person) think it is a good thing.
I think it's going to spell disaster for this nation. America was build by whites, it will go down as whites go down, to the detriment of everybody involved, and considering the level of animosity most ethnic groups are currently brooding against white Americans, i'm willing to bet we will not only become a minority, but a persecuted minority at that, and if current trends still hold then, we will eventually become extinct as a people.
Now i'm curious, what do
you think it's going to happen when whites become a minority within their own lands? Multicultural harmony? Universal brotherly love? Rainbow colored unicorns dropping candy bars from the sky? Let's ear it.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 07:39:31 PM
Indeed, America has always been predominantly white for most of its history. Today, it is only 60% white. Tomorrow, it will be predominantly non-white. Do you think this prediction to be erroneous, or are you going to argue that it doesn't matter?
I think the prediction is on target, and America will surely change as a result. Whether that's good or bad remains to be seen, but there's certainly a decent chance that the changes will be favorable.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 08:41:10 PM
I think it's going to spell disaster for this nation. America was build by whites, it will go down as whites go down, to the detriment of everybody involved, and considering the level of animosity most ethnic groups are currently brooding against white Americans, i'm willing to bet we will not only become a minority, but a persecuted minority at that, and if current trends still hold then, we will eventually become extinct as a people.
Even Native Americans didn't become extinct.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 18, 2009, 05:14:16 PM
I live in a predominantly orthodox Jewish neighborhood (around 90 percent) in northern New Jersey and I can tell you that they very much keep to themselves. I no longer even make the attempt to greet them occasionally (i.e. friendly hellos or waving) since they rarely make eye contact, even when it's not the sabbath.... They are not interested in any sort of normal fellowship as far as I can tell.
Why would you be living in an orthodox Jewish neighborhood? I'm jewish and would never consider living in one. God bless them, but orthodox jews are extremely rigid and want to live by themselves. It's best that they do just that.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 08:44:21 PM
Whether that's good or bad remains to be seen, but there's certainly a decent chance that the changes will be favorable.
What are you basing your odds on? Surely, i would say American culture has already waned considerably in this past several decades.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 08:48:02 PM
Even Native Americans didn't become extinct.
Only because we meant to keep them alive. Indeed, the fate of the American Indians is a mute testament of what happens when vastly different groups meet each other, and we never really had any particular animosity for them. Imagine what's going to happen to whites with all the hate that goes around.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 08:56:03 PM
God bless them, but orthodox jews are extremely rigid and want to live by themselves. It's best that they do just that.
Yeah, but when whites become extremely rigid and decide they want to live by themselves, it's called racism. ;D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 08:41:10 PM
I think it's going to spell disaster for this nation. America was build by whites, it will go down as whites go down,
That's very limited thinking on your part to feel that as whites go, so goes America. There's even the possibility that as whites go down, America goes up. All sorts of combinations are possible as America keeps evolving.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 08:41:10 PM
I think it's going to spell disaster for this nation. America was build by whites, it will go down as whites go down, to the detriment of everybody involved, and considering the level of animosity most ethnic groups are currently brooding against white Americans, i'm willing to bet we will not only become a minority, but a persecuted minority at that, and if current trends still hold then, we will eventually become extinct as a people.
Now i'm curious, what do you think it's going to happen when whites become a minority within their own lands? Multicultural harmony? Universal brotherly love? Rainbow colored unicorns dropping candy bars from the sky? Let's ear it.
I don't view whites as a people.
I also don't expect to view this thread still open when I wake up tomorrow. Believe it or not the forum policy has rules against posts like this.
funny, I was just going to say that this "lockable" thread seemed to be thriving in semi politeness, and while I was typing, the last 2 posts came up, and now the thread won't be here in the morning?
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 09:04:34 PM
That's very limited thinking on your part to feel that as whites go, so goes America. There's even the possibility that as whites go down, America goes up. All sorts of combinations are possible as America keeps evolving.
America is already going down. Nothing in America is evolving. The fate of Haiti is an example of what could actually happen, as narrated by Vernon Hesketh Prichard:
Go in whatever direction you like, the sites that meet you are the same. Ruined houses, ruined aqueducts, ruined fountains of stone, ruined walls, ruined forts...from the sea the town is but a little cluster of dwellings heaped together beneath the wooded mountains...her jetties are broken, black and old; the usual wreck lies ashore in her harbor and you will find there is one in every important harbor in the Republic... Once in the old French days the town was the center of luxury and fashion. It was called the "Little Paris" of the West. Since then ruin and devastation have swept over itThis was written in 1900. Look at Haiti today. Has anything changed? Look at Africa. Has anything changed? Which part of our current state of affairs makes you believe that it isn't going to happen to America? Is it our crumbling economy? Our sordid educational levels, which are decreasing exponentially? Our rotten consumerist culture? The fifty percent divorce rate and growing? Fifty years ago we were putting people on the moon. Today, we are wondering whether space exploration is even something that we need. Where is this progress our multicultural utopia is going to bestow upon us?
Quote from: Brian on May 18, 2009, 09:08:57 PM
I also don't expect to view this thread still open when I wake up tomorrow. Believe it or not the forum policy has rules against posts like this.
Was this country build by Anglo-Saxon settlers, or was it not? Was Rome build by the Romans? And if so, what happened to Rome when the Romans went down?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 09:26:07 PM
America is already going down.
Speak for yourself.
(Oh; you
were.)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 18, 2009, 05:14:16 PM
I live in a predominantly orthodox Jewish neighborhood (around 90 percent) in northern New Jersey
Why don't you change your place?
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 01:15:08 PM
Don is not involved with any organization; he's a registered Independent. 8)
Decryption: you pursue your own, individual conspiracy. ;D :D
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 05:59:12 PM
Finkelstein himself has been persecuted by powerful Jewish personalities like Alan Dershowitz to the point his career as a professor is essentially over. This despite the fact his distinction as an academician has been impeccable. Only Noam Chomsky and Raul Hilberg have been forthcoming to Finkelstein. Ironically, Chomsky has been attacked by Dershowitz too, and i'm sure Raul Hilberg himself would have as well, had he been alive today.
So much for the unconditional support and complicity among Jews. :)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 05:59:12 PMEverything about modernity reflects a Jewish point of view, and in so far as we are men of the modern world, we are all essentially Jewish.
It isn't very clear wether this is your point or a statement of somebody else's point. If the former case is true, could you please provide some reasons? It seems to me an exaggerated claim.
Quote from: Brian on May 18, 2009, 09:08:57 PM
I also don't expect to view this thread still open when I wake up tomorrow.
If it makes you that angry, why do you keep watching and posting?
Demands for stifling the expression of ideas and opinions contrary to your own is hardly the way to prove you are right. Rational refutation is a much better strategy.
It's quite odd, really, and probably indicative of a sea change in world view; it seemed that every thread that got started here in The Diner turned into a religion thread, either for or against. Now, even religion threads seem to get turned into racism threads. :-\
I am not going to lock this thread (at this point), but let me remind you all to maintain moderation in what you post. This thread could easily become un desaparacido. There are places on the Internet for this sort of discussion other than a classical music board. I welcome you to divide your time between one of those and us (if you actually want to talk about music, which in some cases I doubt).
Gurn Blanston
8)
Quote from: Florestan on May 19, 2009, 04:18:46 AMWhy don't you change your place?
Because I've lived here for years, the taxes are relatively low (for Bergen County), and the apartment is snug, safe and quiet... :)
Also, Manhattan is a short bus or ferry ride away.
Quote from: Florestan on May 19, 2009, 04:39:09 AM
If it makes you that angry, why do you keep watching and posting?
Demands for stifling the expression of ideas and opinions contrary to your own is hardly the way to prove you are right. Rational refutation is a much better strategy.
1. I do not really "keep watching and posting" - I have yet to read the first fourteen or so pages of this thread. And I don't plan to. But...
2. This is not "stifling free expression." Or about "rational refutation." I can't "rationally refute" racist pigs who think that minorities corrupt America, Jews are trying to subjugate the world, or the perils of mingling between races. What's more, I don't have to, because the issue at hand is enforcement of forum rules. Specifically, these forum rules:
QuoteGMG caters to all cultures and age groups. [posts] not acceptable for posting on the forum ... include ... hate-related posts, ... and links to sites with such content.
Gurn Blanston has, above, clarified his current policy toward this thread and especially with regard to what he calls:
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on May 19, 2009, 04:53:28 AM...racism threads.
I am not going to lock this thread (at this point), but let me remind you all to maintain moderation ... There are places on the Internet for this sort of discussion other than a classical music board. I welcome you to divide your time between one of those and us (if you actually want to talk about music, which in some cases I doubt).
I will hold out hope (as a mere spectator) that the thread will police itself in a satisfactory way. If it does not, then perhaps the participants would like to follow one of Josquin's links to "free speech" (ie hate speech) websites to pursue the discussion with people more likely to find their views agreeable, or at least less deserving of being "stifled."
Forgive me for my presumption in diverting the current discussion solely for the satisfaction of my own capricious devotion to the rules. :)
Quote from: Florestan on May 17, 2009, 11:48:57 PM
The individual promoted by Spinoza is a cold, objective, never-weeping, never-laughing, always rational, passionless and lifeless robot.
My sympathy goes entirely with the full humanity of Dostoyevsky, whose heroes are the exact opposite of the Spinozian machines: they are hot, subjective, they weep, they cry, they are sometimes irrational, they are passionate, and life pulsates in their every thought and action.
I'd rather have dinner with Ivan Karamazov than with... wait, I can't think of any embodiment of the Spinozian ideal. So I guess I'll invite Myshkin as well. :)
It seems to me that you confuse the roles of philosophers and novelists. Do you have any basis for this criticism of Spinoza? What do you know about him and his philosophy?
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 19, 2009, 09:20:46 PM
It seems to me that you confuse the roles of philosophers and novelists.
IMO, both philosophers and novelists offer us a worldview and in this respect they are alike. Where they differ is in the method of expounding it: more or less direct and systematical in the former case, more or less indirect and unsystematical in the latter.
For me, the most interesting representatives of both worlds are those overlapping them, say Schopenhauer and Dostoyevsky, or Kierkegaard and Hermann Hesse.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 19, 2009, 09:20:46 PM
Do you have any basis for this criticism of Spinoza? What do you know about him and his philosophy?
My criticism is not directed at Spinoza, but at the human ideal he seemed to favour. If I am wrong in its assessment, please correct my errors.
Quote from: Brian on May 19, 2009, 07:26:22 PM
Forgive me for my presumption in diverting the current discussion solely for the satisfaction of my own capricious devotion to the rules. :)
For my part, no forgiveness needed,
mon vieux.
Quote from: Brian on May 19, 2009, 07:26:22 PM
I can't "rationally refute"
That's only too obvious. I haven't seen any line of reasoning or evidence from you...
Quote from: Brian on May 19, 2009, 07:26:22 PM
racist pigs
...unless, of course, you count
ad hominem attacks as reason and evidence.
NB 1 I do not espouse or endorse
all JdP's points, but I have always thought that a rational, educated and well-mannered person could discuss anything, including ideas and opinions that go contrary to one's own or to the orthodoxy of a place or time.
NB 2 It's a mystery to me why some people who claim to have rationality and science on their side never use them against their opponents. Rules and regulations are necessary, but they don't, of themselves, make an idea right or wrong.
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 05:04:02 AM
...unless, of course, you count ad hominem attacks as reason and evidence.
Well,
pigs was indeed a casual lapse into
ad hominem; but:
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 17, 2009, 04:22:46 PM
The Jews will always be too powerful...
. . . is certainly gratuitously racist, and reflects very poorly on a neighbor whose reputation is none too high, to begin with.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 05:10:24 AM
. . . is certainly gratuitously racist, and reflects very poorly on a neighbor whose reputation is none too high, to begin with.
I see it as an unwarranted generalization and a typical example of collectivist thinking, but I see no
racism in it. First, is Judaity a race apart? Second, Eric didn't call for segregation from, or persecution of, Jews.
He's no racist at all, just, as Don aptly described him,
muddled
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 05:30:17 AM
He's no racist at all, just, as Don aptly described him, muddled
Oh, probably I agree; but a muddled person may besmirch himself with expelling a racist
remark. Somewhere earliert in the thread he wants to dismiss the Jews collectively as stupid because of the tradition of circumcision.
Of course this is the OP in FMM (Fully Muddled Mode), just airing one of his personal demons (and frightfully entertaining, too).
Can't take him anywhere, I expect.
Most people would take some time to practice holding their tongue, and thinking a bit (maybe indeed thinking
a great deal) before remarking. Oh, but not Eric . . . .
Hate speech is just an euphemism for censorship and thought control. Liberals are pretty good at silencing discussion of subjects they don't like by presenting what is essentially an ad hominem attack.
The issue of course is that facts cannot be hateful, they can only be correct or incorrect.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 20, 2009, 05:36:31 AM
The issue of course is that facts cannot be hateful, they can only be correct or incorrect.
For you, an unusually factual and accurate remark.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 05:34:42 AM
Somewhere earliert in the thread he wants to dismiss the Jews collectively as stupid because of the tradition of circumcision.
Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it. The claim that the Jews are the only ones that practice infant circumcision, apart from a number of African tribes, is false. The Muslims practice it too, as well as the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 05:30:17 AM
First, is Judaity a race apart?
I would argue that they are a
nation.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 18, 2009, 05:59:12 PM
Well, there are many different levels of criticism hurled against organized Jewry. It all depends on whether you believe in race or not. I've researched this subject extensively, and there's two current opinions regarding Jewish power. The first is the left-leaning, universalist belief that there are several Jewish organizations who, independent of Judaism as a whole, are taking advantage of their power and influence (not to mention virtual moral immunity thanks to the memory of the Holocaust) to pursuit all sorts of dishonest activities. Zionism and Israel in particular are generally the primary target for this type of criticism, and, believe or not, it is Jews themselves who often bring it about. ...
The second point of view is the right-leaning, racialist belief that Jews are biologically different from gentiles...
Of course, criticism from the left is only directed at certain groups, not Judaism as a whole. ...
I would like to be on record, with respect to this controversy, as a "left-leaning universalist". Whether Jews are a race depends on the definition of "race", and I consider this to be a specious issue in today's world.
I don't believe in any thing like a universal "World Jewish Conspiracy", the "Protocols of Zion", or for that matter, the "Illuminati". However I do believe in the American Israeli lobby, which is a matter of fact, not speculation. I do personally believe that this lobby is advocating an unconditional support by the U.S. for the state of Israel that is against the interests of the U.S. --
and for that matter, Israel itself.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 18, 2009, 05:14:16 PM
On a minor point:
Do you know what I find so astonishing about Jewish culture ? That in the year 2009 they still continue with the UTTERLY RETARDED practice of infant circumcision. They have this belief that by snipping off the foreskin of their baby boys on the eight day that somehow they become closer to God, that God demands it. No other culture performs circumcision today with the exception of some tribes in Africa and the United States.
How anyone could not see that such a practice on an infant is not a form of assault and morally wrong is beyond me.
Oh, stop being a whimp. When are you getting your vasectomy?
Quote from: Feanor on May 20, 2009, 05:59:05 AM
I would like to be on record, with respect to this controversy, as a "left-leaning universalist".
I don't believe in any thing like a universal "World Jewish Conspiracy", the "Protocols of Zion", or for that matter, the "Illuminati". However I do believe in the American Israeli lobby, which is a matter of fact, not speculation. I do personally believe that this lobby is advocating an unconditional support by the U.S. for the state of Israel that is against the interests of the U.S. -- and for that matter, Israel itself.
I don't see what is "left-leaning" in that. :)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 05:38:30 AM
For you, an unusually factual and accurate remark.
Yes. More usual is statement of opinions and falsehoods presented as if they were factual.
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 05:40:35 AM
Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it. The claim that the Jews are the only ones that practice infant circumcision, apart from a number of African tribes, is false. The Muslims practice it too, as well as the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.
Still today more than 50% of male infants are circumcised in the U.S. (see http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/ (http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/USA/)). There are roughly 5 million Jews in the U.S. (see http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html)). Since the birth rate among American Jews is below the average (see this LA Times story (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=6&url=http%3A%2F%2Farticles.latimes.com%2F2003%2Fsep%2F11%2Fnation%2Fna-jews11&ei=sQwUSsLyNZa8tAPW-ZTjDQ&usg=AFQjCNFJdT42apdO85c1970Q8GFe2NVxow&sig2=AVSscHupJg8hPBQA5O2RVQ)), and since Jews comprise less than 2% of the US population, it is not likely that more than 50% of male newborns in the US are all Jewish.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 20, 2009, 06:05:28 AM
Still today more than 50% of male infants are circumcised in the U.S.
Nor will Eric be able to rest until that percentage is dropped into single digits!
(So to speak.)
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 05:40:35 AM
Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it.
I misquoted Eric, of course. He did not use the adjective
stupid. His word was (and in all caps)
UTTERLY RETARDED.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 20, 2009, 05:50:39 AM
I would argue that they [the Jews] are a nation [rather than a race].
Unlike the definition of biological race -- which is a valid concept perhaps, but much abused and not a very helpful in today's world -- the definition of "nation" is important. Let us say something like, "
A nation is a substantial group of people who see themselves as sharing unique interests and goals by vitual of a common culture of birth and upbringing." The Jews satisfy this definition. Of course, individual Jews can see themselves
more or less as sharing these unique interests.
Gotta love those 'smart ads', though . . . .
Quote from: Feanor on May 20, 2009, 06:17:33 AM
Let us say something like, "A nation is a substantial group of people who see themselves as sharing unique interests and goals by vitual of a common culture of birth and upbringing." The Jews satisfy this definition.
So do the Muslims, yet they are not a nation. IMO, the definition should include "a common ancestry, religion, language, culture, customs, traditions and civilization"
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 06:19:14 AM
Gotta love those 'smart ads', though . . . .
Big Brother's watching us. :D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 06:14:40 AM
I misquoted Eric, of course. He did not use the adjective stupid. His word was (and in all caps) UTTERLY RETARDED.
We may be retarded, but our women are lovely.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 06:22:53 AM
We may be retarded, but our women are lovely.
Yeah, but she's not circumcised... ;D :D
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 06:20:56 AM
So do the Muslims, yet they are not a nation. IMO, the definition should include "a common ancestry, religion, language, culture, customs, traditions and civilization"
Muslims are
not a nation because they don't require a common origin of birth and upbringing. I think my terms, "birth and upbringing", subsume ancestry, religion, language, culture, customs, traditions and civilization in various combinations.
You will note that it is possible to convert to Judaism. However Jew do not seek converts, and the requirements of conversion are much more rigorous that for typical religious conversion. That is, a deep study not only of theology but also of the history and traditions of the Jews is required; (possibly Reform Judaism's requirements are less strenous, but we need not put too fine a point on it).
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 06:22:53 AM
We may be retarded, but our women are lovely.
Dig those Jewish viking babes! (Is that a bottle of aquavit in her right hand?)
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 20, 2009, 06:05:28 AM
Yes. More usual is statement of opinions and falsehoods presented as if they were factual.
The point is that you have to prove whether a statement is factual or not. Calling somebody a racist is not proof, it's an ad hominem attack.
Quote from: Feanor on May 20, 2009, 06:32:11 AM
You will note that it is possible to convert to Judaism. However Jew do not seek converts,
You haven't heard of our door-to-door recruiting campaign?
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 06:23:30 AM
Yeah, but she's not circumcised... ;D :D
Presumably not,
female circumcision has never been part of the Jewish rite. Their not
that stupid, eh?
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 06:35:13 AM
You haven't heard of our door-to-door recruiting campaign?
;D No, except for the Jews For Jesus.
Quote from: Feanor on May 20, 2009, 06:32:11 AM
I think my terms, "birth and upbringing", subsume ancestry, religion, language, culture, customs, traditions and civilization in various combinations.
OK.
Quote from: Feanor on May 20, 2009, 06:32:11 AMYou will note that it is possible to convert to Judaism.
Yes, just as it is possible to convert to any other religion. But by converting to Judaism does a non-Jew become a Jew?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 20, 2009, 06:35:03 AM
Calling somebody a racist is not proof, it's an ad hominem attack.
Identifying a remark as racist, is not an
ad hominem attack.
Just as identifying your behavior as trollish, is not an
ad hominem attack.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 20, 2009, 06:33:36 AM
Dig those Jewish viking babes! (Is that a bottle of aquavit in her right hand?)
Yes, and the young woman in question assists in the circumcision of adult males.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 06:40:07 AM
Yes, and the young woman in question assists in the circumcision of adult males.
If the penis must not be erect, this is not assistance but obstruction. ;D
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 06:37:17 AM
OK.
Yes, just as it is possible to convert to any other religion. But by converting to Judaism does a non-Jew become a Jew?
Yes.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 06:38:11 AM
Identifying a remark as racist, is not an ad hominem attack.
Yeah, but who's to say what is racist and what is not? Ho yes, liberals do. How convenient.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 20, 2009, 06:35:03 AM
The point is that you have to prove whether a statement is factual or not. Calling somebody a racist is not proof, it's an ad hominem attack.
Why is this addressed to me? Do you seek a logical analysis of these statements, neither of which is true?
If a statement is factual, then it is factual, regardless of "proof." It is customary to offer support for factual claims that may be in dispute.
Calling someone a "racist" is not necessarily an attack of any sort (though it can be and often is, for instance when used as an epithet intended to quash discussion). It could be a simple statement of fact.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 06:44:46 AM
Yes.
Then whoever adheres to Judaism is a full member of the Jewish nation, regardless of his ethnic background (for instance, by converting to Judaism an Italian is no more Italian but Jew) --- is this correct?
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 06:48:21 AM
Then whoever adheres to Judaism is a full member of the Jewish nation, regardless of his ethnic background (for instance, by converting to Judaism an Italian is no more Italian but Jew) --- is this correct?
This reminds me of an old story about the fellow who converted to Catholicism, a ceremony completed when the priest made the sign of the cross before him while proclaiming, "You were born a Jew, you were raised a Jew, but you are now a Catholic."
Some time later, the priest happened upon the new convert while he was eating a hamburger on Friday. The priest chastized the man for eating beef on Friday instead of fish (an
old story, remember?). "No problem, Father," the man said. He then waved his hand over the hamburger and said, "You were born a cow, you were raised a cow, but you are now a fish!"
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 20, 2009, 06:55:56 AM
This reminds me of an old story about the fellow who converted to Catholicism, a ceremony completed when the priest made the sign of the cross before him while proclaiming, "You were born a Jew, you were raised a Jew, but you are now a Catholic."
Some time later, the priest happened upon the new convert while he was eating a hamburger on Friday. The priest chastized the man for eating beef on Friday instead of fish (an old story, remember?). "No problem, Father," the man said. He then waved his hand over the hamburger and said, "You were born a cow, you were raised a cow, but you are now a fish!"
:D
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 06:48:21 AM
Then whoever adheres to Judaism is a full member of the Jewish nation, regardless of his ethnic background (for instance, by converting to Judaism an Italian is no more Italian but Jew) --- is this correct?
No. A non-jewish citizen of Italy who converts to Judaism is an Italian Jew (just like I'm an American Jew). Through conversion, only the religious identity changes.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 07:03:29 AM
No. A non-jewish citizen of Italy who converts to Judaism is an Italian Jew (just like I'm an American Jew).
Are you then a convert Jew or a Jew by birth?
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 07:03:29 AMThrough conversion, only the religious identity changes.
That's my position too.
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 05:40:35 AMAh, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it. The claim that the Jews are the only ones that practice infant circumcision, apart from a number of African tribes, is false. The Muslims practice it too, as well as the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.
But it doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be done.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 05:34:42 AMSomewhere earlier in the thread he wants to dismiss the Jews collectively as stupid because of the tradition of circumcision.
And I stand by that.
Look at nature, even some animals have foreskins. That is the way the gods designed us. And it has protecive functions as well.
Removing that from an infant is just morally wrong.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 06:11:06 AMNor will Eric be able to rest until that percentage is dropped into single digits!
(So to speak.)
That's correct.
I do not believe that
anyone has the right to cut a part of somebody's body without their consent.
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 07:05:54 AM
Are you then a convert Jew or a Jew by birth?
By birth.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 20, 2009, 07:06:20 AM
Thanks Andrei.
You're welcome, but try not to think in collectivistic terms anymore.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 05:10:24 AMWell, pigs was indeed a casual lapse into ad hominem; but:
. . . is certainly gratuitously racist, and reflects very poorly on a neighbor whose reputation is none too high, to begin with.
FYI, I work with Jews and one of my sisters also married one (Reform)
But I do believe that Jews, on the whole, carry with them a quiet, holier-than-thou mindset... And the 'proud attitude' shows more often than any other group I've seen.
This is not racist, I am merely sharing my observations.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 20, 2009, 07:06:20 AM
Thanks Andrei.
Can the leopard change his spots, or Eric learn to read more than selectively?Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 05:40:35 AM
QuoteSomewhere earlier in the thread he wants to dismiss the Jews collectively as stupid because of the tradition of circumcision.
Ah, I forgot about that although I wanted to reply the moment I read it. The claim that the Jews are the only ones that practice infant circumcision, apart from a number of African tribes, is false. The Muslims practice it too, as well as the Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 07:08:00 AM
By birth.
Then the comparison you just made with the Italian by birth which by conversion becomes an Italian Jew,
just like you are an American Jew, yet being so by birth it's a bit confusing.
If it looks like I'm splitting hairs, I think I actually am, so never mind. :)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 20, 2009, 07:06:43 AM
But it doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't be done.
Not a fact at all. What's this obsession you have about circumcision? Why would you even care?
As a person who was circumcised as an infant, let me throw out some straight facts:
1. I have no memory of the event.
2. It has had no unfavorable impact on my life or health.
3. I look great!
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 20, 2009, 07:11:54 AM
I work with Jews and one of my sisters also married one (Reform)
Doesn't change the offensive nature of your discussion, Eric. How frequently to you tell the Jews with who you work or to whom you are related by marriage that they are
UTTERLY RETARDED, hmm?
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 07:13:55 AM
Not a fact at all. What's this obsession you have about circumcision? Why would you even care?
As a person who was circumcised as an infant, let me throw out some straight facts:
1. I have no memory of the event.
2. It has had no unfavorable impact on my life or health.
3. I look great!
We'll take your word for it. No pics, please.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 07:13:55 AM
Not a fact at all.
Correct. Chap simply does not know what a
fact is. Incapable of learning? Just wilfully dense? You make the call.
Quote from: DonWhat's this obsession you have about circumcision? Why would you even care?
As a person who was circumcised as an infant, let me throw out some straight facts:
1. I have no memory of the event.
2. It has had no unfavorable impact on my life or health.
3. I look great!
Don't confuse Eric with the facts; his mind is made up.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 20, 2009, 07:15:26 AM
We'll take your word for it. No pics, please.
Esti thinks
Don looks great!
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 07:13:35 AM
Then the comparison you just made with the Italian by birth which by conversion becomes an Italian Jew, just like you are an American Jew, yet being so by birth it's a bit confusing.
If it looks like I'm splitting hairs, I think I actually am, so never mind. :)
Yes, you're splitting hairs by making the distinction between converted Jews and Jews by birth. Once converted, a jew is a jew.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 07:16:30 AM
Correct. Chap simply does not know what a fact is. Incapable of learning? Just wilfully dense? You make the call.
Wilfully dense but capable of getting out of the fog.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 07:33:00 AM
Wilfully dense but capable of getting out of the fog.
When I see him emerge from the fog, I will affirm your faith in his capability.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 20, 2009, 06:46:37 AM
Why is this addressed to me? Do you seek a logical analysis of these statements, neither of which is true?
If a statement is factual, then it is factual, regardless of "proof." It is customary to offer support for factual claims that may be in dispute.
Calling someone a "racist" is not necessarily an attack of any sort (though it can be and often is, for instance when used as an epithet intended to quash discussion). It could be a simple statement of fact.
So why all the hate and moral outrage hurled against me? It seems as if many people have already established that my arguments and ideas are erroneous
a priori, so that any attempt from my part to spread those ideas is automatically dismissed as hate propaganda, that is, that i myself know full well that those arguments and ideas are fallacious, but promote them nonetheless because of my innate hatred or racism. This is what we generally refer to as bigotry, to act upon previously established preconceptions and prejudices while shunning all attempts at rational discourse.
For instance, let's take the following article:
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/imm.htm
How many here would dismiss the data as racist because of the pre-conceived idea that all attempts at arguing for human bio-diversity is racist by default, and how many of you will automatically assume
me to be a racist for merely linking to it?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 20, 2009, 07:51:07 AM
So why all the hate and moral outrage hurled against me?
Again I'm puzzled that you address this question to me. I don't recall expressing either toward you--but I have openly expressed disdain for your delusion of moral and intellectual superiority. If you really were bright, you'd be bright enough to know that you're not very bright at all. Like most intellectuals, you confuse intellectualism with intelligence--but if you got out more, you'd know that intellectuals are no smarter (and at best no dumber) than anyone else.
If you're sincerely asking why "hate" and moral outrage get hurled at you on this forum (and elsewhere?), I suggest that you are bright enough to answer that for yourself if you just look back through your posts to see which attracted the most scorn, and then make a fair-minded attempt to see them from your critics' perspectives. I think you will find that arrogant superciliousness, coupled with persistent expression of unpopular and inflammatory opinions, may be largely responsible.
Quote from: Florestan on May 19, 2009, 04:27:07 AM
So much for the unconditional support and complicity among Jews. :)
Well, there's degrees of everything. Jews may be in fact more prone to ethnocentric feelings then other European cultures, but this doesn't mean they are genetically engineered parasites governed telepathically by a single central intelligence or something. :P
But really. Having been raised in Italy, i've had plenty of experience with ethnocentrism to be able to recognize it in others. I also think that one of the things that ties Jews together is their sense of victimhood. They believe they are a persecuted people who always need to look out for one another to fend off gentile hatred, real or imagined. This has had a powerful binding effect even among the most liberally minded of Jews.
Of course, one of the most characteristic signs of ethnocentrism among Jews is the fact more then 90% of them vote liberal. This seems a bit incongruent considering the number of conservative orthodox Jews, and the only possible explanation is that Jews vote liberal because they benefit from liberalism as a group, whereas conservatism is tied to gentile nationalism and is thus seen as a threat.
Quote from: Florestan on May 19, 2009, 04:27:07 AM
It isn't very clear wether this is your point or a statement of somebody else's point. If the former case is true, could you please provide some reasons? It seems to me an exaggerated claim.
I was exaggerating of course, but i think there is a level of truth in saying modernism, while not necessarily a Jewish led phenomena, does in a way reflect a Jewish perspective, particularly in this past fifty years or so. Indeed, many of the most characteristic movements that define the 20th century have been heavily influenced by Jews, well out of proportion relatively to their numbers. Professor Yuri Slezkine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_nhahTUFWo) argue that because of the type of skills Jews specialized in, they were the most modern and by extension the most prepared when modernism actually came around. His argument is that modernity is about acquiring a particular set of skills, and since Jews have specialized in those particular skills better then any other group, we can say that being modern is essentially akin to being Jewish. Others, like Kevin McDonald (http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/culturec.html), attribute a more direct involvement of Jews in the shaping of the events that characterized the 20th century.
Regardless of who is right, i think there's no denying that the modern world reflects a view point which is very closely associated to Jewish involvement in the affairs of European life. Where would modern music be without Schoenberg (and by extension, modern art, considering the effect Schoenberg's music had on Kandinsky)? Where would psychology be without Freud? Physics without Einstein? The problem is that many people today see the Jewish influence upon European civilization not to be entirely positive, particularly due their involvement with extreme leftist movements.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 20, 2009, 08:53:37 AM
Regardless of who is right, i think there's no denying that the modern world reflects a view point which is very closely associated to Jewish involvement in the affairs of European life. Where would modern music be without Schoenberg (and by extension, modern art, considering the effect Schoenberg's music had on Kandinsky)? Where would psychology be without Freud? Physics without Einstein? The problem is that many people today see the Jewish influence upon European civilization not to be entirely positive, particularly due their involvement with extreme leftist movements.
I would be impressed if you could prove that Einstein had produced a Jewish physics (and almost as impressed if you could show that Schoenberg was a 'Jewish' composer in that he reflected Jewish ideals with 12 tone music.)
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 20, 2009, 08:36:31 AM
persistent expression of unpopular and inflammatory opinions
This is exactly what Galilei or Darwin did.
My point being that if an idea is unpopular or inflamatory, it doesn't follow that it is false or true.
Well, you struck the phrase arrogant superciliousness from the same sentence, which alters the whole context.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 20, 2009, 08:53:37 AM
...
Regardless of who is right, i think there's no denying that the modern world reflects a view point which is very closely associated to Jewish involvement in the affairs of European life. Where would modern music be without Schoenberg (and by extension, modern art, considering the effect Schoenberg's music had on Kandinsky)? Where would psychology be without Freud? Physics without Einstein? The problem is that many people today see the Jewish influence upon European civilization not to be entirely positive, particularly due their involvement with extreme leftist movements.
To diddle with semantics, is it really the "Jewish influence" or merely the "influence of Jews"???
There's not doubt the
individual Jews have made great contributions to European (Western) civilization and we are better off for that. If the worst we have to complain about is their involvment in leftist movements, then indeed we don't have much to complain about -- arguably the contrary.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 20, 2009, 10:50:35 AM
Well, you struck the phrase arrogant superciliousness from the same sentence, which alters the whole context.
Yes, but if
arrogant superciliousness is used to describe JdP's attitude towards people here on GMG, I have seen none of it. I might be wrong but, as far as I recall, he expressed his controversial views in a polite manner. His favourite term of abuse seems to be "liberal", which is a mere trifle compared to the amount of scornful insults and ironies that have been heaped upon him.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 16, 2009, 04:58:20 PM
OK. So you propose that somehow that the experience is open to those who keep their eyes open (another metaphor), so that somehow not experiencing "the extension of consciousness into the ether" is somehow their own fault.
My comparison with opening eyes/seeing blue is not a metaphor, actually, but an illustration of the fact that some things need to be
shown, and cannot be
told - (there's a Wittenstein quote for this - I may not have it exactly but the gist is there).
'their own
fault', you say? There's no one at
fault here. We're trying to understand why there's a failure of communication. At least, that's what I'm trying to do - though admittedly without much success. But this has nothing to do with whose fault it might be; it's about trying to discover how best to understand each other.
Quotemy formulation (not a quote) of getting beyond the ether makes sense, since the ether in the interpretation you propose (but don't say you accept) is only a medium through which one might learn something besides itself. Neither, however, makes sense if we don't know what 'ether' means and Josquin isn't saying.
The issue is whether his original metaphor is intelligible. You found it unintelligible. I said I could make something of it, and tried to explain why. If you find my explanation equally unintelligible, then I think we probably have to admit defeat and agree that we don't understand each other.
QuoteHowever, those who do not have the alleged experience may find it strange that people blame them for not having it, along with some particular interpretation of it. It seems rather insulting and I can hardly blame people for objecting to it. Not the way to make friends and influence people.
What is all this business about 'blame' and being 'insulting'? If you see someone trying to remove a screw with a pair of scissors, would you expect them to be insulted if you suggested they might have more success with a screwdriver? No one is being 'blamed'.
To use my analogy again, if you were trying to explain to someone the experience of the colour blue, you would not be able to do so in mere words, regardless of how much they insist that you try to do so. It has to be
seen, not
told. One of the reasons why we resort to the use of metaphor is because it enables us to attempt 'showing' (albeit imperfectly), rather than 'telling'. And sometimes metaphor fails. Josquin de Pres's metaphor did not completely fail, for me. I think I understand to some degree what he was trying to say (or show). But it did fail completely, for you, and my efforts to explain have also failed completely. That's the risk of trying to communicate at all. But no one is to
blame. No one is being insulted. We've simply failed to communicate, sad though that is.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 07:13:55 AMWhat's this obsession you have about circumcision?
Why would you even care?
Why ?
Because there is no medical justification for it.
But hypothetically, if there were no religious command for it and if the father himself was intact, why would it
ever occur to a parent to have their infant son's foreskin snipped off ?
Quote from: Bulldog on May 20, 2009, 06:22:53 AM
We may be retarded, but our women are lovely.
Don, that woman is plain and boring; in my book she's not even decent-looking.
What is it with men and this fascination with skinny women and bony facial features ?
???
Whatever happened to voluptuous ladies with cherubic faces ?
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 10:48:29 AM
My point being that if an idea is unpopular or inflamatory, it doesn't follow that it is false or true.
True...however the veracity of his claims was not at issue, but reasons for what he called "hate and moral outrage" directed toward him.
Quote from: Florestan on May 20, 2009, 01:23:14 PM
Yes, but if arrogant superciliousness is used to describe JdP's attitude towards people here on GMG, I have seen none of it.
Lucky you. I, too, skip over most of his posts.
Elgarian--I appreciate your efforts. On another thread recently there was mention of the first "chapter" of
Tao from
Tao Te Ching, the first lines of which read "The Ways that can be explained are not the eternal Way; the names that can be named are not the eternal Name."
Not only are words inadequate to communicate understanding of things which must be experienced to be known, but the difficulty is compounded when we mistake the words and concepts they represent for the things themselves, forgetting that they are only approximations--descriptions at best, limited by our experience and the conceptual frameworks to which we apply them. How often we mistake the finger for the moon!
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 21, 2009, 05:24:52 AM
True...however the veracity of his claims was not at issue, but reasons for what he called "hate and moral outrage" directed toward him.
Lucky you. I, too, skip over most of his posts.
Elgarian--I appreciate your efforts. On another thread recently there was mention of the first "chapter" of Tao from Tao Te Ching, the first lines of which read "The Ways that can be explained are not the eternal Way; the names that can be named are not the eternal Name."
Not only are words inadequate to communicate understanding of things which must be experienced to be known, but the difficulty is compounded when we mistake the words and concepts they represent for the things themselves, forgetting that they are only approximations--descriptions at best, limited by our experience and the conceptual frameworks to which we apply them. How often we mistake the finger for the moon!
That is why most intellectuals in the past were both philosophers and poets in the same breath. Today, we have replaced all that with science, the art of studying and categorizing approximations.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 21, 2009, 04:22:53 AM
Don, that woman is plain and boring; in my book she's not even decent-looking.
What is it with men and this fascination with skinny women and bony facial features ?
???
Whatever happened to voluptuous ladies with cherubic faces ?
But that woman is already voluptuous with an angelic face. You are hopeless. ::)
Quote from: Bulldog on May 21, 2009, 08:02:50 AM
You really are a hoot. Can you go even one whole day without thinking in terms of group characteristics?
The study of humanity is my favored hobby, there's not much i can do about it. But tell me, why is that you are bothered so much by it?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 08:05:22 AM
The study of humanity is my favored hobby
J, I'm curious: what do you make of Romanians from your study? Where do they fit in the overall European scheme? I want an honest answer.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 08:05:22 AM
The study of humanity is my favored hobby, there's not much i can do about it.
Excellent. Could you provide some suggestions as to how Western Civilization can stop the decline that you talk about?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 08:05:22 AM
The study of humanity is my favored hobby, there's not much i can do about it. But tell me, why is that you are bothered so much by it?
Your reading is faulty.
Don is not
bothered; he is
amused. That is the meaning of "you are a hoot."
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 10:50:19 AM
there is no hostility in the art of Gustav Mahler, thought it is quintessentially Askhenazi.
I don't know what it means to be quintessentially Ashkenazi (if you can enlighten me, please do), but I think that Mahler (or Mendelssohn for that matter) was working fully in the Austro-German musical tradition and his Jewishness played not against, but cumulative to, this tradition. Also, I think that the great Jewish violinists or pianists of the 20th century were as representative of the Western musical tradition as the non-Jew ones. BTW, it is interesting that the number of great Jewish performers is larger than that of great Jewish composers --- I might be wrong, but off my head it seems to be so. It seems to me that, although Jewish political agenda may not always coincide with the European gentiles agenda, the cultural one shows no contradistinction.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 10:50:19 AMLike most peripheral countries who came under the influence of Europe, they retain their own exotic element without being incompatible with European culture. Indeed, i can't think of an individual who expressed that individual idealism which is so peculiar to Western culture better then George Enescu.
Thanks for your reply. Yet please clarify what "Europe" means to you --- Romanian geographical territory has always been part and parcel of the European continent. The Romanian people is officially claimed to be a mixture of mainly Romans, Dacians (a branch of Thracians) and, in a lesser percentage, Slavs. I would add Cumans, Petchenegs, Goths, Celts, Alans / Sarmatians. Most of these are Indo-European peoples.
Quote from: Bahamut on May 18, 2009, 08:00:55 PM
This is a good, insightful answer.
Kind of you, thank you!
Quote from: BahamutSo, a few questions more, if you don't mind:
-If God didn't actually "need" our love, why bother creating us? Diversion?
He wished it, I suppose. "Why did God do so-&-so?" can be a difficult question to answer, short of asking the Most High, Himself. That does not satisfy one's natural curiosity, of course; and there's nothing at all wrong with the curiosity (again: of course). One small portion of wisdom is learning that there may be questions, questions to which we are keen to find answers, but that we'll never know the answer.
This is not, not, not the "satisfaction with intellectual Darkness" which some of our less charitable atheistic neighbors wish to believe. For if they truly believe that science will find
all the answers (just give it time™),
that is an irrational faith-based initiative of their own (and, of course, a 'misuse' of science).
Largely, though, my answer is a fine distinction between a
need on the part of God which is a lack/imperfection, and an act of will. God created us because He desires there to be creatures who are agents of Love, yet who are of (to a certain extent) independent mind.
Quote from: Bahamut-The "Men choose to go there" part... now really, isn't that a really huge simplification?
Oh, certainly. Or, rather, I think its simplicity is elegant ;)
Again, one view of the matter is, that Hell is separation from God. God does not hate anything which He created, He does not desire the separation. The separation is a result of a certain exercise of our free will.
Quote from: BahamutChoosing a religion or belief is not simply a choice based on logic. It's a partially blind choice, mainly influenced by the people and culture around that person. It's like rolling a dice, and depending on that dice, it may have more sixes or fives than others- or, one may decide to write his own number or consciously put it down on a certain number that may be unlikely.
If the correct answer is a six, everyone else is screwed. I'm not sure that's fair to be punished for this type of scenario, is it?
I'd love nothing more than for this to make sense to me. :)
That is a very well-considered question! And you pose it in a becomingly charitable spirit.
I am going to paraphrase C.S. Lewis very poorly (because it is a long time since I read whichever book of his it appears in) . . . but on his own conversion to Christianity, he remarked that intellectually, he could not have accepted Christianity, if the larger realm of religion was a matter of
all of them are absolutely wrong, only Christianity, exceptionally and miraculously, is right! But that (and for our non-Christian neighbors on the thread, let us emphasize that this is the Christian viewpoint, though to the charitably-minded of them, that will be obvious) all the world's religions reflect bits and images of the truth; but in Christianity we find the fullness of truth. Indeed, we find it in the Person of Christ, Who said, "I am the Truth."
I'll stop now, rather than start to seem like a tract . . . .
PS/
Greg, you are close to the magical 6,000-post mark! 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 21, 2009, 12:58:51 PM
Kind of you, thank you!
He wished it, I suppose. "Why did God do so-&-so?" can be a difficult question to answer, short of asking the Most High, Himself. That does not satisfy one's natural curiosity, of course; and there's nothing at all wrong with the curiosity (again: of course). One small portion of wisdom is learning that there may be questions, questions to which we are keen to find answers, but that we'll never know the answer.
This is not, not, not the "satisfaction with intellectual Darkness" which some of our less charitable atheistic neighbors wish to believe. For if they truly believe that science will find all the answers (just give it time™), that is an irrational faith-based initiative of their own (and, of course, a 'misuse' of science).
Largely, though, my answer is a fine distinction between a need on the part of God which is a lack/imperfection, and an act of will. God created us because He desires there to be creatures who are agents of Love, yet who are of (to a certain extent) independent mind.
Oh, certainly. Or, rather, I think its simplicity is elegant ;)
Again, one view of the matter is, that Hell is separation from God. God does not hate anything which He created, He does not desire the separation. The separation is a result of a certain exercise of our free will.
That is a very well-considered question! And you pose it in a becomingly charitable spirit.
I am going to paraphrase C.S. Lewis very poorly (because it is a long time since I read whichever book of his it appears in) . . . but on his own conversion to Christianity, he remarked that intellectually, he could not have accepted Christianity, if the larger realm of religion was a matter of all of them are absolutely wrong, only Christianity, exceptionally and miraculously, is right! But that (and for our non-Christian neighbors on the thread, let us emphasize that this is the Christian viewpoint, though to the charitably-minded of them, that will be obvious) all the world's religions reflect bits and images of the truth; but in Christianity we find the fullness of truth. Indeed, we find it in the Person of Christ, Who said, "I am the Truth."
I'll stop now, rather than start to seem like a tract . . . .
PS/ Greg, you are close to the magical 6,000-post mark! 8)
I'll think I'll stop, too, now, since I've run out of steam before I even started to read this post- although i will go over it a few times! Thanks for the response.
As for the 6,000 post mark, I didn't even realize it. ;D
Josquin,
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 21, 2009, 08:05:22 AMThe study of humanity is my favored hobby.
I have two questions (not necessarily related) if if I may:
1. Could you name a few people whom you believe led especially exemplary lives ?
2. Are claims for an inborn sense of right and wrong unsubstantiated ?
Grammatical nit, Eric:
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 21, 2009, 07:03:36 PM
1. Could you name a few people whom you believe led especially exemplary lives ?
It is "who led especially exemplary lives"; so "a few people who you believe led especially exemplary lives." "Who" is the subject in the dependent clause, and the subject of the verb "led", not the object of the verb "believe."
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 21, 2009, 12:58:51 PM
He wished it, I suppose. "Why did God do so-&-so?" can be a difficult question to answer, short of asking the Most High, Himself. That does not satisfy one's natural curiosity, of course; and there's nothing at all wrong with the curiosity (again: of course). One small portion of wisdom is learning that there may be questions, questions to which we are keen to find answers, but that we'll never know the answer.
This is not, not, not the "satisfaction with intellectual Darkness" which some of our less charitable atheistic neighbors wish to believe. For if they truly believe that science will find all the answers (just give it time™), that is an irrational faith-based initiative of their own (and, of course, a 'misuse' of science).
Largely, though, my answer is a fine distinction between a need on the part of God which is a lack/imperfection, and an act of will. God created us because He desires there to be creatures who are agents of Love, yet who are of (to a certain extent) independent mind.
Oh, certainly. Or, rather, I think its simplicity is elegant ;)
Again, one view of the matter is, that Hell is separation from God. God does not hate anything which He created, He does not desire the separation. The separation is a result of a certain exercise of our free will.
That is a very well-considered question! And you pose it in a becomingly charitable spirit.
I am going to paraphrase C.S. Lewis very poorly (because it is a long time since I read whichever book of his it appears in) . . . but on his own conversion to Christianity, he remarked that intellectually, he could not have accepted Christianity, if the larger realm of religion was a matter of all of them are absolutely wrong, only Christianity, exceptionally and miraculously, is right! But that (and for our non-Christian neighbors on the thread, let us emphasize that this is the Christian viewpoint, though to the charitably-minded of them, that will be obvious) all the world's religions reflect bits and images of the truth; but in Christianity we find the fullness of truth. Indeed, we find it in the Person of Christ, Who said, "I am the Truth."
Well said, Karl.
Andrei, Karl
What I can't get my mind around is why an an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being - who is more complex than the universe itself - take an interest humans in the first place.
This is why the Spinozistic worldview, however ruthless in what it asks us to give up, will always make more sense to me.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 22, 2009, 03:27:21 AM
Andrei, Karl
What I can't get my mind around is why an an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being - who is more complex than the universe itself - take an interest humans in the first place.
This is why the Spinozistic worldview, however ruthless in what it asks us to give up, will always make more sense to me.
Fine. Live accordingly, then! I have no objection at all.
Thanks Andrei.
It's interesting....I find Spinoza's "religion of reason" more arduous than any of the laws of the Bible since it asks each of us to develop and sustain a trait we find pretty difficult... namely to be reasonable.
That's as maybe; Spinozistic is an arrant barbarism ;D
Quote from: Florestan on May 21, 2009, 11:16:57 PM
Well said, Karl.
I thank you for your kindness,
Andrei!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 21, 2009, 12:58:51 PM
He wished it, I suppose. "Why did God do so-&-so?" can be a difficult question to answer, short of asking the Most High, Himself. That does not satisfy one's natural curiosity, of course; and there's nothing at all wrong with the curiosity (again: of course). One small portion of wisdom is learning that there may be questions, questions to which we are keen to find answers, but that we'll never know the answer.
This is not, not, not the "satisfaction with intellectual Darkness" which some of our less charitable atheistic neighbors wish to believe. For if they truly believe that science will find all the answers (just give it time™), that is an irrational faith-based initiative of their own (and, of course, a 'misuse' of science).
In order to escape a damning comparison with science believers now are prone to say that religion is not about knowledge, and based on your learned supposings on a gods mind there must be something to that. However, there's more to not being about knowledge than just musings about imaginary beings, though. There are comparisons to be made with scientists! Are you sure you want to do that?
;D Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 22, 2009, 04:31:00 AM
Thanks Andrei.
It's interesting....I find Spinoza's "religion of reason" more arduous than any of the laws of the Bible since it asks each of us to develop and sustain a trait we find pretty difficult... namely to be reasonable.
I think you misunderstand, Eric. Being reasonable here would mean in the pursuit of truth. It doesn't mean you have to be good at it. He's recommending a method, not telling everyone they have to be smart. And truth pursuers will always be a small proportion of the populace.
Actually I raised this point in another post, so I'm not really disagreeing with you. Yes, applying reason to all questions will seem arduous, and there will be temptations to dive into virtuous certainties. Perhaps this choice is only available for those who don't think there
is a choice. I'm one of those who thinks that I'm not supposed to freely choose beliefs. If I don't freely choose beliefs about arithmetic or the reforms of Diocletian how much freedom should I have to defy reason and evidence to freely believe what appears on first and all later inspections to be balderdash? It brings me up short even now to realize that this imperative is not universally recognized. Really, I should know better, shouldn't I?
:(
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 05:01:14 AM
In order to escape a damning comparison with science . . . .
Droll,
Ernie, droll.
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 05:01:14 AM
. . . Yes, applying reason to all questions will seem arduous . . . .
It will also seem, upon various specific applications, to be a misapplication of the faculty.
And (to repeat a not-at-all new idea) this seems to me especially obvious on a board dedicated to the discussion of music.
The idea that reason can be applied
to everything in life, is itself irrational.
Most of us present have got over that long ago. Those of us who are married, rather earlier than some others.
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 05:01:14 AM
In order to escape a damning comparison with science believers now are prone to say that religion is not about knowledge
The comparison between religion and science is made only by those who misunderstand them both.
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 05:01:14 AM
Actually I raised this point in another post, so I'm not really disagreeing with you. Yes, applying reason to all questions will seem arduous, and there will be temptations to dive into virtuous certainties. Perhaps this choice is only available for those who don't think there is a choice. I'm one of those who thinks that I'm not supposed to freely choose beliefs. If I don't freely choose beliefs about arithmetic or the reforms of Diocletian how much freedom should I have to defy reason and evidence to freely believe what appears on first and all later inspections to be balderdash? It brings me up short even now to realize that this imperative is not universally recognized. Really, I should know better, shouldn't I? :(
I'm afraid I can't help but saying that this convoluted, meaningless verbiage does little service to your cause.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 05:07:47 AM
The idea that reason can be applied to everything in life, is itself irrational.
Word.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 21, 2009, 12:58:51 PM
...
This is not, not, not the "satisfaction with intellectual Darkness" which some of our less charitable atheistic neighbors wish to believe. For if they truly believe that science will find all the answers (just give it time™), that is an irrational faith-based initiative of their own (and, of course, a 'misuse' of science).
...
As for science, it isn't about answers so much as the search for them. Science, properly done, is the quintessential skeptical activity. All "answers" are a some-time things. The strength of science and the good scientist are that they thrieve upon incertainty. Uncertainly isn't a quality of religions or much admired by religionists.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 21, 2009, 12:58:51 PM
I am going to paraphrase C.S. Lewis very poorly (because it is a long time since I read whichever book of his it appears in) . . . but on his own conversion to Christianity, he remarked that intellectually, he could not have accepted Christianity, if the larger realm of religion was a matter of all of them are absolutely wrong, only Christianity, exceptionally and miraculously, is right! But that (and for our non-Christian neighbors on the thread, let us emphasize that this is the Christian viewpoint, though to the charitably-minded of them, that will be obvious) all the world's religions reflect bits and images of the truth; but in Christianity we find the fullness of truth. Indeed, we find it in the Person of Christ, Who said, "I am the Truth."
I'll stop now, rather than start to seem like a tract . . . .
...
Too late I fear. ;)
From the persective of global society this is the key problem with relgions, their proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong". A majority of the worlds problems today are either directly caused, are gravely exacerbated, by these beliefs.
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 05:33:30 AM
As for science, it isn't about answers so much as the search for them. Science, properly done, is the quintessential skeptical activity. All "answers" are a some-time things. The strength of science and the good scientist are that they thrieve upon incertainty. Uncertainly isn't a quality of religions or much admired by religionists.
Excellent remarks, apart from a curious (and at first blush, tendentiously prejudicial) curtain-line! For as long as I have had any awareness of religion, a key element has been awed approach unto a mystery. Mystery and uncertainty are not
quite the same thing, but mystery and certainty are
even less the same thing.
Uncertainty seems to be Ernie's great bugbear . . . he eagerly professes faith in reason's capacity to penetrate all the darkness in the world!
Quote from: FeanorToo late I fear. ;)
Hah! :)
If you take it thus, of course, I can simply point out that no one obliged you to read it 8)
Quote from: FeanorFrom the persective of global society this is the key problem with relgions, their proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong".
That remark
suggests that you did not quite read my original citation. I am comfortable with the uncertainty, however.
Quote from: FeanorA majority of the worlds problems today are either directly caused, are gravely exacerbated, by these beliefs.
We agree again. One of our recurring points, is that quite comparably serious problems are the result of similar beliefs, on the part of (to adapt your term) "anti-religionists."
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 05:33:30 AM
From the persective of global society this is the key problem with relgions
Making "the perspective of the global society" the standard by which all human endeavours should be judged you fall victim to exactly the same mentality you are denouncing, hastily and erroneous, in people of faith.
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 05:33:30 AMtheir proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong".
Here on GMG there are a few religious people. Please provide evidence that anyone of them has ever maintained what you claim to be the position of
all faithful.
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 05:33:30 AM
A majority of the worlds problems today are either directly caused, are gravely exacerbated, by these beliefs.
The most pressing problems in the last month have been the financial crisis and the swine flu epidemic. What's their connection with religion, pray tell?
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 05:33:30 AMAs for science, it isn't about answers so much as the search for them. Science, properly done, is the quintessential skeptical activity. All "answers" are a some-time things. The strength of science and the good scientist are that they thrieve upon incertainty. Uncertainly isn't a quality of religions or much admired by religionists.
How amusing! These statements make at least as much sense if the term "religious faith" is substituted for "science" in them.
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 05:33:30 AMFrom the persective of global society this is the key problem with relgions, their proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong". A majority of the worlds problems today are either directly caused, are gravely exacerbated, by these beliefs.
How fascinating that he believes he speaks for "the global society!" Is that like the Shriners?
I also thought it very strange to damn religion as the cause or catalyst for all the world's problems. Aside from their contribution to population growth--which
is the bogeyman, and to which science's fruit is
the major contributor--religions in general arguably offer far more help than harm in dealing with humankind's problems.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 05:07:47 AM
...Most of us present have got over that long ago. Those of us who are married, rather earlier than some others.
;D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 05:45:59 AM
...
That remark suggests that you did not quite read my original citation. I am comfortable with the uncertainty, however.
...
Well ... but I took this remark, "... but in Christianity we find the fullness of truth. Indeed, we find it in the Person of Christ, Who said, 'I am the Truth.", to be your own, not part of the Lewis qwote.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 06:20:50 AM
How amusing! These statements make at least as much sense if the term "religious faith" is substituted for "science" in them.
...
You evidently misunderstand science. Science is about breaking down received wisdom whereas religion is about promoting it, (the rare religious philosopher aside).
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 06:20:50 AM
I also thought it very strange to damn religion as the cause or catalyst for all the world's problems. Aside from their contribution to population growth--which is the bogeyman, and to which science's fruit is the major contributor--religions in general arguably offer far more help than harm in dealing with humankind's problems.
Oh, please. >:(
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 07:26:34 AM
You evidently misunderstand science. Science is about breaking down received wisdom whereas religion is about promoting it, (the rare religious philosopher aside).
You evidently misunderstand both science and religion. Your statements suggest strongly that you are not amenable to correcting your misunderstanding, so there's no point in trying.
Quote from: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 05:52:41 AM
...
Here on GMG there are a few religious people. Please provide evidence that anyone of them has ever maintained what you claim to be the position of all faithful.
...
The arguement does not require that I prove
all religionists believe they are
totally right and the other guy wrong. It is sufficient that it is typically the case.
JdP's continuous exposée on European Jewry culminated in a very nasty and unhealthy post, which was deleted, as was the whole series of posts leading up to it, as were the replies to those posts.
Q
Quote from: Que on May 22, 2009, 07:37:38 AM
JdP's continuous exposée on European Jewry culminated in a very nasty and unhealthy post, which was deleted, as was the whole series of posts leading up to it, as were the replies to those posts.
Q
Good move.
Quote from: FeanorThank you for not trying. On the balance of probability I suspect I wouldn't hear a convincing arguement.
At least you're droll...I'll give you that, and thank you for your good humor. ;) 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 04:36:00 AM
That's as maybe; Spinozistic is an arrant barbarism ;D
That may well be :P, but it's still an adjective in the dictionary. For example:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spinozistic
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 22, 2009, 07:55:38 AM
That may well be :P, but it's still an adjective in the dictionary. For example:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spinozistic
Ah, in the dictionary known as
dictionary.com . . . it's a wiki, wiki world . . . .
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 22, 2009, 03:27:21 AM
Andrei, Karl
What I can't get my mind around is why an an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being - who is more complex than the universe itself - take an interest humans in the first place.
This is why the Spinozistic worldview, however ruthless in what it asks us to give up, will always make more sense to me.
Spinoza did develop an ethics which has a certain nobility. Here is a link to a passage from Erich Fromm's
Man for Himself:
http://books.google.com/books?id=442AUfGqnhIC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=fromm+spinoza&source=bl&ots=72hhDIwh1D&sig=8p-OVFEQX554BkHfRm1-OvHlpNA&hl=en&ei=mMsWSvMSl8QyjqPYrwg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA26,M1
Quote
Ah, in the dictionary known as dictionary.com . . . it's a wiki, wiki world . . . .
I was expecting a formation more on the order of
Spinozian . . . and the
OED shows entries for
Spinozian,
Spinozist (which I was taking as a precursor to) and
Spinozistic.
That last is surely sonic barbarity 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 08:02:53 AM
Ah, in the dictionary known as dictionary.com . . . it's a wiki, wiki world . . . .
It's also in Funk & Wagnalls
Standard College Dictionary, Canadian Edition, 1976. Dictionary.com gets its words from a number of dictionaries.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 22, 2009, 08:22:20 AM
It's also in Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, Canadian Edition, 1976. Dictionary.com gets its words from a number of dictionaries.
Yes (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12275.msg310396.html#msg310396); and I
was being a bit facetious, you know.
Still, in the spirit of due diligence, I think that a degree of skepticism towards on-line sources is simply sound practice.
Non è vero?
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 05:01:14 AMI think you misunderstand, Eric.
Being reasonable here would mean in the pursuit of truth. It doesn't mean you have to be good at it. He's recommending a method, not telling everyone they have to be smart. And truth pursuers will always be a small proportion of the populace.
Thanks for the minor clarification there.
It also brightened my mood.
:)
QuoteAnd truth pursuers will always be a small proportion of the populace.
Many of the truth pursuers, historically, have been people of faith.
If he were interested in the truth, Ernie would own at least
that much.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 08:29:38 AM
Yes (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12275.msg310396.html#msg310396); and I was being a bit facetious, you know.
Still, in the spirit of due diligence, I think that a degree of skepticism towards on-line sources is simply sound practice. Non è vero?
Yes, and I agree it's a sonic barbarity, too.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 22, 2009, 08:06:04 AM
Spinoza did develop an ethics which has a certain nobility. Here is a link to a passage from Erich Fromm's Man for Himself:
What's with the endless fascination this forum has for Marxist writers? I don't get it.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 22, 2009, 07:32:49 AM
You evidently misunderstand both science and religion. Your statements suggest strongly that you are not amenable to correcting your misunderstanding, so there's no point in trying.
His embrace of uncertainty goes only so far, after all,
Dave . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 09:00:20 AM
His embrace of uncertainty goes only so far, after all, Dave . . . .
The only thing I'm
certain about is the value of skepticism.
I'm sufficiently convinced of the ideas that we would be better off being mutually supportive and that we ought protect our environment, that I'm will to give them a try.
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 07:26:34 AM
Science is about breaking down received wisdom whereas religion is about promoting it
Wrong on both accounts.
Quote. . . Yes, applying reason to all questions will seem arduous . . . .
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 05:07:47 AM
It will also seem, upon various specific applications, to be a misapplication of the faculty.
And (to repeat a not-at-all new idea) this seems to me especially obvious on a board dedicated to the discussion of music.
The idea that reason can be applied to everything in life, is itself irrational.
Most of us present have got over that long ago. Those of us who are married, rather earlier than some others.
It should be applied to questions concerning what is true. Always. Not all of life is a pursuit of truth, and the discussions about the greatest composer show that many people are confused about this, thinking that what they like and what is true just have to be the same thing. I'm willing to be quite irrational about what I like, but I have to be more careful about what I assert as true.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 22, 2009, 08:49:02 AM
Many of the truth pursuers, historically, have been people of faith.
If he were interested in the truth, Ernie would own at least that much.
And they used to be polytheists, too. I wouldn't worry about it, though.
:)
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 07:34:53 AM
The arguement does not require that I prove all religionists believe they are totally right and the
But that's exactly what you claimed.
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 11:36:42 AM...many people are confused about this, thinking that what they like and what is true just have to be the same thing [yourself included]. I'm willing to be quite irrational about what I like, but I have to be more careful about what I assert as true.
That would be a welcome change.
I'm not a Christian. It has never occured to me that being better off had anything to do with this. It doesn't occur to me now that I'm an atheist because I'm better off being one. To me atheist means not having a religion. The question of who is better off comes downstream, after the decision has more properly been made on the basis of what reason and evidence recommends. Many believers also think so since they offer reasoning and evidence in support of their view that reason and evidence are not to be relied on for such questions.* Why am I not convinced by such maneuverings? :D :D
* Maybe they would be better at supporting their claims if they took their own advice and stopped at the point of saying they believed no matter how stupid the claims are. Believers could support their view with sheer enthusiasm coupled with indignation. Instead the believers comes off as half rational, rational enough to suppose that a thin application of reason dreeses up their position but not rational enough to see it doesn't help.
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 05:33:30 AMFrom the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions, their proponents all believe their religion is "exceptionally and miraculously right" and the rest "absolutely wrong".
Very true, Feanor.
And this just in today from the new Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols:
At the installation of the Most Rev Vincent Nichols at Westminster Cathedral, his predecessor, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, described a lack of faith as "the greatest of evils" and blamed atheism for war and destruction, implying that it was a greater evil even than sin itself.http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6344175.ece
A lack of faith as the greatest of evils ? Excuse me ? ???
Mind you, this is the same man who just yesterday praised the "courage" of Irish priests who abused children from the 1930's to 1990's and then confessed.
His words:
"It took courage for religious orders and clergy to face the facts from their past. They are the real heroes of this story by finding the courage to come forward."******
I am flabbergasted.
:-X
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 08:57:16 AM
What's with the endless fascination this forum has for Marxist writers? I don't get it.
Spinoza died in 1677. Marx was born in 1818. Spinoza could hardly have been a Marxist!
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 22, 2009, 01:34:39 PM
Spinoza died in 1677. Marx was born in 1818. Spinoza could hardly have been a Marxist!
Jesus walked on water. Stop being a metaphysical prig.
:)
Quote from: Florestan on May 22, 2009, 11:47:32 AM
But that's exactly what you claimed.
Not at all. What I said was, "From the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions,
their proponents all believe their religion is 'exceptionally and miraculously right' and the rest 'absolutely wrong'". I didn' say "
all their proponents". There's a difference. English is a syntactical language.
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 11:36:42 AM
It should be applied to questions concerning what is true. Always. Not all of life is a pursuit of truth, and the discussions about the greatest composer show that many people are confused about this, thinking that what they like and what is true just have to be the same thing. I'm willing to be quite irrational about what I like, but I have to be more careful about what I assert as true.
And they used to be polytheists, too. I wouldn't worry about it, though. :)
I don't know who rewrote the title of this thread, but it is absolutely genius.
Quote from: drogulus on May 22, 2009, 01:41:45 PM
Jesus walked on water. Stop being a metaphysical prig. :)
Yeah, JdP was trying for an argumentem ad hominem against Erich Fromm (and not even a very good one), whereas all I did was link to a page where Fromm
says something about Spinoza's anthropology and ethics, JdP doesn't have anything to say about that. So I tried to direct him back to Spinoza's philosophy, not that I know that much about it. But I think Spinoza's philosophy should be allowed to make whatever contribution it can.
The UP has expressed some appreciation of Spinoza's philosophy. I believe that every great philosophy has elements of truth, and I further believe that we have to approach people where they are. I have tried to suggest to The UP that he try to see if he can be a good Spinozist for now, if that is what he wants.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 22, 2009, 03:30:29 PM
Yeah, JdP was trying for an argumentem ad hominem against Erich Fromm (and not even a very good one)
You didn't know he was a Marxist? It says so in his bloody Wikipedia bio.
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 02:48:39 PM
Not at all. What I said was, "From the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions, their proponents all believe their religion is 'exceptionally and miraculously right' and the rest 'absolutely wrong'". I didn' say "all their proponents". There's a difference. English is a syntactical language.
Yes, and "all their proponents believe" = "their proponents all believe."
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 22, 2009, 03:30:29 PM
Yeah, JdP was trying for an argumentem ad hominem against Erich Fromm (and not even a very good one), whereas all I did was link to a page where Fromm says something about Spinoza's anthropology and ethics, JdP doesn't have anything to say about that. So I tried to direct him back to Spinoza's philosophy, not that I know that much about it. But I think Spinoza's philosophy should be allowed to make whatever contribution it can.
The UP has expressed some appreciation of Spinoza's philosophy. I believe that every great philosophy has elements of truth, and I further believe that we have to approach people where they are. I have tried to suggest to The UP that he try to see if he can be a good Spinozist for now, if that is what he wants.
People could hardly survive a single day if they took the kind of pronouncements made here seriously. We are all materialists when it counts. Usually it doesn't count for much when it's just a discussion, where people fancy themselves believing idiocies to show their virtue. Do people really believe what they say? On the evidence I see here it hardly matters. When you've been educated up in nonsense by people you trust you make do how you can, and hold things true as badges of affiliation. True? What's that?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 22, 2009, 03:42:22 PM
You didn't know he was a Marxist? It says so in his bloody Wikipedia bio.
Errr .... Josquin, I have Erich Fromm's
Marx's Concept of Man, Ungar, 1961, 1966, which also contains a long essay by Fromm and
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Karl Marx, translated by T. B. Bottomore, and some others. I don't you or Wikipedia to tell me something about Fromm.
No, Josquin, that is not actually what Wikipedia says, wisely no doubt, since "Marxist" is essentially a meaningless term without specifying what is meant.What is a Marxist? Can you actually tell us? Which Marxism are you attributing to him and on what evidence? Are you looking at early Marx or late Marx? You do know that there are lots of opposing interpretations of Marx's writings, don't you?
You are just throwing out what you regard as a pejorative term to discredit Fromm, and that is an argumentem ad hominem. I picked something easily available on the net about Spinoza's humanism. What do you think of Fromm's comments? I can only interpret your reaction as meaning you had no thoughts on them at all.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 23, 2009, 05:16:27 AM
No, Josquin, that is not actually what Wikipedia says, wisely no doubt, since "Marxist" is essentially a meaningless term without specifying what is meant.What is a Marxist? Can you actually tell us? Which Marxism are you attributing to him and on what evidence? Are you looking at early Marx or late Marx? You do know that there are lots of opposing interpretations of Marx's writings, don't you?
Please don't give me that. We all know what we are talking about. I have several books from him, including the popular
Man for Himself, and it is clear to me that Erich Fromm is a social Marxist of the same irk of the Frankfurt school, spouting the same type of filth that ruined Russia during the Bolshevik regime and that is now ruining the west as we speak. At the heart of their theory lies the idea human nature is entirely the product of environment, which has paved the way for an endless series of attempts at social engineering and brainwashing. Everywhere you look you can see it now, and it's tearing our society apart. And what gave those men the right to experiment upon society, treating human beings like test rats?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 23, 2009, 07:30:51 AM
Please don't give me that. We all know what we are talking about. I have several books from him, including the popular Man for Himself, and it is clear to me that Erich Fromm is a social Marxist of the same irk of the Frankfurt school, spouting the same type of filth that ruined Russia during the Bolshevik regime and that is now ruining the west as we speak. At the heart of their theory lies the idea human nature is entirely the product of environment, which has paved the way for an endless series of attempts at social engineering and brainwashing. Everywhere you look you can see it now, and it's tearing our society apart. And what gave those men the right to experiment upon society, treating human beings like test rats?
We don't know what you are talking about because you neglect to tell us.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 23, 2009, 07:30:51 AMAt the heart of their theory lies the idea human nature is entirely the product of environment, which has paved the way for an endless series of attempts at social engineering and brainwashing.
Fromm specifically denies that there is no human nature, of course, more than once and at some length. Maybe you should re-read him. You might look in
Beyond the Chains of Illusion, My Encounters with Marx and Freud, Chapter III, entitled "The Concept of Man and His Nature."
This still has nothing to do with Fromm's comments on Spinoza's philosophy of man, which is what I cited him for. Are you at all capable of commenting on that?
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 23, 2009, 05:16:27 AM
I can only interpret your reaction as meaning you had no thoughts on them at all.
According to his interpretation, Spinoza is arguing precisely for the type of moral particularism which western civilization has been trying to obliterate since the advent of Jesus Christ. The obvious caveat in his interpretation of the
good is: who gets to determine what human nature really is? Science? We are seeing in our present society where that type of thinking is leading to: barbarism.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 23, 2009, 07:52:57 AM
Fromm specifically denies that there is no human nature, of course
I think you may want to rephrase that. Does he deny the existence of a human nature or does he confirms it? :P
The question is moot. Of course he denies human nature. He must believe humans can be molded into anything, hence, why social Marxism is synonymous with social engineering. If human nature isn't set in stone, why not change it into something better, perhaps under the supervision of science and psychology?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on May 23, 2009, 08:02:48 AM
I think you may want to rephrase that. Does he deny the existence of a human nature or does he confirms it? :P
The question is moot. Of course he denies human nature. He must believe humans can be molded into anything, hence, why social Marxism is synonymous with social engineering. If human nature isn't set in stone, why not change it into something better, perhaps under the supervision of science and psychology?
You clearly don't know what you are talking about--and you have just shown you can't understand a simple English sentence.
You didn't consult Chapter III of
Beyond the Chains of Illusioin, from which I quote (p. 27):
"The whole concept of humanity and humanism is based on the idea of a human nature in which all men share."
You didn't even read the Wikipedia article very well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm
You evidently did not bother to read Fromm's remarks on Spinoza in a book you claim to have,
Man for Himself:
http://books.google.com/books?id=442AUfGqnhIC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=fromm+spinoza&source=bl&ots=72hhDIwh1D&sig=8p-OVFEQX554BkHfRm1-OvHlpNA&hl=en&ei=mMsWSvMSl8QyjqPYrwg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#PPA26,M1
So, what do you think of Fromm's account of Spinoza's basic philosophy of man?
Sorry, Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ? But Mozart a fraud? is now the most absurd argument/flamewar on this forum!
No, Brian, we can do better, and we will. $:) I'm thinking of starting a thread to end all threads. Or perhaps a poll:
Would Mozart Be Better For Us If Polytheism Was Fraudulent?
1) No
2) Yes,
3) We Have No Bananas.
4) Other
5) All Of The Above
Choose 2 from the list.
Quote from: Feanor on May 22, 2009, 02:48:39 PM
Not at all. What I said was, "From the persective of global society this is the key problem with religions, their proponents all believe their religion is 'exceptionally and miraculously right' and the rest 'absolutely wrong'". I didn' say "all their proponents". There's a difference. English is a syntactical language.
Are you trying to tell us that "their proponents all believe" is not the same as "all their proponents believe" and pretend to be taken seriously?
Ernie,
Switching gears for a moment:
Earlier in this thread Josquin wrote:
"Dawkins and the other neo-atheists - Hitchens, Dennett, Harris - are boring. The intellectual sophistication of western society has been reduced to journalistic mediocrities like them and all the other second rate hacks favored by the media. To think there was a time when a genius like Otto Weininger was a wildfire best seller. Today, we have to deal with intellectual lightweights like Dawkins as if they really had anything interesting to say that anybody with an IQ higher then room temperature hasn't thought about it on his own a million times before.."
A few questions:
1. Is Josquin right in his characterization of them ? As boring, mediocre, lightweight ?
On a separate note, I welcome any author who argues that we as a society should stop being so deferential to religion and recognize that it is often very harmful. And more outspoken in declaring that the metaphysical claims of religions are false.
2. Do you see any value in this, in this new 'assertiveness' against religion ? And do you agree (generally) with what they have to say about religion ?
The thing that really bothers me about them is that their version of atheism is purely negative.... you just strip belief away and go on from there.
3. Shouldn't there be a substitute that will fill some of the valuable functions that religions have served ?
Since you're asking, I'll give you my two cents ...
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 24, 2009, 11:32:08 AM
...
A few questions:
1. Is Josquin right in his characterization of them ? As boring, mediocre, lightweight ?
I am a simple person but to me all Dawkin's arguements sound quite familiar. Indeed I thought of all most everything decades earlier in my life. So maybe that makes Dawkins "boring, mediocre, lightweight", nevertheless I agree with him on virtually everything.
On a separate note, I welcome any author who argues that we as a society should stop being so deferential to religion and recognize that it is often very harmful. And more outspoken in declaring that the metaphysical claims of religions are false.
2. Do you see any value in this, in this new 'assertiveness' against religion ? And do you agree (generally) with what they have to say about religion ?
In a word, yes.
The thing that really bothers me about them is that their version of atheism is purely negative.... you just strip belief away and go on from there.
3. Shouldn't there be a substitute that will fill some of the valuable functions that religions have served ?
No, the problem is religion, not only on the macro, societal scale but also on the personal scale. After greed the worst human weakness is self delusion.
[/quote]
QuoteNo, the problem is religion, not only on the macro, societal scale but also on the personal scale. After greed the worst human weakness is self delusion.
Oh, lovely, Re-tread Marx.
The problem with this Dawkins idea that religion is harmful is that he has no viable substitute. Does he really believe atheism is going to solve the problem of people killing each other?
Atheism might get rid of this so-called problem of people fighting over religion, but we must also acknowledge that people have fought each other over other idealogical beliefs, including atheistic ones. And he must also acknowledge that most religions, when taken literally, do not call for killing and fighting, but exactly the opposite. Most of the time, the horrible atrocities done in the name of religion would be condemned by members of that same religion later. This doesn't argue against religion, but human fallibility. And of course the ironic thing is that most religions are an attempt to acknowledge the imperfection of humanity and to provide a guiding principle in the face of this imperfection.
But even so, none of these issues argues for or against the inherent truth of any particular religion itself. If there is any "delusion" it is that atheistic science somehow has a connection to truth free of charge, as if you can divorce philosophical statements about reality from the metaphysical. There is no way around it, the sentence, "Science discovers reality" is about the metaphysical. We have no scientific material method for discovering if this is in fact true. We must make some irrational statement and define our assumptions. For some, this metaphysical statement is exactly the above. For others, it is a statement like, "God exists." The bonus with the latter is that there is a reason for an unmovable set of morals, a grounding of society and social interactions. This is why I choose it.
Ok, rant over. :)
Quote from: Catison on May 24, 2009, 03:34:38 PM
The problem with this Dawkins idea that religion is harmful is that he has no viable substitute. Does he really believe atheism is going to solve the problem of people killing each other?
Atheism might get rid of this so-called problem of people fighting over religion, but we must also acknowledge that people have fought each other over other idealogical beliefs, including atheistic ones. And he must also acknowledge that most religions, when taken literally, do not call for killing and fighting, but exactly the opposite. Most of the time, the horrible atrocities done in the name of religion would be condemned by members of that same religion later. This doesn't argue against religion, but human fallibility. And of course the ironic thing is that most religions are an attempt to acknowledge the imperfection of humanity and to provide a guiding principle in the face of this imperfection.
There's a South Park episode for this. In the future, all religion is abolished, but there is still a massive war between opposing sides. The whole problem was a name for the atheists- the super-intelligent otters of the AAA (Allied Atheist Alliance), the humans of the UAA (United Atheist Alliance), and a rival human faction, the UAL (United Atheist League).
You know stuff like this would still happen in a world without religion. The reason is because people are just stupid.
Quote from: Catison on May 24, 2009, 03:34:38 PM
The problem with this Dawkins idea that religion is harmful is that he has no viable substitute. Does he really believe atheism is going to solve the problem of people killing each other?
Atheism might get rid of this so-called problem of people fighting over religion, but we must also acknowledge that people have fought each other over other idealogical beliefs, including atheistic ones. And he must also acknowledge that most religions, when taken literally, do not call for killing and fighting, but exactly the opposite. Most of the time, the horrible atrocities done in the name of religion would be condemned by members of that same religion later. This doesn't argue against religion, but human fallibility. And of course the ironic thing is that most religions are an attempt to acknowledge the imperfection of humanity and to provide a guiding principle in the face of this imperfection.
But even so, none of these issues argues for or against the inherent truth of any particular religion itself. If there is any "delusion" it is that atheistic science somehow has a connection to truth free of charge, as if you can divorce philosophical statements about reality from the metaphysical. There is no way around it, the sentence, "Science discovers reality" is about the metaphysical. We have no scientific material method for discovering if this is in fact true. We must make some irrational statement and define our assumptions. For some, this metaphysical statement is exactly the above. For others, it is a statement like, "God exists." The bonus with the latter is that there is a reason for an unmovable set of morals, a grounding of society and social interactions. This is why I choose it.
Excellent post.
Quote from: Bahamut on May 24, 2009, 08:11:05 PM
There's a South Park episode for this. In the future, all religion is abolished, but there is still a massive war between opposing sides. The whole problem was a name for the atheists- the super-intelligent otters of the AAA (Allied Atheist Alliance), the humans of the UAA (United Atheist Alliance), and a rival human faction, the UAL (United Atheist League).
You know stuff like this would still happen in a world without religion. The reason is because people are just stupid.
Well said. This whole idea that atheists are superhuman beings which, by an ideological / metaphysical
fiat, have rid themselves of all human flaws and weaknesses and if anybody else would just do the same, the world will know no more wars and evils is a self-righteous, self-delusional, sentimentalist fraud.
Quote from: Florestan on May 24, 2009, 10:41:28 PM
Well said. This whole idea that atheists are superhuman beings which, by an ideological / metaphysical fiat, have rid themselves of all human flaws and weaknesses and if anybody else would just do the same, the world will know no more wars and evils is a self-righteous, self-delusional, sentimentalist fraud.
That rolls well off the tongue, eh? But it is largely religionists judging atheists on a religious scale.
However it has nothing inherently to do with an atheist perspective. There
is no broad atheist ideology. It is simply a matter that we believe the worlds would be at a better starting point without the self-delusion -- not to mention the delusions foster by power-hungry religous leaders bent on political power.
Quote from: Feanor on May 25, 2009, 03:21:33 AM
we believe the worlds would be at a better starting point without the self-delusion -- not to mention the delusions foster by power-hungry religous leaders bent on political power.
Do you believe, in al honesty, that were religions and religious people suddenly to disappear, the world would have no more wars?
And what about the delusions fostered by power-hungry atheist leaders bent on political power?
Quote from: Feanor on May 25, 2009, 03:21:33 AM
It is simply a matter that we believe the worlds would be at a better starting point without the self-delusion
Yes, including atheist self-delusion too, right?
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 03:23:56 AM
Do you believe, in al honesty, that were religions and religious people suddenly to disappear, the world would have no more wars?
...
No.
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 03:35:36 AM
Yes, including atheist self-delusion too, right?
Not all atheists are the same. I've been castigated for implying that all religionists are the same, which I didn't say, and which isn't true. Please conceed that atheists are not all the same. I mean for example Atheism was to official philosophy, call it state religion maybe, of the Communist countries; there children grew up being Atheists by virtue of indoctrination and not being permited question the received wisdom -- much like the prevalent style of religious education.
On the other hand, the atheist I know tend strongly to skepicism which includes self-questioning. (Just as proper scientists welcome challenges to their theories, knowing that science will evolve and advance thereby.) I would say that most of these atheists were skeptics before they were atheists. This is to say that self-delusion is less prevalent among atheists than the general population
Quote from: Feanor on May 25, 2009, 05:12:27 AM
No.
Then why do you accuse just one side and ignore the other? Atheist ideologies have very recently (as in living memory) caused tens of millions of deaths and literally ruined entire countries and peoples. Yet when it comes about the evil in the world, it's always religion, and specifically Christianity, that gets blamed for things that happened centuries ago. Why this double standard?
Quote from: Feanor on May 25, 2009, 05:22:41 AM
This is to say that self-delusion is less prevalent among atheists than the general population
uh huh...
You are aware that atheists are in some sense deluded too, right?
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 11:41:04 AM
uh huh...
You are aware that atheists are in some sense deluded too, right?
The very premise of atheism is irrational. The only rational position for those who do not believe that they have sufficient evidence to support knowledge of God's existence is agnosticism.
Quote from: Feanor on May 25, 2009, 03:21:33 AM
That rolls well off the tongue, eh? But it is largely religionists judging atheists on a religious scale.
However it has nothing inherently to do with an atheist perspective. There is no broad atheist ideology. It is simply a matter that we believe the worlds would be at a better starting point without the self-delusion -- not to mention the delusions foster by power-hungry religous leaders bent on political power.
I think this is true of many atheists and most writings by atheists on the subject would support this broadly. It's not my position that removing a particular delusion or not being subject to it perfects anything else about a persons intellect or character. I've only seen one study a few years back that does indicate that atheists rate highly on various social scales and quite low on scales of pathology. There are many atheists in foxholes but very few in maximum security prisons awaiting execution. Nevertheless, I have to insist that the best position to take is not that atheism or monotheism (atheism+1) is better for you but that a person who has adopted atheism
may be exhibiting the operations of a fully functioning bullshit detector rather than the crippled version believers must work with. Such a person may be resistant to various other scams as well, or not. I've seen both types. Just as the believer can do double-bookkeeping and be a brilliant scientist, an atheist can be the most awful Marxist, racist, vegetarian psychopath imaginable. Is it likely? Less likely, and it's better to have one fewer delusion. But it can and does happen.
In any case it's better IMO to focus on the primary reason recommending atheism, that no alternative on offer has the slightest probability of being true*, that a materialist/atheist hypothesis is consistent with all scientific models, and that the alternatives are adopted precisely because they are "good for you" and by extension for society generally. Considered purely from the disinterested standpoint of economy, that is the most efficient explanation consistent with what can be known, theisms poly/mono or otherwise stink.
Another related requirement is what I call narrative sense. The history of the Universe is an attempt to create a nonfictional story that exhibits causes and verifiable events at every point accessible to us by the data available. If we know that 2 things happened narrative sense puts one before the other consistent with the "Benjamin Button" principle that babies are not born old and die 80 years later as infants. This "assumption" is actually a feature of the verification rather that what is verified, so we don't have to argue in individual cases whether
that dinosaur is 6,000 years old while the other more conventional one is 100,000,000 years old like a good dino should be.** I don't pick up 2,450 copies of the same newspaper just to be sure that they say the same thing. This narrative intelligence tells us that laws are consistent even when we're not watching, and it's woven into materialism so that causality and materialism have become the same thing (what occurred to me the other night). The efficacy of the one is tied to the other in a way not easily broken except in the willful manner of the double-bookkeeper. The lack of narrative sense in theism, where the big important thing appears before the processes necessary to build it is not just non-materialistic as the believers think but
anti-materialistic in my view. Yes, some scientists are compatibilists about this but I think they are wrong for the narrative reason I give here.
Summing up, a narrative view featuring causality is materialistic whereas the theist views narrative coherence willfully and haphazardly. If a god is needed at the beginning it's put there, and if it needs to be located in another realm to be invisible to prying eyes it's there, and the
reasons and
causes necessary in materialism are positive nuisances here and they will be missing, replaced by motives which are the believers own. That's the meaning of my musings the other night.
:) * I should be more careful. :( "The slightest probability of being true" is exactly what's wrong with theism. Sorry about that. One could argue whether this amounts to the same thing, but the correction needed to be made.
** What the believer (creationist) says must be verified is actually the verification under narrativity, so if we find the fossil of a new species next to the dino we say it's the same age. Same as what? As the dino that died 100,000,000 years ago. We "assumed" it.
Quote from: drogulus on May 25, 2009, 01:53:03 PM
Nevertheless, I have to insist that the best position to take is not that atheism or monotheism (atheism+1) is better for you but that a person who has adopted atheism may be exhibiting the operations of a fully functioning bullshit detector rather than the crippled version believers must work with.
Actually, mine is working quite well. It just went off.
Quote from: drogulus on May 25, 2009, 01:53:03 PM
In any case it's better IMO to focus on the primary reason recommending atheism, that no alternative on offer has the slightest probability of being true, that a materialist/atheist hypothesis is consistent with all scientific models, and that the alternatives are adopted precisely because they are "good for you" and by extension for society generally. Considered purely from the disinterested standpoint of economy, that is the most efficient explanation consistent with what can be known, theisms poly/mono or otherwise stink.
This argument is a sham. So atheism is "consistent with scientific models"? Give me a break. Since when has science anything to say about God's existence or nonexistence? It doesn't pretend to comment on these things. And even so, even if a theory agrees with science, this line of reasoning supposes that science is truth, but without ever mentioning the reason why. Why is science truth? You simply aren't going to provide an answer scientifically because such an argument doesn't exist. Science doesn't equal truth for free. You can't deduce your way into making such a claim without bringing in some sort of metaphysical statement. But for some reason, this is the great blindspot in the atheist BS detector. All metaphysical statements are thrown out, except for one, "Science is true because...". And then they go around talking about how much more rational they are. Give me a break.
Quote from: Florestan on May 24, 2009, 10:41:28 PM
Well said. This whole idea that atheists are superhuman beings which, by an ideological / metaphysical fiat, have rid themselves of all human flaws and weaknesses and if anybody else would just do the same, the world will know no more wars and evils is a self-righteous, self-delusional, sentimentalist fraud.
That's true, simply on the facts.
Those aside, there's Ernie's example ;) 8)
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 02:29:54 PM
Actually, mine is working quite well. It just went off.
This argument is a sham. So atheism is "consistent with scientific models"? Give me a break.
I was careful on this one. My version of atheism doesn't allow me to dissent from scientific models taken as a whole as opposed to quarreling with the results in cases, an activity intrinsic to the enterprise. I'm recommending, among other things, that atheists adopt my view, and that they treat conforming to this verificationist view as essential, and viewing this connection as unbreakable. Many do, I'm sure.
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 02:29:54 PM
Since when has science anything to say about God's existence or nonexistence? It doesn't pretend to comment on these things. And even so, even if a theory agrees with science, this line of reasoning supposes that science is truth, but without ever mentioning the reason why. Why is science truth?
Since always by my interpretation, which was the subject of my long post. Science doesn't need to comment in this way. I was following the implications as I see them from treating causality and therefore materialism as, in a sense, primary. Truth is not identical to what is verified, according to me, but verification is the means we have to know what truths are possible to find. In that sense, to the extent that science/philosophy conform to this, they do comment and the verdict is damning. That's what I recommend from my teasing out of the consequences of either embracing or rejecting causality and its interrelation with materialism.
Quote from: Florestan on May 24, 2009, 10:41:28 PM
This whole idea that atheists are superhuman beings which, by an ideological / metaphysical fiat, have rid themselves of all human flaws and weaknesses and if anybody else would just do the same, the world will know no more wars and evils is a self-righteous, self-delusional, sentimentalist fraud.
I don't agree with this whole idea of the superhuman atheist, which I've made clear. This seems to be
your whole idea, so I recommend you don't continue to attribute it to others. I'll grant some atheists do appear to think that problems will go away if religion is removed as a cause of them, but what about other causes?
Poor Ernie. Loves to spout off and attack other people as believing in BS, but cannot recognize his own, and is so fiercely committed to defending his unsubstantiated worldview that he cannot recognize the irrationality of atheism, even after it's been pointed out clearly and simply many times.
Theism--"God exists."
Atheism--"God doesn't exist."
Agnosticism--"I don't know whether God exists."
The theist claims knowledge of God's existence either by direct experience or by inference from the available evidence. In the absence of such experience and unconvinced by the evidence, agnostics rationally claim not to know. To go beyond that and claim there is no God, is to make an unsupportable statement of belief based on no evidence (indeed, contrary to the evidence cited by theists) and claiming omniscience, for only if one knew everything could one make a rational claim to know there is no God.
This ain't rocket science, people.
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 02:29:54 PM
Why is science truth?
I can't find anything other than verification by means determined by the question.
Quote from: Catison on May 25, 2009, 02:29:54 PMYou can't deduce your way into making such a claim without bringing in some sort of metaphysical statement.
You might be right, and this puzzles me. The general view is that while verification gives you true statements within a narrow frame created by the question it doesn't entitle you to say the method itself is correct because the method was not the subject of the test and is untestable except by reference to the limited applications employed. So even though we know verification works where it's used it's a metaphysical statement to say so and therefore as unjustified as saying a being in another realm inaccessible to reason made everything. The idea seems to be that all metaphysical statements being equal and equally unverifiable, the stupidest one is true.
My idea is that there must be a way to distinguish the success of verification without also promoting idiocies. It's a genuine problem.
QuoteThis ain't rocket science, people.
No, it isn't. Especially for young people who for some reason are able to throw off conditioning that makes the majority submissive. The myth of the atheist supergenius who employs a vast intellect to crack a nearly unsolvable problem is belied by the many moderately intelligent kids who work it out. If something is either impossible or can't be coherently presented, and moreover you learn the meaning of that special mode of communication parents or other authority figures use when they lie or talk about things they know nothing about, then it's not that difficult to figure out.
Quote from: drogulus on May 25, 2009, 02:47:03 PM
I don't agree with this whole idea of the superhuman atheist, which I've made clear. This seems to be your whole idea, so I recommend you don't continue to attribute it to others. I'll grant some atheists do appear to think that problems will go away if religion is removed as a cause of them, but what about other causes?
You should have been a lawyer: you're a master of sophistry, of turning things upside down to appear what they are not and of twisting the ideas of your opponents.
The idea that atheism leads to enlightenment, liberation from delusion and a better world and that people of faith are less enlightened, trapped in delusions and prone to violence and evil has repeatedly surfaced on this forum and it was always atheists that expounded it --- and this is
my whole idea? If I have repeatedly refuted a recurrent idea, this means it is
my idea? So much for your verificationist logic.
"What about the other causes?" was exactly
my question. Presenting it to be
yours and somehow opposed to my approach is disingenuous in the highest degree.
Ah, you've met Ernie, then?
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 11:24:00 PM
You should have been a lawyer: you're a master of sophistry, of turning things upside down to appear what they are not and of twisting the ideas of your opponents.
The idea that atheism leads to enlightenment, liberation from delusion and a better world and that people of faith are less enlightened, trapped in delusions and prone to violence and evil has repeatedly surfaced on this forum and it was always atheists that expounded it --- and this is my whole idea? If I have repeatedly refuted a recurrent idea, this means it is my idea? So much for your verificationist logic.
"What about the other causes?" was exactly my question. Presenting it to be yours and somehow opposed to my approach is disingenuous in the highest degree.
There is a lot of confusion here. Dawkins, Hitchens, and others often compare atheism as simply not believing in God with religions and their ideology. They should be comparing it to simply believing in God (or possibly the gods,as per this thread!). If they are going to consider atheism stripped of ideology and institution, then they should compare it with belief in God stripped of ideology, just considered as a simple personal characteristic. C. S. Lewis once recounted the story of a fellow who had had some religious experience in the jungle or desert, who used to pontificate that those around him never had met the real God. Lewis's comment was that he had a real religious experience, all right, but it had nothing to do with his life.
So you are quite right to want to compare religions with atheist ideologies, politics, and governments. When we look at that, it is quite clear that religions are far more benign and have killed far less people. It's fine to criticize religions for their faults (I have criticized mine) but the secular state has proved much more deadly, with the atheist states among the worst.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 26, 2009, 07:16:20 AM
There is a lot of confusion here. Dawkins, Hitchens, and others often compare atheism as simply not believing in God with religions and their ideology. They should be comparing it to simply believing in God (or possibly the gods,as per this thread!). If they are going to consider atheism stripped of ideology and institution, then they should compare it with belief in God stripped of ideology, just considered as a simple personal characteristic.
Good point. I hadn't thought of that.
But it is little different, because believing in something requires you to respond to that belief in the fullest possible way. And that might be considered a religion. Atheism, as a non-belief, removes these type of necessary reactions (indeed, there is no basis for morals). So they are different in that respect when brought to their complete conclusion.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 26, 2009, 07:16:20 AM
There is a lot of confusion here. Dawkins, Hitchens, and others often compare atheism as simply not believing in God with religions and their ideology. They should be comparing it to simply believing in God (or possibly the gods,as per this thread!). If they are going to consider atheism stripped of ideology and institution, then they should compare it with belief in God stripped of ideology
Note the distinction between "simply not believing in God"--which some here in the voluminous prior threads on this topic have described as "soft atheism,"--and actively believing that God does not exist, which some have called "hard atheism" to distinguish it from agnostic lack of belief without certain knowledge. Loose use of the term "atheism" contributes to the confusion over these matters, a tactic exploited by those who shift the ground on the unwary.
As always, clear definition of key terminology must be agreed on as a condition of meaningful discourse.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 08:30:35 AM
Note the distinction between "simply not believing in God"--which some here in the voluminous prior threads on this topic have described as "soft atheism,"--and actively believing that God does not exist, which some have called "hard atheism" to distinguish it from agnostic lack of belief without certain knowledge. Loose use of the term "atheism" contributes to the confusion over these matters, a tactic exploited by those who shift the ground on the unwary.
As always, clear definition of key terminology must be agreed on as a condition of meaningful discourse.
Or maybe the distinction is overly fine.
Epistemologically I concede -- in fact I insist -- that it can't be proven that God doesn't exist. It's just that I see no objective, compelling evidence of his/her existence and it seems exceedingly unlikely. I think it was Dawkins (or maybe it was Hitchens?) who provided a handly scale of relative atheistic sensibility, but he held that if you considered God's existence highly unlikely, you ought to call yourself an atheist and not equivocate.
Quote from: Feanor on May 26, 2009, 09:10:08 AM
Epistemologically I concede -- in fact I insist -- that it can't be proven that God doesn't exist. It's just that I see no objective, compelling evidence of his/her existence and it seems exceedingly unlikely.
Fairly spoken, for you speak of what you see (or do not) and how things seem to you.
Quote from: FeanorI think it was Dawkins (or maybe it was Hitchens?) who provided a handly scale of relative atheistic sensibility, but he held that if you considered God's existence highly unlikely, you ought to call yourself an atheist and not equivocate.
That (on the part of Dawkins-or-Hitchens, I mean) is tendentious. They want to take the honest agnosticism of your points above, and make it a tidy 'atheistic certainty'. That doesn't quite wash.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 26, 2009, 09:23:50 AM
Fairly spoken, for you speak of what you see (or do not) and how things seem to you. [Agreed!]
That (on the part of Dawkins-or-Hitchens, I mean) is tendentious. They want to take the honest agnosticism of your points above, and make it a tidy 'atheistic certainty'. That doesn't quite wash.
The sophistry of folks like Dawkins all too easily misleads those incapable of thinking for themselves into believing that atheism is not only a rational belief, but the
only rational belief, and so well proven and supported by fact that it is equivalent to
knowledge universally acknowledged by all the smart people. Certainly here on GMG we've seen numerous examples of weak-minded intellectuals parroting Dawkins's views as if they were somehow logically unassailable and based on fact rather than just another short-sighted system of beliefs founded on unprovable assumptions taken on faith.
Quote from: Feanor on May 26, 2009, 09:10:08 AM
Or maybe the distinction is overly fine.
Not so. Honest recognition that one's beliefs in fact are agnostic admits of the uncertainty required for an open mind, itself a requirement for learning. When we are convinced that we
know, we close our minds to what lies outside of or contradicts that which we think we know. It's human nature.
In a nutshell, it is all about faith and belief. There isn't any proof either way.
No one can actually prove that there exists 'a' God, and no one can actually prove that 'a' God doesn't exist.
Quote from: ChamberNut on May 26, 2009, 10:01:38 AM
In a nutshell, it is all about faith and belief. There isn't any proof either way.
No one can actually prove that there exists 'a' God, and no one can actually prove that 'a' God doesn't exist.
Or, insofar as proof is a concept in logic, you can prove whatever you like, depending on the premises you choose to frame the argument. But knowledge is not just synthetic. Knowing that you love another is something quite different from "proving" it.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 26, 2009, 08:30:35 AM
Note the distinction between "simply not believing in God"--which some here in the voluminous prior threads on this topic have described as "soft atheism,"--and actively believing that God does not exist, which some have called "hard atheism" to distinguish it from agnostic lack of belief without certain knowledge.
By these terms Richard Dawkins claims to be a "soft atheist," sort of. Somewhere in his book, he says that if "1" represented somebody who was absolutely 100% certain that God existed, and "10" represented someone 100% certain that God, gods, or supernatural entities could not possibly exist, he would be a "9". I would try to cite this, but I don't want to have to go through his book again that carefully.
As far as I know the only person who thinks he has got the "evidence" to "disprove" God is Victor J. Stenger.
Quote from: Brian on May 26, 2009, 10:41:56 AM
By these terms Richard Dawkins claims to be a "soft atheist," sort of. Somewhere in his book, he says that if "1" represented somebody who was absolutely 100% certain that God existed, and "10" represented someone 100% certain that God, gods, or supernatural entities could not possibly exist, he would be a "9".
Sounds as if he's trying to have his cake and eat it, too, claiming the force of conviction that a "10" would represent but hoping to avoid acknowledging the absurd statement of faith underlying it.
Quote from: Feanor on May 26, 2009, 09:10:08 AM
Or maybe the distinction is overly fine.
Epistemologically I concede -- in fact I insist -- that it can't be proven that God doesn't exist. It's just that I see no objective, compelling evidence of his/her existence and it seems exceedingly unlikely. I think it was Dawkins (or maybe it was Hitchens?) who provided a handly scale of relative atheistic sensibility, but he held that if you considered God's existence highly unlikely, you ought to call yourself an atheist and not equivocate.
When I was an atheist I thought exactly this way. This view seems entirely sensible until you pull the argument apart. The crux of the matter comes down to this statement.
"I see no objective, compelling evidence of his/her existence and it seems exceedingly unlikely."
It depends upon how you define "objective". If objective means that it is factual, regardless of whether or not anyone agrees it is true, then you are assuming Truth (capital T for universal) exists. If you believe there is no such thing as Truth, then there is no such thing as right or wrong. If there is no Truth, then if I believe God exists, He exists, but if you believe He doesn't, then He doesn't. But God cannot both exist and not exist, so you are either talking about something else than the traditional understanding of God or you have a contradiction. So, continuing, lets assume you are appealing, in your statement, to an objective Truth.
If objective Truth exists, then it means there is some standard upon which all arguments and evidence are judged. For example, science is typically seen as getting closer to an objective reality. Scientific consensus tells us how things really are, not just good ways to make calculations, right? But this appeal has implications. It means there is a right and a wrong. If atoms really exist, then science is right, because there is some actual reality in which little balls of matter are really there. Similarly, if God really doesn't exist, then the atheist is absolutely right, because out there in reality, there really is no God. These statements cannot be made without objective Truth existing.
But where does this objective Truth reside? How is there some standard that applies to everyone? Somehow, out there, there is some entity or consciousness permeating us all upon which we are all judged. That is, if objective Truth exists. All of this brings up a question. Who or what made this objective Truth? Where did it come from? Is it just some property of the universe?
It cannot be just some property of the universe because Truth is a metaphysical entity. You cannot make a Truth-o-meter to test for objective reality. It must be imposed from a different level. This implies an entity outside the universe exists. What else could have created it?
So the very act of judging is a statement of the correctness of a particular thing in relation to objective Truth, but Truth implies a God, or at least some "other" objective entity, but this is usually what we call God.
So ironically, the statement, "God does not exist" implies God exists.
Quote from: Catison on May 26, 2009, 02:46:45 PM
If objective Truth exists, then it means there is some standard upon which all arguments and evidence are judged. For example, science is typically seen as getting closer to an objective reality. Scientific consensus tells us how things really are, not just good ways to make calculations, right? But this appeal has implications. It means there is a right and a wrong. If atoms really exist, then science is right, because there is some actual reality in which little balls of matter are really there. Similarly, if God really doesn't exist, then the atheist is absolutely right, because out there in reality, there really is no God. These statements cannot be made without objective Truth existing.
So if the atheist is correct that there's no reason to think a god exists that means that there is a truth about the matter, and if there's a truth then there's a god. But if the atheist is wrong there's also a truth of the matter and there's a god. OK,
Brett, that looks a little bit rigged to me.
:D What would have to be the case for no god to be right? Evidence that supports a god?
??? My argument so far has been that materialism is self contained, that it has all the justifications it needs to prevail, and it's a misunderstanding to think it needs to be backstopped in any way. For that reason it's not vulnerable to logical refutation in this manner. The scientific/material enterprise is an empirical one and truths are not things that have existence which proves something contrary to what true propositions state. So if the atheist is correct in saying there are no reasons that support a god this truth can't be overruled by a big fat Mother Truth, a giant Noun with its own reasons and motives.
Quote from: Florestan on May 25, 2009, 11:24:00 PM
You should have been a lawyer: you're a master of sophistry, of turning things upside down to appear what they are not and of twisting the ideas of your opponents.
The idea that atheism leads to enlightenment, liberation from delusion and a better world and that people of faith are less enlightened, trapped in delusions and prone to violence and evil has repeatedly surfaced on this forum and it was always atheists that expounded it --- and this is my whole idea? If I have repeatedly refuted a recurrent idea, this means it is my idea? So much for your verificationist logic.
"What about the other causes?" was exactly my question. Presenting it to be yours and somehow opposed to my approach is disingenuous in the highest degree.
I have been consistent in this. Most atheists are not superhuman reasoners, they are just good ones. And the idea that you have ownership of the "other causes" argument is really dumb. This idea is a commonplace among believers and nonbelievers. Atheism doesn't cure cancer. Don't be a simpleton by accusing me of not being entitled to my own ideas. I don't dispute your right to them, so stop this foolishness.
Quote from: Catison on May 26, 2009, 02:46:45 PM
When I was an atheist I thought exactly this way. This view seems entirely sensible until you pull the argument apart. The crux of the matter comes down to this statement.
"I see no objective, compelling evidence of his/her existence and it seems exceedingly unlikely."
It depends upon how you define "objective". If objective means that it is factual, regardless of whether or not anyone agrees it is true, then you are assuming Truth (capital T for universal) exists. If you believe there is no such thing as Truth, then there is no such thing as right or wrong. If there is no Truth, then if I believe God exists, He exists, but if you believe He doesn't, then He doesn't. But God cannot both exist and not exist, so you are either talking about something else than the traditional understanding of God or you have a contradiction. So, continuing, lets assume you are appealing, in your statement, to an objective Truth.
If objective Truth exists, then it means there is some standard upon which all arguments and evidence are judged. For example, science is typically seen as getting closer to an objective reality. Scientific consensus tells us how things really are, not just good ways to make calculations, right? But this appeal has implications. It means there is a right and a wrong. If atoms really exist, then science is right, because there is some actual reality in which little balls of matter are really there. Similarly, if God really doesn't exist, then the atheist is absolutely right, because out there in reality, there really is no God. These statements cannot be made without objective Truth existing.
But where does this objective Truth reside? How is there some standard that applies to everyone? Somehow, out there, there is some entity or consciousness permeating us all upon which we are all judged. That is, if objective Truth exists. All of this brings up a question. Who or what made this objective Truth? Where did it come from? Is it just some property of the universe?
It cannot be just some property of the universe because Truth is a metaphysical entity. You cannot make a Truth-o-meter to test for objective reality. It must be imposed from a different level. This implies an entity outside the universe exists. What else could have created it?
So the very act of judging is a statement of the correctness of a particular thing in relation to objective Truth, but Truth implies a God, or at least some "other" objective entity, but this is usually what we call God.
So ironically, the statement, "God does not exist" implies God exists.
You'll need to explain all this to me again. The "Truth" is every other sentence above seems to contain an error or
non sequitur.
Quote from: Xenophanes on May 26, 2009, 07:16:20 AM
There is a lot of confusion here. Dawkins, Hitchens, and others often compare atheism as simply not believing in God with religions and their ideology. They should be comparing it to simply believing in God (or possibly the gods,as per this thread!).
I think they do that, but this does tend to support the idea that atheists should make it clear that they are primarily concerned with the existence question and only secondarily with the question of benefits and costs. I'd like that to be the case, that these questions be more clearly defined. We can compare atheist and theist institutions and weigh them on their respective merits without deciding the existence question. I would prefer to concentrate on the essentials. Arguments about what is true or what exists shouldn't be conditioned by these other considerations. It would tend to prejudice the argument towards who is good or who is nice in who's opinion. That would give a big advantage to those who feel they have a weak argument.
They could accuse their opponents of insulting a perfect being (just as an example) >:D. Justice and a disinterested concern for truth demands that these miscreants be stopped!! >:( >:( >:( Uh....sorry about that, I got carried away.
:-[ But you see what I mean. A strategically deployed sense of outrage should not be a feature of an argument. If it is it should be sidestepped. I find it's disconcerting to an opponent when you continually and underhandedly return to the point and proceed with substantive argument.
Quote from: Feanor on May 26, 2009, 03:52:25 PM
You'll need to explain all this to me again. The "Truth" is every other sentence above seems to contain an error or non sequitur.
Indeed; my head was spinning by the end, although I did remember why I decided to stop taking philosophy courses.
Quote from: drogulus on May 26, 2009, 03:32:47 PM
Don't be a simpleton by accusing me of not being entitled to my own ideas.
It was not a metter of ideas, but of questions. It seems that no matter what I write you either misunderstand or misrepresent it. I'm not going to continue this pointless exchange anymore.
Quote from: Feanor on May 26, 2009, 03:52:25 PM
You'll need to explain all this to me again. The "Truth" is every other sentence above seems to contain an error or non sequitur.
For sooth.
QuoteDon't be a simpleton by accusing me of not being entitled to my own ideas.
This is a knot of logical error, Ernie. Anyone who indicates to you (
accuse is hardly the right verb,
is it?) that you are not "entitled to your own ideas", does not thereby become a
simpleton.
You've got some neurons to straighten out there, lad.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 27, 2009, 03:41:10 AM
For sooth.
Forsooth, I will hold my tongue.
(http://members.tripod.com/bg_cat/Lear.gif)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on May 27, 2009, 04:10:27 AM
This is a knot of logical error, Ernie. Anyone who indicates to you (accuse is hardly the right verb, is it?) that you are not "entitled to your own ideas", does not thereby become a simpleton.
You've got some neurons to straighten out there, lad.
I chose the wrong word. The correct meaning got through, though.
Quote from: drogulus on May 27, 2009, 01:04:34 PM
I chose the wrong word.
More than one, actually 8)
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 21, 2009, 05:24:52 AMOn another thread recently there was mention of the first "chapter" of Tao from Tao Te Ching, the first lines of which read "The Ways that can be explained are not the eternal Way; the names that can be named are not the eternal Name."
Not only are words inadequate to communicate understanding of things which must be experienced to be known, but the difficulty is compounded when we mistake the words and concepts they represent for the things themselves, forgetting that they are only approximations--descriptions at best, limited by our experience and the conceptual frameworks to which we apply them. How often we mistake the finger for the moon!
Yes. Again and again.
I've been away for a while and the number of posts here is too much to catch up on - it took me a while to find this of yours, buried way back in page 22 .... but whenever these science v religion discussions crop up, with their category-error fireworks blowing off everywhere, I always want to unfurl a flag bearing Whitehead's words, writ large:
"Much philosophic thought is based upon the faked adequacy of some account of various modes of human experience ... the final outlook of Philosophic thought cannot be based on the exact statements which form the basis of special sciences.
The exactness is a fake."
Once you grasp that, and its implications, it's impossible ever to make the mistake again - not of hoping the discussion might ever reach a conclusion, but of thinking that there's a real discussion there at all.
Almost from the day you popped up here I've suspected you were one of Sophia's lovers, Elgarian. We split up long ago, but we're still friends.
Quote from: DavidRoss on May 28, 2009, 03:46:47 PM
Almost from the day you popped up here I've suspected you were one of Sophia's lovers, Elgarian. We split up long ago, but we're still friends.
Yes, but for some time now I've not been a very faithful lover. I confess to dalliances elsewhere, though she always seems to welcome me back for the occasional fling.
"Much philosophic thought is based upon the faked adequacy of some account of various modes of human experience ... the final outlook of Philosophic thought cannot be based on the exact statements which form the basis of special sciences.
The exactness is a fake."
Yes, not only is there doubt that ones experience is what you believe it is, the belief is embedded in language which is inadequate. The word god names something, it's assumed. The thing it names can't be defined or shown. How is something being named? What's it like to experience something without describable qualities? Wouldn't the honest answer be indescribable? No, because when something can't be described it's decribed anyway, by metaphor.
Look at it this way. If you were "touched by the hand of god" how would you describe it? Even better, what would have to happen to you to describe it as being "touched by the hand of god"? We aren't a bunch of Scalia's here! There's no 'Black Letter" god-hand-touching experience that we just know we've had. Without fail every single person who experiences such an event is describing something new. Since there's no common understanding of the experience, no reference point outside of texts and more metaophor, it doesn't seem that there's any way to tell what is really causing the experience. All the harumphing about why experience must be literally taken as true without examination misses this point: often it can't be determined what is being said. Clearly this applies to the speaker as well. For everyone else both the experience and any description are subject to legitimate doubt.
Quote from: drogulus on May 29, 2009, 05:17:21 AM
Yes, not only is there doubt that ones experience is what you believe it is, the belief is embedded in language which is inadequate. The word god names something, it's assumed. The thing it names can't be defined or shown. How is something being named? What's it like to experience something without describable qualities? Wouldn't the honest answer be indescribable? No, because when something can't be described it's decribed anyway, by metaphor.
I agree with most of this, but I hover uneasily over your suggestion that the 'thing' can't be shown. I want to qualify that. That's where the metaphor comes in, and indeed that's one of the reasons why art of all kinds is so important to us. It moves us away from the
telling, towards the
showing. The metaphor (or the art) is more than an attempt to 'describe anyway'; it's an attempt to
show. Or at least, to offer the kind of contemplative or perceptive journey that might result in the perceiver experiencing this indescribable 'thing' for himself. (That's one reason why, I think, art and religion often get muddled up. Both are geared towards experiences that lie beyond the adequacy of language.)
QuoteWithout fail every single person who experiences such an event is describing something new. Since there's no common understanding of the experience, no reference point outside of texts and more metaphor, it doesn't seem that there's any way to tell what is really causing the experience. All the harumphing about why experience must be literally taken as true without examination misses this point: often it can't be determined what is being said. Clearly this applies to the speaker as well.
Yes; although I'd want to add at least one codicil to this manifesto before I could sign up to it:
If we dig down far enough into the scientific process, we eventually find ourselves confronted by the same indeterminacy; despite the success of (let's say) the Schrodinger wave equation and the Uncertainty Principle at predicting outcomes, issues of 'truth' are no less indeterminate. You would reject the principle 'if it predicts well, it must be true' just as rapidly as I would; it simply isn't so.
We do not know what the underlying reality is that causes the Schrodinger wave equation to be a good predictor. As DavidRoss said somewhere here, we must be careful not to confuse the descriptor with the thing. Indeed, my experience of the presence of this desk, here in front of me, is no less mysterious than Blake's experience of angels in a tree. It's just more familiar (because repeatable, and therefore checkable), so I feel as if I understand it better.
QuoteFor everyone else both the experience and any description are subject to legitimate doubt.
I think this is true of all human experience.
Quote from: Bulldog on May 18, 2009, 08:56:03 PMOrthodox jews are extremely rigid and want to live by themselves. It's best that they do just that.
True...And this just in:
Beginning of the end of Orthodox hegemony http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088815.html
****
Thank goodness that their days of control are numbered.
Elgarian, I think we are approaching this in a similar way. Our impressions can be subject to different categorizations.
About the quantum results and reality as a prediction fulfilled, that's the basis of my view. You say:
We do not know what the underlying reality is that causes the Schrodinger wave equation to be a good predictor.
Quite so, and like a good pragmatist I say that our concept of truth is antimetaphysical and questions about the underlying reality don't affect it. The "real world" is a necessary hypothesis, the reason behind all this. Our theories and confirmations are otherwise freestanding, without need of justification from this theory. They merely point to a world as an inference or as Ayer said a "logical construction out of sense data". So pragmatism produces an odd sort of "realism". Some would say it's not realism at all, but I think it is, sort of. :D
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on May 29, 2009, 11:00:54 AM
True...And this just in:
Beginning of the end of Orthodox hegemony
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088815.html
****
Thank goodness that their days of control are numbered.
I was talking about orthodox jews in the United States. The article you mention is about Israel. Also, don't get so euphoric about events in Israel - it's just the words of one person.
Again, I have to say that your concentration on this matter strikes me as very odd.
Quote from: drogulus on May 29, 2009, 11:57:59 AMQuite so, and like a good pragmatist I say that our concept of truth is antimetaphysical and questions about the underlying reality don't affect it. The "real world" is a necessary hypothesis, the reason behind all this. Our theories and confirmations are otherwise freestanding, without need of justification from this theory. They merely point to a world as an inference or as Ayer said a "logical construction out of sense data". So pragmatism produces an odd sort of "realism". Some would say it's not realism at all, but I think it is, sort of. :D
That decision "our concept of truth is antimetaphysical" is the one I question. That's why Whitehead's statement is so important. By excluding the metaphysical at the outset, and adopting an approach to the world that we might agree to call 'scientific' (can we?), we do, of course, succeed in creating a self-consistent system which requires no reference to metaphysics. How could it? We excluded that possibility before we began. My point is that the statement 'truth is antimetaphysical' is not one that we derive from the findings of science; it's an assumption we make at the outset. A pragmatist is a pragmatist not because science has persuaded him in that direction; he's a pragmatist because he's decided to be a pragmatist. Questions that don't satisfy the entry requirements into the scheme are rejected from the system's modes of enquiry so that certain kinds of exact statements can be made with a certain kind of confidence (subject to repeatability/falsifiability tests and so on), and there's undeniably a kind of comfort in that. It makes the ground seem solid even though it isn't. But as Whitehead says - the exactness is a fake.
Now the rejected questions may be nought but fluff. I make no claims for them at this point. But that area where the preliminary exclusions/inclusions occur - that fuzzy blob wherein these metaphysical (or antimetaphysical) decisions are made - that's the one that interests me. Those initial decisions are crucial. Because after all, there's no point in asking a pragmatist what was happening when Blake saw the angel in the tree: I know what he'll say.
Elgarian, I have to go on a pizza expedition. :D This is very interesting so I'll get back to you.
The expedition was successful.
:) This is a vast subject and I've explored parts of it in other posts but here's a little bit more. I'll focus on this part:
Quote from: Elgarian on May 29, 2009, 01:35:02 PM
Now the rejected questions may be nought but fluff. I make no claims for them at this point. But that area where the preliminary exclusions/inclusions occur - that fuzzy blob wherein these metaphysical (or antimetaphysical) decisions are made - that's the one that interests me. Those initial decisions are crucial. Because after all, there's no point in asking a pragmatist what was happening when Blake saw the angel in the tree: I know what he'll say.
1) No, it probably isn't crucial just exactly how verificationists started out or exactly what tipped the scales since everything verified tips it on its own. We bootstrapped our way into a procedure and found it worked and then worked out the reasons why. The myth of the alternative is a strong one but for thousands of years our default operational philosophy has been materialist and the option to dissent from it occurs only around the edges, dealing with angels that may disturb us but don't take a bite out of us. We know this well enough to complain about angels being kicked out of the ontology without actually demanding that they be put back in. I wish the right hand paid attention to what the left does. What people want is to take an attitude towards angel impressions that goes beyond what can be said to be true about them and to deem it a kind of honorary truth. Like this:
No they not entities except we're free to say they are when someone says they're not, but really we know better when we need to. :D I find it creepy that people resort to this and sneer at anyone like me who wants to keep things a bit more tidy.
2) We know what the pragmatists will
not say, which is more to the point. The pragmatist will not admit entities because they are
wanted. Instead impressions will be seen as reports of experience and that is in my view the correct way to go if knowledge is your aim.
Quote from: drogulus on May 29, 2009, 04:32:51 PM
The expedition was successful.
Excellent. One day, I may make such a voyage myself to the far-flung corners of the word beyond the greengrocer's shop where, it is rumoured, sightings (and even tastings) of pizza have been made.
QuoteNo, it probably isn't crucial just exactly how verificationists started out or exactly what tipped the scales since everything verified tips it on its own. We bootstrapped our way into a procedure and found it worked and then worked out the reasons why.
There's a bone of contention there, and I can't see a way of removing it at the moment. I agree that the bootstrapping has occurred, and that it has produced a self-consistent system, but it is a system that, by excluding certain kinds of questions, makes the character of its insights predictable. Your verificationist who says 'I won't believe in angels until I detect one with my voltmeter' knows he's safe. Not because there are no angels, but (very reasonably, for the sake of reliable electrical measurements) because his voltmeter is designed to keep them out.
QuoteThe myth of the alternative is a strong one but for thousands of years our default operational philosophy has been materialist and the option to dissent from it occurs only around the edges, dealing with angels that may disturb us but don't take a bite out of us. We know this well enough to complain about angels being kicked out of the ontology without actually demanding that they be put back in.
This is the pragmatist speaking, I realise that, but it seems to me that it comes dangerously close to accepting the maxim 'if useful, therefore true'. And I'd say there's a great deal of human experience that people associate with angels biting us. (I don't offer this as evidence for angels - I'm just commenting on the occurrence of the experiences, and questioning the accuracy of your statement about the lack of demand - reasonable or otherwise - for their inclusion.)
QuoteI wish the right hand paid attention to what the left does. What people want is to take an attitude towards angel impressions that goes beyond what can be said to be true about them and to deem it a kind of honorary truth. Like this: No they not entities except we're free to say they are when someone says they're not, but really we know better when we need to. :D
I agree with you about that. But the suggestion that they may be fabricating a convenient truth based on their wants is not exclusive to them. Just as some people find comfort in a world containing angels, there are others who find comfort in a world that excludes them. The motives of the angel-excluding verificationists are not necessarily purer than those of the angel-seekers. The question of whether one is finding the truth one
wants to find applies to both sides, and isn't an argument against angels.
QuoteI find it creepy that people resort to this and sneer at anyone like me who wants to keep things a bit more tidy.
I hope it's obvious that I'm not resorting to that, and that I'm never going to sneer?
Tidyness is a good in science, and Occam's razor is a useful - though not infallible - tool. But our science is tidy because we've
designed it to be tidy, not because the world is. I need to keep on bringing back Whitehead, and his point about the fake exactness, even to the point of tedium, because otherwise these discussions slip away like the soap in the bath.
QuoteWe know what the pragmatists will not say, which is more to the point. The pragmatist will not admit entities because they are wanted. Instead impressions will be seen as reports of experience and that is in my view the correct way to go if knowledge is your aim.
I've mentioned the two-way 'wanting' problem above, so I don't think I need say more about that. And I don't disagree with your final sentence. My aim in all these discussions is not to advocate 'angels for all', but to expose what Whitehead calls the 'faked adequacy' of systems of thought (like science) that purport to aim at a complete description of the world.
Elgarian,
Quote from: Elgarian on May 30, 2009, 01:27:07 AMI've mentioned the two-way 'wanting' problem above, so I don't think I need say more about that. And I don't disagree with your final sentence. My aim in all these discussions is not to advocate 'angels for all', but to expose what Whitehead calls the 'faked adequacy' of systems of thought (like science) that purport to aim at a complete description of the world.
Do you believe that science affirms the validity of the religious quest ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 06, 2009, 01:57:23 PM
Elgarian,
Do you believe that science affirms the validity of the religious quest ?
I don't believe that science has anything to do with a religious quest (whatever that might be, perhaps the search for the Holy Grail).
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 06, 2009, 01:57:23 PM
Elgarian, Do you believe that science affirms the validity of the religious quest ?
Science is a self-contained system for seeking a very particular kind of knowledge about the world, based on an ongoing process involving repeatable observations and the construction of predictive models whose predictive capabilities are testable through further observations. It's been designed to provide very specific kinds of answers to very specific kinds of questions. Because of that, anything science says about what you call 'the religious quest' excludes from the outset any possibility of the kind of answer you're hoping for. Faced with a human being engaged in spiritual activity, science will examine the human being according to its own special criteria, and come up with what seems to be a self-contained model of what is happening in terms of psychology/brain chemistry etc, - but as Whitehead points out so crucially, that exactness - the self-containedness - is faked. When I say I see an angel, science doesn't even try to examine the angel; it has no means of doing so. Instead, it examines
me. And of course, fails to find any angelic presence there. How could it?
To think that science might offer any bearing on your 'religious quest' involves a category error - it's like asking whether bananas are friendly. But one can of course turn the tables, and study the behaviour of scientists. When it comes to the big life questions, scientists (and I am one myself, so I'm not knocking them) don't seem to attach much weight to the scientific method. When it comes to love, trust, faith, admiration, gratitude and indeed the employment of all the essential human (or spiritual) values, their actions and beliefs are not generally determined by the results of scientific enquiry. Why should your 'religious quest' be any different?
Quote from: Elgarian on June 07, 2009, 01:10:31 AM
Science is a self-contained system for seeking a very particular kind of knowledge about the world, based on an ongoing process involving repeatable observations and the construction of predictive models whose predictive capabilities are testable through further observations. It's been designed to provide very specific kinds of answers to very specific kinds of questions. Because of that, anything science says about what you call 'the religious quest' excludes from the outset any possibility of the kind of answer you're hoping for. Faced with a human being engaged in spiritual activity, science will examine the human being according to its own special criteria, and come up with what seems to be a self-contained model of what is happening in terms of psychology/brain chemistry etc, - but as Whitehead points out so crucially, that exactness - the self-containedness - is faked. When I say I see an angel, science doesn't even try to examine the angel; it has no means of doing so. Instead, it examines me. And of course, fails to find any angelic presence there. How could it?
To think that science might offer any bearing on your 'religious quest' involves a category error - it's like asking whether bananas are friendly. But one can of course turn the tables, and study the behaviour of scientists. When it comes to the big life questions, scientists (and I am one myself, so I'm not knocking them) don't seem to attach much weight to the scientific method. When it comes to love, trust, faith, admiration, gratitude and indeed the employment of all the essential human (or spiritual) values, their actions and beliefs are not generally determined by the results of scientific enquiry. Why should your 'religious quest' be any different?
This is all well-said, Elgarian.
Science doesn't answers "spiritual" questions. Nor does it purport to although some misguide souls make the claim for it. And I say this as an atheist. Scientists in the human and animal behaviour fields are attempting to explain (that is, present theories relating to), the
behaviors that we refer to as "love, trust, faith, admiration, gratitude"; some of these theories are likely to lead to more research. But the purpose of science is basically as more science; science is long way from a unified theory of " the meaning of life, the universe, and everything".
Personally I no longer seek answers to life's meaning. I have come to the conclusion that "42" is as good an answer as any.
Quote from: Feanor on June 07, 2009, 03:18:28 AM
Scientists in the human and animal behaviour fields are attempting to explain (that is, present theories relating to), the behaviors that we refer to as "love, trust, faith, admiration, gratitude"; some of these theories are likely to lead to more research.
Yes of course they are. But could I just make it clear that that is completely different from the point I was making in the second part of my post? I was saying that even we scientists generally live our lives in non-scientific ways. We make our 'life' decisions about friendship, love, and so on
intuitively - we don't make those decisions based on the results of scientific enquiry. We scientists trust our friends and our families and our lovers not because we have scientific evidence that suggests they're trustworthy, but because we rely on our intuition coupled with our general experience of life, and of these people. That's no different, in essence, to the way in which people come to adopt what we might loosely called a 'religious' attitude to life. If it feels intuitively right, then that tends to be the way people go.
So this curious dualism emerges from the evangelical scientific atheist, in which the question of religious faith must be singled out for scientific enquiry (and inevitably dismissed, and the category error issues ignored), on the one hand; while on the other, the rest of our intuitively-held beliefs - the ones we use daily in our lives - are acceptable without being subject to scientific testing. So it's OK to fall in love, make a friend, or carry out a charitable act without recourse to scientific rigour (of
course it is - try to imagine the impossibility of living a life in which all decisions are subject to scientific testing!). And yet, to
pray in faith is an activity to be challenged and confronted by a lack of scientific evidence. That looks suspicious, to me. I don't want to pray, myself - but even so, this has me looking over my shoulder for the Thought Police.
Elgarian,
Thanks for that thorough answer...
But do you see the reaction of the neo-atheist movement over the last few years as represented by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others as largely obtuse, both intellectually and psychologically ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 07, 2009, 08:17:39 AM
But do you see the reaction of the neo-atheist movement over the last few years as represented by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others as largely obtuse, both intellectually and psychologically ?
I think I've broadly answered the first part of your question in my two posts above. It's a sham debate, constructed from category mistakes. As for the psychological aspect - Dawkins in particular gives the impression of being driven by a neurotic need to vilify the non-scientific. That doesn't in itself disqualify his statements, but he does seem to do a lot of setting up of straw
men deities in order to have the pleasure of demolishing them. I greatly admired
The Selfish Gene as a first rate piece of science writing, but I stopped reading him years ago, when he started in earnest on his crusade.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 07, 2009, 08:35:18 AMIt's a sham debate, constructed from category mistakes.
Yes, even though I cannot fully comprehend their arguments that has always been my impression...'a sham debate'. On the other hand it is refreshing to see more criticism of organized religion.
Do you agree ? And isn't fair to say that
all organized religion is a lot like politics ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 07, 2009, 08:46:54 AM
On the other hand it is refreshing to see more criticism of organized religion.
Do you agree ? And isn't fair to say that all organized religion is a lot like politics ?
That's a matter of sociology rather than philosophy (and/or science), and I don't think I have anything useful to contribute in that respect. Put a bunch of people together for any reason at all, and you'll end up with something 'a lot like politics'.
What interests me is primarily the existential predicament of the individual, and how best to relate to the fact of being in the world. So when I walked by the river the other day, with a gentle breeze blowing through the trees, and the may-blossom filling the air with its heady perfume, and the grass rustling under my feet, it seemed 'truer' to that experience to think 'Persephone is back again' than anything else I can imagine. Not because I believe, literally, that Persephone exists in any objective sense, but because that thought is so laden with centuries of belief and story-telling, and with so many people's love of the return of spring, and also because it summons an archetype that links me with the landscape and the air around me. I become part of it, and it becomes part of me, and also of all the other people who have ever been enchanted by may blossom and new life on a spring day. It's a matter of how best to be fully human - to enter into who we are, and who we might become, most effectively. Maybe this is a useful response to your original question at the start of this thread?
Quote from: Elgarian on June 07, 2009, 09:32:14 AM
So when I walked by the river the other day, with a gentle breeze blowing through the trees, and the may-blossom filling the air with its heady perfume, and the grass rustling under my feet.....
Wait a minute, that sounds exactly like my avatar... ;D
QuoteIt's a matter of how best to be fully human - to enter into who we are, and who we might become, most effectively.
Maybe this is a useful response to your original question at the start of this thread?
It is... thank you. :)
But one final question if I may relating to the original:
Do you see any value in studying theology in the year 2009 ? Do we really get a better perspective by studying the works of, say, Saint Thomas Aquinas or Rheinhold Niebuhr ?
Isn't it the case that Plato, Spinoza, Kant and Wittgenstein were much more sophisticated thinkers who came closer to 'the truth' than those men ?
Are you under some bizarre misconception that only 'sophisticated thinkers' discover or communicate truth? If you don't think that Aquinas was an able thinker, then you don't know much about him or his output. Chipping away at a paragraph here or there is all too easy with any writer and Plato believed some highly odd things from a modern perspective.
Mike
Mike,
Quote from: knight on June 07, 2009, 10:03:15 AMPlato believed some highly odd things from a modern perspective.
Perhaps, but they are not comparable to those of Aquinas.
Aquinas thought that women were intellectually inferior to men and thought that heretics should be put to death.
Worse, he thought that knowledge of God came from General Revelation and Special Revelation (the Bible).
Special Revelation is a fancy way of talking about mystical thinking and mystical writing. Basically, someone gets a notion in their head of how the universe works and assumes that God put it there and so it must be true.
Aquinas leads to madness. I am not saying he was not able and intelligent... smart people can be wrong. But his reasoning is deeply flawed. The barbarism that he supported shows the shortcomings of his world view.
Care to tell us what Plato's teaching on women was?
Mike
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 07, 2009, 10:13:15 AM
Aquinas leads to madness. I am not saying he was not able and intelligent... smart people can be wrong. But his reasoning is deeply flawed. The barbarism that he supported shows the shortcomings of his world view.
Aquinas leads to madness? Get a grip. Your zeal in the pursuit of a position as logically insupportable as belief is well established. There is no reason to talk nonsense. If you wish to engage with Aquinas with an eye on refuting him, then do so -- but ridiculous assertions and
ad hominem attacks do not carry their burden of really engaging with Aquinas. Or any philosopher.
Quote from: knight on June 07, 2009, 10:18:49 AM
Care to tell us what Plato's teaching on women was?
Mike
But, Mike, that's
different.
Without being explicit Eric, what I was really pointing out is that with most great thinkers, they came out with arguments or suppositions that we now like to overlook. However, that does not undermine the significance of what we think of their great work. I am no Plato basher. He was no kind of rationalist and was completely connected to what he felt was the godhead. This rather in contrast to how you present him.
Mike
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 07, 2009, 09:51:45 AMDo you see any value in studying theology in the year 2009 ?
I don't know how to answer that. There's
some value for
someone in studying anything at all. For me, personally, do you mean? Not right now. For you, personally? You're the best judge of that.
QuoteIsn't it the case that Plato, Spinoza, Kant and Wittgenstein were much more sophisticated thinkers who came closer to 'the truth' than those men ?
1. How are you going to estimate 'closeness to the truth'?
2. I'd say you're in danger of compounding a category error with a chronological one. It's as impossible to compare the thinking prowess of Plato, Aquinas, and Wittgenstein as it is to decide whether Newton or Einstein was the greater scientist, or indeed, whether apples are better fruits than bananas.
3. I think I'd join Mike in asking why you think 'sophisticated thinkers' might offer a more secure route towards 'the truth'. I'll quote Whitehead again:
"Nothing can be omitted, experience drunk and experience sober, experience sleeping and experience wide-awake, experience self-conscious and experience self-forgetful, experience intellectual and experience physical, experience religious and experience sceptical, experience anxious and experience carefree, experience antivipatory and experience retrospective, experience happy and experience grieving, experience dominated by emotion and experience under self-restraint, experience in the light and experience in the dark, experience normal and experience abnormal."
I'm not trying to be evasive; I just think that although the question seems to imply it might be answerable, really it isn't.
Elgarian--I just spotted your handle for this thread on the board index so popped in to see what's up. You're still fighting the good fight, I see, offering clarity and common sense to help others sort out muddled thinking built on faulty assumptions. It's great to have you around--think I'll play a recording of Elgar's VC in your honor! ;)
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 07, 2009, 12:20:03 PM
think I'll play a recording of Elgar's VC in your honor! ;)
It's a pleasure to think of you doing that. Inhale the musical scent of
Anemone nemorosa!
Quote from: knight on June 07, 2009, 10:18:49 AM
Care to tell us what Plato's teaching on women was?
Mike
Well at least he believed that men and women were equal and that both were equally rational.
Elgarian,
Quote from: Elgarian on June 07, 2009, 11:32:37 AM1. How are you going to estimate 'closeness to the truth'?
What puzzles me is why Aquinas has such a huge reputation... Before he begins to philosophize he already knows the truth: it's in the Catholic faith. If he comes across arguments that seem rational for some parts of the faith, then he will gladly take it. But if he doesn't he will simply invent other arguments or fall back on revelation.
Do you see ?
The best philosophers of either Greece or modern times would not do that... They are not going to find arguments for a conclusion given in advance.
In that sense is what I meant by 'coming closer to the truth'
Quote2. I'd say you're in danger of compounding a category error with a chronological one. It's as impossible to compare the thinking prowess of Plato, Aquinas, and Wittgenstein as it is to decide whether Newton or Einstein was the greater scientist, or indeed, whether apples are better fruits than bananas.
But even the man you often cite, Alfred Whitehead, said that...
"all of philosophy is simply a footnote to Plato".. or something to that effect.
I think the depth and breadth of Plato surpasses Aquinas.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 07, 2009, 07:34:49 AM
Yes of course they are. But could I just make it clear that that is completely different from the point I was making in the second part of my post? I was saying that even we scientists generally live our lives in non-scientific ways. We make our 'life' decisions about friendship, love, and so on intuitively - we don't make those decisions based on the results of scientific enquiry. We scientists trust our friends and our families and our lovers not because we have scientific evidence that suggests they're trustworthy, but because we rely on our intuition coupled with our general experience of life, and of these people. That's no different, in essence, to the way in which people come to adopt what we might loosely called a 'religious' attitude to life. If it feels intuitively right, then that tends to be the way people go.
So this curious dualism emerges from the evangelical scientific atheist, in which the question of religious faith must be singled out for scientific enquiry (and inevitably dismissed, and the category error issues ignored), on the one hand; while on the other, the rest of our intuitively-held beliefs - the ones we use daily in our lives - are acceptable without being subject to scientific testing. So it's OK to fall in love, make a friend, or carry out a charitable act without recourse to scientific rigour (of course it is - try to imagine the impossibility of living a life in which all decisions are subject to scientific testing!). And yet, to pray in faith is an activity to be challenged and confronted by a lack of scientific evidence. That looks suspicious, to me. I don't want to pray, myself - but even so, this has me looking over my shoulder for the Thought Police.
It's one thing to act on instinct, without scientific rigor, even without concious reasoning, when we "fall in love, make a friend, or carry out a charitable act" (-- although you might grant we'd often be better off if we
did). These are tangible things so to speak. But I'm not at sure it's the same thing
at all to justify to a principle, an abstract concept, without rigor or reasoning. This is what religionists ask us to do with respect to some supernatural being (or beings depending on the religion).
Perhaps some day scientists will demonstrate that religous sensibility is an instinct bestowed, (by evolution of course), on some substantial portion of the human population. Perhaps they will even identify a "religion gene". Well maybe I'm a lessor human being on account of it, but I'm missing that gene.
Incidentally and for whatever it's worth, scientific findings didn't much to do with my own rejection of religion. Once you accept that, say, the thunder storm has natural causes, then God as an explanation for things quickly becomes redundant. And certainly God doesn't prevent bad things from happening to good people, so what damned use is He anyway? This line of think requires a certain rationality, an certain dispassion, but it's not science.
Personal aside: I had a fairly religious upbringing; mother at least was and is a strong believer. When I was a young age my mother admitted that Santa Claus didn't really exist, though, of course she insisted God did. I thought to myself at age about five, "Hummm ...".
Quote from: Feanor on June 08, 2009, 06:51:30 PM
It's one thing to act on instinct, without scientific rigor, even without concious reasoning, when we "fall in love, make a friend, or carry out a charitable act" (-- although you might grant we'd often be better off if we did). These are tangible things so to speak. But I'm not at sure it's the same thing at all to justify to a principle, an abstract concept, without rigor or reasoning. This is what religionists ask us to do with respect to some supernatural being (or beings depending on the religion).
I would also say that instinct doesn't justify religion itself, but it does poke holes into the idea that we can somehow, through progress, live completely rationally.
Quote from: Feanor on June 08, 2009, 06:51:30 PM
Perhaps some day scientists will demonstrate that religous sensibility is an instinct bestowed, (by evolution of course), on some substantial portion of the human population. Perhaps they will even identify a "religion gene". Well maybe I'm a lessor human being on account of it, but I'm missing that gene.
Or, it could be that being religious is just as rational as any other particular philosophy and you have made the choice to reject religion, which, of course, is yours to freely make.
Quote from: Feanor on June 08, 2009, 06:51:30 PM
Incidentally and for whatever it's worth, scientific findings didn't much to do with my own rejection of religion. Once you accept that, say, the thunder storm has natural causes, then God as an explanation for things quickly becomes redundant. And certainly God doesn't prevent bad things from happening to good people, so what damned use is He anyway? This line of think requires a certain rationality, an certain dispassion, but it's not science.
This is called "God of the gaps" and the "Argument from evil". Both are poor philosophy, in my opinion. St. Thomas Aquinas, as I mentioned earlier, cited them as the only two counterarguments against the existence of God in his Summa around the year 1250. The point being these arguments were well known, even then, and even to Thomas, who wasn't too shabby intellectually. So what is the use of God? At the very least, He is the first, efficient cause of the universe and He is the source of objective truth. Namely, we cannot talk about a beginning without talking about God and we cannot talk about right or wrong without talking about God. Further, God allows evil to exist because he has given us free will. The choice to live a good life is only meaningful if the choice to reject such a life exists, and as humans we often do, but that doesn't mean He is the source of this evil.
Quote from: Feanor on June 08, 2009, 06:51:30 PM
Personal aside: I had a fairly religious upbringing; mother at least was and is a strong believer. When I was a young age my mother admitted that Santa Claus didn't really exist, though, of course she insisted God did. I thought to myself at age about five, "Hummm ...".
There is nothing more natural. I remember doing the same and you would be hard pressed to find any religious person who hadn't struggled at some point. There is an immature belief in God which is a lot like belief in Santa Claus, but there is also a developed belief, and the latter is more virtuous. The hard part is that moving into a mature belief, it often involves complete rejection. Luckily, it is always possible to come back to God at any time.
Elgarian, my hat off to you! Your patient and sensible refutation of Eric's untenable position is remarkable!
The valuable insights of Mike, Patrick and Brett are greatly appreciated at this end as well.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 08, 2009, 05:49:05 PM
What puzzles me is why Aquinas has such a huge reputation... Before he begins to philosophize he already knows the truth: it's in the Catholic faith. If he comes across arguments that seem rational for some parts of the faith, then he will gladly take it. But if he doesn't he will simply invent other arguments or fall back on revelation.
I don't want to discuss the pros and cons of Thomism, but I think it might be fruitful to observe that what you consider to be the fakery of his apparently self-contained philosophical model is not so very different in principle from my argument about the fakery of the self-contained scientific model. While (if you are right) the Thomist logical system is rigged so that God will inevitably be found, the scientific model is rigged so that God will inevitably be excluded. We human beings are very adept at arguing our way to the outcome we want, and calling it 'true'.
I've given my view on your proposed Plato v Aquinas contest already, and can't think of anything else to say about it.
Quote from: Feanor on June 08, 2009, 06:51:30 PM
It's one thing to act on instinct, without scientific rigor, even without concious reasoning, when we "fall in love, make a friend, or carry out a charitable act"
'Instinct' isn't the word I used. I spoke of 'intuition' which is a very different thing, and it's very important to recognise the difference. An act based on
instinct would be one where, for example, we raise an arm automatically to ward off a blow. But intuition is a method of acquiring knowledge by just 'seeing' a solution to a problem without the use of reasoned argument. When you substitute the word 'instinct' into what I said, you change my meaning completely.
QuoteBut I'm not at sure it's the same thing at all to justify to a principle, an abstract concept, without rigor or reasoning. This is what religionists ask us to do with respect to some supernatural being (or beings depending on the religion).
I'm not
justifying the use of intuition in making decisions. I'm observing only that we
do make intuitive decisions, all the time, every day of our waking lives. It's how human beings live. Yet the only one of them which is challenged by the scientific evangelical atheist is the one that relates to religious belief. The trustworthiness of my friends is no more provable than the existence of God, yet I don't recall Richard Dawkins advising us to stop trusting our friends without evidence based on proper scientific enquiry. I'm satisfied that the 'science displaces religion' arguments are philosophically unsound as I've explained in previous posts in this thread; but that
selectivity makes me suspicious of the underlying motivation too.
Quote from: Florestan on June 08, 2009, 11:33:44 PM
Your patient and sensible refutation of Eric's untenable position is remarkable!
Thank you for the compliment, though I don't think I was doing anything so grand as refuting his position, as such, was I? (I'm not entirely sure what his position is.) I was just trying to disentangle the problems as best I could.
Quote from: Catison on June 08, 2009, 11:01:35 PM
There is an immature belief in God which is a lot like belief in Santa Claus, but there is also a developed belief, and the latter is more virtuous. The hard part is that moving into a mature belief, it often involves complete rejection. Luckily, it is always possible to come back to God at any time.
Succinct and pertinent--thank you. Over the years in which I've tried to help most of these characters (one here is new) recognize the flaws in their reasoning and the irrational faith underlying their assumptions--despite which they cling to more stubbornly than Obama's small-town voters cling to their guns and religion! ;D --it's been apparent that
all of them are wedded to a fundamental category mistake, imagining that their rejection of a primary-school Santa Claus conception of God entails rejection of God (and "proves" that God does not exist! :o ). Suggestions that rather than demolishing kindergarten straw-Gods, their time might be better spent seeking a more mature conception of God, have not been heeded. They insist on using a hammer (and a rather small hammer at that) to broil a pork chop. Sigh.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 09, 2009, 12:59:36 AM
'Instinct' isn't the word I used. I spoke of 'intuition' which is a very different thing, and it's very important to recognise the difference. An act based on instinct would be one where, for example, we raise an arm automatically to ward off a blow. But intuition is a method of acquiring knowledge by just 'seeing' a solution to a problem without the use of reasoned argument. When you substitute the word 'instinct' into what I said, you change my meaning completely.
I'm not justifying the use of intuition in making decisions. I'm observing only that we do make intuitive decisions, all the time, every day of our waking lives. It's how human beings live.
Yes, though I suppose that most of us make most of our decisions neither rationally nor intuitively, but emotionally, with reason applied only insofar as it can rationalize a decision already made.
The notion of intuition is intrinsically interesting. Many confuse it with instinct, as you have noted. Many others regard it as quasi-mystical, perhaps a form of extra-sensory perception. But to me the notion of a direct "knowing"--and the observable instances of it in everyday life--suggest nothing more mystical than "background" information processing yielding sudden conscious awareness of a result. Women are generally regarded as more intuitive than men, which is perfectly consistent with the larger corpus callosum of the female brain and their greater "associative" processing power.
Some people discount intuition, perhaps usually men whose brain structures severely restrict their capacity for associative thought--yet even
they rely on it in matters very familiar to them. Expert systems may functionally mimic some of the background processing involved in intuitive "reasoning." Yet without a seat of consciousness, a "knower" capable of recognizing the significance of the data and results--and capable of making the
intuitive, associate leap
necessary to recognize the essential similarity between canteloupes and carapaces--knowledge is not possible, intuitive or otherwise.
Of course, without an open mind--and recognition of the limits of one's own understanding--learning is not possible and knowledge therefore unattainable.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 09, 2009, 01:05:41 AM
I'm not entirely sure what his position is.
Why, obviously:
1. Monotheism is bad
2. Aquinas is a one -way ticket to the madhouse
3. Plato is an apostle of democracy and gender equality.
or at least that's what can be infered from his posts. :)
Quote from: Catison on June 08, 2009, 11:01:35 PM
...
This is called "God of the gaps" and the "Argument from evil". Both are poor philosophy, in my opinion. St. Thomas Aquinas, as I mentioned earlier, cited them as the only two counterarguments against the existence of God in his Summa around the year 1250. The point being these arguments were well known, even then, and even to Thomas, who wasn't too shabby intellectually. So what is the use of God? At the very least, He is the first, efficient cause of the universe and He is the source of objective truth. Namely, we cannot talk about a beginning without talking about God and we cannot talk about right or wrong without talking about God. Further, God allows evil to exist because he has given us free will. The choice to live a good life is only meaningful if the choice to reject such a life exists, and as humans we often do, but that doesn't mean He is the source of this evil.
...
The whole notion of a "prime mover" or "intelligent designer" as necessary starting point has been refuted. Dawkins and other have done this again and again. And, for what it's worth, it was obvious to me decades before I read Dawkins. The key points boil down to simple, reductive logic: if the universe required an intelligent designer, where did the intellgent designer come from? It doesn't help to say the the intelligent design has always existed; if the designer has always existed then why not the laws & substance of the universe?
The freedom of people to choose "right" or "wrong" is not in question. And there is no necessity that this freedom was confered by a supernatural being. By the way my definition of right
vs. wrong is utilitarian -- what is conducive of the greatest good for the greatest number; it categorically does not derive from devine ordinance.
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 09, 2009, 04:42:07 AMI suppose that most of us make most of our decisions neither rationally nor intuitively, but emotionally, with reason applied only insofar as it can rationalize a decision already made.
It's not easy to know which is which, don't you think? We're very good at fooling ourselves (and sometimes, others) about precisely what is driving us - and the recognition of your last point there ("with reason applied only insofar as it can rationalize a decision already made") can be the most elusive of all. What we might call 'the Dawkins position', for example, is a classic example of it, with a flurry of apparent rationalism providing a smokescreen for the essentially emotional core.
The role that intuition plays in science is interesting. One of the classic examples is Millikan's discovery of the electron. His notebooks make it pretty clear that his intuition was the primary driving force behind his experiments - even to the point of him finding reasons for excluding results that didn't fit the hypothesis. Don't get me wrong - Millikan was a fine scientist; but even the best scientists don't always behave as rationally as we might suppose.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 09, 2009, 07:52:30 AM
even the best scientists don't behave as rationally as we might suppose.
A thing of which many people should be reminded more often.
Elgarian,
Quote from: Elgarian on June 09, 2009, 01:05:41 AMI'm not entirely sure what his position is.
Here is my position in a nutshell:
1. I was born into a Catholic family but I now understand that Christianity is simply a big myth. I am now a rationalist.
Of course Jesus said beautiful things such as:
"Unless your mind becomes like the mind of a child you cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven" and
"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth". We also have the wonderful parables of the Good Samaritan and Prodigal Son and the instruction that when we pray and do good works that they shoud be done in secret.
But he also said that if a man looks lustfully at a woman that he has already committed adultery in his heart.
I cannot accept that. Life is difficult enough as it is and now we have to abstain from what is potentially (at times) the greatest physical pleasure known to us ? To condemn a man so severely for merely having lascivious thoughts is
inhuman.
2. I find the teleological arguments for a supernatural being very convincing.
3. I do not believe that a person can be considered truly mature if he or she is an adherent to one of the organized religions : Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
4. I believe that philosophy and living in accordance with
natural law is the best way.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 09, 2009, 08:11:43 AM
3. I do not believe that a person can be considered truly mature if he or she is an adherent to one of the organized religions : Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
Zoinks!
Also, O Pelleastrated one, if I may suggest it, as a fellow person who is not a particular fan of Jesus, that is one of the silliest reasons not to be a fan of Jesus that I can recall. I would cite, for example, his preaching about Hell before getting to his rather wise counsel not to go gawking at chicks all over the place. :D
Quote from: Brian on June 09, 2009, 08:16:00 AM
Zoinks!
Also, O Pelleastrated one, if I may suggest it, as a fellow person who is not a particular fan of Jesus, that is one of the silliest reasons not to be a fan of Jesus that I can recall. I would cite, for example, his preaching about Hell before getting to his rather wise counsel not to go gawking at chicks all over the place. :D
Speaking of being a fan of Jesus, I'm a fan myself -- relatively speaking. Certainly the version of God purveyed in the Gospels is a lot more appealing than the jealous, vindictive, genocidal God of the Old Testiment.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 09, 2009, 08:11:43 AM
I do not believe that a person can be considered truly mature if he or she is an adherent to one of the organized religions : Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
Frankly, Eric, maturity is not something you are entitled to pontificate about.
Andrei beat me to that thrice-apt observation.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 09, 2009, 08:11:43 AM
But he also said that if a man looks lustfully at a woman that he has already committed adultery in his heart.
I cannot accept that. Life is difficult enough as it is and now we have to abstain from what is potentially (at times) the greatest physical pleasure known to us ? To condemn a man so severely for merely having lascivious thoughts is inhuman.
Of all the positions of Christ and New Testament, this is the one to which you take exception? Eh. Sounds about right.
Also, the principle of self-denial tends to be big in Christianity. Many religions, as a matter of fact, have similar ideas.
(* sniff, sniff *)
Quote from: Feanor on June 09, 2009, 07:18:10 AM
The whole notion of a "prime mover" or "intelligent designer" as necessary starting point has been refuted. Dawkins and other have done this again and again. And, for what it's worth, it was obvious to me decades before I read Dawkins. The key points boil down to simple, reductive logic: if the universe required an intelligent designer, where did the intellgent designer come from?
I immediately get suspicious when I have to be told that I am about to get "simple, reductive logic". Of course it is a natural question to ask. If the universe needs a prime mover then why not just make the universe the prime mover? The problem with the universe itself is that it does not contain any of the metaphysical ideas we take for granted every day. The laws of physics cannot form a basis for morality, they cannot give us a meaning for love or music or art. It all just becomes "stuff". This is fine, but...
Quote from: Feanor on June 09, 2009, 07:18:10 AM
The freedom of people to choose "right" or "wrong" is not in question. And there is no necessity that this freedom was confered by a supernatural being. By the way my definition of right vs. wrong is utilitarian -- what is conducive of the greatest good for the greatest number; it categorically does not derive from devine ordinance.
...then there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in the sense you want those words to mean. Your utilitarian definition seems good enough until you try to apply it. If I have a different utilitarian definition, like, what is conducive for the greatest good for
me, then we are in conflict. And good luck trying to convince me otherwise, if you don't appeal to something greater than both of us that is "right" no matter who believes it. Under a strictly material universe, the word "right" changes depending on who is invoking it. But then if someone breaks one of your "rights", what gives you the authority to punish them? How do we know that he/she isn't just following their own conception of what is "right". Once you get rid of a prime mover, you immediately have no justification for the concept of "natural" law.
I like cheese.
Quote from: Catison on June 09, 2009, 09:36:59 AM
...then there is no such thing as "right" or "wrong" in the sense you want those words to mean. Your utilitarian definition seems good enough until you try to apply it.
Quote from: OsricA hit, a very palpable hit.
Quote from: Feanor on June 09, 2009, 07:18:10 AM
what is conducive of the greatest good for the greatest number
This is a pure ideological construct bearing no relevance at all to the real world. The greatest good for the greatest number has never been possible, nor will it ever be. What is good for me might not be good for you; happiness is an individual, personal thing and the only way to make the greatest number happy involves first, decreeing what constitutes the greatest good and second, decreeing who belongs to the greatest number. If it sounds like totalitarianism, it is not for a reason: utilitarianism differs from it by only three letters .
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 09, 2009, 08:11:43 AM
Here is my position in a nutshell:
May I make a recommendation without seeming to be patronising (which, I promise, isn't my intention)? I know it's tempting, but I'd resist the impulse to do the nutshell thing. Someone (I forget who) once said that any argument that can be put in a nutshell probably belongs in one, and although that may sound a bit too clever by half, I think it's probably wise in the context of a discussion like this one.
Quote1. I was born into a Catholic family but I now understand that Christianity is simply a big myth. I am now a rationalist.
2. I find the teleological arguments for a supernatural being very convincing.
3. I do not believe that a person can be considered truly mature if he or she is an adherent to one of the organized religions : Judaism, Christianity, Islam.
4. I believe that philosophy and living in accordance with natural law is the best way.
I'd be surprised if anyone with such convictions as these - and such apparently
firmly held convictions - would find much value in the responses I've given to your questions so far.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 09, 2009, 07:52:30 AM
It's not easy to know which is which, don't you think? [You betcha!] We're very good at fooling ourselves (and sometimes, others) about precisely what is driving us - and the recognition of your last point there ("with reason applied only insofar as it can rationalize a decision already made") can be the most elusive of all. What we might call 'the Dawkins position', for example, is a classic example of it, with a flurry of apparent rationalism providing a smokescreen for the essentially emotional core.
The role that intuition plays in science is interesting. One of the classic examples is Millikan's discovery of the electron. His notebooks make it pretty clear that his intuition was the primary driving force behind his experiments - even to the point of him finding reasons for excluding results that didn't fit the hypothesis. Don't get me wrong - Millikan was a fine scientist; but even the best scientists don't always behave as rationally as we might suppose.
Yes--when I first began studying such matters I was fascinated by Millikan, Kekule's dream, Pauling's paper dolls, and so on as evidence that something more was going on than the classical model of scientific inquiry and progress could account for. Consideration of precisely these examples suggested the model positing background processing of data coupled with a knower both consciously and unconsciously sifting that data to exclude some results and shout "Eureka!" at others. Is Millikan essentially different from the wife who vaguely "intuits" that something's not right and follows her intuitions to discover the lipstick stains and mid-day motel receipts that then constitute evidence of her husband's affair?
Quote from: Catison on June 09, 2009, 09:36:59 AM
The problem with the universe itself is that it does not contain any of the metaphysical ideas we take for granted every day. The laws of physics cannot form a basis for morality, they cannot give us a meaning for love or music or art.
Indeed, the "laws of physics" don't even exist in the material universe, but only as imaginary entities valued for our practical applications of their predictive power--which laws are modified or discarded as soon as we "discover" (or invent) laws with greater predictive power.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 09, 2009, 09:37:11 AM
I like cheese.
Then it's a jolly good job that the Divine Cheesemaker, in His boundless Wisdom, likes cheese too, don't y'think? Otherwise, I shudder to contemplate what the consequences might be.
Quote from: Catison on June 09, 2009, 09:36:59 AM
... If the universe needs a prime mover then why not just make the universe the prime mover? The problem with the universe itself is that it does not contain any of the metaphysical ideas we take for granted every day. The laws of physics cannot form a basis for morality, they cannot give us a meaning for love or music or art. It all just becomes "stuff". ...
Huh ???
If "metaphysical ideas" exist, the universe contains them
ipso facto. Like many religionists, you are trying to enforce a dualism that is unnecessary in the interpretation of reality.
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2009, 09:50:23 AM
This is a pure ideological construct bearing no relevance at all to the real world. The greatest good for the greatest number has never been possible, nor will it ever be. What is good for me might not be good for you; happiness is an individual, personal thing and the only way to make the greatest number happy involves first, decreeing what constitutes the greatest good and second, decreeing who belongs to the greatest number. If it sounds like totalitarianism, it is not for a reason: utilitarianism differs from it by only three letters .
Well, I don't agree.
"The greatest good for the greatest number" is indeed an ideological construct. You are quite correct, of course, that no two people in the world will ever completely agree on what comprises it. But that's why we have democratic government forms, that is, in order that we can arrive at a consensus or at least a majority view of what it is and attempt to bring it about.
After all, what is the alternative? Reliance on devine ordinance? Can any two people agree exactly what that is either? Or do we rely on, say, the Roman Catholic Church to tell us? That certainly
is totalitarian.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 09, 2009, 10:59:18 AM
Then it's a jolly good job that the Divine Cheesemaker, in His boundless Wisdom, likes cheese too, don't y'think? Otherwise, I shudder to contemplate what the consequences might be.
You've got hold of entirely the wrong end of the matter.
In all events, it's a good thing the Most High is not capriciously vindictive in the manner of some of His creatures 0:)
Quote from: Feanor on June 09, 2009, 11:26:36 AM
"The greatest good for the greatest number" is indeed an ideological construct. You are quite correct, of course, that no two people in the world will ever completely agree on what comprises it. But that's why we have democratic government forms, that is, in order that we can arrive at a consensus or at least a majority view of what it is and attempt to bring it about.
So
good changes with statistical fluctuations, yes? May not at all be what you think it is (depending on how often yours is a minority opinion).
If I understand you correctly, the value
good is practically meaningless, which bodes ill for your ideological construct.
Quote from: Feanor on June 09, 2009, 11:26:36 AM
"The greatest good for the greatest number" is indeed an ideological construct. You are quite correct, of course, that no two people in the world will ever completely agree on what comprises it. But that's why we have democratic government forms, that is, in order that we can arrive at a consensus or at least a majority view of what it is and attempt to bring it about.
Are you implying that governments are about bringing happiness to people? If yes, I reiterate: it is an ideological fantasy to believe this task will ever be accomplished.
Quote from: Feanor on June 09, 2009, 11:26:36 AMAfter all, what is the alternative?
The alternative to what? I don't quite understand you. Mixing politics with religion is not going to clarify your position.
What does "good" have to do with "happiness"?
Who fetched happiness into this mulligatawny? ;D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 09, 2009, 11:54:30 AM
Who fetched happiness into this mulligatawny? ;D
Read the post above mine.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 09, 2009, 11:54:30 AM
Who fetched happiness into this mulligatawny? ;D
I did. What meaning can have "the greatest good for the greatest number" if not "happiness prevails in the world"?
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2009, 11:57:06 AM
I did. What meaning can have "the greatest good for the greatest number" if not "happiness prevails in the world"?
Well,
Feanor could be proposing good for people, whether or not it makes them happy. He may wish
to push them to happiness with an iron fist 8)
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2009, 11:57:06 AM
I did. What meaning can have "the greatest good for the greatest number" if not "happiness prevails in the world"?
Some people don't know what's good for them, therefore they are unhappy.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 09, 2009, 11:46:57 AM
You've got hold of entirely the wrong end of the matter.
But Karl, are we not told: 'Blessed are the cheesemakers'? Or did I mishear that one?
Quote from: Elgarian on June 09, 2009, 12:00:49 PM
But Karl, are we not told: 'Blessed are the cheesemakers'? Or did I mishear that one?
In that case, "Holy Green Bay" now has nothing to do with their swiss cheese production.
Quote from: Florestan on June 09, 2009, 11:50:36 AM
Are you implying that governments are about bringing happiness to people? If yes, I reiterate: it is an ideological fantasy to believe this task will ever be accomplished.
The alternative to what? I don't quite understand you. Mixing politics with religion is not going to clarify your position.
Then again mixing religion and politics is nothing new, eh? >:D
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 09, 2009, 11:58:50 AM
Well, Feanor could be proposing good for people, whether or not it makes them happy. He may wish to push them to happiness with an iron fist 8)
I am very interested in
Feanor's definition of what constitutes "the greatest good for the greatest number".
Quote from: Feanor on June 09, 2009, 11:12:43 AM
If "metaphysical ideas" exist, the universe contains them ipso facto.
I would be interested in a materialist proof of this idea. How exactly do you show, through scientific methods, that anything has meaning?
I should be more clear. When I say the universe, I mean the strictly material universe. You proposed the universe itself is the prime mover, and by this, I assume you meant the universe as it is detectable by scientific means. Unless you are arguing that true metaphysical ideas are somehow permeating through all of the universe, undetectable by scientific instruments, but yet somehow informing us about reality? If so, then that is dangerously close to the Christian perspective ;D.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 01:23:39 AM
When I say the universe, I mean the strictly material universe.
I think that statement poses problems. I don't know what 'the strictly material universe' means, unless it means something like 'that part of the universe which is accessible to scientific observation and analysis'.
I'm guessing that what Feanor means is that the 'metaphysical ideas' are ours, and we are part of the universe - so in that sense the universe contains them. Whitehead (stop yawning at the back, please) says something that might be helpful:
"Nature is ... a totality including individual experiences, so that we must reject the distinction between nature as it really is and experiences of it which are purely psychological. Our experiences of the apparent world are nature itself."
He's talking more generally, about 'experiences' rather than 'ideas'; but still, one might might follow the same kind of line and conclude that our metaphysical ideas are the universe thinking about itself. It sounds rather exciting, put like that.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 01:46:38 AM
...
I'm guessing that what Feanor means is that the 'metaphysical ideas' are ours, and we are part of the universe - so in that sense the universe contains them.
...
Yes, of course. To be more specific, 'metaphysical ideas' exist in neurons and synapses of our brains that are part of the
physical universe.
Where else would these ideas exist? In the parallel, 'spiritual' universe? I don't believe in this dualism. I haven't studied the issue in depth, but I suspect the dualist notion is relative modern and a reaction to the increasingly obvious non-immanence of God in the
actual world for which the advance of science and naturalistic explanations explain ever more.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 01:46:38 AM
I think that statement poses problems. I don't know what 'the strictly material universe' means, unless it means something like 'that part of the universe which is accessible to scientific observation and analysis'.
Yes, that is what I am getting at.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 01:46:38 AM
I'm guessing that what Feanor means is that the 'metaphysical ideas' are ours, and we are part of the universe - so in that sense the universe contains them. Whitehead (stop yawning at the back, please) says something that might be helpful:
"Nature is ... a totality including individual experiences, so that we must reject the distinction between nature as it really is and experiences of it which are purely psychological. Our experiences of the apparent world are nature itself."
He's talking more generally, about 'experiences' rather than 'ideas'; but still, one might might follow the same kind of line and conclude that our metaphysical ideas are the universe thinking about itself. It sounds rather exciting, put like that.
Yes, rather Kantian. That doesn't really solve the problem, though. It just tries to provide a scientific justification for relativism. Which as we have talked about before, doesn't really prove anything. Once we have made metaphysical ideas of "right" and "wrong" merely whatever a particular person's psychological experience happen to be, "right" and "wrong" lose all meaning. Why would I have to care about anyone else's personal experiences but my own?
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 03:41:13 AM
Yes, of course. To be more specific, 'metaphysical ideas' exist in neurons and synapses of our brains that are part of the physical universe.
How do you know this? Is there some sort of experiment you can do that detects the metaphysical ideas in the neurons??
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 03:41:13 AM
Where else would these ideas exist? In the parallel, 'spiritual' universe?
Good question. The short answer is "yes", although it should not be mistaken as somehow separate from our own universe.
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 03:41:13 AMI don't believe in this dualism.
Of course, one of the interesting things about this dualism is that it doesn't need you to believe in it in order for it to be true.
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 03:41:13 AMI haven't studied the issue in depth, but I suspect the dualist notion is relative modern and a reaction to the increasingly obvious non-immanence of God in the actual world for which the advance of science and naturalistic explanations explain ever more.
Yes, this is the faith statement of the materialist.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 09, 2009, 12:00:49 PM
But Karl, are we not told: 'Blessed are the cheesemakers'? Or did I mishear that one?
Not meant to be taken literally; obviously it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products . . . .
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 04:52:37 AM
How do you know this? Is there some sort of experiment you can do that detects the metaphysical ideas in the neurons??
Good question. The short answer is "yes", although it should not be mistaken as somehow separate from our own universe.
Of course, one of the interesting things about this dualism is that it doesn't need you to believe in it in order for it to be true.
Yes, this is the faith statement of the materialist.
Two words: 'Occam's Razor'. It is simply unnecessary to hypothesize a parallel, 'spiritual' universe. A spiritual universe might be a happy, comforting concept but isn't necessary to address any statable problem or issue.
That is,
the only use of the spiritual universe concept is to comform the those whose sensibilities can't cope with the material universe. I dare say it's the position of most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers that it's not to the advantage of the human race to believe in humbug just because it offers short-term stress relief to some individuals.
POW!!
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 05:59:59 AM
Two words: 'Occam's Razor'. It is simply unnecessary to hypothesize a parallel, 'spiritual' universe. A spiritual universe might be a happy, comforting concept but isn't necessary to address any statable problem or issue.
That is, the only use of the spiritual universe concept is to comform the those whose sensibilities can't cope with the material universe. I dare say it's the position of most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers that it's not to the advantage of the human race to believe in humbug just because it offers short-term stress relief to some individuals.
Um, you really haven't understood anything I've been writing, have you? It is entirely necessary to hypothesize some sort of metaphysical statement, or do you somehow think you don't have to? Do you think science can prove that it has some connection to reality within its own methods?
Do you think I am not aware of Occam's Razor? You should be aware that this is a metaphysical concept, by the way. There is no way to prove that the most simple explanations are always closer to the truth. You are being sloppy. You want to deny all metaphysical concepts exist, except when it suits you.
I would suggest you give this "most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers" stuff a rest. First of all, you're wrong. Second of all, it doesn't matter what "most" thinkers think, it matters what is true: the spiritual universe either exists, or it doesn't, regardless of who thinks so. Third of all, it is entirely possible to be completely rational and also believe in God for reasons other than "stress relief" or whatever nonsense you dream up for "why". This recourse to strawmen seriously weakens any argument you may have. And I am still unsure what that argument might be.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 06:22:33 AM
Um, you really haven't understood anything I've been writing, have you? It is entirely necessary to hypothesize some sort of metaphysical statement, or do you somehow think you don't have to? Do you think science can prove that it has some connection to reality within its own methods?
Do you think I am not aware of Occam's Razor? You should be aware that this is a metaphysical concept, by the way. There is no way to prove that the most simple explanations are always closer to the truth. You are being sloppy. You want to deny all metaphysical concepts exist, except when it suits you.
I would suggest you give this "most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers" stuff a rest. First of all, you're wrong. Second of all, it doesn't matter what "most" thinkers think, it matters what is true: the spiritual universe either exists, or it doesn't, regardless of who thinks so. Third of all, it is entirely possible to be completely rational and also believe in God for reasons other than "stress relief" or whatever nonsense you dream up for "why". This recourse to strawmen seriously weakens any argument you may have. And I am still unsure what that argument might be.
Well refuted, sir.
These arguments get old. The Christians back each other up regardless and so do the other folks.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 06:22:33 AM
...
I would suggest you give this "most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers" stuff a rest. First of all, you're wrong. Second of all, it doesn't matter what "most" thinkers think, it matters what is true: the spiritual universe either exists, or it doesn't, regardless of who thinks so. Third of all, it is entirely possible to be completely rational and also believe in God for reasons other than "stress relief" or whatever nonsense you dream up for "why". This recourse to strawmen seriously weakens any argument you may have. And I am still unsure what that argument might be.
Fine: I'll concede that many scientists and rational thinkers believe in God. What I'm not about to concede is these people are "completely rational", rather they have decide to compartmentalize their lives between what is based on observable, verifyable fact, and what is wishful thinking.
So let's consider theology a rational disipline, (for the sake of argument). Rational certainly, but based on, and constrained by, premises that are not.
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 03:41:13 AM
Yes, of course. To be more specific, 'metaphysical ideas' exist in neurons and synapses of our brains that are part of the physical universe.
A serious category error, here, and an extraordinary statement of belief expressed as if a statement of fact. You're obviously clever, and interested in the sort of issues discussed on this thread. Have you ever considered the possible value of inquiring into such matters with no agenda other than the pursuit of "truth" (whatever that might be!)?
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 06:31:57 AM
These arguments get old. The Christians back each other up regardless and so do the other folks.
I agree that such discussions tend to chase their own tail. Your second remark is a serious error.
Well, it's an error. You and I know better than to take it too
seriously.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 10, 2009, 06:44:26 AM
I agree that such discussions tend to chase their own tail. Your second remark is a serious error.
Well, it's an error. You and I know better than to take it too seriously.
I'm ashamed I even posted in here. ;D
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 06:46:15 AM
I'm ashamed I even posted in here. ;D
Oh, you
live for shame; you're not fooling anyone! ;D
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 06:46:15 AM
I'm ashamed I even posted in here. ;D
Good man! Like me, you live for abuse. :-\
A: "Where did the Universe come from?"
B: "A vacuum fluctuation following the probabilistic laws of quantum tunneling allowed the Universe to exist after the tunneling with a finite size which decayed asymmetrically causing an inflationary phase."
A: "Where did all that come from?"
B: "Vilenkin shows that it came ex nihilo, as I just said, by a random, uncaused vacuum fluctuation."
Occam (overhearing): "Easier: it came from God, and by the way, Mister B, you could use a shave!" 0:)
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 05:59:59 AM
Two words: 'Occam's Razor'. It is simply unnecessary to hypothesize a parallel, 'spiritual' universe. A spiritual universe might be a happy, comforting concept but isn't necessary to address any statable problem or issue.
That is, the only use of the spiritual universe concept is to comform the those whose sensibilities can't cope with the material universe. I dare say it's the position of most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers that it's not to the advantage of the human race to believe in humbug just because it offers short-term stress relief to some individuals.
Relying on Ockham's principle to support a proposition contrary to it is rather amusing. Your strawman "parallel spiritual universe" is either intentional intellectual dishonesty or reflects a naive misunderstanding of the concept of "spiritual." And your dismissal of those who do not share your biases or unexamined assumptions as "irrational believers in humbug for the sake of short-term stress relief" discredits you far more than it does those you seek to discredit, and proclaims your present incapacity to investigate such matters with the fair-minded objectivity necessary if such inquiry is to be at all meaningful save as an exercise to shore up the preconceptions of an uncritical mind enthralled to a learned set of beliefs.
Come on, you've demonstrated reasonable intelligence. Now, if such issues really matter to you (and if they don't why are you here?), please apply that intelligence to ferreting out the obstacles to open-mindedness in your own psyche. Then you will at least enjoy the possibility of getting more out of these questions than the pleasure of patting yourself on the back. ;)
Quote from: Cato on June 10, 2009, 06:55:39 AM
A: "Where did the Universe come from?"
B: "A vacuum fluctuation following the probabilistic laws of quantum tunneling allowed the Universe to exist after the tunneling with a finite size which decayed asymmetrically causing an inflationary phase."
A: "Where did all that come from?"
B: "Vilenkin shows that it came ex nihilo, as I just said, by a random, uncaused vacuum fluctuation."
Occam (overhearing): "Easier: it came from God, and by the way, Mister B, you could use a shave!" 0:)
Three spellings of
William's name exist, like parallel universes: Ockhegm, Ockham, and Occam.
I prefer the Latinized version: it's just...easier! :o
To be fair and more precise:
Occam was against adding things to explanations: somewhat different from saying that the simplest or easiest solution tends to be right.
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 06:39:19 AM
Fine: I'll concede that many scientists and rational thinkers believe in God. What I'm not about to concede is these people are "completely rational", rather they have decide to compartmentalize their lives between what is based on observable, verifyable fact, and what is wishful thinking.
So it is wishful thinking to suppose God exists, but it is not wishful thinking to suppose,
a priori, science gives us truth?
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 06:39:19 AM
So let's consider theology a rational disipline, (for the sake of argument). Rational certainly, but based on, and constrained by, premises that are not.
So what rational premises do you propose as an alternative?
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 07:45:01 AM
So it is wishful thinking to suppose God exists, but it is not wishful thinking to suppose, a priori, science gives us truth?
Well, it's not wishful thinking so much as a grave misunderstanding about what science can do on its own terms. That is, finally, my biggest problem with the recourse to science in this debate. Unobserved phenomena are not necessarily excluded by science. Science takes no notice of things that cannot be observed because it has no other option. Taking recourse to a blind spot imposed by definition does not seem like a terribly clever move.
Quote from: Cato on June 10, 2009, 07:04:30 AM
Three spellings of William's name exist, like parallel universes: Ockhegm, Ockham, and Occam.
I prefer the Latinized version: it's just...easier! :o
I like the Anglish one, probably because I grew up with it!
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 06:40:31 AM
[Quoting Feanor: "Yes, of course. To be more specific, 'metaphysical ideas' exist in neurons and synapses of our brains that are part of the physical universe." A serious category error, here, and an extraordinary statement of belief expressed as if a statement of fact.
I was just about to pounce on this myself, but then noticed that you beat me to it, David. I'll leave it in your capable hands.
What I don't understand is ... (a) that very few people seem to be aware of the category errors scattered throughout these exchanges; and (b) that they don't seem to think they matter, even when they're pointed out.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 08:38:07 AM
What I don't understand is ... (a) that very few people seem to be aware of the category errors scattered throughout these exchanges; and (b) that they don't seem to think they matter, even when they're pointed out.
I am still learning myself, so please, if I make any errors, point them out!
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 08:38:07 AM
I was just about to pounce on this myself, but then noticed that you beat me to it, David. I'll leave it in your capable hands.
What I don't understand is ... (a) that very few people seem to be aware of the category errors scattered throughout these exchanges; and (b) that they don't seem to think they matter, even when they're pointed out.
"The sentence below this one is false."
"The sentence above this one is false."
Bitte!
Herr Gödel! Telefon! 8)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 10, 2009, 04:54:03 AM
Not meant to be taken literally; obviously it refers to any manufacturer of dairy products . . . .
Not literally? ... So when the Clotted Cream Priest speaketh of the Great Cheese that will come among us from the Milky Whey at the End of All Things, you believe he speaks merely symbolically?
This will disappoint MN Dave.
Quote from: Cato on June 10, 2009, 08:47:39 AM
"The sentence below this one is false."
"The sentence above this one is false."
Bitte! Herr Gödel! Telefon! 8)
The next thing I say to you will be true. The last thing I said was false.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 08:48:35 AM
Not literally? ... So when the Clotted Cream Priest speaketh of the Great Cheese that will come among us from the Milky Whey at the End of All Things, you believe he speaks merely symbolically?
This will disappoint MN Dave.
The cheese stands alone.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 08:53:59 AM
The cheese stands alone.
Ah, another fan of Robert Sheckley's
Dramocles: An Intergalactic Soap-Opera !!
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 08:39:41 AM
I am still learning myself, so please, if I make any errors, point them out!
Just reading through what I wrote, I can see it might seem patronising. I'm sorry if it seemed so to you (or anyone else) - it's not at all what I intended. I was just feeling a bit faint-hearted at the thought of having to go over the same ground all over again. Not because I understand something that others don't; but because if we keep on making these category errors, nobody will ever be able to understand
anything.
Quote from: Cato on June 10, 2009, 08:47:39 AM
"The sentence below this one is false."
"The sentence above this one is false."
It's the sentence in the middle that worries
me. People keep telling me it doesn't exist!
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 08:59:32 AM
. . . I was just feeling a bit faint-hearted at the thought of having to go over the same ground all over again.
Entirely understand this sentiment,
mon ami. Especially when (as happily has not happened on this thread
apart from the OP) the neighbors with whom you have been having the discussion, start up again a week later, with no
apparent memory that the ground has been covered before.
With eighteen coats.
And varnished.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 08:38:07 AM
I was just about to pounce on this myself, but then noticed that you beat me to it, David. I'll leave it in your capable hands.
What I don't understand is ... (a) that very few people seem to be aware of the category errors scattered throughout these exchanges; and (b) that they don't seem to think they matter, even when they're pointed out.
I suspect the reason for this oversight is that:
(a) they haven't the background to understand the concept, and
(b) they haven't bothered to inquire about its significance, because
(c) they fear the possibility of learning something that
(d) might require them to re-evaluate some of their cherished beliefs and (horrors!)
(e) admit (to themselves at least) that they might be wrong about something--
which just begs another question, because I cannot imagine why anyone of at least moderate intelligence wouldn't be vitally interested in knowing whether some of his core beliefs are in error, for otherwise he is condemned to acting in ways that may be inconsistent with and even contrary to his own values and interests.
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 06:39:19 AM
they [the 'scientist/rationalist believers'] have decide to compartmentalize their lives between what is based on observable, verifyable fact, and what is wishful thinking.
There - right there - are several entwined problematic statements. To pick out but two, we have:
(a) the assumption that 'observable, verifiable fact' has the last word in these discussions. But that really is only an assumption; remember: 'The final outcome of philosophic thought cannot be based solely on the exact statements of exact sciences. The exactness is a fake.'
(b) the assertion that any alternative view is 'wishful thinking' - as if the comforting security of a dependence on 'observable, verifiable fact' were somehow free of any such possibility.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 10, 2009, 09:09:43 AM
Entirely understand this sentiment, mon ami. Especially when (as happily has not happened on this thread apart from the OP) the neighbors with whom you have been having the discussion, start up again a week later, with no apparent memory that the ground has been covered before.
With eighteen coats.
And varnished.
And then stripped to bare wood with the whole process starting again.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 09:21:08 AM
...as if the comforting security of a dependence on 'observable, verifiable fact' were somehow free of any such possibility.
Is it not surprising that the implications of the uncertainty principle are still not commonly understood--especially by people who claim to respect science and reason?
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 09:21:08 AM
(b) the assertion that any alternative view is 'wishful thinking' - as if the comforting security of a dependence on 'observable, verifiable fact' were somehow free of any such possibility.
Yes, roughly equal parts of
problematic and
scornful of dissent.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 10, 2009, 09:29:32 AM
Yes, roughly equal parts of problematic and scornful of dissent.
I can only smile in wonder sometimes at the seriousness of some folk's belief that it's people of faith who are closed-minded and prejudiced against reason! But having been one such myself for twenty or so years I have compassion for them and sympathy for their plight, which I suspect is what enables me to patiently persist in trying to pry open minds that have been barred and nailed shut, as if giving fair and full consideration to other points of view somehow presents a threat instead of an opportunity!
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 09:51:29 AM
I can only smile in wonder sometimes at the seriousness of some folk's belief that it's people of faith who are closed-minded and prejudiced against reason! But having been one such myself for twenty or so years ...
Why do you wonder when you were one yourself?
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 09:51:29 AM
I can only smile in wonder sometimes at the seriousness of some folk's belief that it's people of faith who are closed-minded and prejudiced against reason! But having been one such myself for twenty or so years I have compassion for them and sympathy for their plight, which I suspect is what enables me to patiently persist in trying to pry open minds that have been barred and nailed shut, as if giving fair and full consideration to other points of view somehow presents a threat instead of an opportunity!
My only objective is to show the particular errors I see in a particular argument, but I still remain open minded that I may be wrong. However, my own conversion to Catholicism happened when I realized my errors, similar to your experience, so I often get excited because I get a chance to pass on this knowledge here. But, being Christian, I have to let go of the idea that I will convince anyone of anything, because I do not have the power to change anyone's mind. That happens through another mechanism I can only hope is working for them. Real conversion happens through prayer and by the will of God Himself. So I don't want to come here and try to change anyone's mind, just to let them know the ground they walk upon is not as solid as it seems.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 10:02:27 AM
However, my own conversion to Catholicism happened when I realized my errors, similar to your experience, so I often get excited because I get a chance to pass on this knowledge here.
Shooting holes is not passing on knowledge. Lay your knowledge on me. Right now. In your next post.
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 09:51:29 AM
I can only smile in wonder sometimes at the seriousness of some folk's belief that it's people of faith who are closed-minded and prejudiced against reason! But having been one such myself for twenty or so years I have compassion for them and sympathy for their plight, which I suspect is what enables me to patiently persist in trying to pry open minds that have been barred and nailed shut, as if giving fair and full consideration to other points of view somehow presents a threat instead of an opportunity!
Well, David, you asked me why I don't just come here in search of truth and without an agenda. Yet you now admit that you "persist in trying to pry open minds that have been barred and nailed shut". How is your agenda better than mine? How, for that matter, is it
different than what you suppose mine to be?
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 10:08:19 AM
How is your agenda better than mine?
Greater good for more people.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 10:02:27 AM
But, being Christian, I have to let go of the idea that I will convince anyone of anything, because I do not have the power to change anyone's mind.
Wisdom!
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 10:12:38 AM
Then why is he posting???
It is a matter of knowing the difference between the power to compel another to change his mind, and the act of communication,
mon vieux.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 10, 2009, 10:19:37 AM
It is a matter of knowing the difference between the power to compel another to change his mind, and the act of communication, mon vieux.
I can't change your mind but I'll dazzle you with my talent not to do so...
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 09:58:59 AM
Why do you wonder when you were one yourself?
Do you ever wonder at the follies of humankind, even though you be human yourself, and likely a fool at times? (Wonder in the sense of amazement, not in the sense of doubt.)
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 10:26:08 AM
Do you ever wonder at the follies of humankind, even though you be human yourself, and likely a fool at times? (Wonder in the sense of amazement, not in the sense of doubt.)
Oh, I'm a fool all the time. ;D
Yes, wonder in the sense of sh*t is f*cked up. Indeed.
Edit: Well, it's more disgust, really...
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 10:08:19 AM
Well, David, you asked me why I don't just come here in search of truth and without an agenda. Yet you now admit that you "persist in trying to pry open minds that have been barred and nailed shut". How is your agenda better than mine? How, for that matter, is it different than what you suppose mine to be?
Speaking of category errors.... ;D
(1) I asked no such thing.
(2) I made no such claim regarding the comparative values of agenda.
(3) There is an enormous difference between trying to browbeat people into sharing your beliefs by telling them they're stupid if they don't, and promoting the virtues of fair, rational, open-minded consideration of other points of view.
(4) Understanding another point of view does not mean finding some point of superficial dissimilarity from your own and attacking it, but rather entering into the frame of reference of the other and seeing it in its entirety, giving full faith and credit, as it were, in an effort to recognize how it makes sense and coheres both internally and externally.
(5) Understanding another point of view does not require that you agree with it. You may understand it and then choose not to accept it, due for instance to an article of faith that you choose not to accept.
(6) The process of careful, open-minded investigation into other perspectives can not only be very helpful in promoting better understanding of others, replacing enmity with comity, but can prove invaluable in helping us to recognize similar articles of faith and flawed reasoning embedded in our own perspectives.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 10:27:43 AM
Oh, I'm a fool all the time. ;D
Yes, wonder in the sense of sh*t is f*cked up. Indeed.
Edit: Well, it's more disgust, really...
Verily, I say unto thee, in the immortal words of the prophet, whose wisdom we ought heed lest we tumble into the pit of despair and resentment without end:
I used to be disgusted,
But now I'm just amused.
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 10:33:48 AM
Verily, I say unto thee, in the immortal words of the prophet, whose wisdom we ought heed lest we tumble into the pit of despair and resentment without end:
I used to be disgusted,
But now I'm just amused.
Indeed. ;D
I vacillate.
Someday, we three will have a cup of hot tea (and perhaps a pint of Guinness) together.
Now he's psychic! :o
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 10:43:35 AM
Now he's psychic! :o
That was a modal verb of
volition, laddie.
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 10:30:44 AM
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 10:08:19 AM
Well, David, you asked me why I don't just come here in search of truth and without an agenda. Yet you now admit that you "persist in trying to pry open minds that have been barred and nailed shut". How is your agenda better than mine? How, for that matter, is it different than what you suppose mine to be?
Speaking of category errors.... ;D
OK, to speak more plainly, you're a hypocrite.
Um, I'm calling a Technical on that one, fella.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 07:45:01 AM
So it is wishful thinking to suppose God exists, but it is not wishful thinking to suppose, a priori, science gives us truth?
Like I said before, the scientific method is less about truths or answers, than it is about questions. The thing is, by formulating ever new questions, we learn more truth than the priest or the armchair can ever teach us.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 07:45:01 AM
So what rational premises do you propose as an alternative?
As pertains to theology,
no premises would the a good thing.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 06:22:33 AM
Um, you really haven't understood anything I've been writing, have you? It is entirely necessary to hypothesize some sort of metaphysical statement, or do you somehow think you don't have to? Do you think science can prove that it has some connection to reality within its own methods?
Do you think I am not aware of Occam's Razor? You should be aware that this is a metaphysical concept, by the way. There is no way to prove that the most simple explanations are always closer to the truth. You are being sloppy. You want to deny all metaphysical concepts exist, except when it suits you.
I would suggest you give this "most atheists, scientists, and rational thinkers" stuff a rest. First of all, you're wrong. Second of all, it doesn't matter what "most" thinkers think, it matters what is true: the spiritual universe either exists, or it doesn't, regardless of who thinks so. Third of all, it is entirely possible to be completely rational and also believe in God for reasons other than "stress relief" or whatever nonsense you dream up for "why". This recourse to strawmen seriously weakens any argument you may have. And I am still unsure what that argument might be.
Quoted for truth, entirely. BYW, Occam was a faithful Roman Catholic Christian.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 10:07:21 AM
Shooting holes is not passing on knowledge. Lay your knowledge on me. Right now. In your next post.
This knowledge is that science doesn't get to talk about reality
for free,
a priori or
ex nihilo. You absolutely must make a metaphysical statement in order to get science started. This metaphysical statement might be something as simple as, "Science discovers reality." But what that particular metaphysical statement doesn't do is reaffirm itself. Science cannot prove it discovers reality in any way, so there is no means for justifying any truths it discovers to a person who doesn't accept it. In order for science to be about our reality and to provide a support for our interactions as humans, we must all agree that science does indeed talk about reality. But we can't start there, and we certainly must not fool ourselves into thinking science itself provides its own philosophical justification. Just because we can form practical implementations with scientific ideas doesn't mean these ideas, in fact, are the right ones. We can do amazing things with science, but the reality underneath remains a mystery. This means science is a tool, not a philosophy.
One particular philosophical position is that God exists, and because he is the creator, there is a rational order to the universe we are able to discover and exploit. This is also a metaphysical statement, but it has two advantages over the seemingly more simple "science discovers reality" statement. Firstly, it reaffirms itself, at least for a Catholic, because these truths are reaffirmed by the Church daily. I can provide more detail here if you like. Secondly, God, and again for a Catholic, the Church, provides a ground for moral justification. There is the bonus, with such a position, that the words "right" and "wrong" have real meanings grounded in a Truth permeating all of us, regardless of whether we believe them to be true or not. So, with this particular metaphysical statement, science and morals make sense. Two for the price of one, which is the best application of Occam's Razor if I ever saw one.
Fire away. :D
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 11:15:17 AM
The thing is, by formulating ever new questions, we learn more truth than the priest or the armchair can ever teach us.
The thing is, I don't agree and you can't prove it to me using your supposed universal toolbox.
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 11:15:17 AM
As pertains to theology, no premises would the a good thing.
If this is what you think you are doing in your argument you get an F- in Philosophy.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 11:27:09 AM
Shocker.
Shocker... :o
I suppose we should all start agreeing with the people we think are wrong. :P
Quote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 10:55:48 AM
OK, to speak more plainly, you're a hypocrite.
I note that your response here was entered while I was fleshing out my pithy response above. I will re-enter it here in case you missed it among the intervening posts:
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 10:30:44 AMQuote from: Feanor on June 10, 2009, 10:08:19 AM
Well, David, you asked me why I don't just come here in search of truth and without an agenda. Yet you now admit that you "persist in trying to pry open minds that have been barred and nailed shut". How is your agenda better than mine? How, for that matter, is it different than what you suppose mine to be?
Speaking of category errors.... ;D
(1) I asked no such thing.
(2) I made no such claim regarding the comparative values of agenda.
(3) There is an enormous difference between trying to browbeat people into sharing your beliefs by telling them they're stupid if they don't, and promoting the virtues of fair, rational, open-minded consideration of other points of view.
(4) Understanding another point of view does not mean finding some point of superficial dissimilarity from your own and attacking it, but rather entering into the frame of reference of the other and seeing it in its entirety, giving full faith and credit, as it were, in an effort to recognize how it makes sense and coheres both internally and externally.
(5) Understanding another point of view does not require that you agree with it. You may understand it and then choose not to accept it, due for instance to an article of faith that you choose not to accept.
(6) The process of careful, open-minded investigation into other perspectives can not only be very helpful in promoting better understanding of others, replacing enmity with comity, but can prove invaluable in helping us to recognize similar articles of faith and flawed reasoning embedded in our own perspectives.
I can see how you might believe that I'm being hypocritical, and how it might be comforting to you if thinking so enables you to discount and dismiss the challenges I've offered, but the fact is that again you're conflating ping pong balls with hand grenades.
I really believe, based on the evidence of your posts here, that you are bright enough to set aside your ego's attachment to the ideas you've expressed. It's not about
who's right; it's about
what's right.
The doorway to wisdom opens when we can honestly approach every question with the attitude that we just might not know everything; then we can enter with the idea of discovering what there might be for us to learn instead of "proving" that we already know it all. Nothing presents as great an obstacle to learning as thinking that we already know.
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 11:38:57 AM
...
The doorway to wisdom opens when we can honestly approach every question with the attitude that we just might not know everything; then we can enter with the idea of discovering what there might be for us to learn instead of "proving" that we already know it all. Nothing presents as great an obstacle to learning as thinking that we already know.
Well said. Shall we both not try a little harder?
Thanks for taking the time, Catison. I do come down on the side of the spiritualists in this matter, but not dead center in Christianity.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 11:27:22 AM
This knowledge is that science doesn't get to talk about reality for free, a priori or ex nihilo. You absolutely must make a metaphysical statement in order to get science started. This metaphysical statement might be something as simple as, "Science discovers reality." But what that particular metaphysical statement doesn't do is reaffirm itself. Science cannot prove it discovers reality in any way, so there is no means for justifying any truths it discovers to a person who doesn't accept it. In order for science to be about our reality and to provide a support for our interactions as humans, we must all agree that science does indeed talk about reality. But we can't start there, and we certainly must not fool ourselves into thinking science itself provides its own philosophical justification. Just because we can form practical implementations with scientific ideas doesn't mean these ideas, in fact, are the right ones. We can do amazing things with science, but the reality underneath remains a mystery. This means science is a tool, not a philosophy.
I can't help myself but agree, Dave. ;D
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 11:27:22 AMat least for a Catholic [...] and again for a Catholic
And for an Orthodox, too. 0:)
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 11:44:33 AM
Thanks for taking the time, Catison. I do come down on the side of the spiritualists in this matter, but not dead center in Christianity.
No problem here. I think we are arguing deism v. atheism here, so you fit right in!
BTW, I have no problem with atheism or atheists, per se. What I don't like is this idea that their philosophy is better or that people who are different are dumb or fooling themselves. A knowledgeable atheist is one who knows the limits of that particular philosophy, is comfortable with them, and accepts them. Same for Christians and any other religious follower. None of us should suppose that our philosophy is bulletproof, and should take the time to recognize its weaknesses and whatever counterarguments exist. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 12:07:38 PM
BTW, I have no problem with atheism or atheists, per se. What I don't like is this idea that their philosophy is better or that people who are different are dumb or fooling themselves. A knowledgeable atheist is one who knows the limits of that particular philosophy, is comfortable with them, and accepts them. Same for Christians and any other religious follower. None of us should suppose that our philosophy is bulletproof, and should take the time to recognize its weaknesses and whatever counterarguments exist. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
This will shock, shock, shock
Dave (but it's got to be done):
Quoted for truth.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 12:07:38 PM
BTW, I have no problem with atheism or atheists, per se. What I don't like is this idea that their philosophy is better or that people who are different are dumb or fooling themselves. A knowledgeable atheist is one who knows the limits of that particular philosophy, is comfortable with them, and accepts them. Same for Christians and any other religious follower. None of us should suppose that our philosophy is bulletproof, and should take the time to recognize its weaknesses and whatever counterarguments exist. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 10, 2009, 12:10:11 PM
This will shock, shock, shock Dave (but it's got to be done):
Quoted for truth.
To add awe to shock:
I agree.
(* passes Dave some hot chamomile tea *)
(*ipasses all, atheists and theists alike, a glass of the prefered drink*)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 10, 2009, 12:30:27 PM
(* passes Dave some hot chamomile tea *)
(http://www.thehonywood.co.uk/image/7109.jpg)
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 12:07:38 PM
BTW, I have no problem with atheism or atheists, per se. What I don't like is this idea that their philosophy is better or that people who are different are dumb or fooling themselves. A knowledgeable atheist is one who knows the limits of that particular philosophy, is comfortable with them, and accepts them. Same for Christians and any other religious follower. None of us should suppose that our philosophy is bulletproof, and should take the time to recognize its weaknesses and whatever counterarguments exist. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Amen, amen, amen! There are a number of professed Christians on this site, none of whom (at least presently ;) ) goes out of his way to stir up controversy by starting threads like this, nor who actively proselytize here for their religion, nor who attack non-believers as damned sinners who will burn in hell! There are also folks of other faiths--and with no religious belief at all--who behave equally civilly.
How ironic that the only people here suffering the close-minded bigotry that they accuse Christians of, and who actively proselytize for their own "faithless" faith, and who start threads like this for the sake of attacking other people and their beliefs as stupid, are all folks who identify themselves as atheists! :o
And that--I hope--is my last word on the matter for this go-round!
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 12:36:45 PM
I find it hilariously but sadly ironic that the only people who engage in the sort of close-minded bigotry that they gleefully tar all Christians and other people of faith with, who active proselytize for their faith, and who start such threads repeatedly for the sake of attacking theists as stupid, are all folks who identify themselves as atheists! :o
The emperor has no clothes, has he? ;D
Well, no one does, really.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 12:42:29 PM
Well, no one does, really.
Yes, agreed --- but not everyone pretends to be an emperor... ;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 10, 2009, 12:48:40 PM
Yes, agreed --- but not everyone pretends to be an emperor... ;D
Quoted for truth.
OMIGOD!!! :o
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 12:07:38 PM
BTW, I have no problem with atheism or atheists, per se. What I don't like is this idea that their philosophy is better or that people who are different are dumb or fooling themselves. A knowledgeable atheist is one who knows the limits of that particular philosophy, is comfortable with them, and accepts them. Same for Christians and any other religious follower. None of us should suppose that our philosophy is bulletproof, and should take the time to recognize its weaknesses and whatever counterarguments exist. Then we can have a meaningful discussion.
Oh well said, Sir. It's that absurd assumption of
certainty that is so hard to cope with, whether adopted by Christian, atheist, or Cheese worshipper. Your posts are like a breath of fresh air in this discussion. Indeed, you make a real discussion possible. Thank you.
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 12:50:47 PM
Quoted for truth.
That's the spirit,
caro amico! :D 8)
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 10, 2009, 11:38:57 AM
The doorway to wisdom opens when we can honestly approach every question with the attitude that we just might not know everything; then we can enter with the idea of discovering what there might be for us to learn instead of "proving" that we already know it all.
Nothing presents as great an obstacle to learning as thinking that we already know.
Hey, I like this. I go away for a bit, and come back, and then spend my time paying compliments to other posters on the wisdom of their posts, and playing with colours to highlight their most valuable statements!
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 12:42:29 PM
Well, no one does, really.
Even the Great Cheese At The End of The World has a rind, you know.
Elgarian,
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 12:53:53 PMIt's that absurd assumption of certainty that is so hard to cope with, whether adopted by Christian, atheist, or Cheese worshipper.
But how do you personally determine whether a belief is tenable or not ?
For instance, are you able to respect the beliefs of, say, Orthodox Judaism ? And why ?
Eric is always watching his threads, making sure people don't get too nice.
When all else fails, bring up Jews.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 10, 2009, 01:17:13 PM
But how do you personally determine whether a belief is tenable or not ?
Tenable for whom? I don't need to determine whether a belief is tenable for someone else. That's up to them. Tenable for me, then? Well, if we're talking specifically about religious belief, then my views on this have been developing all through my life, and I see no reason to suppose that they're going to stop changing any time soon. So my own approach is to accept the uncertainty of the present and proceed with cautious curiosity about what might happen next.
QuoteFor instance, are you able to respect the beliefs of, say, Orthodox Judaism ?
If they will respect my right to differ, then of course.
QuoteAnd why ?
Because I don't have a monopoly on wisdom.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 01:39:06 PM
Eric is always watching his threads, making sure people don't get too nice.
When all else fails, bring up Jews.
Please don't malign me... That is NOT my intention at all.
Quote from: Catison on June 10, 2009, 01:39:06 PM
Eric is always watching his threads, making sure people don't get too nice.
When all else fails, bring up Jews.
;D
Quote from: Florestan on June 10, 2009, 12:41:12 PM
The emperor has no clothes, has he? ;D
Bare-nekkid...and needing a bath!
Quote from: Florestan on June 10, 2009, 12:48:40 PM
Yes, agreed --- but not everyone pretends to be an emperor... ;D
Hallelujah!
Eric is like a clever bot, with a limited number of responses but expressed in a deceptive variety of ways, so that sometimes a newbie might not recognize that he's dealing with a closed loop until the second or third time around the same well-worn turf. ;D
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 01:42:03 PM
If they will respect my right to differ, then of course.
Because I don't have a monopoly on wisdom.
Really ?
The pronouncements and commandments of the Jewish God, Yahweh, do not give you pause ?
Quote from: MN Dave on June 10, 2009, 12:34:01 PM
(http://www.thehonywood.co.uk/image/7109.jpg)
Is that Russell's Celestial Teapot? ;D
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 10, 2009, 01:17:13 PM
Elgarian,
But how do you personally determine whether a belief is tenable or not ?
You make up your own mind based on whatever criteria you wish to use. Why you so frequently ask others to answer questions that need to be answered by yourself boggles my mind.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 10, 2009, 02:04:47 PM
Really ?
The pronouncements and commandments of the Jewish God, Yahweh, do not give you pause ?
I don't give them much attention, so I generally zip past them. ;D
Every religion has its fair share of commandments. Are you going to contemplate each of them? You'll be one very busy man.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 10, 2009, 03:44:42 PM
You make up your own mind based on whatever criteria you wish to use. Why you so frequently ask others to answer questions that need to be answered by yourself boggles my mind.
Poor chap has too much time on his hands 8)
Quote from: Bulldog on June 10, 2009, 03:48:42 PM
Every religion has its fair share of commandments. Are you going to contemplate each of them? You'll be one very busy man.
You read my mind,
mon vieux!Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 10, 2009, 03:49:17 PM
Poor chap has too much time on his hands 8)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 10, 2009, 02:04:47 PM
The pronouncements and commandments of the Jewish God, Yahweh, do not give you pause ?
News Flash! There is not a Jewish God and a Christian God. Both religions pray to the same God.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 10, 2009, 01:17:13 PM
Elgarian,
For instance, are you able to respect the beliefs of, say, Orthodox Judaism ? And why ?
The pertinent question is this - are you able to respect that other people have different beliefs? If you are, everthing is well.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 10, 2009, 04:13:18 PM
The pertinent question is this - are you able to respect that other people have different beliefs? If you are, everthing is well.
But there is so much 'picking and choosing' that goes on in religion... How does one know when to stop or start with it all ?
Quote from: Bulldog on June 10, 2009, 04:13:18 PM
The pertinent question is this - are you able to respect that other people have different beliefs? If you are, everthing is well.
Not everything,
Shirley, er
Bulldog.
:D Once we've taken care of our obligation to respect peoples beliefs in the prescribed manner of guaranteeing the free exercise, etc. other questions have to be dealt with, like the warrant for holding any of them. This is where the "good for us" approach falls down badly. It won't often tell you what you want to know. For example, I'm sometimes tempted to disbelieve the particle/wave duality of quantum mechanics because I suspect, at the level of intuition
:P, that it's interfering with the proper function of my immune system. Since I don't want to impair the free exercise of my opinion that this is so I've been reluctant to take steps to find out if this is actually true. Would it be disrespectful to treat the quantum health question as one pertaining to facts of the matter, or does belief status immunize questions from this kind of analysis? If something is a belief, can it also be a fact? Please provide an answer ASAP, because I'm not feeling well.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 10, 2009, 04:23:03 PM
But there is so much 'picking and choosing' that goes on in religion... How does one know when to stop or start with it all ?
That comes from within yourself. The answers to these vexing questions are much easier to come by if you have a good sense of your own being.
Karl, David, Catison and others are confident in their beliefs; non-believers in the group are confident in theirs as well. You can join all of them if you stop looking at the entire menu as a mine-field.
Quote from: drogulus on June 10, 2009, 04:56:12 PM
Not everything, Shirley, er Bulldog. :D Once we've taken care of our obligation to respect peoples beliefs in the prescribed manner of guaranteeing the free exercise, etc. other questions have to be dealt with, like the warrant for holding any of them.
The warrant does not have to be dealt with. You want to deal with it (which is your right).
Elgarian,
Quote from: Elgarian on June 10, 2009, 01:42:03 PMBecause I don't have a monopoly on wisdom.
Excuse me but do you honestly believe that Judaism contains more wisdom and sensitivity towards the human condition than Spinoza's
Ethics ?
I love the way he asks questions, and doesn't pay any mind to answers.
And don't the commandments of Vishnu give you pause?
(http://web.onetel.net.uk/~naturalearthling/book%20dhammapada.jpg)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 10, 2009, 05:20:59 PM
Excuse me but do you honestly believe that Judaism contains more wisdom and sensitivity towards the human condition than Spinoza's Ethics ?
There he goes again...
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 10, 2009, 02:04:47 PM
Really ?
The pronouncements and commandments of the Jewish God, Yahweh, do not give you pause ?
The pronouncements of vast numbers of people and/or their deities give me pause. Why single out this one?
QuoteExcuse me but do you honestly believe that Judaism contains more wisdom and sensitivity towards the human condition than Spinoza's Ethics ?
You put that question as if I had expressed that particular belief, which I didn't. But in any case, that's a problem for
you to solve, if it bothers you. I have no interest myself in pursuing it.
QuoteYou put that question as if I had expressed that particular belief, which I didn't. But in any case, that's a problem for you to solve, if it bothers you. I have no interest myself in pursuing it.
True, you did not express that belief you seem very tolerant... Will you at least acknowledge some of the absurdities of organized religion ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 11, 2009, 03:17:10 AM
the absurdities of organized religion
Do you really believe that your beloved polytheism was less organized than Judaism? Or that it had no absurdities?
Quote from: Florestan on June 11, 2009, 03:23:21 AM
Do you really believe that your beloved polytheism was less organized than Judaism? Or that it had no absurdities?
No, of course not.
Btw, I first brought up polytheism because I agreed with the author that it may better explain the problem evil in the world, that's all.
I just wish Elgarian would acknowledge some of the absurdities of the Abrahamic faiths. He said that he doesn't have a 'monopoly on wisdom' which implied that Judaism offers a good amount of wisdom.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 11, 2009, 03:33:21 AM
Judaism offers a good amount of wisdom.
That's true. Judaism doesn't reduce to its countless prescriptions, rules and interdictions. You make the mistake of looking very attentively at the finger when a sage points you the moon.
Quote from: Florestan on June 10, 2009, 11:22:59 PM
There he goes again...
If he doesn't agree with anything someone else has said before,
it just doesn't exist.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 11, 2009, 03:17:10 AM
True, you did not express that belief you seem very tolerant... Will you at least acknowledge some of the absurdities of organized religion ?
They are as nothing compared to
your absurdities, bub.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 11, 2009, 03:17:10 AM
Will you at least acknowledge some of the absurdities of organized religion ?
But why single out organised religion? The whole of human history is full of absurdities. Why would we expect organised religion to be free of them?
QuoteHe said that he doesn't have a 'monopoly on wisdom' which implied that Judaism offers a good amount of wisdom.
It implied no such thing. It implied that I am not all-seeing, all-knowing; it implied that I may be wrong about almost anything, including Judaism - indeed, I know too little about Judaism to say anything of any use to you (or anyone else) about it.
You're twisting my statements -
which essentially have nothing to do with Judaism (in which I have very little interest) - to suit your personal agenda. I'm not willing to continue under those circumstances.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 11, 2009, 05:12:46 AM
You're twisting my statements - which essentially have nothing to do with Judaism (in which I have very little interest) - to suit your personal agenda.
Ah! I see you've met Eric!
I suppose my favorite segment of any given piece of music will likely continue to change as long as my neurons fire.
Elgarian,
I apologize; it was not my intention to twist your statements but I'm not sure where you draw the line. What are your criteria for whether a belief or belief system should be respected because they may offer some wisdom ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 11, 2009, 05:30:35 AM
Elgarian,
I apologize; it was not my intention to twist your statements but I'm not sure where you draw the line. What are your criteria for whether a belief or belief system should be respected because they may offer some wisdom ?
It doesn't matter what he thinks. Use your own instincts, Eric.
(* sniff *)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 11, 2009, 05:30:35 AM
Elgarian,
I apologize; it was not my intention to twist your statements but I'm not sure where you draw the line. What are your criteria for whether a belief or belief system should be respected because they may offer some wisdom ?
MN Dave is right. We can compare notes while exploring within the labyrinth, but we each need to find our own way out.
I can't give you a sensible answer because I would never actually attempt to frame such a question as you pose - that is, interlinking 'belief', 'respect', and 'wisdom' in the way you've done there. That isn't
one question; it's several questions glued together in a way that makes it impossible to respond without confusion. It's getting worryingly close to asking that classic philosophical conundrum: 'Is the King of France bald?'
Suppose I said that I think all organised religions are flawed: does that help you? I don't see how it could. I think
all human attempts to unravel the truth about the world are flawed. That doesn't mean they're devoid of value. Newton's theory of gravitation is fundamentally flawed, but it still has value - we can still use it to get to the moon and back. While the search for 'truth' goes on, we can't just put our lives on hold; we need some kind of platform, however temporary, however provisional, however imperfect, on which to stand. And we're all going to make different decisions about how to deal with that existential predicament.
So if you were to decide that a belief in the Coming of the Great Cheese offered you the best platform from which to tackle your particular quest, I'd be
puzzled, but would try to be sympathetic. I'd only have a problem if you were to insist that cheese worship were the One True Path, and require that I conform.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 11, 2009, 08:31:47 AM
. . . I'd only have a problem if you were to insist that cheese Pelléas worship were the One True Path, and require that I conform.
Modified for additional applicability 0:)
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 11, 2009, 08:42:12 AM
Modified for additional applicability 0:)
You'll have to answer for that when the Great Cheese cometh. :o
Quote from: Elgarian on June 11, 2009, 09:05:06 AM
You'll have to answer for that when the Great Cheese cometh. :o
That's twice this morning I've been grateful not to have taken a swig of coffee just before reading a post!
Verily I say unto thee, thy wit, thy wisdom, and thy gracious good humor recommendeth thee. It's so nice to have another about who obviously misspent much of his youth in the study of philosophy. As an undergraduate surrounded by more seemingly practically-minded fellows majoring in some form of engineering or the courses of study that in the States usually are regarded as preparation for professional study in medicine, business, or law, I was often asked by bemused classmates why I was studying philosophy. Tempted though I might have been to say, "So I can reliably distinguish between idiocy and good sense," (a skill in great demand in some places, and sometimes well-compensated, but not at all valued where most desperately needed--in government), I found it easier and more amusing to explain that I planned to start a chain of philosophical consultancy outlets in shopping malls across the nation so that poor, confused fellows like Eric could get help with pressing questions like, "Is the King of France bald?"
In time I ceased being astonished by the number of those who regarded that answer seriously. ;)
Elgarian,
QuoteI think all human attempts to unravel the truth about the world are flawed.
But aren't some attempts clearly better (and more noble) than others ? Don't you believe Spinoza cared more about the human condition than all of the Jewish elders from the synagogue in Amsterdam in his day ?
QuoteThat doesn't mean that they're devoid of value. Newton's theory of gravitation is fundamentally flawed, but it still has value - we can still use it to get to the moon and back. While the search for 'truth' goes on, we can't just put our lives on hold; we need some kind of platform, however temporary, however provisional, however imperfect, on which to stand. And we're all going to make different decisions about how to deal with that existential predicament.
Agreed, but the difference here is that virtually everything about organized religion is
man-made.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 11, 2009, 09:56:28 AM...virtually everything about organized religion is man-made.
As is Newton's theory of gravitation. How something so obvious can escape you and the other wannabe rocket scientists similarly afflicted with intellectual myopia is beyond my ken.
I reply, of course, not for Eric's sake, since he's demonstrated for years that he's incapable of meaningful discussion (but what a clever bot!), but rather for the sake of young children who might stumble onto this thread having not yet attained the developmental capacity for rational abstract thought and thus who might not be able yet to distinguish sense from nonsense.
Gosh this is fun! ;D
Oh Gawd!! Make'r stop! Pu' leeze!
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 11, 2009, 10:25:29 AM
As is Newton's theory of gravitation. How something so obvious can escape you and the other wannabe rocket scientists similarly afflicted with intellectual myopia is beyond my ken.
Well, even if Newton merely recorded observations, there are even more fundamental issues with modern science than gravitation. The modern attempts to create a unified field theory have resulted in some really very inelegant mathematical propositions. Indeed, at the foundation of current notions of matter and existence there is nothing but high-level math. I never see materialists or whatever you want to call them grappling with the real issues with their position; dismantling Christianity will never, ever produce a result that will answer questions about the material world.
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 11, 2009, 09:46:50 AM
That's twice this morning I've been grateful not to have taken a swig of coffee just before reading a post!
Verily I say unto thee, thy wit, thy wisdom, and thy gracious good humor recommendeth thee.
Aye, and his white, flaky rind!
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 11, 2009, 09:46:50 AM
It's so nice to have another about who obviously misspent much of his youth in the study of philosophy.
Ah, those were the days. Way back when, I gradually accumulated a collection of assorted philosophy books, and tackled them with the same kind of optimism about discovering 'what it's all about', as I tackled science in the hope that I'd find out what the Pleiades 'really are'. Both hopes were doomed of course; but as you say, one does learn a bit, not so much about what 'the truth' is, but about what questions can be asked and how best to ask them. Anyway, this developed into a kind of 5-year itch; so every half-decade or so I'd drag 'em all out again, start at Plato, and work my way through steadily to Wittgenstein, telling myself: 'I'll try harder this time'.
These days the itch to re-engage with that particular kind of thinking is easier to resist, so I'm quite rusty; but I value the bits that have rubbed off. I need all the help I can get: it's not easy, being at the cutting edge of the universe's creative surge, is it?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 11, 2009, 09:56:28 AM
But aren't some attempts clearly better (and more noble) than others ? Don't you believe Spinoza cared more about the human condition than all of the Jewish elders from the synagogue in Amsterdam in his day ?
I'm really not interested in resolving this, even if it were resolvable. I can see that you
are, but you're trying to have a conversation about it with the wrong person.
QuoteAgreed, but the difference here is that virtually everything about organized religion is man-made.
David's already answered this.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 11, 2009, 09:56:28 AM
Agreed, but the difference here is that virtually everything about organized religion is man-made.
The same goes for Major League Baseball. I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 11, 2009, 12:46:01 PM
The same goes for Major League Baseball. I don't know what point you're trying to make.
Major League Baseball used to be about as much of a religion as I could handle. That was until the last round of steroid scandals. That's just too much. The high priests of the one true faith have lost the way. Where is St. Peter (Ueberroth) now that we really need him?
I love the speech Ron Shelton gave Susan Sarandon's character in
Bull Durham:
QuoteI believe in the Church of Baseball. I've tried all the major religions, and most of the minor ones. I've worshipped Buddha, Allah, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, trees, mushrooms, and Isadora Duncan. I know things. For instance, there are 108 beads in a Catholic rosary and there are 108 stitches in a baseball. When I heard that, I gave Jesus a chance. But it just didn't work out between us. The Lord laid too much guilt on me. I prefer metaphysics to theology. You see, there's no guilt in baseball, and it's never boring... which makes it like sex. [...] I've tried 'em all, I really have, and the only church that truly feeds the soul, day in, day out, is the Church of Baseball.
Quote from: Bulldog on June 10, 2009, 04:59:33 PM
The warrant does not have to be dealt with. You want to deal with it (which is your right).
Yes, I want to talk about the subject in preference to talking about the right to talk about it. Isn't that strange?
Quote from: PSmith08 on June 11, 2009, 10:37:12 AM
Well, even if Newton merely recorded observations, there are even more fundamental issues with modern science than gravitation. The modern attempts to create a unified field theory have resulted in some really very inelegant mathematical propositions. Indeed, at the foundation of current notions of matter and existence there is nothing but high-level math. I never see materialists or whatever you want to call them grappling with the real issues with their position; dismantling Christianity will never, ever produce a result that will answer questions about the material world.
Materialists like me think this is a bit of a dodge, a disguised appeal to a form of absolutism. The question about whether some sort of essentialism must underlie materialist models is separate from the preposterisms of Christianity, which are beyond help. I don't assume any foundation beyond what models can predict. To do more would be metaphysical
:o, and the only metaphysics I will tolerate is that which says that there is a world that the models conform to approximately, and that's it. It's the least extravagant choice, and that's what recommends it. I do like to speculate in my free time, though.
:D
PSmith08, perhaps I should explain that I think the implications of your observations contain an assumption that something must undergird materialist models for them to be true in a higher sense than mere workabilty. My position is that no such higher truth can ever play a role. All we can do is explore and extend models to cover a wider range of phenomena and this will never amount to uncovering essentials or foundations except in the limited sense that pertains to particular subjects. Maybe that was unclear from what I said before.
Elgarian,
Quote from: Elgarian on June 11, 2009, 12:34:36 PMI'm really not interested in resolving this, even if it were resolvable.
Your explanation is not clear to me .... Are you implying that there are equal amounts of absurdity in both organized religion and philosophy ? ???
Some religions are very irrational and even ethnocentric...
Also, doesn't Ms. Goldstein makes some good points here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/opinion/29goldstein.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=reasonable%20doubt%20-%20goldstein&st=cse
"Spinoza understood the powerful tendency in each of us toward developing a view of the truth that favors the circumstances into which we happened to have been born. Self-aggrandizement can be the invisible scaffolding of religion, politics or ideology. Against this tendency we have no defense but the relentless application of reason. Reason must stand guard against the self-serving false entailments that creep into our thinking, inducing us to believe that we are more cosmically important than we truly are, that we have had bestowed upon us — whether Jew or Christian or Muslim — a privileged position in the narrative of the world's unfolding.
Spinoza's dream of making us susceptible to the voice of reason might seem hopelessly quixotic at this moment, with religion-infested politics on the march. But imagine how much more impossible a dream it would have seemed on that day 350 years ago. And imagine, too, how much even sorrier our sorry world would have been without it"
*****
Wouldn't this approach be beneficial for us ?
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 11, 2009, 10:25:29 AMHow something so obvious can escape you and the other wannabe rocket scientists similarly afflicted with intellectual myopia is beyond my ken.
David, you completely misunderstood me when I said 'man-made'.
Christian morality comes from a combination of Jewish and Roman-Hellenic morality and ethics of the C1st AD.
And Jewish morality comes from ancient near-eastern semitic tribal customs combined with those from Babylonian, Egyptian, Hittite, Sumerian traditions.
And so on and so on... They all share one thing in common - human beings made them up. The only difference being that humanism is
more honest about the real source of morality and ethics, that being human culture.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 20, 2009, 01:36:06 PM
Your explanation is not clear to me
I think that's because it wasn't an explanation. It was a statement, viz: "I'm really not interested in resolving this"
Quote from: Elgarian on June 20, 2009, 01:48:27 PM
I think that's because it wasn't an explanation. It was a statement, viz: "I'm really not interested in resolving this"
O.k. fine.
But now a simpler question, maybe:
Is Christopher Hitchens wrong when he says:
"Monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents..."
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 20, 2009, 01:55:47 PM
O.k. fine.
But now a simpler question, maybe:
Is Christopher Hitchens wrong when he says:
"Monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents..."
Oh, please, don't tell me you don't know exactly how (most) religious people will respond to that. Regardless how much one might agree or disagree with Christopher Hitchens on that point, your question would still be recognised as completely disingenuous, and not conducive to honest discussion on the matter. It seems to me that you post that question and that quote only to provoke people to reply - which, to my shame, I suppose you've succeeded with - and not to engage in a debate over the merits of Hitchens' statement, or even to meaningfully advance the dialogue.
This remains the quintessential blah-blah thread.
Quote from: Daidalos on June 20, 2009, 02:50:00 PM
Oh, please, don't tell me you don't know exactly how (most) religious people will respond to that. Regardless how much one might agree or disagree with Christopher Hitchens on that point, your question would still be recognised as completely disingenuous, and not conducive to honest discussion on the matter. It seems to me that you post that question and that quote only to provoke people to reply - which, to my shame, I suppose you've succeeded with - and not to engage in a debate over the merits of Hitchens' statement, or even to meaningfully advance the dialogue.
What does being religious have to do with it? Surely religious people are not the only ones capable of recognizing horseshit? I'm not at all religious yet spend considerable time here trying to straighten out the lies, half-truths, and pathetically substandard reasoning the anti-religious bigots on this site love to attack others with.
Regard "Eric" as a perverse sort of bot and everything will become clear.
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 20, 2009, 02:56:26 PM
What does being religious have to do with it?
I took it as a question posed to the religious, primarily adherents to the monotheistic faiths. Those do seem to be the targets of many of The Unrepentant Pelleastrian's posts on this topic, and the people who he is trying to aggravate.
QuoteSurely religious people are not the only ones capable of recognizing horseshit? I'm not at all religious yet spend considerable time here trying to straighten out the lies, half-truths, and pathetically substandard reasoning the anti-religious bigots on this site love to attack others with.
Regard "Eric" as a perverse sort of bot and everything will become clear.
I suppose the insincerity of the post hit a nerve with me; there are few things more frustrating to me than dishonesty in what I consider to be important and interesting discussions.
"Religion is the opium of the people."
Quote from: Papageno on June 20, 2009, 03:08:00 PM
"Religion is the opium of the people."
I hope you are familiar with the whole paragraph this quote comes from.
Quote from: Daidalos on June 20, 2009, 03:06:52 PM
. . . I suppose the insincerity of the post hit a nerve with me; there are few things more frustrating to me than dishonesty in what I consider to be important and interesting discussions.
Well, that's Eric for you.
Quote from: Daidalos on June 20, 2009, 02:50:00 PMOh, please, don't tell me you don't know exactly how (most) religious people will respond to that. Regardless how much one might agree or disagree with Christopher Hitchens on that point, your question would still be recognised as completely disingenuous, and not conducive to honest discussion on the matter. It seems to me that you post that question and that quote only to provoke people to reply - which, to my shame, I suppose you've succeeded with - and not to engage in a debate over the merits of Hitchens' statement, or even to meaningfully advance the dialogue.
No Daidalos, that was NOT my intention... >:(
And didn't you note my post on Spinoza just before that one ??
I'm just trying to get some clarification here.
Eric,
Do you believe this Hitchens quote is true?
Catison,
Quote from: Catison on June 20, 2009, 03:31:55 PM
Eric,
Do you believe this Hitchens quote is true?
Honestly, I don't know... He could be wrong too.
On the other hand I believe the following statement by Richard Dawkins is
completely true:
"The God of the Hebrews is a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully..."
Pick a thread, any thread:
Miss Allen: Atheism Is Simply About Anger (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12831.0.html)
Why Is America Still So Often Puritanical ? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12005.0.html)
Some aspects I love about the Christian religion (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10738.0.html)
God Bless Sarah Palin ! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9273.0.html)
The Pope speaks on the global financial crisis (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9389.0.html)
The Two Doctrines I Believe In (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9234.0.html)
An argument against Charles Murray ? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9292.0.html)
The immortality of the 'soul' (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9018.0.html)
Einstein: The Bible Is Pretty Childish (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,7606.0.html)
Is There Something Degrading About It ? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5717.0.html)
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 20, 2009, 03:30:05 PM
I'm just trying to get some clarification here.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Quote from: Daidalos on June 20, 2009, 03:06:52 PMI took it as a question posed to the religious, primarily adherents to the monotheistic faiths. Those do seem to be the targets of many of The Unrepentant Pelleastrian's posts on this topic, and the people who he is trying to aggravate. I suppose the insincerity of the post hit a nerve with me; there are few things more frustrating to me than dishonesty in what I consider to be important and interesting discussions.
I'm with you, Bjorn. I join in sometimes to help sort out sincere but muddled thinking, to hold some accountable for their intellectual dishonesty, and to call the ignorant SOBs on their self-righteous, vindictive horseshit when they try to stir up animosity by unfair and hateful attacks on religious folks. (And it shouldn't take long for a newcomer to this site to learn that that's the purpose of most of these threads, and that even the sincere threads on such topics get invaded and twisted by the same intolerant bigots chronically pushing their nasty agenda. Sigh.)
Quote from: DavidRoss on June 20, 2009, 02:56:26 PMI'm not at all religious yet spend considerable time here trying to straighten out the lies, half-truths, and pathetically substandard reasoning the anti-religious bigots on this site love to attack others with.
Do you REALLY want to know what substandard reasoning is ?
This past week I sent that Spinoza article to Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, one of the leading Orthodox leaders in the United States.
He sent me the following e-mail:
"Reason is often an unreliable guide to human conduct, and leaves a person's moral aspirations very subjective. That is why Jews were blessed with an historical event of unparalleled proportions - the Revelation of G-d at Sinai and the transmission of His moral code - the only such public revelation, and even claim of public revelation in history.
Spinoza's ideas led him to be construed - rightly so - as a heretic, and one can draw a straight line from Spinoza to all the excesses engendered by 19th and 20th century man that led to such devastation and human degradation"
*****
That, my friend, is substandard reasoning
and ignorance.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 20, 2009, 04:10:32 PM
That, my friend, is ignorance.
Better than half of your posts, my friend, is ignorance.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 20, 2009, 04:11:15 PM
Better than half of your posts, my friend, is ignorance.
Perhaps you are right, Karl.
But at least I am not making totally outlandish and absurd claims as the Rabbi does here:
"The Revelation of G-d at Sinai and the transmission of His moral code are the only such public revelation, and even claim of public revelation in history""One can draw a straight line from Spinoza to all the excesses engendered by 19th and 20th century man that led to such devastation and human degradation"*****
::)
On the first point, there is absolutely no evidence (and this coming from Israeli archaelogists) that there ever was a covenant between Moses and God... Not even the Egyptian records mention anything about the book of Exodus.
On the second point, how could a philosophical system from a man as exemplary as Spinoza lead in some way to the devastation and human degradation that occurred in the 19th/20th century ?
So Eric, if that revelation occured, is the Rabbi's first paragraph sound reasoning?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 20, 2009, 04:57:47 PM
[
........there is absolutely no evidence (and this coming from Israeli archaelogists) that there ever was a covenant between Moses and God... Not even the Egyptian records mention anything about the book of Exodus.
Wrong. Read more archeology. Note the following.
1)The Bible is inconclusive as to which Pharaoh was involved in Exodus. It uses a name that is not part of the Egyptian lineage. Often names become altered from language to language.
2) In trying to define whether the event took place, rather than there being no possibilities, historians cannot come to a consensus as there are several possible candidates.
3) You would not find anything about it in the official Egyption versions of history, as they were adroit propagandists. They did not record battles they lost, or if they did they changed the outcomes. They expunged the first recorded monotheist, Pharoah Akenaten, from the public records, even destroying his city.
4) Knowing this, archaeologists have looked for other evidence. They have found plague victims buried hurriedly that might tie in with the time of the Exodus. They have also found evidence of political problems arising from alterations in the way society functioned for periods that again they try to tie to an Exodus of useful servants on a large scale.
So, the matter is still open, rather than there being no evidence.
Mike
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 20, 2009, 01:55:47 PM
Is Christopher Hitchens wrong when he says:
"Monotheistic religion is a plagiarism of a plagiarism of a hearsay of a hearsay, of an illusion of an illusion, extending all the way back to a fabrication of a few nonevents..."
I think it's too devoid of meaning for it to acquire the dignity of being either right or wrong. It's a rant.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 20, 2009, 03:30:05 PM
I'm just trying to get some clarification here.
To get clarification, I think you might need to start much further back. Most of the questions posed in threads like this (and many of the answers offered in response) are too muddled ever to be resolved successfully. This is either because what looks like a single issue is really several issues, often in conflict (along the lines of "Is the King of France bald?"); or because the statement of the issue contains category errors ("Is marmalade cruel?") which render it meaningless; or because the issue is stated in such a way as to make it appear irrefutable by excluding from consideration all responses that might be capable of refuting it (such as "science is philosophy").
Disentangling the questions and responses (yes, even one's own questions and answers) so as to be able to recognise and discard the nonsense is the single most important thing to try to do.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on June 20, 2009, 03:53:43 PM
Pick a thread, any thread:
Miss Allen: Atheism Is Simply About Anger (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12831.0.html)
Why Is America Still So Often Puritanical ? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12005.0.html)
Some aspects I love about the Christian religion (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10738.0.html)
God Bless Sarah Palin ! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9273.0.html)
The Pope speaks on the global financial crisis (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9389.0.html)
The Two Doctrines I Believe In (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9234.0.html)
An argument against Charles Murray ? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9292.0.html)
The immortality of the 'soul' (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9018.0.html)
Einstein: The Bible Is Pretty Childish (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,7606.0.html)
Is There Something Degrading About It ? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5717.0.html)
And yet, Karl, you keep coming back for more. ???
I consider it a public service, Bill.
Pick a thread, any thread; they're all the same, folks:
Miss Allen: Atheism Is Simply About Anger (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12831.0.html)
Why Is America Still So Often Puritanical ? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,12005.0.html)
Some aspects I love about the Christian religion (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,10738.0.html)
God Bless Sarah Palin ! (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9273.0.html)
The Pope speaks on the global financial crisis (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9389.0.html)
The Two Doctrines I Believe In (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9234.0.html)
An argument against Charles Murray ? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9292.0.html)
The immortality of the 'soul' (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,9018.0.html)
Einstein: The Bible Is Pretty Childish (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,7606.0.html)
Is There Something Degrading About It ? (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,5717.0.html)
Elgarian,
Quote from: Elgarian on June 21, 2009, 01:22:35 AM
To get clarification, I think you might need to start much further back. Most of the questions posed in threads like this (and many of the answers offered in response) are too muddled ever to be resolved successfully. This is either because what looks like a single issue is really several issues, often in conflict (along the lines of "Is the King of France bald?"); or because the statement of the issue contains category errors ("Is marmalade cruel?") which render it meaningless; or because the issue is stated in such a way as to make it appear irrefutable by excluding from consideration all responses that might be capable of refuting it (such as "science is philosophy").
Disentangling the questions and responses (yes, even one's own questions and answers) so as to be able to recognise and discard the nonsense is the single most important thing to try to do.
Is it really the case then that Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and other writers are missing the point entirely ? And are they also committing that many category errors ? ???
Do any of their recent anti-theistic books have at least some merit in your opinion ?
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 21, 2009, 07:36:24 AM
Elgarian,
Is it really the case then that Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and other writers are missing the point entirely ? And are they also committing that many category errors ? ???
Do any of their recent anti-theistic books have at least some merit in your opinion ?
DECIDE FOR YOURSELF.
Quote from: The Unrepentant Pelleastrian on June 21, 2009, 07:36:24 AM
Is it really the case then that Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, Harris and other writers are missing the point entirely ? And are they also committing that many category errors ?
Well, I don't keep up to date on this stuff any more. The last thing I read by Dawkins was
The Blind Watchmaker. But the short answer always was 'yes', and I very much doubt if that's changed, to judge from the bits I pick up by the wayside.
QuoteDo any of their recent anti-theistic books have at least some merit in your opinion ?
Dawkins is/was an excellent biologist, so I'm sure there's a lot of excellent biology in his books, just as there is in
The Selfish Gene, which as a piece of scientific writing is a
tour-de-force. But I find that one of the most disturbing things about all the evangelical atheists is their lack of self-awareness. They don't seem to recognise what's obvious to any objective reader of their writing - that they're driven not by logic, but by a psychological need to 'disprove' and even discredit or ridicule any opposing view. Dawkins's hatred of the religious distorts everything he writes. So the philosophical errors they make don't concern them: they're not
permitted to concern them. To make sure of that, they make statements like the one Ernie made recently: 'science is philosophy' - which means that any potential subject matter that lies outside their closed system can be dismissed as non-scientific, therefore non-philosophical, therefore meaningless.
Once you've seen through this trick, there's no point in reading what else they have to say (unless it's being said entertainingly, and worth reading for its own sake), because it's mostly smoke and mirrors.
Of course to be fair, there's an awful lot of smoke and mirrors on the other side of the argument too.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 21, 2009, 08:45:15 AM
... But I find that one of the most disturbing things about all the evangelical atheists is their lack of self-awareness. They don't seem to recognise what's obvious to any objective reader of their writing - that they're driven not by logic, but by a psychological need to 'disprove' and even discredit or ridicule any opposing view. Dawkins's pathological hatred of the religious distorts everything he writes. ...
Actually, I agree that Dawkins (and Hitchens) are "driven not by logic, but a psychological need to 'disprove' and even discredit or ridicule any opposing view". I feel that impulse too, (as you know), and I have explained why this is if you'll recall. (Is passion reserved for religious believers?)
However to be "driven not by logic" is not necessarily to be illogical. Nor does distain for the contrary opinion necessarily render one's feelings "pathological". Just because you don't like Dawkin's
attitude doesn't mean he is wrong. (Beware the "Appeal to Politeness" logical fallacy.)
Quote from: Elgarian on June 21, 2009, 08:45:15 AM
Of course to be fair, there's an awful lot of smoke and mirrors on the other side of the argument too.
Needless to say, I agree.
Quote from: Feanor on June 22, 2009, 06:08:12 AM
However to be "driven not by logic" is not necessarily to be illogical. Nor does distain for the contrary opinion necessarily render one's feelings "pathological". Just because you don't like Dawkin's attitude doesn't mean he is wrong.
Well of course if you select the first part of what I said and omit what it was leading to, you get a convenient straw man to knock down as you did. So let's add the really important part back in:
"So the philosophical errors they make don't concern them: they're not permitted to concern them. To make sure of that, they make statements like the one Ernie made recently: 'science is philosophy' - which means that any potential subject matter that lies outside their closed system can be dismissed as non-scientific, therefore non-philosophical, therefore meaningless."
That's what you need to refute (as expounded further in my various posts on this subject), not my mere opinions about why they might take such a blinkered stand.
Footnote: I used the word 'pathological' in its more informal sense meaning 'compulsively motivated', but I can see there's ambiguity there, and in any case its use was unnecessary. I've changed it in my original post. Thank you for pointing it out.
Quote from: Elgarian on June 22, 2009, 06:56:09 AM
Well of course if you select the first part of what I said and omit what it was leading to, you get a convenient straw man to knock down as you did. So let's add the really important part back in:
"So the philosophical errors they make don't concern them: they're not permitted to concern them. To make sure of that, they make statements like the one Ernie made recently: 'science is philosophy' - which means that any potential subject matter that lies outside their closed system can be dismissed as non-scientific, therefore non-philosophical, therefore meaningless."
...
Pardon me please. I assure you I didn't intentionally set up a straw man. I (mis)construed that you meant that if a person is "driven not by logic" that their logic is
at least suspect. ;D But I suppose I was wrong. Then again if that's not what you meant, why raise the topic of motivation? Neither Dawkins nor I nor most atheist skeptics have ever asserted that all motivations are or should be logical.
As for philosophical errors, it would better help your case if you reiterated one or two of Dawkin's rather than mentioning only Ernie's.
Quote from: Feanor on June 22, 2009, 08:47:06 AM
Then again if that's not what you meant, why raise the topic of motivation? Neither Dawkins nor I nor most atheist skeptics have ever asserted that all motivations are or should be logical.
Well, I can't be sure that this is the only time that I've raised the issue of 'motivation', but I
can be sure that it's something I've rarely, if ever, mentioned in these discussions till now. By contrast, the motivation issue is used as a weapon time and again in these debates by the evangelical atheism representatives, usually in the form of 'people believe because it makes them feel better' or some such. Just look back through the posts on these issues and you'll find that sort of stuff everywhere. Here at last I do mention motivation - only as a prelude to something else because it interests me, and not as part of my argument - and you jumped on it as if it mattered. Now, if that really is all you can find to take me to task for, then I think I must be doing OK. ;)
QuoteAs for philosophical errors, it would better help your case if you reiterated one or two of Dawkin's rather than mentioning only Ernie's.
I mention Ernie's version merely because it expresses succinctly one of the most fundamental errors that underlie a great deal of what people like Dawkins say. It's something I've discussed repeatedly to the point of tedium in these threads, and I even now carry the summary of the refutation of it in my signature. It's not necessary for me to direct it at any specific statement by Dawkins or anyone else. Once it's properly understood, the general principle can be applied to any variant of the error that one might encounter. Yet in all these discussions,
no one has displayed enough knowledge or understanding of Whitehead's case to be able to provide a counter-argument.
I've said enough and now I'm going to take a break from all this. After all, I really come here to discuss music! But please remember that at no time have I mentioned what my own 'religious' (or non-religious) standpoint is. I've raised all these objections to the statements made by yourself and others not in order to defend any particular 'religious' position; only to expose positions that aren't philosophically viable.
Quote from: knight on June 20, 2009, 10:57:38 PM
Wrong. Read more archeology. Note the following.
1)The Bible is inconclusive as to which Pharaoh was involved in Exodus. It uses a name that is not part of the Egyptian lineage. Often names become altered from language to language.
2) In trying to define whether the event took place, rather than there being no possibilities, historians cannot come to a consensus as there are several possible candidates.
3) You would not find anything about it in the official Egyption versions of history, as they were adroit propagandists. They did not record battles they lost, or if they did they changed the outcomes. They expunged the first recorded monotheist, Pharoah Akenaten, from the public records, even destroying his city.
4) Knowing this, archaeologists have looked for other evidence. They have found plague victims buried hurriedly that might tie in with the time of the Exodus. They have also found evidence of political problems arising from alterations in the way society functioned for periods that again they try to tie to an Exodus of useful servants on a large scale.
So, the matter is still open, rather than there being no evidence.
Mike
Mike,
Let's assume that this is all true... and that the meeting between Moses and God happened... And that the Rabbi is correct when he says:
"That is why Jews were blessed with an historical event of unparalleled proportions. The Revelation of G-d at Sinai and the transmission of His moral code - the only such public revelation"...Isn't it insulting to those people to imagine that they had come that far under the impression that murder, theft, adultery, perjury, etc were o.k. ?
Do you know of any society that couldn't protect itself from those obvious crimes ?
Also, I find it strange that this monotheistic God says nothing about rape or slavery or genocide or protecting children from cruelty.
That is a beside-the-point set of observations.
The issue was whether or not there is any evidence for Exodus. As far as hard evidence is concerned, it is sketchy, inconclusive and open to interpretation. I saw a programme only this week where with the slightest of pretexts the relevent Pharaoh was said to be Ramasis I. Kite flying and they then struggled to find the evidence. What they found was then filtered through a determination to find what they set out to find.
There is exactly one mention of the people of Israel in all Egyptian carvings/writings. But as I said, we won't find the truth there, or in other solid sources. So, the mystery may never be solved, but neither has the story been disproved.
Mike