GMG Classical Music Forum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnsXKtE5PNI&feature=related

Fascinating. I think i may have finally found a direction for my own philosophical observations, and perhaps a way out of my racism and anti-semitism, both of which derive from a materialistic, modernist point of view. Dostoevsky nearly turned me to Christianity, but something held me back from that. This might actually be the way for me.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 12:09:52 PM
I think i may have finally found a direction for my own philosophical observations, and perhaps a way out of my racism and anti-semitism, both of which derive from a materialistic, modernist point of view.

Could you elucidate on this?

What's there to elucidate? From a materialistic point of view, racism and anti-semitism are inevitable positions. But, since i'm not an evil individual, i cannot accept such a point of view in its entirety. So i'm looking for a way out.

I simply don't understand why racism and anti-semitism are inevitable positions from a materialistic point of view.  This is what I'm curious about.

Are you sure you don't just call 'em as you see 'em?

Hey, is this one of those (bang bang) traps to get me to (bang bang) say something I shouldn't?



Don't you live in NYC or something?? Surely that's where it starts?



interesting:

http://news.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A2KJ3CWQlKdOFkUATFTQtDMD;_ylc=X1MDUCM1MzcyMDI3MgRfcgMyBGFvAzAEY3NyY3B2aWQDNTl5Z3VXS0ozQ0hucEJJZlM2azNfUXVBUkNDcTJVNm5sSkFBQVh5TARmcgN5ZnAtdC03MDEEZnIyA3NidG4Ebl9ncHMDMARvcmlnaW4Dc3JwBHF1ZXJ5AyJhbnRpLXNlbWl0aXNtIGRvZXNuJ3QgZXhpc3QiBHNhbwMxBHZ0ZXN0aWQDVVNOQTA5?p=%22anti-semitism+doesn%27t+exist%22&fr2=sb-top&fr=yfp-t-701&type_param=

it's everywhere!!

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 25, 2011, 12:09:52 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnsXKtE5PNI&feature=related

Fascinating. I think i may have finally found a direction for my own philosophical observations, and perhaps a way out of my racism and anti-semitism, both of which derive from a materialistic, modernist point of view. Dostoevsky nearly turned me to Christianity, but something held me back from that. This might actually be the way for me.

A:  Your search for a way out-- or simply one for continued growth, is laudable.  I really believe this is something we all need to do.  We should never stop learning, or let previous ideas block us from where we want to go. Sometimes the labels and defintions we use to make sense out of things become impediments later on.  But, before setting out on a journey and wondering how you will get there, it is worthwhile to decide upon your destination first.

B: With that in mind, and not wanting to nit-pick, I don't see how racisim and anti-semtism are related to modernism-- unless your definition of modernism includes the period before the Renaissance.   Persecution of the Jews, slavery, and similar behavior was present long before "modernism".  If anything, I could say that some of the "modernists" that may have caught your attention were trying to develop an intellectual rationalism for are really primitive impulses.   



But that is my silly opinion-- take with  a grain of salt. 

I am at present unable to view videoclips so I can't comment directly--but some of the webpages that came up in googling Dr. Oldmeadow and the presentation title refer to the "doctrines/ideologies" of Darwin, Freud, Marx, etc.  Now it's perfectly accurate to speak of Marx in that way, and Freud seems to belong to the category of outdated science, but to refer to Darwin in those terms--that is, to speak of the theory of evolution as anything other than a part of science that has loads of evidence to support it--throws a red flag up for me immediately.  Unless the reference is meant to refer to such things as "Social Darwinism" and similar abuses of the theory of evolution, in which case the term would be appropriate.

That said,  I adhere, more or less, to what Dr. Oldmeadow refers to as the "perennial philosophy", so I'm certainly not going to discourage Josquin or anyone else from following up on this--but I'm bound to say there's a good deal of hogwash, tripe and pure bovine excrement peddled under that banner which doesn't belong there, so please make sure your critical analysis skills are fully engaged when reading up on it.

Quote
B: With that in mind, and not wanting to nit-pick, I don't see how racisim and anti-semtism are related to modernism-- unless your definition of modernism includes the period before the Renaissance.   Persecution of the Jews, slavery, and similar behavior was present long before "modernism".  If anything, I could say that some of the "modernists" that may have caught your attention were trying to develop an intellectual rationalism for are really primitive impulses. 

Not to speak for Josquin, but I think the difference between bigotry from the medieval/Renaissance eras and bigotry in the modern era is the attempt to justify modern bigotry with (usually) bad science and on materialistic, racial grounds.  A German of circa 1500 would justify his hate of Jews by referring to their role in the death of Jesus and their continued rejection of Christianity, and admit that if they converted to Christianity, their "evil" would end; a German of 1900 would justify his hate of Jews by referring to their supposed racial inferiority and alleged inborn vices which no religious conversion or education could stop.  The Spanish discrimination against "New Christians", based on blood purity ideas, is a sort of bridge, but has much more akin to the early version and not the modern version.

The speaker in that video is a charlatan; his comments regarding evolution are simply laughable. Even if it were true that Darwin was a racist, even in comparison to his contemporaries (which certainly isn't true), it wouldn't do one bit to refute evolution. Modern evolutionary science has gone far beyond Darwin. Darwin had no idea of heredity, and the mechanism that he proposed to explain inheritance is quite disproved; he knew nothing of molecular biology, which informs our modern conception of evolution; nor he could he possibly conceive of bioinformatics or population genetics, both of which are very important if you want to understand the science of evolution. Despite all of this, Darwin's key insight, that we share a common ancestry with all life and that natural selection is the mechanism that drives adaptive change, has not been contradicted. As for Freud, Marx or Nietzsche, I don't care one bit about them or their philosophies. I don't see any one philosopher, dead or alive, as an authority whom I'd regard with reverence and deference. Ideas stand on their own, and if they are powerful and useful, they should be incorporated into our understanding of the world, regardless of whoever originally invented them.

Feel free to base your spiritual reawakening on whatever drivel you want, but have no illusions: that man's critiques of evolution are asinine and pathetic. If you base your understanding of science on the pronouncements of fools such as the speaker from that link, it suddenly becomes clear how you manage to habitually arrive at absurd conclusions, such as the inane notion that materialism inevitably leads to racism and antisemitism.

Quote from: Geo Dude on October 25, 2011, 03:07:02 PM
I simply don't understand why racism and anti-semitism are inevitable positions from a materialistic point of view.  This is what I'm curious about.

Because from a materialistic point of view, racism is the only possible outcome. Likewise from a realpolitik point of view, in relation to anti-semitism. That is, of course, unless you like to bullshit yourself to the realities of the world.

To wit, the Nazis were fierce Darwinists.

I've already distanced myself from a purely physical understanding of race after reading Imperium, by Francis Parker Yockey. I haven't had a similar success at distancing myself from the works of Kevin McDonald, who uses an evolutionary perspective to explain ethnic conflict between Jews and Europeans.

Quote from: Daidalos on October 26, 2011, 07:53:30 AM
The speaker in that video is a charlatan; his comments regarding evolution are simply laughable. Even if it were true that Darwin was a racist, even in comparison to his contemporaries (which certainly isn't true), it wouldn't do one bit to refute evolution. Modern evolutionary science has gone far beyond Darwin. Darwin had no idea of heredity, and the mechanism that he proposed to explain inheritance is quite disproved; he knew nothing of molecular biology, which informs our modern conception of evolution; nor he could he possibly conceive of bioinformatics or population genetics, both of which are very important if you want to understand the science of evolution. Despite all of this, Darwin's key insight, that we share a common ancestry with all life and that natural selection is the mechanism that drives adaptive change, has not been contradicted. As for Freud, Marx or Nietzsche, I don't care one bit about them or their philosophies. I don't see any one philosopher, dead or alive, as an authority whom I'd regard with reverence and deference. Ideas stand on their own, and if they are powerful and useful, they should be incorporated into our understanding of the world, regardless of whoever originally invented them.

Feel free to base your spiritual reawakening on whatever drivel you want, but have no illusions: that man's critiques of evolution are asinine and pathetic. If you base your understanding of science on the pronouncements of fools such as the speaker from that link, it suddenly becomes clear how you manage to habitually arrive at absurd conclusions, such as the inane notion that materialism inevitably leads to racism and antisemitism.

Well, once you are done frothing at the mouth, feel free to join the discussion again.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 26, 2011, 07:35:55 AM
I am at present unable to view videoclips so I can't comment directly--but some of the webpages that came up in googling Dr. Oldmeadow and the presentation title refer to the "doctrines/ideologies" of Darwin, Freud, Marx, etc.  Now it's perfectly accurate to speak of Marx in that way, and Freud seems to belong to the category of outdated science, but to refer to Darwin in those terms--that is, to speak of the theory of evolution as anything other than a part of science that has loads of evidence to support it--throws a red flag up for me immediately.  Unless the reference is meant to refer to such things as "Social Darwinism" and similar abuses of the theory of evolution, in which case the term would be appropriate.

It is a "doctrine" because Darwinism reflects an aspect of modernistic thinking, under the bracket of which he includes Marx, Freud and Nietzsche as the four pillars of all modernistic thought. I recommend you see the presentation though, i can't sum up the whole thing in a few words. I will clarify the way in which he defies Darwinism though, which is the most convincing argument made from a metaphysical point of view i ever heard. Oldmeadow's position is thus. That it is absurd to think that consciousness could arise from non-consciousness. That from inert matter, a Mozart could rise. That from "primordial slime", after all sorts of complicated processes throughout a VERY long span of time, you could arrive at Bach. According to him, its only possible to go downwards, not upwards, and you can only descent from a "celestial" archetype to a lesser physical manifestation of said archetype. Its a compelling argument, as far as metaphysical explanations for the existence of life go, at any rate.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 26, 2011, 07:35:55 AM
That said,  I adhere, more or less, to what Dr. Oldmeadow refers to as the "perennial philosophy", so I'm certainly not going to discourage Josquin or anyone else from following up on this--but I'm bound to say there's a good deal of hogwash, tripe and pure bovine excrement peddled under that banner which doesn't belong there, so please make sure your critical analysis skills are fully engaged when reading up on it.

Well, all fields of metaphysics are rife with the most outstanding type of nonsense, it comes with the territory. So far i gathered a few names belonging to this movement: Julius Evola, René Guénon, Frithjof Schuon and Martin Lings. I'm going to investigate their works and see what comes out of it.

Apparently, those individuals were also tied to Neoplatonism. As an admirer of Platonic metaphysics, i find this interesting.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 27, 2011, 11:47:09 AM
It is a "doctrine" because Darwinism reflects an aspect of modernistic thinking, under the bracket of which he includes Marx, Freud and Nietzsche as the four pillars of all modernistic thought. I recommend you see the presentation though, i can't sum up the whole thing in a few words. I will clarify the way in which he defies Darwinism though, which is the most convincing argument made from a metaphysical point of view i ever heard. Oldmeadow's position is thus. That it is absurd to think that consciousness could arise from non-consciousness. That from inert matter, a Mozart could rise. That from "primordial slime", after all sorts of complicated processes throughout a VERY long span of time, you could arrive at Bach. According to him, its only possible to go downwards, not upwards, and you can only descent from a "celestial" archetype to a lesser physical manifestation of said archetype.

There's a problem with the notion that "consciousness could [not] arise from non-consciousness": in essence, it's simply an assertion and argument from personal incredulity. In the presentation that you linked there certainly is no convincing argument why it's necessarily false that an evolutionary process could give rise to consciousness; no, the speaker simply invites us to consider the self-evident "absurdity" of the concept. So, on the one hand we have a plain assertion, and on the other a rigorously tested and reliable scientific explanation.

I'd suggest that human intuition is very limited when it comes to gauging reality on a deep level, and that many things that on the face of it appear absurd are nonetheless true (in a scientific sense). Therefore, appealing to our sense of what seems true is both ridiculous and dangerous. Since Mozart was a genius who composed fantastic music, it might strike us as preposterous that a mundane physical process (i.e. evolution) could produce a composer like him, even given huge time spans... but just because an explanation offends our sensibilies doesn't automatically make it false. It it were so, you'd have to throw out almost all of modern science. It baffles me that anyone would expect reality to align with their most superficial intuitions; to my mind, it's symptomatic of an all too common breed of narcissism.

QuoteIts a compelling argument, as far as metaphysical explanations for the existence of life go, at any rate.

It's not an argument, it's an assertion. Let's see:

1. It's absurd to assume that consciousness could arise from non-consciousness.
2. In order to get a Mozart or a Bach, it's only possible to go downwards; from the divine to the physical.

It's just an exercise in question-begging. Your standards for what counts as an "argument" are remarkably lax.
(By the way, we see consciousness arise from non-consciousness every time an egg is fertilised by a sperm and the resultant zygote proceeds to grow into a baby. I'm assuming that you believe that neither egg nor sperm is conscious, of course.)

Feel free to defend your assertions with evidence, reason, logic, what have you; what won't work are appeals to our sense of what is absurd (and therefore false).

Quote from: toucan on October 27, 2011, 02:59:18 PM
This may be so; but the obverse is equally the case as the notion that "consciousness could arise from non-consciousness" is itself "simply an assertion from personal" credulity.

     No, we have examples of consciousness arising through a developmental process. All humans were once unconscious, and became conscious as their brains developed. We know that birds fly, and we knew it before we knew how. We were not credulous about that, or about the development of consciousness from unconsciousness. The question of consciousness is a matter of investigation of the processes, not something fought out at the metaphysical level where people can't "prove" the existence of other minds, so we're credulous to think people have them. No, we aren't.

Quote from: toucan on October 27, 2011, 02:59:18 PM
This may be so; but the obverse is equally the case as the notion that "consciousness could arise from non-consciousness" is itself "simply an assertion from personal" credulity.

I am not the one making a claim. From what I understand, consciousness doesn't at this time have a scientific explanation.

QuoteWhat tests?What experiments? Where? Darwin's book on the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection is a tissue of conjecture and speculation andsuch a broad & general philosophy as Darwin's by definition cannot be tested.

No Darwinist that I know of has dealt with Cuvier's refutation of Transformism. Cuvier (in his polemic with Lamarck) refutes it on three bases:

Allow me a brief chuckle over the fact that you're citing the work of a scientist who died two decades before the publication of On the Origin of Species to refute evolution.

Quote1/ the implausibility of using varieties as evidence for evolution. Why? Because a/ variations occur on superficial traits (ie, the relative size or color of, say, Columbine flowers), not internal organs & structure; b/ the span of possible variations is quite limited & after just a few generations the form either grows sterile, or degenerates, or reverts back to type; and c/ because all through what variations occur, what can always observe the persistance of the original type - ie, a rose is always a rose, a pig always a pig

In short, Darwin's contention that, if given time, variations will add up to new species is implausible, as the range of possible variations is just too limited and superficial.

First point, evolution takes a long time and significant changes to important organs or other structures are not likely to occur over a few generations. The hypothesised split between the human and chimp lineages is seven million years ago.

Second, we can certainly observe significant variation and use it for comparison. The analysis of structural homologies was very important in early evolutionary science. What I would be interested to hear from you is why the phylogenetic trees we can construct from analysis of structural and biochemical features of organisms match up with the phylogenetic trees we construct independently from genetic analyses? Before the invention of DNA sequencing, the evolutionary relationships between the higher primates had been drawn up based on morphology, and subsequent genetic analyses produced trees confirming what scientists already suspected. Even analysis of non-functional DNA yields these patterns of relationships. This data is perfectly consistent with evolution; if evolution did not occur, you will still have to explain why creatures seem to share these similarities.

Third, you seem unaware that there have been observed instances of speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html).

Quote2/ Cuvier's own discovery regarding the correlation of the growth of parts in living organisms (from which the invention by him of the science of paleontology derives) makes evolution impossible, as changes in any organism, that are not tied to changed in all the other parts of that organism, are necessarily injurious to the organism, which would eventually be rendered disfunctional by the modification.

You are aware that contemporary paleontologists overwhelmingly accept evolution?

What you say is also false. You are alluding to irreducible complexity, or whatever guise it took in the 19th century. Biological beings are not perfect clockworks that if you disrupt one cog everything ceases to function. Certainly there are mutations that are lethal, and obviously those are not inherited. Most mutations are actually neutral and confer no survival value at all to an organism, but they do accrue over time, which eventually can lead to substantial change.

Quote3/ And of course, the evidence from geology, which shows geologically brief periods of destruction of old species and formation of new ones, followed by geologically long periods of stasis. To make a case for transformation congruent with the geological evidence you would have to postulate saltation - a tall order, as no known species has ever been observed to produce offspring other than of its own kind.

Bah, a jerk in the geological record does not indicate an instantaneous change. We are still taking about thousands and thousands of years. The change would still be gradual from a generational perspective.

Are you perhaps referring to punctuated equilibrium, conceived of by the late Stephen Jay Gould? I'd note that he certainly was an evolutionist, and a famous one.

QuoteWhen I re-read Darwin or any other Darwinian ideologue, I long for the good old days when the great Voltaire would berate scientists for day dreaming about what may have been, instead of figuring out what occurs now, in front of our eys (even though I acknowledge most practicing scientists ignore the controvertial big issues, focusing instead on gaining understanding of currently observable & testable details, like the structure & function of proteins)

As a matter of fact, the statistical chances of even such a small thing as a functional protein arising by chance, no matter how much time is granted, is so close to nill as to be, well, nill. So, the chances of a Mozart arise through a Darwinian process?!!!!

Creationists suck at making probability arguments; I see that you are no different. It is not proposed that an enzymatically active protein popped into existence without any precursors. Indeed, the current science suggests that ribozymes, RNA-molecules with the ability to self-catalyse, preceded proteins.  We can just look at the ribosomes in our own cells to see evidence that ribonucleotides can function, however inefficiently, as enzymes.

As for the chances of Mozart arising through evolution... if I were making a bet four billion years ago that evolution would produce such a specimen, I'd most certainly bet against it. However, this is just spurious teleological thinking. If I drew a card from a deck, noted which card I drew on a piece of paper, returned the card to the deck, shuffled the deck, and repeated the process a total of ten times, the probability before I drew my first card that I would receive this particular suite would be 6,91x10^-18. Astronomical odds, but there I sit with those ten cards.

QuoteIt does not automatically make it true, either; besides, you are assuming skeptics are skeptics because they are offended by Darwin: on what evidence do you assume that. One becomes a skeptic because as one gets deeper into the theory one finds there is more speculation and sheer fiction in it, that tested & demonstrated science.

Perhaps you should read the posts that I was responding to. Stating that something is "absurd" on the face of it, and therefore untrue, suggests that one bases one's judgment on whether a notion offends one's sensibilities, and what one feels must be true.

If evolution is fiction, explain to me why humans have a chromosome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)) that appears to the result of the fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes.

QuoteNo you do not; what you are doing is assuming the spermatozoon and the unfertilized egg and the resulting zygote are devoid of conscience: but you do not know if that is the case.

Oh, indeed I cannot know that zygotes are devoid of consciousness, but from my observations it is usually the case that conscious beings have functional nervous systems. You might be an exception.

Quote from: toucan on October 27, 2011, 03:49:10 PM
A bizarrely fallacious analogy! Yes, we know birds fly and, yes, we know humans have conscience, but we do not know how birds came to be and fly and we do not know how consciousness arose (assuming conscience is something that arises, instead of something that just is). You are equating a fact - bird flight - with a speculation - the development of conscience from unconsciousness - what more, you are starting from the very same a priori as Daidalos - i.e. the presumed unconsciousness of the zigote, without consideration of the possibility that conscience is there in inception, alongside the brain & nervous system & other organs, which presumably are also there in germ from the moment of conception.

    Since we knew that birds could fly before we knew how, we can similarly say that unconscious beings can become conscious without knowing the details. I'm not going to grant that it's speculation that humans become conscious. We all were unconscious at one point no matter how far you push that moment back. As for thinking that things just exist rather than develop and change, what convinces you of this? All the evidence points to change over time, and these changes are responsible for new features including consciousness. In order to think this I must reluctantly give up the idea that tiny barking dogs inhabit dog zygotes. Either essences or developmental processes account for features of living beings, and it isn't credulous to prefer the path evidence indicates over essences.

Quote from: toucan on October 27, 2011, 05:30:53 PM
Allow me a roar of laughter over your ignorance of Lamarck, with who Cuvier was arguing - and Cuvier's refutation of Lamarck also works on Darwin as Darwin like Lamarck bases his theory on a failure to properly pay attention to the limitations to the limited range of observable variations.

I knew Cuvier argued against Lamarck. It's just a very curious practice to dredge up centuries-old arguments to critique the science of today.

QuoteYou fail to grasp the observation made by Cuvier (and later corroborated by Mendel), namely, that variations occur on superficial traits & the range of observable variations is always limited. The amount of time available made available to Darwin is therefore of no significance.

Observable phenotypic variation might be limited to a degree, but not so far as you seem to take it. Paleontologists can chart gradual changes to the gross structures of organisms that link species to species through geological time.

QuoteThese phylogenetic trees of Darwinian ideologues are not proof of the theory, they are restatements of the theory in the abscond, technical jargon dear to XXth century scientists...

How easily you dismiss mountains of corroborating evidence.

Do you deny that there are greater sequence similarities between chimpanzees and humans than with chimpanzees and gorillas?
Do you deny that there are greater sequence similarities between gorillas and chimpanzees and humans than with gorillas and organgutans?
and so on, and we have ourselves a nested phylogenetic tree. This pattern emerges if we study non-functional DNA as well, e.g. endogenous retroviruses, transposons, pseudogenes. This is a fact, one which is consistent with evolutionary theory. If you say that evolution is fiction, how can you explain this fact?

QuoteNo, I do not need to explain this as I do not need to claim to know it all to justify my skepticism toward the speculations of Charles Darwiniand of his disciples; indeed, to withold judgment on such a mysterious thing as the appearence of life on eath seems like a respectable one to me -

It would be respectable if there weren't any evidence to support evolution. There is. Loads of it.

If you wish to demonstrate the falsity of evolution, you must explain how it manages to be consistent with a great deal of data. One of the triumphs of modern evolutionary science is DNA sequence analysis. It has shown us that there are remarkable similarities on the sequence level between organisms, and to a very large degree sequence analysis confirms prior conclusions that scientists made with alternate methods.

QuoteAs a matter of fact it is among paleontologists that skepticism toward evolution is most widespread, but they do not like to say so publicly, for fear of being exploited by the Creationists - and smeared by doctrinaire Darwinists.

Since it is a matter of fact, I presume that you can provide evidence for your claim?

QuoteThe corelation of the parts in living organisms is a fact of observation that Darwinian ideologues deny, because it is not compatible with their theory.

If you have ever studied physiology, you will know that there is no denial of the interrelation of parts. The same goes for cell biology and biochemistry. I assure you, my professors in those subjects were Darwinians, and they made frequent reference to evolution to explain the various features of the systems we were studying.

QuoteWhere did you get the idea that living organisms needed to be perfect to be just that, organisms - i.e. organized beings or systems? Nothing in this universe is perfect yet evidence of pattern & organisation is wide spread -ie planetary cycles, reproductive cycles, etc.

Yes, there are patterns, but minor permutations don't screw over living systems completely. Even in instances where it appears to be very sensitive to change, e.g. molecular systems such as the immune response, there are precursors.

Quote"... they do accrue over time.." This is indeed the key to darwinism. But it simply is not an established fact, it is a speculation, and one at that that is contradicted by observation, as the range of observed variations is indeed such a limited one.

It is not contradicted by observation; quite to the contrary, as I stated before, there have been observed instances of speciation. Furthermore, if you dismiss comparative morphology, genetic analysis overwhelmingly supports the fact of common ancestry. Why do we share non-functional endogenous retroviruses (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses) in greater proportion with species that are considered more closely related to humans than we do with more presumably distantly related ones?

QuoteOnce people have grasped the notion that this core contention of Darwin - and of Lamarck - is unproven at best and possibly inplausible, then all evolutionary doctrines will fall.

Then I suggest you get to it and publish your research that refutes evolution. I look forward to the scientific revolution that is sure to follow.

QuoteBut the geologically short change postulated by Elredge and Gould is impossible from a stricter, Darwinian standpoint; these people are good at refuting one another, but not so good at proving themselves right.
No; I was refering t the geological and paleontological evidence. Punctuated equilibria is an attempt by Elredge and Gould at reconciling Darwinism with the overwhelming geological and paleontological evidence for stabilty (in between the periodic bouts of unruliness, mountain building, high volcanic activity, etc) - but one that does not go far enough in the end as all it does is reduce the time frame available for evolutionary transformation

The occasional jerkiness in the geological record does not indicate massive change and the "transformation" of species would still be a gradual one if considered one generation at a time; most likely, it would be imperceptible. In no way does it refute Darwinism.

QuoteWell, it didn't take you long to do as darwinians always do when they run out of argument - and create guilt by association with people I, for one, do not associate with, namely, the Creationists (whose critique of Darwinn, btw, is not wrong, but who draw the undue inference from their critique that, if Darwin is wrong, the Molina must be right. Separate creation is itself inplausible as it ignores the fact that all things in nature are linked - and the environment just as much a function of its parts as its parts are a function of their environment. A more plausible speculation - questions of origin probably always are speculative - is that the whole system, or biosphere, came about pretty much as is, perhaps by a process of precipitation from the very materials and energies of which it is composed).

Oh goodness, you want to talk about chance and you suggest the system precipitated out of the environment? Evolution by means of natural selection actually reduces the improbability of the emergence of complex traits; your proposal would by comparison be ridiculously improbable.

QuoteThis said, it is not the Creationists who have pointed out the statistical implausibility of the random emrgence of any form of organisation, living or not; it is mathematicians, who have been exploited by Creationists (and smeered by Darwinians, through the same guilt by association you have practiced against me); see for instance the Mathematical Challenges to neo-darwinism, published by the Wistar Institutes in 1967, or the writing of John Von Neumann.

For someone who claims not to be a Creationist, you sure sound like one. Random emergence of any form of organisation? Evolution is random in the sense that it is not strictly deterministic, but it is not entirely random; evolution is stochastic, it's a process with weighted probabilities. It is not proposed that complexity emerges spontaneously, but it does emerge nonetheless. A non-evolutionary example might the formation of snow flakes: a purely physical process that produces intricate crystals.

QuoteWell, it is indeed the case that Darwinism constantly modify their theory, to try and invalidate refutations of it; the problem is, the modified theory - that you refer to as "current science," - is just as speculative as the previous forms of it; what more, neither  RNA molecules nor living proteins have ever been observed outside of living organisation and it simply is not plausible to base any theory on phenomena whose very existence is implausible at best.

The strength of science is that is amenable to new evidence and changes to accommodate new data. The test of a theory is its ability to make accurate predictions. Evolution makes accurate predictions. We can predict in which geological strata a particular organism belongs; find a rabbit in the pre-Cambrian and evolution is dead. By means of different methods, we can compare the relatedness of different organisms; if the independent methods yield the same phylogenetic trees, it is an indication of the power of the theory.

The origin of life itself is surely a speculative issue, one which is very exciting, but it is actually separate from evolution. Evolution postulates the existence of life and goes on from there. Of course we cannot see RNA or protein "outside of living organisation" because they are right now inextricably intertwined with biological processes -- how would you even recognise RNA or protein "outside of living organisation"? -- but it certainly is plausible to make inferences based on the evidence at hand.

QuoteWhat occurs in living organisms today does not give us reliable clues as to how these organisms came about in the first place.

If ancestral features are preserved, they certainly might. DNA cannot have been the first replicator, because it is rather inert; protein cannot have been the first replicator, because it isn't good at storing information and it doesn't self-replicate; RNA, on the other hand, can fulfil both these functions, but not as efficiently as either DNA or proteins, respectively. If we can construct a model that describes the behaviour of those early replicators, and confirm the possibility by creating self-replicating RNA in a laboratory, then we have more reason to believe that RNA might have been one step closer to the first replicator (there may have been precursors even to RNA). On this issue of the first appearance of life, I don't think we will ever know, but with consistent models and theories, it becomes more plausible to have certain beliefs regarding the appearance of that first lifeform.

QuoteThe fact that there you are sitting with those ten cards in no way proves that either you or those cards have arisen through a process of evolution; it proves no more than that you are sitting there with those cards and your assumption that your existence proves darwinism is an expression of credulity, not reasoned observation.

It wasn't an attempt to prove evolution, only to highlight the pointlessness of probability calculations after the fact.

QuotePerhaps you should practice what you preach and read my posts before berating me as nowhere have I stated Darwin was absurd therefore wrong; I have merely stated Darwinism is a tissue of  conjectures and speculations and given some reasons for my statement.

I didn't respond to your post when I made my original post; you hadn't even posted then. I referred to the link in the OP and to Josquin. I thought that much was obvious. Evidently not.

QuoteI don't need to explain a wikipedia entry; you do, if you are going to make authority of such a dubious source; just as you are the one who needs to explain why I should let myself get swayed by such an obviously speculative assertion as that humans have a chromosome that "appears" to result of the fusion of two chimpanzee chromosomes. All living beings are composed of sugars and proteins, there is nothing in this chemical fact that proves all living beings are related by common descent and it is sufficient to observe the apparent fact that living organisation is a property of the chemicals of which living forms are composed - without making dogma of wild speculation over a subject that is probably yo complex for the human mind to understand, namely, the origin of life on earth

If you are insistent on this paranoia of yours, I will provide links to more reputable sources than wikipedia (even though it is accurate in this instance).
Ken Miller (Brown molecular biologist) explains the issue (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_c3CkSmT3c)
An article in Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences regarding this issue (http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.pdf)

I wonder if you are being deliberately dense on this issue. Sure, the chemical make-up of all organisms is very similar, but our DNA is arranged in specific patterns of nucleotides; it consists of information that can be quantified and objectively analysed.
Very simplistically, our chromosomes look like this: TTTgggggCCCggggggTTT. The T's are the end points of chromosomes, called telomeres. They are characterised by a specific, repeating nucleotide sequence motif that is produced by the enzyme telomerase as it lengthens the ends of chromosomes. The g's are simply genes in this simplified figure. The C's constitute the centromere, the part of the chromosome to which microtubuli attach during cell division; that region too is characterised by a certain sequence features. What is so curious with our chromosome number 2 is that it looks something like this: TTTgggggCCCggggggTTTTTTgggggCCCggggggTTT. There are telomere sequences in the middle of the chromosome and an inactivated second centromere. The genes of chromosome 2 in humans also consist of genes that have homologues in two separate chimpanzee chromosomes. So, the evidence indicates that after the split between the ancestral human and chimpanzee lineages, two chromosomes in our lineage fused to form chromosome 2 and that has been with us ever since. This is consistent with common ancestry and evolution. If evolution is false, explain to me why human chromosome number 2 looks as it does.

QuoteAs always with internet people, when they run out f argument they resort to insult. If I needed the vindication, I'd thank you for being such the sore loser.

As you can see, I haven't run out of arguments. Consider the insults a happy bonus.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 27, 2011, 11:47:09 AM
I will clarify the way in which he defies Darwinism though, which is the most convincing argument made from a metaphysical point of view i ever heard. Oldmeadow's position is thus. That it is absurd to think that consciousness could arise from non-consciousness. That from inert matter, a Mozart could rise. That from "primordial slime", after all sorts of complicated processes throughout a VERY long span of time, you could arrive at Bach. According to him, its only possible to go downwards, not upwards, and you can only descent from a "celestial" archetype to a lesser physical manifestation of said archetype. Its a compelling argument, as far as metaphysical explanations for the existence of life go, at any rate.

There's nothing 'metaphysical' to it. It's an argument based on taste, or if you'd like a longer word, aesthetics.

You, or Mr. Oldmeadow (you look at the fellow for a minute and see a charlatan, indeed), and countless other folks throughout history haven't liked the idea that ultimately the human race and all life on this planet have very simple beginnings.

What Darwin did was 1) show conclusively that this is the case 2) that it really makes life on this planet more wonderful

Quote from: toucan on October 27, 2011, 10:06:53 PM
no black couple, no white couple, and no oriental couple (assuming impeccable sexual fidelity by the female) has ever been observed to produce offspring other than black, white or oriental.

I don't think these are hard scientific categories, and in any case, it can be easily observed that "black" couples often have children in different shades of "black". Not that these are scientific observations, but "race" isn't a scientific category anyway. Although it was pretty predictable you would come up with it.

Quote from: toucan on October 27, 2011, 10:06:53 PM
Because the science of today is not necessarily better than the science of yesterday, because Ptolemy's geocentric system post-dates Aristarchus's heliocentric system yet Aristarchus was right and Ptolemy wrong, and because the scientists of today have failed to deal convincingly with the refutation of Cuvier, who was the greatest naturalist since Aristotle and therefore inherently respectable and because if the science of yesterday is necessarily superceded by the science of today (as you seem to imply), then the science of tioday has little value itself as it will necessarily be superceded by the science of tomorrow - in which case we are wasting our time, bickering over nothing. (no doubt, those among scientists who seek causes and treatment for such things as aids and cancer and heart diseases are more useful and therefore more respectable than those who make dogma out of speculation over what may or may not have occured in the past).

Just because science is producing answers that become better as time proceeds doesn't mean we should ignore what science says today in the hopes that we will get better answers tomorrow. To paraphrase Isaac Asimov (I don't have the exact quote in memory), "Those who believed the Earth flat were wrong; those later who believed the Earth a sphere were also wrong; however, if you believe that both were equally wrong, you are more wrong than both."

QuoteA telling concession, but one whose damage you try and unduly control by failing to deal with the fact that after very few variations specimens become sterile, or degenerate and die, or revert back to type. The evidence from farm and nursery as well as from nature simply refute the permanent, incremental changes postulated by Darwin as these constant changes simply do not occur.

Not a concession, but I'm hedging my statements because I recognise that I'm not that well-versed when it comes to morphological comparison. You, however, seem perfectly willing to make sweeping and dramatic statements, dismissing the efforts of scientists from diverse fields. I don't think it disrespectful to think that you aren't an expert in all of them.

QuoteNot so. What some paleontologists (and also museum curators) do is re-organize evidence taken out of geological context, around the theory (instead of deriving the theory from the evidence, kept on context)

This is preposterous. The consilience of different lines of evidence confirm the predictions of the theory. Paleontologists place organisms in nested hierarchies based on anatomical comparisons, and examinations of the genomes of contemporary species of those phyla either confirm or deny that they are "sorted" correctly. To a massive degree, genetic analysis has confirmed common descent and concurs with most other comparisons. There are of course instances where scientists are surprised (the ancestry of whales or hippos, for example), mostly due to loss-of-function mutations producing vestigial limbs.

QuoteOf course not; what I deny is the contention that Darwin and the Darwinists have provided a plausible explanation for these resemblances and the evidence from genetics simply does not allow it as known changes are too few and superficial to explain the theory.

Mutations rates (which have been measured) certainly seem to account for the genetic differences between chimps and humans accrued over six-seven million years.

QuoteI have seen lots of mendacity in internet debates but this one rates highly: what you are doing here is steal my (and Cuvier's) observation regarding the corelation of parts and then smearingly insinuating that I am the one who ignores the evidence from physiology, when in fact you are the one who, so far, has ignored it.

Furthermore, you are failing to deal with the consequence of ths observation, namely, the implausibility of the piecemeal changes postulated by Charles Darwin, as these changes, if they are not corelated to changes in the rest of the organism, are necessarily injurious to it, and therefore a refutation not a confirmation of the theory

I will make a confession: I haven't read much of Darwin's original writing. However, I have read plenty of modern biology, and the notion that evolution only proceeds by making piecemeal changes is ridiculous. There are many examples in the literature of parts evolving together as functionality shifts, not one piece at a time. For example, the evolution of the eye, an organ usually heralded to be impossibly complicated and therefore unevolvable, is documented step by step by reference to intermediate forms.

QuoteYet another concession. Thank you. The theory postulates that the changes are beneficial but the changes we observe tend to be damaging & therefore contradict the theory.

It's not a concession. Most changes are neither beneficial nor harmful, but neutral. Consider the degeneracy of the genetic code: the third nucleotide in a codon is usually not as important as the first two and a change needn't lead to amino acid substitution in proteins. The vast majority of mutations are neutral. As for changes that are not invisible to natural selection, most tend to be harmful, but that isn't an absolute judgment. Sickle cell anemia, for instance, might be beneficial if heterozygous, as it confers a resistance to malaria; in other circumstances it is harmful. However, there are also plenty of examples of mutations that are directly beneficial. In the world of microbiology, the ability of bacteria to adapt quickly is well known. One of the most dramatic examples is the evolution of the ability to break down nylon by a flavobacterium. More recently, Richard Lenski's research into E. coli has been noted as one of his strains developed the ability to metabolise citrate.

Quote"Occasional jerkiness'! What a joke. What you try and reduce to occasional jerkiness are catastrophic occurences involving massive earthquakes, volcanic activity, mountain building + massive destruction of species occuring near the beginning of the geological events - the whole thing followed by stability - geology dominated by slow processes such as erosion, and little change in existing forms of life. Why Darwin chose to uphold something as clearly refuted by the evidence as progressive evolution is somewhat of a mystery; it is probable he was overly affected by the ideology of progress, pre-eminent in his time - and it is quite certain his disciple accepts it because of a metaphysical a priori - namely, the will to ignore any line of evidence (such as the catastrophic appeareance of most forms of multicellular life during the pre-cambrian explosion) which they believe (probably falsely), requires a God

By "jerkiness" in the geological record I of course referred to the appearance of "jerkiness"; there is no attempt at reduction.

QuoteThe massive appearance of of most known multicellular life forms during the pre-cambrian event is a matter of paleontological fact, not a speculation. Another thing that is a fact, not a speculation, is the corelation of geological, atmospheric and biological processes that constitute the biosphere and that were well documented by the great Vladimir Vernadsky, father of the science of ecology. A theory that fails to start from such observations can only be a failed theory, over the long run, however sensible it may seem (subjectively) to you.  And when you claim (without evidence), that evolution reduces the improbability of complex traits you are practicing what you have falsely accused me of, namely, of denying facts and observations that do not fit your pre-conceived notions of what is or is not plausible, possible, or rational

The fact that most multicellular life suddenly* appeared does not mean they simply precipitated from the environment. That is far more of a tornado-in-a-junkyard scenario than evolution by natural selection ever was. Evolution reduces improbability because it proceeds in incremental steps, which builds up to complexity. I would refer you to Richard Dawkins's Climbing Mount Improbable, but he's just a Darwinist lackey so I doubt you will find him persuasive.

*by no means "sudden" by our reckoning; it took millions of years

QuoteThere you go again, with the same old cheap, if conventional smear: such low quality individuals you Darwinians invariably turn out to be, as always with ideologues of any sort. I also note that you have evaded recognition of the opposition to darwinism provided by reputed mathematicians. Not creationist preachers. Mathematicians.

It is not a rare thing for experts in one field to misunderstand the details of other fields and imagine that their criticisms actually have merit. Physicists aren't consulted when we suffer from disease, and while mathematicians conceivably have insights to offer to biological models, probabilistic argument made against the validity of evolution from mathematicians have failed. Here I would point to Dembski, whose mathematical arguments against evolution evince deep misunderstandings of biology, or Fred Hoyle, while an eminent physicist, he made a statistical argument against evolution (the aforementioned tornado in a junkyard) that constitutes a strawman, but I don't imagine that will do much good either.

QuoteSuch crass misunderstanding of what darwinism can and cannot do! It is not because of darwinism that we know it is unlikely we will find rabbits in the pre-cambrian; it is because generations of paleontologists have studied the rocks, layer after layer and the great man who began this process and even invented the Science of Paleontology happens to be none other than the greatest enemy of evolution - namely, Georges Cuvier!

Who died before Darwin published On the Origin. Don't recruit the dead to your cause. The evolution of Lamarck was very different from the evolution of Darwin. We don't know how Cuvier would have responded to Darwin's theory.

QuoteWhen Darwinism will fall one cannot know for sure - it took nearly two thousand years to break down Ptolemy, even though heliocentricity had been known before him; perhaps people will finally own up to the faxct that variations are too few and superficial to explain (and therefore justify) evolution; or perhaps they will just cease believe in the idea of progress as evolution is also an application to bilogy of that myth & as implausible in nature as it is in history, where what we get are cycles of civilisation and barbarity, not continuous progress from neantherdal to sputnik

Eh... evolution doesn't postulate progress from bad to better. Evolution by natural selection merely says that there are differences in reproduction between replicators. There is no tendency to produce anything "better," only a natural selection that favours those that manage to breed. Who manages to breed differs depending on the prevailing conditions.

QuoteAs a matter of fact the phylogenetic trees tend to differ from author to author, which is often what clues people to the possibility that evolution is far from a certain science.

Depending on what features you study, there can certainly be differences between phylogenetic trees. However, these differences are more pronounced if you glimpse very far into the past, or use genes that aren't under strong selection pressures to remain the same. You will not see substantially different trees depicting the relationships between the primates if the analysis is based on genetic data.

QuoteAs a matter of fact, there is nothing plausible about infering the existence of RNA or DNA or protein independent from living organisation because: 1/ such phenomena have never been observed (or recreated in labs) and 2/ because life is all about organisation and RNA< DNA and protein have plausible existence other than the function they serve within living organisms. It seems what you are doing here is rephrasing the Epicurian philosophy (parts randomly assembling into complex forms) in terms of modern chemistry - without due regards for the fact that these pre-existing parts the Epicurians postulate, have never been observed to exist in fact)

We have drifted into discussing abiogenesis, which is distinct from evolution. Nevertheless, the initial assembly into a complex form would probably constitute a chance event, but the "complex" form -- according to the current model -- would be a ribonucleotide that wouldn't be particularly complex by our standards. As stated before, this is a new science that does not have the experimental and theoretical backing of evolution, and it is stille extremely speculative, so I'm not making any definite statements about this. I will refer you to an article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html) written by one of our GMG alums, Al Moritz (he's a biochemist), that deals with the origin of life.

QuoteWithin the context of living organisation. When you depart from this you are speculating over something that occurs neither in nature nor in labs To arrive at plausible explanation of phenomena you must start from observations. Cells are observed facts. Multicellular organisms are observed facts. Living organisation is fact of observation. Breaking an organism down to its constituent parts is analytically usefull and helps understand what these parts and their functions are. But to assume that an organism constructs itself piece after piece from its constituent parts is not only to speculate from nothing, it is to make a speculation that contradicts the fact that living organism exist only as wholes and can exist only as wholes.

It does seem as though you are trying to resurrect essentialism. Organisms are assemblages of parts working in unison, some more complex than others. Currently, we don't have an example of self-replicating ribozyme (as far as I know), but research is ongoing. If we do manage to construct a simple one in a laboratory, it will certainly lend credence to the notion that a form of RNA world could have preceded our world of cells and bodies. As for organisms constructing themselves piece by piece... we have examples of that as well, on larger scales: consider the development of a human being from a single cell.

QuoteThese models and theories of yours are merely restatements of those beliefs and therefore cannot confer plausibility onto them

If you are intent on ignoring evidence there is nothing I can do to help you.

QuoteWow!  when you are not resorting to the conventional, ideologically-determined slander (ie creationism), you resort to the same sort of nasty attacks on sanity practiced by bolshevist authorities against dissidents: what a loyal follower of Lysenko you are indeed but I prefer Vavilov's law of  homologous series in Variations even though it is not compatible with Darwinism as he derived his generalisations from observation and experiment, when the Darwinists reorganize the evidence around an ideology that does not convincingly explain it.

Lysenko was a Lamarckian. He believed that organisms acquired traits that were subsequently passed on. This explains the disastrous consequences of Lysenkoism.

QuoteKen Miller: the favorite authority of semi-educated internet morons: if only you heard the mocking laughter this link of yours generated in me! Brown has got to be one of the most pathologically arrrogant dumb-asses I have ever heard off, what with his self-righteous and self-serving claims to be absolutely and exclusive right on the religious issue (ie, presumably liberal christianism VS the fundamentalists) as well as on the science. Brown's sole title to celebrity is his role in the persecution of the hapless Behe; and though he quite liberally asserts his objection to Behe is necessarily and inevitably right, all he has done to oppose him is provide a truly inept analogy between a living organism, and... a mouse trap, claiming (on what evidence he does not say) that a simple mouse trap evolves into a more complex trap and therefore that a simpler organism can evolve into a more complex one! A machine, a human contraption, evolving into another one! What a joke!! Bad analogies can impress readers of science popularisations but surely serious scientists know better.

Why don't you address the issue that I brought up (chromosomal fusion) rather than heaping your invective on Ken Miller? I would say that the bad analogy was orginally Behe's (he introduced the mousetrap!); blaming Miller for showing the shortcomings of that analogy is poor form.

QuoteNor can you impress me with appeals to the authority of a Brown professor. I have been to Rice and Standford, where I have seen lots of second-rates, alongside the good teachers & fine scholars. Nor am I oblivious of the fact that the treatment meted out to Newton by colleges at Cambridge amounted to persecution and acacademic titles no more prove integrity than they prove competence.


And before you again presume to claim I am the one who is dense you need to open up what mind you have and account for the overwhelming fact that observed variations are too few in number and too superficial to provide an adequate mechanism for evolution. All your simplistic description of chromosomes does is re-state in chemical terms the obvious structural resemblences between primates, without giving us much of a clue as the causes and reasons for their existence and to assert all curently existing primates derive from some dwarf called Lucy has no more plausibilty that to claim all human races descend from a bitch called Eve - as no chimp, baboon, or wiki-scientist has ever been observed to produce offspring other than chimp, baboon or wiki-scientist, just as no balck couple, no white couple, and no oriental couple (assuming impecable sexual fidelity in the female's part) has ever been observed to produce offspring other than black, white or oriental. Evolution assumes (not unlike the biblical account of the origgin of human races) were other than the observable processes occuring today. That maybe so, but you need to do better than to restate in modern jargon the speculations of Charles Darwin, to convince me this is the case.

If you knew a thing of genetics you would know that chromosomal arrangement has no large effect on phenotype. It does not reflect the structural resemblances between primates.

I have taken up this issue many, many times, but I will do so again because you haven't yet addressed it. Why are NON-FUNCTIONAL sequences shared in greater proportion between organisms that are believed to be more closely related than between species that are believed to be more distantly related. I'm talking about broken genes, remnants of ancient viruses that have stuck around in our DNA, and huge stretches of repetitive sequences... these things do not produce any phenotypic (i.e. visible) effects on the organism at all; they are only detectable if you analyse DNA sequences.

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/retrovirus.gif)
This is an image I like. It shows that certain kind of sequences resembling retroviruses are shared in greater proportion between chimps and humans than between chimps and gorillas, between gorillas and chimps more than between gorillas and orangutans, and so on down the layers. These sequences do nothing, they are simply genetic fossils, so they cannot possbily reflect physical similarities between these various species. Why do we find that the tree we construct by looking only at these sequences match the trees we construct by other methods? What reason is there for chimps and humans to share more dead viruses in their DNA than chimps and gorillas do?

Daidalos, much though I admire your continued engagement with Toucan (and I also have long liked that telomere video, and the last diagram you posted), it's clearly not going to work.* His arguments against evolution are of course misguided and misinformed, but these are as nothing to the alternative theory that he is suggesting, namely that things precipitated from their environment. Where does one even start with a claim like that? And you are right to point out of course that it is bizarre to appeal to the unlikelyness of evolution, when this is your proposed alternative!

Toucan, you keep denying that you are a creationist, but just to be clear, what is your account of how humans appeared on the earth?



*although actually the value of these discussions is often in clarifying it for later readers: which person is telling a more reasonable story? So do continue if you have the energy!

Quote from: Daidalos on October 28, 2011, 12:09:34 AM
Currently, we don't have an example of self-replicating ribozyme (as far as I know), but research is ongoing.

An interesting paper for you I think.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19131595 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19131595)

I don't understand people who think evolution theory is false.
I don't understand people who believe in God.

It's 2011. I had understood the plausibility of evolution theory and the naivety of religious faith before I was 10 years old. How on earth is this so difficult for many adults?  ???

Quote from: toucan on October 28, 2011, 08:52:51 AM
  Multicellulare life-forms in all their variety and complexity did occur explosivelly, how and why I don't know - and neither do you.

Just on this point, no one can ever truly know of course but there are a couple of reasonable mechanisms proposed. Reducing expression of Hsp90 through stress conditions can give clear and diverse morphological phenotypes in Drosophila (Rutherford and Linquist, 1998). This demonstrated that even in a an organism with a stable developmental programme, environmental stress can promote new morphologies BUT the work did not demonstrate speciation. Presumably (!) this needs to occur over longer time frames.

In bacteria, stress responsive error prone DNA polymerases (DNA pol IV) can give rise to diverse biochemistries. This work actually came about in the aftermath of the reports of directed evolution in lacZ in E coli, subsequently proven incorrect. What is clear is that there are enzymes able to promote rapid variation under environmental stress. I'm not sure what has been done on this in eukaryotes.

Quote from: toucan on October 28, 2011, 08:52:51 AM
To construct a more plausible theory f evolution there are two things (at least, two things that have come up my own mind) one would have to do

1/ break the theory down to phylas and even subphylas and classes (thereby postuling the multiple origins of life forms whose possibility Darwin himselfs appears to habe been open to) - as relationship between chordatas, vertebratas and mammalia (for exemple) is more plausible than relationships between trees and vertebrates, or virus and trees
2/ account for the fact that variations are too few in their range and work on too superficial traits to provide a convincing mechanism for said evolution

I don't think I would argue either of these points in essence. I agree that the semantics of taxonomy and its traditional dependence on form is a dead end. On your second point, I would question the truth behind the statement "and work on too superficial traits" as I think the superficiality or otherwise is unknown. Other than that, I have no problem with the essence of your second point and to solve that problem would make someone one of the greatest biologists of the 21st century.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 28, 2011, 08:15:11 AM
I don't understand people who think evolution theory is false.
I don't understand people who believe in God.

It's 2011. I had understood the plausibility of evolution theory and the naivety of religious faith before I was 10 years old. How on earth is this so difficult for many adults?  ???

I agree...I can't undestand why people still believe that Jesus was born from a virgin mother and that he could perform various miracles.
People consider these stories as facts and talk about them with a straight face  :o


I'm not saying that i agree 100% with Darwin's theory, but at least it's a theory, an interpretation.
Religion on the other hand offers nothing. No theory, no proof. Just a set of dogmatic rules, that will never evolve even in a million years from now.

There will never be a fruitful discussion of the theory of evolution, religion, etc.

Religious people (who are supposed to not be materialistic) make their own religious doctrine materialistic, and the materialists direct their criticism at a materialistic interpretation of a non-materialistic doctrine.

Everybody loses.

Quote from: Guido on October 28, 2011, 04:23:01 AM

Toucan, you keep denying that you are a creationist, but just to be clear, what is your account of how humans appeared on the earth?

I thought it had been proved conclusively by the Pastafarians to be FSM.  Just look at the decline of pirates over that last few centuries. 

http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/ (http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/)
http://www.venganza.org/ (http://www.venganza.org/)


(http://www.venganza.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/FSM_tornado.jpg)

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on October 28, 2011, 10:06:33 AM
There will never be a fruitful discussion of the theory of evolution, religion, etc.

Religious people (who are supposed to not be materialistic) make their own religious doctrine materialistic, and the materialists direct their criticism at a materialistic interpretation of a non-materialistic doctrine.

Everybody loses.

     I disagree. Such discussions play a role in spreading knowledge, even if only by directing people to investigate further the ideas that are presented. Some people will be inspired to learn more about, for example, materialism, or evolution. The notion that debates cause people to lose something is only credible from the standpoint of beliefs rather than knowledge. Yes, if your belief can't withstand scrutiny, you might lose something. From the standpoint of knowledge this is not a loss.

Quote from: toucan on October 28, 2011, 08:52:51 AM
What the paleontologists you are alluding to do is take the evidence 9ie the fossils) out of context and line them up in light of the theory, without due regard to their dating or geographical location.

     No, they line them up according to their context, try out theories to find one that explains the dating and location. It's a process where theory and evidence are aligned by adjusting theory to accommodate what's found. Evidence changes theory, and evolution continues to evolve, as it should. The theory of Darwin is not the theory of Mendel, or of Watson and Crick, but it's the same theory to a remarkable extent. It's still a theory of natural selection, but now the question of how can be answered in much greater detail.

Quotethereby postuling the multiple origins of life forms whose possibility Darwin himselfs appears to habe been open to

     Darwin theorized about a common origin for all life, but he didn't know about the genetic code, which confirmed a single origin. So yes, Darwin was open to the possibility of separate origins from parallel processes. We now know that didn't happen, and his hypothesis was correct. It still remains possible that very early life forms from the RNA world arose separately. In that case the winners ate the losers, and everything after that derives from a single origin. As a result, we have a single universal DNA code. Or, to put it another way, the single universal DNA code confirms the origin account which Darwin settled on.

Quote from: drogulus on October 28, 2011, 01:42:06 PM
     I disagree. Such discussions play a role in spreading knowledge, even if only by directing people to investigate further the ideas that are presented.

I don't think you understood what I wrote.  Debate is useless if everybody has a different idea of what is being talked about.  These kinds of dialogues usually devolve into a mass of clichés.

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on October 29, 2011, 03:10:13 PM
Debate is useless if everybody has a different idea of what is being talked about.

Why does everybody have a different idea of what is being talked about?

I have debated years online about these things and it has been a revelation to me how religious people still are, in 2011.  Finland is pretty secular country compared to many other places but even us Finns aren't as secular as we should be in 2011. By now, religions should have diminished to odd "cults" of small groups (<5 %) of population (there's always nut-cases and weirdos around). But cultural tradition and the institutional power of the church keep people religious and these crazy debates of evolution, creation and even ID continues...  ??? 

Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2011, 01:41:21 AM
Why does everybody have a different idea of what is being talked about?

I have debated years online about these things and it has been a revelation to me how religious people still are, in 2011.  Finland is pretty secular country compared to many other places but even us Finns aren't as secular as we should be in 2011. By now, religions should have diminished to odd "cults" of small groups (<5 %) of population (there's always nut-cases and weirdos around). But cultural tradition and the institutional power of the church keep people religious and these crazy debates of evolution, creation and even ID continues...  ???

Why would you be surprised at the prevalence of religious beliefs today? That seems to imply that human nature has altered recently or a universally suitable and satisfactory substitute for religions has been made available.

Why should culture be secular? Why would you assume that people are merely "kept" religious by "tradition and the institutional power of the church"? Have you considered that people might consciously adopt or affirm religious views without external manipulation or pressure?

Certainly if you are adopting the scientific method as your principal means of gathering data and making predictions, you aren't being scientific here :)

That's part of the issue with these "crazy debates": you have groups with fundamentally incompatible worldviews, fundamentally different notions about how "truth" is found or constructed. It's only crazy in that some of them assume the others do or should hold the same principles. Recall that religions often see truth as divinely revealed/inspired or attained through personal mystical experience. Science by definition can't go there since it is founded on empiricism, measurement, reproducible experimentation, and objective peer review. Religions likewise deal in the promulgation of ethics and wisdom, which, strictly speaking, lies outside the realm of science; science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

Btw, you might find Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions a thought-provoking read.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2011, 01:41:21 AM
Why does everybody have a different idea of what is being talked about?

I have debated years online about these things and it has been a revelation to me how religious people still are, in 2011.  Finland is pretty secular country compared to many other places but even us Finns aren't as secular as we should be in 2011. By now, religions should have diminished to odd "cults" of small groups (<5 %) of population (there's always nut-cases and weirdos around). But cultural tradition and the institutional power of the church keep people religious and these crazy debates of evolution, creation and even ID continues...  ???

You're not accounting for spiritual experience.  I don't "believe" in God.  I experience God, and it would be as sensible for me to say that the air I breath does not exist as it would be for me to say that God does not exist--that's how vivid and continual the experience of God is to me.

That does not require me to accept any particular religion or denomination as "true".  I am a Jew,  in part because that's what I was born into, and in part because I find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence. (The contrary view, when examined, turns out to be based on circular reasoning, false assumptions, and rejecting the traditional view summarily, almost ideologically, without pausing to consider how accurate it might be.)  But even if you were able to prove the Old Testament was totally invalid, I'd still believe in God.  I might not continue to practice as a Jew (and my personal practice involves a lot of input from spiritual/religious traditions outside Judaism, as it is), but I could never be an atheist.

Quote from: Grazioso on October 30, 2011, 06:15:49 AM
Why would you be surprised at the prevalence of religious beliefs today?

Because of all the knowledge and understanding of the world we have today.

Quote from: Grazioso on October 30, 2011, 06:15:49 AMThat seems to imply that human nature has altered recently or a universally suitable and satisfactory substitute for religions has been made available.

Human nature hardly has altered at all but we have knowledge far superior to religions.

Quote from: Grazioso on October 30, 2011, 06:15:49 AMWhy should culture be secular?

Because secular culture can base itself to scientific proven facts and in case of non-proven things the most plausible theories available. Theories get corrected/defined in time. Religions tend to hold to erroneous conceptions delaying development of society (eg. the rights of sexual minorities).

Also, secular culture doesn't have arbitrary holy things driving mentally unbalanced individuals to violent fanatic actions for the sake of religion. Without religions these mental individuals have a lot less reason for any kind of fanatism meaning less terrorism.

Religious people are unable to think clearly because religion has infected their minds. I am sorry to say this but this is how it seems to be based on all the debates online I have had with religious people. So, secular culture seems to "protect" people's ability to think (freely).

The church as an institution is an obsolete one holding on it's status in society. Just look Vatican and Pope with all the scandals. It's lunacy!

Do you need more arguments for secular culture?

Quote from: Grazioso on October 30, 2011, 06:15:49 AMWhy would you assume that people are merely "kept" religious by "tradition and the institutional power of the church"? Have you considered that people might consciously adopt or affirm religious views without external manipulation or pressure?

Because that's how it is. That's why children of parents of certain religion tend to assume the same religion. Even if people might consciously adopt or affirm religious views without external manipulation or pressure doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Quote from: Grazioso on October 30, 2011, 06:15:49 AMCertainly if you are adopting the scientific method as your principal means of gathering data and making predictions, you aren't being scientific here :)

I don't know what you mean by this but gathering data and making predictions based on that data IS science. Religions don't gather data nor do they make predictions. Why bother? All the answers are available in holy books! Who care if these answers are sometimes ridiculous, are often mutually inconsistent and in the end don't really tell us anything?

Quote from: Grazioso on October 30, 2011, 06:15:49 AMThat's part of the issue with these "crazy debates": you have groups with fundamentally incompatible worldviews, fundamentally different notions about how "truth" is found or constructed. It's only crazy in that some of them assume the others do or should hold the same principles. Recall that religions often see truth as divinely revealed/inspired or attained through personal mystical experience. Science by definition can't go there since it is founded on empiricism, measurement, reproducible experimentation, and objective peer review. Religions likewise deal in the promulgation of ethics and wisdom, which, strictly speaking, lies outside the realm of science; science is descriptive, not prescriptive.

This a common fallacy religious people have about science. There is no realm beyond science. Everything can be examined scientifically, it's only a question of having scientific tools available. Sooner or later science will understand things that seem a monopoly of religion today. Religion will be killed by science and it is only a good thing. We are behind the schedule at the moment which is a bit frustrating.

Quote from: Grazioso on October 30, 2011, 06:15:49 AMBtw, you might find Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions a thought-provoking read.

It's frightening how much people allow few books influence their conceptions but if you want thought-provoking read, I can mention Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I prefer "gathering data" from all kind of sources and coming to my own conclusions after hard and long free-thinking. Reading The God Delusion was merely a verification process for me. In genetics Dawkins' knowledge is far superior to mine but otherwise our conclusions are similar.

(I read briefly about Kuhn's book in Wikipedia.)

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 30, 2011, 07:36:18 AM
You're not accounting for spiritual experience.  I don't "believe" in God.  I experience God, and it would be as sensible for me to say that the air I breath does not exist as it would be for me to say that God does not exist--that's how vivid and continual the experience of God is to me.

Spiritual experiences are very complex electro-chemical reactions in our heads. I don't experience God because all the knowledge and understanding of the world I have has given me tools to analyze my experiences and name them more correctly. That is, I experience human experiences because I am alive. The air you breath can be observed by others and manifests itself in millions of ways all the time (eg. drag). No wonder everyone agrees about the existence of air. God does not enjoys such consensus.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 30, 2011, 07:36:18 AMThat does not require me to accept any particular religion or denomination as "true".  I am a Jew,  in part because that's what I was born into, and in part because I find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence. (The contrary view, when examined, turns out to be based on circular reasoning, false assumptions, and rejecting the traditional view summarily, almost ideologically, without pausing to consider how accurate it might be.)  But even if you were able to prove the Old Testament was totally invalid, I'd still believe in God.  I might not continue to practice as a Jew (and my personal practice involves a lot of input from spiritual/religious traditions outside Judaism, as it is), but I could never be an atheist.

I could never believe in (any) God, not in million years with the understanding I have of the world. Maybe 200 years ago I would have been religious but today religion seems ridiculous. You said it yourself. You are a Jew because you were born a Jew. That's also why you find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence (what the heck that even means? What evidence?). You have been indoctrinated succesfully into Judaism. Sorry, but there is little hope for you to get rid of your beliefs and be able to think freely.  :-[

Quote from: Herman on October 27, 2011, 11:40:01 PM
There's nothing 'metaphysical' to it. It's an argument based on taste, or if you'd like a longer word, aesthetics.

No, its a metaphysical statement (it is true that it is not an argument, you can't argue metaphysics, which deals with eternal principles which are fixed and immutable), its just that people like you don't know what the science of metaphysics actually entails (pure intellect as opposed to a simple branch of philosophy).

I'm reading Guénon as we speak, and it seems i may have finally found a metaphysical doctrine which actually runs in tandem with my own understanding of the world. It explains why i could never accept the Catholicism i grew up with and could never take on any other religion, including Buddhism, which is also a decadent religion (or a religion of decadence, as Christianity is today). Very few of the religions of the world actual deal with the principles which Guénon refer to as "traditional", but which are really intended to be nothing more then the underlying metaphysical truths which radiate from the absolute principle, which is the only true reality of the universe (call it God if you will), from which everything else comes forth, the material world being in the lowest echelon of this universal order. Those principles are no longer present in most of the major religions, particularly those of the west, and even in the east they are also difficult to find (there is an esoteric Islam which apparently still retains an understanding of those principles, which however remains hidden from the largest body of the religion). And then of course there is ancient India, which apparently developed an understanding of those principles better then any other civilization.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2011, 10:19:48 AM
There is no realm beyond science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco&feature=player_embedded

William Lane Craig demolishing that notion in less then a minute. No wonder Dawkins was afraid to argue with this guy.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 30, 2011, 07:36:18 AM
You're not accounting for spiritual experience.  I don't "believe" in God.  I experience God, and it would be as sensible for me to say that the air I breath does not exist as it would be for me to say that God does not exist--that's how vivid and continual the experience of God is to me.

See, this is a typical sentimental expression of religiosity which lacks a fundamental intellectual underpinning, and is thus not "traditional".

Quote from: Herman on October 27, 2011, 11:54:24 PM
but "race" isn't a scientific category anyway.

Actually, it is. Scientists today are just encouraged to see it either wise (or else). This is the real kicker here, because to deny the existence of race is to actually reject the theory of evolution, or to accept it only in so far as humans aren't included in the equation. Which really shows that liberalism, like all other forms of modern religions (including Christianity), isn't really interested in truth. Darwin, who had no such prejudices towards uncomfortable realities, saw no problems in including humans in the general narrative of evolution and selective adaptation.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 30, 2011, 11:49:21 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco&feature=player_embedded

William Lane Craig demolishing that notion in less then a minute. No wonder Dawkins was afraid to argue with this guy.

Why is it that my atheistic claims are often responded with these short Youtube clips? Why am I supposed to believe my claims are demolished with these? Youtube is full of lunatics. Dawkins is not affaid, he just refuses to argue with these lunatics because they are not worth it.

Dawkins is afraid to argue with Graig since the latter demolished the almighty Hitchens (at least on intellectual grounds. He faltered once he put his religion to the table). Which shows those so called "new atheists" have no actual intellectual foundation of any kind, just a lot of puerile vitriol.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 30, 2011, 12:40:16 PM
Dawkins is afraid to argue with Graig since the latter demolished the almighty Hitchens (at least on intellectual grounds. He faltered once he put his religion to the table). Which shows those so called "new atheists" have no actual intellectual foundation of any kind, just a lot of puerile vitriol.

I don't know about this. Maybe this Graig is very intelligent but a lunatic nevertheless.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2011, 10:53:38 AM
Spiritual experiences are very complex electro-chemical reactions in our heads. I don't experience God because all the knowledge and understanding of the world I have has given me tools to analyze my experiences and name them more correctly. That is, I experience human experiences because I am alive. The air you breath can be observed by others and manifests itself in millions of ways all the time (eg. drag). No wonder everyone agrees about the existence of air. God does not enjoys such consensus.

There is a level of existence and experience which can not be analyzed or described in terms the human mind can comprehend.  People have been trying and failing to do so from the Upanishads on.  They can't be analyzed and correctly named because we simply don't have the tools. What preceded thought can not be described by thought. The best name for this level of existence anyone has provided in European tradition is "God", although there are others.  Call it the Absolutely Real, if you want to avoid the term "God".  But the fact that you have never (knowingly) experienced it does not mean it does not exist.  When I compared it to the experience of the air around us, I was trying to illustrate how vivid and continual that experience is.  And in a way, I was inaccurate--because I experience God at a more intimate, deeper and tangible way than I do the air around us.  So God is more real to me than the air, as real as air may be.

Quote

I could never believe in (any) God, not in million years with the understanding I have of the world. Maybe 200 years ago I would have been religious but today religion seems ridiculous. You said it yourself. You are a Jew because you were born a Jew. That's also why you find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence (what the heck that even means? What evidence?). You have been indoctrinated succesfully into Judaism. Sorry, but there is little hope for you to get rid of your beliefs and be able to think freely.  :-[

You are demonstrating your own limitations admirably.  May I suggest your way of thinking is as conditioned towards atheism as mine might be by Judaism?     
And let me repeat the point I was making, which seems to have escaped you:  I don't believe in God because I am a Jew;  I believe in God because I experience God.  (There is more than enough evidence in favor of the traditional view, btw.  As I said before, the argument against it, when examined impartially, reveals itself to be built on unproved assumptions, circular logic, and a tendency for the proponent to substitute his or her own fantasies and speculations for evidence.)

The real point is this: you mistake religion for something that is irrational and without a rational basis in human experience.  It isn't.  All those billions of people believe in God because they find it the reasonable thing to do.

Also two other points you raised in other posts:
1) Secular ideologies are not free from the tendency to kill en masse and otherwise ruin human civilization.  Communism and Nazism were the main offenders, but not the only ones.
2) Dawkins should be completely ignored on the subject of religion.  He is as ignorant on the subject as the average layman is ignorant of genetics.  All of his arguments and objections against religion were answered by the medieval scholastics.  The same applies to Hitchens, but at least he has the merit of being an excellent prose stylists.  You won't learn much of value from Hitchens regarding religion, but you will learn much of value from him on how to write well.
There are philosophically sophisticated arguments against religion, developed under the rubric of the philosophy of religion, during the 20th century, but Dawkins seems to be totally ignorant of them. (Obviously I think those arguments fail, but at least they're more advanced than the ones Dawkins makes.)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 30, 2011, 12:01:03 PM
See, this is a typical sentimental expression of religiosity which lacks a fundamental intellectual underpinning, and is thus not "traditional".

On the contrary, it is quite traditional:  because the intellect can only carry you so far.  To succeed at being human you have develop all your capacities, of which the intellect is only one.  And to fully realize the fundamental unity of your self with God, you have to unknow everything else.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 30, 2011, 11:44:09 AM
No, its a metaphysical statement (it is true that it is not an argument, you can't argue metaphysics, which deals with eternal principles which are fixed and immutable), its just that people like you don't know what the science of metaphysics actually entails (pure intellect as opposed to a simple branch of philosophy).

well, as long as it keeps you off the streets, I guess no harm's done.

You're using the term 'science' because of it the status it's supposed to provide, but really it's an aesthetic world view you're talking about. The world is much prettier if everything fits in a 'metaphysical' system. But that doesn't mean the system exists.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 30, 2011, 11:44:09 AMI'm reading Guénon as we speak, and it seems i may have finally found a metaphysical doctrine which actually runs in tandem with my own understanding of the world. It explains why i could never accept the Catholicism i grew up with and could never take on any other religion, including Buddhism, which is also a decadent religion (or a religion of decadence, as Christianity is today). Very few of the religions of the world actual deal with the principles which Guénon refer to as "traditional", but which are really intended to be nothing more then the underlying metaphysical truths which radiate from the absolute principle, which is the only true reality of the universe (call it God if you will), from which everything else comes forth, the material world being in the lowest echelon of this universal order. Those principles are no longer present in most of the major religions, particularly those of the west, and even in the east they are also difficult to find (there is an esoteric Islam which apparently still retains an understanding of those principles, which however remains hidden from the largest body of the religion). And then of course there is ancient India, which apparently developed an understanding of those principles better then any other civilization.

Quote from: Herman on October 31, 2011, 12:12:55 AM
You're using the term 'science' because of it the status it's supposed to provide, but really it's an aesthetic world view you're talking about. The world is much prettier if everything fits in a 'metaphysical' system. But that doesn't mean the system exists.

Its obvious you don't seem to understand what pure intellect actual is, and pretend that only reason has a place to explain the world.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 30, 2011, 07:24:30 PM
On the contrary, it is quite traditional:  because the intellect can only carry you so far.

According to Guénon, pure intellect is the very base for all traditional thought. So it seems that you are in disagreement with the perennial traditional school on this point.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2011, 10:19:48 AM
Because of all the knowledge and understanding of the world we have today.

How does that obviate the need or desire among people for religions or spiritual experience?

Quote
Human nature hardly has altered at all but we have knowledge far superior to religions.

What knowledge, what religions, and how is the former superior to the latter?

Quote
Because secular culture can base itself to scientific proven facts and in case of non-proven things the most plausible theories available. Theories get corrected/defined in time. Religions tend to hold to erroneous conceptions delaying development of society (eg. the rights of sexual minorities).

Do secular cultural or secularists never fall prey to dogma, never work on unproven assumptions, never hold erroneous conceptions? Does science never get politicized or perverted by extra-scientific concerns, be it personal greed or state doctrine? You speak of the rights of sexual minorities: look at the history of science in support of racism. Look at the history of the Third Reich, which was one of the most scientifically advanced states at the time, but which politicized the sciences to horrible effect.

Quote
Also, secular culture doesn't have arbitrary holy things driving mentally unbalanced individuals to violent fanatic actions for the sake of religion. Without religions these mental individuals have a lot less reason for any kind of fanatism meaning less terrorism.

Not at all: secular culture has all kinds of sacred cows, such as "individual liberty" or "class warfare" or the flags you see flying above school yards. Going back to the Third Reich: there was a fundamentally anti-religious regime that was nothing if not violent and fanatical: fanatical about the state, the supposed superiority of the Volk, and militarism.

Quote
Religious people are unable to think clearly because religion has infected their minds. I am sorry to say this but this is how it seems to be based on all the debates online I have had with religious people. So, secular culture seems to "protect" people's ability to think (freely).

You're doing a disservice to people (and yourself) to compare religion to an infection, certainly if you are only basing your assertion on some debates you've had online. Again, I ask: are non- or anti-religious above dogma, above assumptions, above prejudices, above stupidity, above arrogance?

Quote
The church as an institution is an obsolete one holding on it's status in society. Just look Vatican and Pope with all the scandals. It's lunacy!

Just look at secular governments and all their scandals :) Recall, too, that Catholicism is but one branch of Christianity, and that many religious systems across time and geography lack their sort of state-like organization, money, and power. Major religions today like Sunni Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Shinto--never mind many Christian sects--lack that sort of centralized, totalizing power structure.

Quote
Do you need more arguments for secular culture?

Yes because I don't see it as an unalloyed good by any stretch, any more than I would consider a theocracy the answer to all society's problems.

Quote
Because that's how it is. That's why children of parents of certain religion tend to assume the same religion. Even if people might consciously adopt or affirm religious views without external manipulation or pressure doesn't mean it's a good thing.

I don't know what you mean by this but gathering data and making predictions based on that data IS science.

I know, and that's precisely what you fail to do here: where is the scientific data delineating the hows and whys of people's adoption of religion? You are making assumptions and asking us to take them on faith.

Quote
Religions don't gather data nor do they make predictions. Why bother? All the answers are available in holy books! Who care

I'd recommend studying Buddhism, particularly the Theravada texts, for one example which utterly contradicts that statement. Early Buddhism in fact explicitly recommends empiricism and skepticism.

Quote
if these answers are sometimes ridiculous, are often mutually inconsistent and in the end don't really tell us anything?

Has science never run into disagreements or overturned fundamental "truths" we were once assured to be the case?

Quote
This a common fallacy religious people have about science. There is no realm beyond science. Everything can be

That makes no sense: science is a methodology, a body of knowledge, a set of philosophical assumptions, and a culture. It is a way to describe things but not the things themselves, and it by nature can't address certain issues. Major scientists like Einstein addressed that in their writings. You might want to read Quantum Questions: Mystical Writings of the World's Great Physicists ed. Ken Wilber, wherein Einstein, Heisenberg, Planck et al. tackle these issues.

Quote
examined scientifically, it's only a question of having scientific tools available. Sooner or later science will understand things that seem a monopoly of religion today. Religion will be killed by science and it is only a good thing. We are behind the schedule at the moment which is a bit frustrating.

You seem to have a lot of faith in science  :D

Quote
It's frightening how much people allow few books influence their conceptions but if you want thought-provoking read, I can mention Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. I prefer "gathering data" from all kind of sources and coming to my own conclusions after hard and long free-thinking. Reading The God Delusion was merely a verification process for me. In genetics Dawkins' knowledge is far superior to mine but otherwise our conclusions are similar.

I'm not sure you mean I base my ideas and questions on only a few books? Either way, I haven't read Dawkins' book, but from what I know of it, he seeks to counter only one particular conception of God and to focus largely on arguments of design. If that is correct, it's a convenient straw man, since there are numerous ideas of God or gods, religious traditions that do not invoke any sort of god, and personal spiritual experience that is likewise not couched in such conceptions.

I think you might find the Kuhn book illuminating because it calls into question the faith many implicitly put in science without first understanding how scientific methods and knowledge have shifted over time and the beliefs that animate them. It's had a major impact in the philosophy of science.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 30, 2011, 10:53:38 AM
Spiritual experiences are very complex electro-chemical reactions in our heads.

Perhaps very complex electro-chemical reactions in our heads are spiritual experiences? I.e., they're two ways to describe the same thing.

You could say

But, look, the morn, in russet mantle clad,
Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastward hill

or you could describe the rotation of the earth, atmospheric diffraction, and condensation.

QuoteSorry, but there is little hope for you to get rid of your beliefs and be able to think freely.  :-[

How sure are you that you're mentally free? Perhaps the ideas or memes you've been exposed to have subtly shaped your thoughts and actions, outside your conscious recognition. Perhaps you are mechanistic and lack any true free will to decide?

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 30, 2011, 07:18:08 PM
There is a level of existence and experience which can not be analyzed or described in terms the human mind can comprehend.  People have been trying and failing to do so from the Upanishads on.  They can't be analyzed and correctly named because we simply don't have the tools. What preceded thought can not be described by thought. The best name for this level of existence anyone has provided in European tradition is "God", although there are others.  Call it the Absolutely Real, if you want to avoid the term "God".  But the fact that you have never (knowingly) experienced it does not mean it does not exist.  When I compared it to the experience of the air around us, I was trying to illustrate how vivid and continual that experience is.  And in a way, I was inaccurate--because I experience God at a more intimate, deeper and tangible way than I do the air around us.  So God is more real to me than the air, as real as air may be.

It's akin to trying to explain color--or more exactly, the experience of color--to a man born blind. This is why mystical traditions across cultures resort to poetry and paradox (and why, to my mind, literal interpretation of sacred scriptures is frequently wrong-headed). It is why these traditions insist on the danger of naming things, of confusing the finger with the moon being pointed at, of conflating the menu and the meal, of mixing up the map and the territory.

To introduce one name or concept is to implicitly introduce its opposite or antithesis, creating one binarism that leads to ever more, when what you're dealing with is something that is whole, unified, and greater than any concept or symbol by which it can be represented. And words/symbols are necessarily poor abstractions: tree is wholly inadequate to describe any one tree, let alone all of them. Get together a dendrologist, ecologist, arborist, landscape architect, poet, artist, and composer, and they would never be finished trying to represent, delineate, and describe just one single elm :)

Like the Zen masters ask: what are you before you think? What are you before you are born?

I must say, I don't understand all this weepy hand waving. Why not just say, "I don't know everything," and leave it at that?

Quote from: 71 dB on October 28, 2011, 08:15:11 AM
I had understood the plausibility of evolution theory and the naivety of religious faith before I was 10 years old.

The ardour with which you cling to these convictions only proves that intelectually speaking you are still 10 years old.  ;D

Quote from: chasmaniac on October 31, 2011, 05:56:23 AM
I must say, I don't understand all this weepy hand waving. Why not just say, "I don't know everything," and leave it at that?

Because maybe it is possible to know, its just that western civilization has made a turn away from knowing, ever since it turned its gaze exclusively on material matters since the Renaissance.

I'd love to argue all the responses but I simply don't have time and I want to do other things in life too. I answer shortly to some arguments:

Quote from: Grazioso on October 31, 2011, 05:07:09 AM
What knowledge, what religions, and how is the former superior to the latter?

Scientific knowledge. The theories of Big Bang for example are much more intellectually interesting and plausible than the childish notation of God creating the world in 7 days* or whatever. Scientists work hard to find out what caused the big bang while the guestion of who created God is answered with banal remarks like "that's irrelevant since God is beyond human reasoning." For me religion = "don't think! Just believe!" I WANT to think. That's why science is my choice.

*7 Earth days? For some reason God created billions and billions of stars with even more planets circulating them. Every planet has it's own day length. For a thinking person religion causes millions of questions like this demonstrating how utterly childish the whole belief system is. Like Dawkins wrote, 4 years old children can create more reasonable stories than those of religion.

Quote from: Grazioso on October 31, 2011, 05:07:09 AM
I'd recommend studying Buddhism, particularly the Theravada texts, for one example which utterly contradicts that statement. Early Buddhism in fact explicitly recommends empiricism and skepticism.

For me Buddhism isn't really a religion. It's a construction of philosophy just labeled as religion. I am not against it at all. I am against Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). I believe that Abrahamic religions were created to control and oppress people (especially women) while Buddhism is about searching for wisdom. Big difference!

Quote from: Grazioso on October 31, 2011, 05:07:09 AMHas science never run into disagreements or overturned fundamental "truths" we were once assured to be the case?

In fact this is normal for science. Every scientific theory must survive the critic of scientific community. The "best" theory wins and is alive as long as a better one is presented. That's why science gets better and better and gives as the best knowledge available.

Quote from: Grazioso on October 31, 2011, 05:07:09 AM
You seem to have a lot of faith in science  :D

For a good reason. At least sciencist are working hard to find cure for cancel because God is too lazy to cure everyone or better yet, give us 100 % protection against cancel with his almighty powers. Science gave us electricity, computers and internet so we can have these arguments but what's most important is that science gives real understanding of the world.

Quote from: Grazioso on October 31, 2011, 05:07:09 AMI'm not sure you mean I base my ideas and questions on only a few books? Either way, I haven't read Dawkins' book, but from what I know of it, he seeks to counter only one particular conception of God and to focus largely on arguments of design. If that is correct, it's a convenient straw man, since there are numerous ideas of God or gods, religious traditions that do not invoke any sort of god, and personal spiritual experience that is likewise not couched in such conceptions.

Dawkins presents many arguments given for God and explains why they are wrong/implausible. He also writes a lot about why God almost certainly does not exist. He also addresses on why people are religious in nature and why religion is a negative thing. I don't think Dawkins is a brilliant writer (sometimes almost clumsy) but he has done a lot of thinking about these things and knows the stuff. That's why I can recommend "The God Delusion" to everyone.

Quote from: Grazioso on October 31, 2011, 05:07:09 AMI think you might find the Kuhn book illuminating because it calls into question the faith many implicitly put in science without first understanding how scientific methods and knowledge have shifted over time and the beliefs that animate them. It's had a major impact in the philosophy of science.

Sure. I Believe you.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 10:03:16 AM
For me religion = "don't think! Just believe!"

Then you're not thinking, and that's just what you believe.

My problem is not with a belief in God, but religion.  How can one say that one type of religion knows better than another type?

Quote from: Grazioso on October 31, 2011, 05:18:29 AM
Perhaps very complex electro-chemical reactions in our heads are spiritual experiences? I.e., they're two ways to describe the same thing.

You could say

But, look, the morn, in russet mantle clad,
Walks o'er the dew of yon high eastward hill

or you could describe the rotation of the earth, atmospheric diffraction, and condensation.

How sure are you that you're mentally free? Perhaps the ideas or memes you've been exposed to have subtly shaped your thoughts and actions, outside your conscious recognition. Perhaps you are mechanistic and lack any true free will to decide?

Science is much much more than E=mc². Your poems can be addressed by semantic linguistics. Learning machines (Self Organizing Maps) have been around already couple of decades and in 50-60 years we should have computers smarter than us. By then human spirituality is peanuts for science because the understanding of mental processes is so high.

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 31, 2011, 10:38:46 AM
My problem is not with a belief in God, but religion.  How can one say that one type of religion knows better than another type?

That is an excellent quarrel!

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 10:40:29 AM
Science is much much more than E=mc².

Yet you so happily put a strawman of Religion into a tidy bin. You are a funny fellow!

Religion is superior to science in music production, BTW. But then, you knew that.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 10:03:16 AM
I'd love to argue all the responses but I simply don't have time and I want to do other things in life too. I answer shortly to some arguments:

Too bad :( It was getting interesting.

Quote
Scientific knowledge. The theories of Big Bang for example are much more intellectually interesting and plausible than the childish notation of God creating the world in 7 days* or whatever. Scientists work hard to find out what caused the big bang while the guestion of who created God is answered with banal remarks like "that's irrelevant since God is beyond human reasoning." For me religion = "don't think! Just believe!" I WANT to think. That's why science is my choice.

Interesting that you couch it in terms not of truth or wisdom or usefulness, but of personal preference and choice. (Iirc, you were taking another poster to task for doing something similar with religion.) Is that a rational, scientific way to adopt a worldview?

Quote
*7 Earth days? For some reason God created billions and billions of stars with even more planets circulating them. Every planet has it's own day length. For a thinking person religion causes millions of questions like this demonstrating how utterly childish the whole belief system is. Like Dawkins wrote, 4 years old children can create more reasonable stories than those of religion.

I am in no position to speak for Creationists who take such things literally, but please see my above post about sacred texts resorting to poetry and paradox.

Quote
For me Buddhism isn't really a religion. It's a construction of philosophy just labeled as religion. I am not against it at all. I am against Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). I believe that Abrahamic religions were created to control and oppress people (especially women) while Buddhism is about searching for wisdom. Big difference!

I think you could safely argue that elements of the Abrahamic religions have been misused to control or oppress (just as secular ideologies have: racism, sexism, Fascism, Communism, consumerism, etc.), but what evidence is there that they were created to do that?

Buddhism is a slippery issue in that a) it, like many modes of Eastern religion, does not fit neatly into standard Western conceptual categories and b) while it does, in certain ways, take a very pragmatic, empirical approach, it has also accreted rituals, priesthoods, saints, deities, etc. Those details are really getting beyond the scope of this thread, but it's vital to distinguish just what you mean when you talk about religion and its supposed failings since "religion" covers a huge amount of ground.

Quote
In fact this is normal for science. Every scientific theory must survive the critic of scientific community. The "best" theory wins and is alive as long as a better one is presented. That's why science gets better and better and gives as the best knowledge available.

And yet science, construed as a body of facts instead of a method of inquiry, thereby undoes itself as some sort of intellectual bedrock: what is knowledge or "truth" one day is not the next.

Quote
For a good reason. At least sciencist are working hard to find cure for cancel because God is too lazy to cure everyone or better yet, give us 100 % protection against cancel with his almighty powers. Science gave us electricity, computers and internet so we can have these arguments but what's most important is that science gives real understanding of the world.

A few points:

--One could argue God gave us electricity, man used science to figure out how to apply it to practical ends.
--If, as you say, science is about competing theories selected by peer evaluation, then are facts being uncovered, or are communal choices being made about the utility and likelihood of conceptual frameworks?
--Science might give us a "real understanding of the world." That does not imply that religions cannot or do not. And of course many religions seek to give us understanding or guidance about otherworldly things, about things which cannot be measured or fully addressed scientifically: metaphysics, ethics, teleology etc. Science doesn't suggest how to live or why.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2011, 10:34:25 AM

Then you're not thinking, and that's just what you believe.

;D

Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2011, 10:34:25 AM

Then you're not thinking, and that's just what you believe.

How about giving justifications to your statements? That way you give your opponents tools to adress the possible fallacies of your own thinking and the conversation goes somewhere?

I said I believe Abrahamic religions were created to control people. You can control people if you make them not think. That way they won't question your control and it's justification.

Now, could you point out my fallacies?

I find a belief in a creator of all things as probable, and in fact that only opens the mind to all possibilties (scientifically and spiritually).

However, religion dissects, cuts and snips portions of God, to follow a system of rules, and tenets (arbitrarily decided upon).  And I'm talking all religions.

I think Buddhism is the least 'confining' of the religions, and seems to not have the same oppressive rules as other religions do.

I grew up in a Roman Catholic family - and never believed in that religion.  I respect the fact that 'faith' in one religion seems to help some people, but I just don't understand how you can believe the rules and limitations set by a certain "insert___________religion".  Religion is just another sub-form of societal set rules and laws.  Again, arbitrarily created by man.

I don't think you need to believe in religion, in order to believe in 'God' or 'spirituality'.

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 31, 2011, 10:53:10 AM
I think Buddhism is the least 'confining' of the religions, and seems to not have the same oppressive rules as other religions do.

The Buddha said, "the proof of the pudding is the eating!"

(or something like that)

Quote from: Grazioso on October 31, 2011, 10:47:29 AM

And yet science undoes itself as some sort of intellectual bedrock: what is knowledge or "truth" one day is not the next.

We don't have the luxury of 100 % truth. Science doesn't give it (at least not yet) and religions don't give it. We must live with what we have and work for better knowledge. Science is just that.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 10:49:45 AM
How about giving justifications to your statements? That way you give your opponents tools to adress the possible fallacies of your own thinking and the conversation goes somewhere?

I said I believe Abrahamic religions were created to control people. You can control people if you make them not think. That way they won't question your control and it's justification.

Now, could you point out my fallacies?

Well, confining ourselves to this post of yours:

Religions grow organically (if you like) within the context of a culture. The notion that "Abrahamic religions were created" is tendentious and ahistoric (as well as flat out wrong).  You might as well speak of a singular intent behind "the creation of the Englsh language."

The idea that the intent behind "the Abrahamic religions" is 'to suppress thought' is tendentious and ahistoric (as well as flat out wrong).  For only one thing, Christianity is the cradle of the intellectual tradition which has distinguished the West. (We've mentioned this before, and you've conveniently disregarded in the past, too.)

Your conflation of "the Abrahamic religions" as a single entity is a fallacy all its own, which multiplies in erroneousness through your various points here.

A corrolary fallacy here is your implication that control is necessarily malevolent: governments are created to control people, as well.

In just a short space, then, your unthinking hostility to religion has led you into quite a swamp of fallacy. Can you think freely enough to own your errors?

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 10:40:29 AM
Science is much much more than E=mc². Your poems can be addressed by semantic linguistics. Learning machines (Self Organizing Maps) have been around already couple of decades and in 50-60 years we should have computers smarter than us. By then human spirituality is peanuts for science because the understanding of mental processes is so high.

I think you missed my point, which is that multiple, incommensurable modes of discourse can be used to describe the same thing without either being right or wrong. Is Shakespeare's description of a dawn wrong?

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 10:49:45 AM
How about giving justifications to your statements? That way you give your opponents tools to adress the possible fallacies of your own thinking and the conversation goes somewhere?

I said I believe Abrahamic religions were created to control people. You can control people if you make them not think. That way they won't question your control and it's justification.

Now, could you point out my fallacies?

Not addressed to me, but I see many problems or questions with that line of thought:

--You "believe Abrahamic religions were created to control people" but provide no data to back your assertion. Why did you choose to believe this? Is this belief true or merely convenient or pleasurable to you? What ends might you be trying to serve by asserting it?
--You imply they make people not think. No data provided to back this.
--Presupposes that belief in the tenets of these religions negates conscious choice or intellectual inquiry. You imply that belief is antithetical to thought, that one cannot arrive at belief through thinking.
--Does not address other cultural or intellectual systems and the possibility they might do the things you single out the Abrahamic faiths for.
etc.

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 31, 2011, 10:53:10 AM
I find a belief in a creator of all things as probable, and in fact that only opens the mind to all possibilties (scientifically and spiritually).

However, religion dissects, cuts and snips portions of God, to follow a system of rules, and tenets (arbitrarily decided upon).  And I'm talking all religions.

Have you studied Shinto by chance? You might find it an interesting counterexample to that. It is largely intuitive and pre-conceptual, emphasizing the communal over the hierarchical, focusing on action over concept and doctrine.

Quote
I think Buddhism is the least 'confining' of the religions, and seems to not have the same oppressive rules as other religions do.

Are rules in general oppressive, or just those rules promulgated by religions? I think most would agree we need some rules to have functioning societies and to govern our own behavior.

Quote
I grew up in a Roman Catholic family - and never believed in that religion.  I respect the fact that 'faith' in one religion seems to help some people, but I just don't understand how you can believe the rules and limitations set by a certain "insert___________religion".  Religion is just another sub-form of societal set rules and laws.  Again, arbitrarily created by man.

Starting to go beyond the scope of the thread, but if you agree to the premise that knowledge of the divine is possible, then it's not far-fetched to say that the rules or limitations set or expected by that divinity can be known through revelation or mystical experience. I.e., not necessarily arbitrary.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2011, 11:03:38 AMReligions grow organically (if you like) within the context of a culture. The notion that "Abrahamic religions were created" is tendentious and ahistoric (as well as flat out wrong).  You might as well speak of a singular intent behind "the creation of the Englsh language."

Something that grows organically avoids such internal contradictions that for example the Bible is said to contain. I admit that I am not a Bible expert. The holy books of Abrahamic religions are said to be incoherent collections of religious texts of older religions. This indicates that these religions were fabricated fast for a certain use. Control seems to be the main idea since:

1) Abrahamic religions try to spread aggressively (more people under control)
2) Strong oppression of women and (sexual) minorities.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2011, 11:03:38 AMThe idea that the intent behind "the Abrahamic religions" is 'to suppress thought' is tendentious and ahistoric (as well as flat out wrong).  For only one thing, Christianity is the cradle of the intellectual tradition which has distinguished the West. (We've mentioned this before, and you've conveniently disregarded in the past, too.)

Even if this is true, I'm not convinced Christianity serves us intellectually anymore (after Darwin's theories about evolution) not to mention the Middle Ages when the development of western civilization was frozen for centuries.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2011, 11:03:38 AMYour conflation of "the Abrahamic religions" as a single entity is a fallacy all its own, which multiplies in erroneousness through your various points here.

They are not a single entity. They share the same "source material" giving them similar properties. Islam is the most dangerous religion. Judaism is the second most dangerous and Christianity the third most dangerous. All of these religions have good things too in them but also dangerous. Islam can be practised in peaceful ways that are downright admirable. My father witnessed this while traveling it the middle east in the 60's before the radicalization of Islam. He has never met people as friendly and hospitable in his life than those muslims in the deserts of Irak.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2011, 11:03:38 AMA corrolary fallacy here is your implication that control is necessarily malevolent: governments are created to control people, as well.

Control to a certain degree. Ideally to keep the society as functional as possible. Goverments have took the task of control over the centuries making religion even more obsolete.

Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2011, 11:03:38 AMIn just a short space, then, your unthinking hostility to religion has led you into quite a swamp of fallacy. Can you think freely enough to own your errors?

There is much reason for "hostility" to religion and a thinking person sees it. I don't say I am 100 % right but I think I am more right than wrong.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 11:55:27 AM
Something that grows organically avoids such internal contradictions that for example the Bible is said to contain.

... not to mention the Middle Ages when the development of western civilization was frozen for centuries.

... Islam is the most dangerous religion. Judaism is the second most dangerous and Christianity the third most dangerous.

... Goverments have took the task of control over the centuries making religion even more obsolete.

There is much reason for "hostility" to religion and a thinking person sees it.

Thank you for demonstrating so liberally that religion is not necessary for one to be inflexibly dogmatic.

71 dB is just saying that the big three need an upgrade.

Let's call Apple.

[Edit: What's that? Judaism isn't in the big three? My bad.]

Quote from: Mn Dave on October 31, 2011, 12:08:53 PM
71 dB is just saying that the big three need an upgrade.

Let's call Apple.

Belly up to the Genius Bar . . . .

Quote from: Mn Dave on October 31, 2011, 12:08:53 PM
71 dB is just saying that the big three need an upgrade.

Let's call Apple.

[Edit: What's that? Judaism isn't in the big three? My bad.]

Jobs is already up in 'heaven' (perhaps).  I'm sure he's suggesting the iReligion to the Head Honcho as we speak.

Quote from: ChamberNut on October 31, 2011, 12:16:58 PM
Jobs is already up in 'heaven' (perhaps).

I haven't mourned his passing. Fact is, so much that has been said of him is such glowing praise . . . I've been half expecting a resurrection ; )

Quote from: karlhenning on October 31, 2011, 12:19:33 PM

I haven't mourned his passing. Fact is, so much that has been said of him is such glowing praise . . . I've been half expecting a resurrection ; )

Yes, I don't understand his 'glorification', like he was the 2nd coming of Jesus Christ, or something like that??  That he improved our lives and the human race so much with all the moocho computer technology gadgets.

The only thing Jobs 'improved' was rampant, ravenous mass consumerism of these technological products, which we will all be remembered by our loved ones when we are gone, I'm sure.   

Yeah, he was a jerk!  :P

There must not be any Hindus on the Internet, because you never hear them bragging about their beliefs.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 11:55:27 AM
I admit that I am not a Bible expert.

And yet you pontificate about what "Abrahamic religions" are or are not, being completely - and proudly -  ignorant about ancient languages and systems of thought ...

You have been suggested to read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - and you dismissed the suggestion countering it with Richard Dawkins, who in matters of scientific methodology and philosophy is to Kuhn as Donald Duck is to Albert Einstein...

Actually, it turns out you have not read, nor are you willing to read, any single text of relevance in respect with history of religion, history of philosophy or history of science  - yet you parade yourself as an enlightened individual who knows better than a score of individuals who spent their entire life trying to make light of such difficult issues as religion, philosophy and science...

You delude yourself that you are "free thinking" when in fact you are not thinking at all - thinking requires relevant information, straight facts and open-mindendness, three things that you are conspicuously missing.

You are neither free nor thoughtful - just a foolish slave to the prejudices or our time.

Quote from: Florestan on October 31, 2011, 01:08:49 PMYou delude yourself that you are "free thinking" when in fact you are not thinking at all - thinking requires relevant information, straight facts and open-mindendness, three things that you are conspicuously missing.

Who are you to tell my information isn't relevant? I don't know everything but nobody does. I know things you don't and vice versa. A thinking person can fill the caps to a certain degree. There is no time to read every (relevant) book in the word.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 01:32:13 PM
A thinking person can fill the caps to a certain degree.

That's true but you are not such a person - not by a thousand miles.

Quote
There is no time to read every (relevant) book in the word.

That is also true but the most intellectually honest attitude in this respect was summarized long ago: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.. No, it's not a Dawkins quote.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 10:03:16 AM
For me Buddhism isn't really a religion. It's a construction of philosophy just labeled as religion. I am not against it at all. I am against Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam). I believe that Abrahamic religions were created to control and oppress people (especially women) while Buddhism is about searching for wisdom. Big difference!

A couple points.  Saying that Abrahamic religions were created for oppression is quite a reach--  personally, my belief is that is was necessary to provide a rationale for the world- there are other ways to apply control that are a lot less work.   If there seems more of a need for control, or maintaining an order in those faiths, consider the environment.  Any culture that did not try to maintain it's own customs and identity in Mesopotamia would be wiped out- that was a pretty chaotic corner of the world.

FWIW- I've been a practicing Therevadan Buddhist for nearly 20 years now. (Not that that branch is any better or worse than any other, but you could say I married into it)   In some ways, you are right about Buddhism  being more philosophically based, but I would be careful not to confuse the theory and practice.  If you've been a a Buddhist country, you will realize that a lot of animism and local customs creep in.  I dont tend to follow this aspect of the teaching, but the Therevadan (old school) Buddhists do not recognize female nuns and nearly the same level as males-- they are second class citizens in that respect, and there are sutras where the Buddha supposedly reluctantly allowed women in the order although he said it would hasten its downfall.

Quote from: jowcol on October 31, 2011, 01:52:07 PM
and there are sutras where the Buddha supposedly reluctantly allowed women in the order although he said it would hasten its downfall.

Quite a sensible attitude, since metaphysics is generally the domain of men par excellence. The argument about Buddhism being more philosophical vis-a-vis western or near eastern religions is of course only valid for the times we live in. One would have to look into medieval Christianity, or esoteric Islam, to find a complement to the traditional teachings of the far east. In the case of Christianity of course, it isn't an easy task since the religion lost many of its traditional values through the late middle ages all the way to the reformation, which is when most of its traditional teachings were lost for good. As for esoteric Islam, that is, by definition, quite difficult to discover as well. Its a matter of fact, all traditional teachings are supposed to be esoteric in nature, so they are not meant for mass consumption in the first place.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 30, 2011, 07:36:18 AM
I am a Jew,  in part because that's what I was born into, and in part because I find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence. (The contrary view, when examined, turns out to be based on circular reasoning, false assumptions, and rejecting the traditional view summarily, almost ideologically, without pausing to consider how accurate it might be.)

Really?! Everything said here I find astonishing (except the first 13 words!): Moses? Jewish slaves in Egypt? Adam/Eve? Noah? Best fit to historical evidence? Really?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 31, 2011, 03:44:56 PM
In the case of Christianity of course, it isn't an easy task since the religion lost many of its traditional values through the late middle ages all the way to the reformation, which is when most of its traditional teachings were lost for good.

When you write Christianity you actually imply Roman Catholicism, but there is more to it than that: Eastern Orthodoxy, for instance.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 31, 2011, 03:44:56 PM
Quite a sensible attitude, since metaphysics is generally the domain of men par excellence. The argument about Buddhism being more philosophical vis-a-vis western or near eastern religions is of course only valid for the times we live in. One would have to look into medieval Christianity, or esoteric Islam, to find a complement to the traditional teachings of the far east. In the case of Christianity of course, it isn't an easy task since the religion lost many of its traditional values through the late middle ages all the way to the reformation, which is when most of its traditional teachings were lost for good. As for esoteric Islam, that is, by definition, quite difficult to discover as well. Its a matter of fact, all traditional teachings are supposed to be esoteric in nature, so they are not meant for mass consumption in the first place.

The notion of "philosophical"  is not really a modern vs traditional, but the fact that Buddhism, in its core form, does not really address notions of a deity, afterlife, etc.  In one of the  more famous sutras, the Buddha likened worrying about the afterlife to man shot be an arrow who refuses to have teh arrow removed until he gets a huge list of questions answered about who shot him.  So the focus is not on issues like the creation, etc.   Also, the core teachings were said to come from rational analysis-- not a burning bush. (Not a jab at other faiths here-- just a comparison...)



Whew-- as far as some of these other associations (metaphysics the domain of men, all traditional teachings should be esoteric, loss of traditional values,etc)-- these are very broad assertions over abstractions.  I'm not going to wade in there.  It is interesting that the reformation, which among other things, tried to reempahsize a return to the original scripture as opposed to what had been collected afterwards was interpreted as a loss of tradition.

Quote from: jowcol on November 01, 2011, 02:57:09 AM
The notion of "philosophical"  is not really a modern vs traditional, but the fact that Buddhism, in its core form, does not really address notions of a deity, afterlife, etc.  In one of the  more famous sutras, the Buddha likened worrying about the afterlife to man shot be an arrow who refuses to have teh arrow removed until he gets a huge list of questions answered about who shot him.  So the focus is not on issues like the creation, etc.   Also, the core teachings were said to come from rational analysis-- not a burning bush. (Not a jab at other faiths here-- just a comparison...)



Whew-- as far as some of these other associations (metaphysics the domain of men, all traditional teachings should be esoteric, loss of traditional values,etc)-- these are very broad assertions over abstractions.  I'm not going to wade in there.  It is interesting that the reformation, which among other things, tried to reempahsize a return to the original scripture as opposed to what had been collected afterwards was interpreted as a loss of tradition.

I dig where your head's at.  8)

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 01:32:13 PM
Who are you to tell my information isn't relevant? I don't know everything but nobody does. I know things you don't and vice versa. A thinking person can fill the caps to a certain degree. There is no time to read every (relevant) book in the word.

The big problem here is that you advocate a scientific, rational worldview while damning religions, yet judging by most of your posts here, you are proceeding in a totally unscientific manner: you adopt a quasi-scientific outlook to suit your personal preferences while condemning something without gathering and testing data to support your highly questionable conclusions.

If you're serious about these issues, if you want to make informed choices instead of just going with your gut and justifying it after the fact, you need in detail to study the history and philosophy of science and the history of world religions.

Quote from: jowcol on October 31, 2011, 01:52:07 PM
FWIW- I've been a practicing Therevadan Buddhist for nearly 20 years now. (Not that that branch is any better or worse than any other, but you could say I married into it)   In some ways, you are right about Buddhism  being more philosophically based, but I would be careful not to confuse the theory and practice.  If you've been a a Buddhist country, you will realize that a lot of animism and local customs creep in.  I dont tend to follow this aspect of the teaching, but the Therevadan (old school) Buddhists do not recognize female nuns and nearly the same level as males-- they are second class citizens in that respect, and there are sutras where the Buddha supposedly reluctantly allowed women in the order although he said it would hasten its downfall.

This is a good book on that issue for those who might be interested:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/413T8SH8A5L._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 11:55:27 AM
Even if this is true, I'm not convinced Christianity serves us intellectually anymore (after Darwin's theories about evolution) not to mention the Middle Ages when the development of western civilization was frozen for centuries.

Others have refuted the rest of your post, but where does this stuff about civilization being frozen for centuries during the Middle Ages come from? Have you studied the philosophy, art, and technology of the Middle Ages? It did not all come to a standstill, still less was it all benighted peasants living like hogs in the mud, as some people imply.

Quote from: Mn Dave on November 01, 2011, 05:05:11 AM
I dig where your head's at.  8)

Aye, it's a cool cat he is. Yourself, too, dude.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 01, 2011, 05:47:06 AM
Aye, it's a cool cat he is. Yourself, too, dude.

Thanks, good sir.

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 01:32:13 PM
Who are you to tell my information isn't relevant?

Actually, what Andrei said was: thinking requires relevant information.

In posts like this (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/index.php/topic,19484.msg572961.html#msg572961), you do not traffic in information at all, but only in belligerent assertions.

Quote from: Grazioso on November 01, 2011, 05:35:24 AM
...the philosophy, art, and technology of the Middle Ages...

Occam and Machaut leap to mind, two true hipsters!  8)

Quote from: Grazioso on November 01, 2011, 05:35:24 AM
Have you studied the philosophy, art, and technology of the Middle Ages?

It's obvious he hasn't studied anything besides his field of competence. His body of knowledge of the things he pontificates about amounts to exactly minus zero. I've never ever met a more self-delusional individual.

Jeez, lighten up, dude.  ;D

Quote from: 71 dB on October 31, 2011, 10:40:29 AM
Science is much much more than E=mc². Your poems can be addressed by semantic linguistics. Learning machines (Self Organizing Maps) have been around already couple of decades and in 50-60 years we should have computers smarter than us. By then human spirituality is peanuts for science because the understanding of mental processes is so high.

Sorry to go after this one late, but I worked in the Artificial Intelligence field for several years before getting into health IT.  (Including automated proving of math theorems-- painful stuff... )


In the early 70s, it was felt that by the end of the decade, it would be possible to create a computer that would mimic the intelligence of an average person.  We are still a LONG way off- particularly in areas we did not anticipate, since our brains aren't wired the same way.  Basic image recognition (how do I know that is a chair in front of me?) is still a daunting problem. Yes, with OCR  and face recognition, we have handled some limited domains as long as the rotation factors aren't too high, but a generalized capability that could perform all the image recognisiton tasks as a person is still hopelessly out of reach-- and this is something that the "dumbest" person can do without thinking, and it's a lot harder than calculating pi to 100,000 places.

Our "right brain" activities and learning process is still very hard to support except in very limited domains.  Game playing programs, for example, can apply learning to the same game so that they can use your previous style against you, but they can't switch to learning a new game.   A lot of our thought-processing is non-linear, and as you can tell by the varied posts on this forum, we all are very idiosyncratic in our thinking. 

So, if you talk about a computer being "smarter", you need to specify how.   IBM's Watson is pretty cool, but it's basically the sum of all that is fed into it, and cannot really do much out of the box.  There has been some efforts to address more heuristic, out of the box thinking, but its in its infancy.  Most any computer program out there today can whip my ass in chess, but I would bet I could write a better novel.  (Of course, it would be fun do write a generator for romance novels, but then again, that is a limited problem space. )

FWIW-- I'm not trying to talk you into any sort of stance on religion-- that's something we all need to figure out for ourselves.

Quote from: Florestan on November 01, 2011, 05:55:22 AM
It's obvious he hasn't studied anything besides his field of competence. His body of knowledge of the things he pontificates about amounts to exactly minus zero. I've never ever met a more self-delusional individual.

We all are limited in that way and only have competence on narrow fields. That's why it is so important to be able to think to compensate the lack of knowledge.

Just curious: what should I say about religions with my (lack of) competence in order to not be self-delusional? Nothing? Sorry, but I have the right to express myself and have my thoughts about religion. I NEED those opinions in order to define myself, to know I am an atheist.

Maybe I am self-delusional (I am what I am) but you aren't the friendliest person I know.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2011, 07:28:18 AM
Just curious: what should I say about religions with my (lack of) competence in order to not be self-delusional? Nothing?

Bingo!

Quote
Sorry, but I have the right to express myself and have my thoughts about religion. I NEED those opinions in order to define myself, to know I am an atheist.

See? You have yourself made a very good distinction: you are of course entitled to your opinions but please don't pretend they are thoughts, i. e. the result of a thinking process. Once again: thinking about a subject requires first and foremost relevant information (which you do not possess, and willingly so because of your stubborn refusal to read).

How on earth can you pretend that we take seriously your pronouncements on sociology of religion and philosophy of science when it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with both, lacking the very basics that would enable you to tackle such enormously difficult topics?

How would you react if I'd begin to lecture you about engineering accoustics without having read a single relevant textbook?

Quote from: jowcol on November 01, 2011, 07:27:11 AM
Sorry to go after this one late, but I worked in the Artificial Intelligence field for several years before getting into health IT.  (Including automated proving of math theorems-- painful stuff... )


In the early 70s, it was felt that by the end of the decade, it would be possible to create a computer that would mimic the intelligence of an average person.  We are still a LONG way off- particularly in areas we did not anticipate, since our brains aren't wired the same way.  Basic image recognition (how do I know that is a chair in front of me?) is still a daunting problem. Yes, with OCR  and face recognition, we have handled some limited domains as long as the rotation factors aren't too high, but a generalized capability that could perform all the image recognisiton tasks as a person is still hopelessly out of reach-- and this is something that the "dumbest" person can do without thinking, and it's a lot harder than calculating pi to 100,000 places.

Our "right brain" activities and learning process is still very hard to support except in very limited domains.  Game playing programs, for example, can apply learning to the same game so that they can use your previous style against you, but they can't switch to learning a new game.   A lot of our thought-processing is non-linear, and as you can tell by the varied posts on this forum, we all are very idiosyncratic in our thinking. 

So, if you talk about a computer being "smarter", you need to specify how.   IBM's Watson is pretty cool, but it's basically the sum of all that is fed into it, and cannot really do much out of the box.  There has been some efforts to address more heuristic, out of the box thinking, but its in its infancy.  Most any computer program out there today can whip my ass in chess, but I would bet I could write a better novel.  (Of course, it would be fun do write a generator for romance novels, but then again, that is a limited problem space. )

FWIW-- I'm not trying to talk you into any sort of stance on religion-- that's something we all need to figure out for ourselves.

I agree about what you say. People have been too optimistic about "thinking machines" in the past. One mistake is predicting too optimistically short time developments. People tend to overestimate technical development for less than 30 years underestimate long term (>30 years) progress because progress is exponential in nature while people sees it linear. I think it's safe to predict that technologically the advances are huge in 50-60 years. Extremely powerful quantum-computers should be very common by then. Of course predicting the future is almost impossible. WWIII might kill all people on Earth long before these smart computers. Let's hope that doesn't happen!   

Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2011, 07:28:18 AM
We all are limited in that way and only have competence on narrow fields. That's why it is so important to be able to think to compensate the lack of knowledge.
Just curious: what should I say about religions with my (lack of) competence in order to not be self-delusional? Nothing? Sorry, but I have the right to express myself and have my thoughts about religion. I NEED those opinions in order to define myself, to know I am an atheist.

As well you should.  And as well JDP should.   I'd agree we should be able to say what we think without any name-calling. 

Even as an atheist, there may be value in looking for something to harvest before completely tossing out the accumulated baggage of world religions over history.   First,  as Karl pointed out, it's hard  to appreciate many of the arts without some knowledge of the source material or inspiration.

There is also the approach of a Joseph Campbell (Masks of God, Hero with a Thousand Faces) where we examine and compare these materials to better understand our archetypal selves.  His analysis of the flood from multiple cultures is fascinating. 

There is also the notion that faith serves a human need that rational analysis can't satisfied.  If one thinks that, for example, Christianity is out of date given modern science, you might wish to check out the works of "Christian Existentialists" such as Rudolph Bultmann.  I am stealing the following from the Wikipedia page about him-- I must confess it's been at least  two decades since I've read any of his work. 

QuoteIn 1941 he applied form criticism to the Gospel of John, in which he distinguished the presence of a lost Signs Gospel on which John, alone of the evangelists, depended. This monograph, highly controversial at the time, became a milestone in research into the historical Jesus. The same year his lecture New Testament and Mythology: The Problem of Demythologizing the New Testament Message called on interpreters to replace traditional supernaturalism with the temporal and existential categories of Bultmann's colleague, Martin Heidegger, rejecting doctrines such as the pre-existence of Christ.[4] Bultmann believed this endeavor would make accessible to modern audiences - already immersed in science and technology - the reality of Jesus' teachings. Bultmann thus understood the project of "demythologizing the New Testament proclamation" as an evangelical task, clarifying the kerygma, or gospel proclamation, by stripping it of elements of the first-century "mythical world picture" that had potential to alienate modern people from Christian faith:

    "It is impossible to repristinate a past world picture by sheer resolve, especially a mythical world picture, now that all of our thinking is irrevocably formed by science. A blind acceptance of New Testament mythology would be simply arbitrariness; to make such acceptance a demand of faith would be to reduce faith to a work"[5]

While Bultmann reinterpreted theological language in existential terms, he nonetheless maintained that the New Testament proclaimed a message more radical than any modern existentialism. In both the boasting of legalists "who are faithful to the law," and the boasting of the philosophers "who are proud of their wisdom," Bultmann finds a "basic human attitude" of "highhandedness that tries to bring within our own power even the submission that we know to be our authentic being."[6] Standing against all human highhandedness is the New Testament, "which claims that we can in no way free ourselves from our factual fallenness in the world but are freed from it only by an act of God ... the salvation occurrence that is realized in Christ."[7] Bultmann remained convinced the narratives of the life of Jesus were offering theology in story form. Lessons were taught in the familiar language of myth. They were not to be excluded, but given explanation so they could be understood for today. Bultmann thought faith should become a present day reality. To Bultmann, the people of the world appeared to be always in disappointment and turmoil. Faith must be a determined vital act of will, not a culling and extolling of "ancient proofs."

I'm not sure if this guy was any fun at parties, but you get the drift...

Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2011, 07:28:18 AM
Sorry, but I have the right to express myself and have my thoughts about religion.

Yes, you are right: you have the right to express yourself and your thoughts. And you are right: when those thoughts are not much more than the expression of ignorance, that is sorry.  Yet sorrier, when that ignorance is wilful and smug.

Quote
See? You have yourself made a very good distinction: you are of course entitled to your opinions but please don't pretend they are thoughts, i. e. the result of a thinking process. Once again: thinking about a subject requires first and foremost relevant information (which you do not possess, and willingly so because of your stubborn refusal to read).

What stubborn refusal to read? Should I have read Kuhn's book ONE DAMN DAY after it was recommended to me? I don't know if I can even get that book anywhere!

Quote
How on earth can you pretend that we take seriously your pronouncements on sociology of religion and philosophy of science when it is obvious that you are unfamiliar with both, lacking the very basics that would enable you to tackle such enormously difficult topics?

I am not completely unfamiliar because I have read some books about these issues. If you are an expert yourself then good for you. Very few people are and I am sure most members of this forum (classical music, not philosophy or religion) don't have much higher knowledge I have.

Frankly, with all the education we have in school nowadays, only common sense is needed to see the naivety of God belief. At least in Finland that is.  ::)

Quote
How would you react if I'd begin to lecture you about engineering accoustics without having read a single relevant textbook?

Depends on what you would write. I don't care how many books you have read. What you understand is what counts.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2011, 07:54:29 AM
Frankly, with all the education we have in school nowadays, only common sense is needed to see the naivety of God belief.

To see you opining about naïveté! Thanks for the chuckle.

Quote from: Florestan on November 01, 2011, 07:38:32 AM
How would you react if I'd begin to lecture you about engineering accoustics without having read a single relevant textbook?

It would depend on the context.  If I paid tuition to a university, and you were the professor they hired to teach me , I'd be mad as hell.

If it was on an open forum, I'd either ignore the lecture, or look for comic material in it. 

Quote from: jowcol on November 01, 2011, 07:57:32 AM
It would depend on the context.  If I paid tuition to a university, and you were the professor they hired to teach me , I'd be mad as hell.

If it was on an open forum, I'd either ignore the lecture, or look for comic material in it. 

QFT

Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2011, 07:54:29 AM
What stubborn refusal to read? Should I have read Kuhn's book ONE DAMN DAY after it was recommended to me?

Of course not, but you dismissed the very possibility of you reading it even in the future.

Quote
I don't know if I can even get that book anywhere!

A good public library would be the best place to look for it.

QuoteVery few people are and I am sure most members of this forum (classical music, not philosophy or religion) don't have much higher knowledge I have.

Maybe, but at least they don't start pontificating about religion or philosophy. Are you not in the least troubled by the fact that you are the only person on this forum who has constantly made uninformed pronouncements about them and has been constantly rebuked?

Quote
Frankly, with all the education we have in school nowadays, only common sense is needed to see the naivety of God belief. At least in Finland that is.  ::)

What Karl said.

Quote
Depends on what you would write. I don't care how many books you have read. What you understand is what counts.

I have read none on engineering accoustics, therefore you'll never see me writing about it, much less in a peremptory manner.

Quote from: Florestan on November 01, 2011, 08:05:48 AM
Of course not, but you dismissed the very possibility of you reading it even in the future.

Just because I didn't promise to read it doesn't mean I won't.......  ::)

Anyway, according to what I read about that book in Wikipedia, the claims of that book don't seem that dramatic to me since I am aware science is not a painless clean linear process. I have done scientific reasearch myself. The book doesn't seem to address religion, just science.

Quote from: Florestan on November 01, 2011, 08:05:48 AMA good public library would be the best place to look for it.

You are a genius.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2011, 08:27:39 AM
You are a genius.

Seems that you've been reduced to pathetic come-backs.

I have some advice for you:

1.  Stick to your beliefs about religion and God.

2.  Stop talking about your beliefs.

In other words, SHUT UP.

Quote from: Bulldog on November 01, 2011, 08:48:31 AM
1.  Stick to your beliefs about religion and God.

That's not a problem.

Quote from: Bulldog on November 01, 2011, 08:48:31 AM2.  Stop talking about your beliefs.

In other words, SHUT UP.

Not a problem either since I have already said pretty much all.

You others can continue from here since you are so damn well-informed about the subject. Have fun!

Quote from: Bulldog on November 01, 2011, 08:48:31 AM
Seems that you've been reduced to pathetic come-backs.

I have some advice for you:

1.  Stick to your beliefs about religion and God.

2.  Stop talking about your beliefs.

In other words, SHUT UP.

There are three primary types of irony.  Verbal irony is when the speaker says one thing, but means another. Dramatic irony is a character's perception of the situation differs from that of that audience.  Situational irony is when the situation itself is counter to audience's expectation.   These forms are not exclusive-- sometimes they can occur simultaneously.     See example 1 above.

Hey, I brought more chips.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 01, 2011, 07:28:18 AM
We all are limited in that way and only have competence on narrow fields. That's why it is so important to be able to think to compensate the lack of knowledge.

But we all have the power to educate ourselves in other fields. Certainly, we should do so if we need that information to make informed decisions about our worldviews and conduct.

Does thinking truly compensate for lack of knowledge? If the objects of your thoughts are not factual data, then are they not "merely" supposition, opinion, personal taste, uneducated guesses? Are those fair grounds for dismissing something, such as religion?

It's one thing to not like religion, another to make claims about it. No one can really argue with you for not liking, say, Wagner, but if you start to say, "Wagner's music is crap because of all the aleatory electronics in that concerto about the dwarves. Only a naive person would like it," then everyone within earshot will rightly say, "WTF?"

Quote
Just curious: what should I say about religions with my (lack of) competence in order to not be self-delusional? Nothing? Sorry, but I have the right to express myself and have my thoughts about religion. I NEED those opinions in order to define myself, to know I am an atheist.

Why do you need to define yourself? Like a Zen master asked, "What are you before you think?" Why define yourself with opinions and then proffer them as facts? Is it more important to label yourself "atheist" than to treat these matters with objectivity, respect, and a spirit of open inquiry? Certainly a scientist would try to take the latter course.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 31, 2011, 02:53:48 AM
According to Guénon, pure intellect is the very base for all traditional thought. So it seems that you are in disagreement with the perennial traditional school on this point.

Having not read Guenon,  I don't know if he (and therefore you) are using intellect in a way that doesn't correspond to the usual meaning of the word (in the English language, that is).  If he means the entire human mind by "intellect", then I don't disagree with him.  If he means the usual meaning of the word--that is, one of the faculties of the human mind, then he's in disagreement with me, and with the tradition he claimed to represent, for that matter.

I would suggest, instead of Guenon (or at least after him), read some of Guenon's sources.  Meister Eckhart, the Chuang Tzu, the Bhagavad Gita, the Sutra of the Sixth Zen Patriarch, and the writing of Pseudo Dionysius (the Corpus Aeropagiticum) are places I would suggest as starting points.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on October 31, 2011, 03:44:56 PM
Quite a sensible attitude, since metaphysics is generally the domain of men par excellence.

It looks like this new 'spiritual' or 'traditionalist' thing is just a bunch of new labels; the attitude remains the same. You have this intense need for validation systems for your own superiority towards women, black people, we know the drill.

Quote from: Grazioso on November 01, 2011, 01:33:47 PM
But we all have the power to educate ourselves in other fields. Certainly, we should do so if we need that information to make informed decisions about our worldviews and conduct.

Does thinking truly compensate for lack of knowledge? If the objects of your thoughts are not factual data, then are they not "merely" supposition, opinion, personal taste, uneducated guesses? Are those fair grounds for dismissing something, such as religion?

It's one thing to not like religion, another to make claims about it. No one can really argue with you for not liking, say, Wagner, but if you start to say, "Wagner's music is crap because of all the aleatory electronics in that concerto about the dwarves. Only a naive person would like it," then everyone within earshot will rightly say, "WTF?"

Why do you need to define yourself? Like a Zen master asked, "What are you before you think?" Why define yourself with opinions and then proffer them as facts? Is it more important to label yourself "atheist" than to treat these matters with objectivity, respect, and a spirit of open inquiry? Certainly a scientist would try to take the latter course.

Wisdom.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 01, 2011, 05:51:31 PM
I would suggest, instead of Guenon (or at least after him), read some of Guenon's sources.  Meister Eckhart, the Chuang Tzu, the Bhagavad Gita, the Sutra of the Sixth Zen Patriarch, and the writing of Pseudo Dionysius (the Corpus Aeropagiticum) are places I would suggest as starting points.

I currently doing just that. I'm actually starting with Tao Te Ching, since i found a library that carried a version of the book with commentary written by Evola, so i can see how the philosophy relates to perennial thought as understood by some of those western intellectuals.

Quote from: Herman on November 02, 2011, 12:52:20 AM
It looks like this new 'spiritual' or 'traditionalist' thing is just a bunch of new labels; the attitude remains the same.

That's because the attitude reflects reality. Indeed, right off the bat, seems that the duality of the Tao reflects some of the things i've always said regarding the relationship between the sexes. Yin (the feminine), complementing the Yang (the masculine). One represents the heaven (where the masculine I resides), the other, the hearth (which is the feminine ego). The masculine points towards transcendence, and has a vertical understanding of the world. The domain of the feminine is the material world, which is horizontal.

Ironically, this understanding seems to be missing among some of the modern perennialists i've heard speak. It seems Guénon himself couldn't understand why the west pointed towards materialism to such unprecedented proportions. The answer is simple. Western civilization in this past several centuries has been a feminine civilization.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 02:36:41 AM
I currently doing just that. I'm actually starting with Tao Te Ching, since i found a library that carried a version of the book with commentary written by Evola, so i can see how the philosophy relates to perennial thought as understood by some of those western intellectuals.

Of which, two illuminating books relevant to this thread:

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51cN1SYg4lL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Dv2LwTAML._SL500_AA300_.jpg)

For the Tao Te Ching, of all the translations I've read, the one by Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English stands out

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41nki3cmwdL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg)

The one by Henricks with commentary is interesting because it translates different versions of the text than you usually see.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 04:38:05 AM
The answer is simple. Western civilization in this past several centuries has been a feminine civilization.

Obviously there's not a shred of evidence for this, unless you're thinking of Q Elizabeth II

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 01, 2011, 05:51:31 PM
Having not read Guenon,  I don't know if he (and therefore you) are using intellect in a way that doesn't correspond to the usual meaning of the word (in the English language, that is).  If he means the entire human mind by "intellect", then I don't disagree with him.  If he means the usual meaning of the word--that is, one of the faculties of the human mind, then he's in disagreement with me, and with the tradition he claimed to represent, for that matter.

It seems that the corresponding meaning for intellect today is nothing more then reason. Pure intellect, if i understood the traditionalist point of view, is a way or arriving at absolute principles not by reason, but by the purest form of abstract internalization. With pure understanding comes pure certitude. My first experience with this type of intellectual "revelation", so to speak, because this is what it feels like, is my understanding of genius, for which i have absolute certitude. Likewise for my recent realization for the existence of God, which is not something i feel, once again, it is a question of intellectual certitude. Indeed, from the frame of mind i find myself at the moment, the typical atheist argument against the existence of God, which until recently i shared with only a minor agnostic reservation, just seems plain childish and silly.

This is not to say this might not be the case for you as well, but when you frame your argument in emotional rather then intellectual grounds, then it loses some of its power.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 04:38:05 AM
That's because the attitude reflects reality. Indeed, right off the bat, seems that the duality of the Tao reflects some of the things i've always said regarding the relationship between the sexes. Yin (the feminine), complementing the Yang (the masculine). One represents the heaven (where the masculine I resides), the other, the hearth (which is the feminine ego). The masculine points towards transcendence, and has a vertical understanding of the world. The domain of the feminine is the material world, which is horizontal.

Ironically, this understanding seems to be missing among some of the modern perennialists i've heard speak. It seems Guénon himself couldn't understand why the west pointed towards materialism to such unprecedented proportions. The answer is simple. Western civilization in this past several centuries has been a feminine civilization.

In its tendency towards active domination and intervention, of forcing things to fit its whims, of aggressive logic over intuition, Western civilization would actually best be characterized as "masculine" where the Tao Te Ching is concerned. Yet Yin does not by any stretch simply mean "woman" or "feminine," but rather refers to the pliable, the receptive, the soft, the yielding, the dark, the mysterious. Western civilization would not know wu-wei if it bit it on the ass :)

Opening and closing the gates of heaven,
Can you play the role of woman?
Understanding and being open to all things,
Are you able to do nothing?
Giving birth and nourishing,
Bearing yet not possessing,
Working yet not taking credit,
Leading yet not dominating,
This is the Primal Virtue.

Yours is a radical misinterpretation of the Tao Te Ching by any standard I've ever encountered, as well as my own readings of it. I'd highly recommend studying it and related literature (e.g., the Chuang Tzu) and commentaries for a few years at least before leaping to conclusions like this. A good introduction from the perspective of Western thought is The Way of Zen by Alan Watts.

Quote from: Herman on November 02, 2011, 04:46:06 AM
Obviously there's not a shred of evidence for this, unless you're thinking of Q Elizabeth II

I find this type of answers curious. The frame of reference is purely materialistic, but even from a materialistic point of view one should at least understand that i'm talking about a principle, not women per-se, whom for the record have nothing to do with the creation of cultural trends one way or another, in a purely direct manner (their indirect influence is another matter altogether). When we speak of masculinity and femininity we are talking about how those principles apply to males in general.

Either way, even from a materialistic frame of reference, one could interpret my statement from, say, a psychological point of view. But even that isn't enough, for what we are dealing with isn't materialism per-se, but dogma, feminist dogma at that, which transcends either intellect or reason, but is purely sentimental, which is a form of materialism yes, the lowest form to be exact.

Quote from: Grazioso on November 02, 2011, 05:00:59 AM
In its tendency towards active domination and intervention, of forcing things to fit its whims, of aggressive logic over intuition, Western civilization would actually best be characterized as "masculine" where the Tao Te Ching is concerned. Yet Yin does not by any stretch simply mean "woman" or "feminine," but rather refers to the pliable, the receptive, the soft, the yielding, the dark, the mysterious. Western civilization would not know wu-wei if it bit it on the ass :)

Because its teeth are neither hard nor sharp, you mean? . . .

Quote from: karlhenning on November 02, 2011, 05:11:11 AM
Because its teeth are neither hard nor sharp, you mean? . . .

Hah!

Quote from: Grazioso on November 02, 2011, 05:00:59 AM
Yet Yin does not by any stretch simply mean "woman" or "feminine," but rather refers to the pliable, the receptive, the soft, the yielding

Which is precisely the intellectual state of western civilization (I.E., a continuous state of awaiting a pregnancy, from a guiding principle). Of course, from a physical level, western civilization has been anything but, but that's because originally, it was only the brahmin cast who abdicated to a purely feminine principle (or rather, lack of any guiding principle). The kshatriya element of western culture went haywire after that, since the only guiding principle for their concentric energies became: materialism. They became the so called "men of action" of Dostovesky.

Quote from: Grazioso on November 02, 2011, 05:00:59 AM
Yours is a radical misinterpretation of the Tao Te Ching by any standard I've ever encountered

Its not a misinterpretation, its an application of taoistic duality within the frame of masculinity and femininity.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 02, 2011, 05:11:11 AM
Because its teeth are neither hard nor sharp, you mean? . . .

Can you be like an old woman
gumming your food?
Can you dribble soup down
your hairy old chin?
The Tao is toothless
Neither hard nor sharp
The Sage bites the West on its ass.

--From the Tao Te Ching: The Lost Verses, Pfft Press: 2011

Quote from: Grazioso on November 02, 2011, 05:00:59 AM
A good introduction from the perspective of Western thought is The Way of Zen by Alan Watts.

I'm not sure i trust a modern perspective, at this point. This is why i chose Evola, at least i know i'm getting an esoteric interpretation, right or wrong that it may be.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 05:21:36 AM
Its not a misinterpretation, its an application of taoistic duality within the frame of masculinity and femininity.

But the point of Taoist thought is to move beyond the dualities to the Unity that underlies everything.

I would suggest skipping Evola and every other interpretation and trying to grapple  with the texts themselves directly. 

As to the difference between masculine and feminine--one of the main points of the "perennial philosophy" is that everything has its source in the Divine, and therefore everything is equally divine; it's just a matter of seeing through the superficial appearances that mask the Divine, or (from another angle) transcending our human limitations to experience the Divine in all things.
So you see, you, me, db71, Richard Dawkins, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother--everyone--is equally God, and that means everyone, black white red polka dotted, male female androgynous GBLTQ.... is equal to each other.  You can't say that anyone is inferior to anyone else, because they are all equal to you.

Quote
Likewise for my recent realization for the existence of God, which is not something i feel, once again, it is a question of intellectual certitude.

If it's intellectual certitude, than you're not  getting the point.  The goal  is experiential certitude.   By experiential certitude, I mean the same sort of certitude that you have about the air you breathe.  You didn't conclude the air you breathe exists because of any intellectual argument; you know it exists because you experience it with every breath you take, etc.  Your intellectual certitude is secondary to this:  prompted by the experience, perhaps explaining what the experience is, but always an offshoot of that experience.

And to clarify further, when I say I feel God, I don't mean an emotional feeling--I mean feel in an almost sensory sort of way (almost sensory of course, since God can't be "felt" in a purely sensory way:  how I feel an apple, not how I feel about the music of Bach.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 06:03:10 AM
So you see, you, me, db71, Richard Dawkins, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother--everyone--is equally God, and that means everyone, black white red polka dotted, male female androgynous GBLTQ.... is equal to each other.  You can't say that anyone is inferior to anyone else, because they are all equal to you.

You forgot to include Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tsedong, Pol Pot and Ted Bundy...

All equal, in all ways?

Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2011, 06:14:29 AM
You forgot to include Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tsedong, Pol Pot and Ted Bundy...

But the statement applies to them just as well.  Because individuals act very undivinely does not mean that their source is not in the Divine.

Quote from: Karl
All equal, in all ways?

Yes.  "God in all and all in God".  The fundamental equality renders the superficial differences trivial.  It does not render them non existent, but it means it we need to focus on the fundamental equality more than we do on the surface differences.

Remember constantly that everyone you deal with is equally divine with you, and their differences from you become secondary things.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 06:42:58 AM
The fundamental equality renders the superficial differences trivial.

That idea is problematic.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 06:42:58 AM
But the statement applies to them just as well.  Because individuals act very undivinely does not mean that their source is not in the Divine.Yes.  "God in all and all in God".  The fundamental equality renders the superficial differences trivial.  It does not render them non existent, but it means it we need to focus on the fundamental equality more than we do on the surface differences.

Remember constantly that everyone you deal with is equally divine with you, and their differences from you become secondary things.

So all a Jew had to do in Auschwitz was to focus on his fundamental divine equality with Dr. Mengele and not on their trivial superficial differences, much less on secondary things as the death awaiting him and his relatives and friends.

Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2011, 06:58:09 AM
So all a Jew had to do in Auschwitz was to focus on his fundamental divine equality with Dr. Mengele and not on their trivial superficial differences, much less on secondary things as the death awaiting him and his relatives and friends.

Not quite.  The Auschwitz inmate would still deal with those "secondary things" but he would escape the trap of hating Mengele and Mengele's accomplices.

Or to flip it: had Mengele and the other Nazis understood that fundamental equality, they would have not done the things they did do.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 02, 2011, 06:49:45 AM
That idea is problematic.

The opposite idea--that the differences really matter--is even more problematic, since that's the root of racism, sexism, etc.

The principle does not mean that one should deny the differences;  it means you should treat them as the surface things they are.  Do not treat a black man as a black who is a man; treat him as a man who happens to be black.  Deal with the individual always, as someone who is fundamentally your equal.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 07:02:08 AM
Not quite.  The Auschwitz inmate would still deal with those "secondary things" but he would escape the trap of hating Mengele and Mengele's accomplices.

Or to flip it: had Mengele and the other Nazis understood that fundamental equality, they would have not done the things they did do.

So anyone who would have killed Hitler or Mengele would have been guilty of killing God, nay, indeed of comitting suicide: "God in all and all in God".

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 07:02:08 AM
The Auschwitz inmate would still deal with those "secondary things" but he would escape the trap of hating Mengele and Mengele's accomplices.

Pantheismus macht frei.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 07:06:05 AM
The opposite idea--that the differences really matter--is even more problematic, since that's the root of racism, sexism, etc.

But I disagree, because I do not believe that acknowledging the importance of the differences compels those evils.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 06:03:10 AM
But the point of Taoist thought is to move beyond the dualities to the Unity that underlies everything.

Yes, the unity is human kind, the duality is male and female.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 06:03:10 AM
I would suggest skipping Evola and every other interpretation and trying to grapple with the texts themselves directly.

Well, i'm curious to see what the old fascist has to say on the subject, being that my intellectual ground work has close ties with that of Evola and others like him.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 06:03:10 AM
As to the difference between masculine and feminine--one of the main points of the "perennial philosophy" is that everything has its source in the Divine, and therefore everything is equally divine; it's just a matter of seeing through the superficial appearances that mask the Divine, or (from another angle) transcending our human limitations to experience the Divine in all things.
So you see, you, me, db71, Richard Dawkins, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother--everyone--is equally God, and that means everyone, black white red polka dotted, male female androgynous GBLTQ.... is equal to each other.  You can't say that anyone is inferior to anyone else, because they are all equal to you.

I find that perspective troubling. Long isn't the same as short. Unity exists only in duality. So to argue that everything is the same is to miss the point as well. A duality means that one side is the opposite of the other. If masculine is vertical, by extension the feminine has to be horizontal. This has nothing to do with concepts of inferiority or superiority, which seem to be sentimental (moralistic) in nature. The masculine isn't superior to the feminine, this entire line of thinking is just childish. The fact there has never been and never will be any female sage or genius is a problem which the perennial traditional school has to deal with at one point, if they truly want to have a chance in saving traditional principles in the midst of the onslaught of modernist disintegration.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 06:03:10 AM
If it's intellectual certitude, than you're not  getting the point.  The goal  is experiential certitude.   By experiential certitude, I mean the same sort of certitude that you have about the air you breathe.  You didn't conclude the air you breathe exists because of any intellectual argument; you know it exists because you experience it with every breath you take, etc.  Your intellectual certitude is secondary to this:  prompted by the experience, perhaps explaining what the experience is, but always an offshoot of that experience.

I'm not sure, really. When i say intellect of course, i'm not talking about reason. I haven't reasoned God out, or anything for that matter. Maybe you could call it intuition, but is intuition experience? All i know is that certitude seems to be a part of it, and certitude is the result of an intellectual process. Its like what Karl Jung said. I don't believe in God, i don't experience God, i don't feel God (well, i added the last two). I simply know.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 06:03:10 AM
And to clarify further, when I say I feel God, I don't mean an emotional feeling--I mean feel in an almost sensory sort of way (almost sensory of course, since God can't be "felt" in a purely sensory way:  how I feel an apple, not how I feel about the music of Bach.

Well, i don't know about Judaism, but in most modern Christian circles, claiming to "feel" God points to nothing more then wallow sentimentality, so you always need to be careful when you talk about certain subjects, in order to avoid misunderstanding.

BTW, do you have any particular recommendation for a good commentary on the old testament (Tanakh, whatever you want to call it)? All i have right now is the translation by Everett Fox (which i hope he is going to complete within my lifetime, blasted hell), which only offers a few secular pointers.

Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2011, 07:09:24 AM
So anyone who would have killed Hitler or Mengele would have been guilty of killing God, nay, indeed of committing suicide: "God in all and all in God".

But how can you kill God? 

Better to say that Hitler's assassin would release Hitler from the trap of his own ego and ego based delusions, and keep Hitler from killing the God to be found in others.

Again--the idea I'm stating does not deny that men do evil things, or that differences among people do not exist.  But even the most evil of humans can have no existence outside of God, for the simple reason that nothing can exist outside of God.

And keeping in mind the divine nature of each and every one of us will keep you from doing things such as Hitler et al. did.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 07:06:05 AM
The opposite idea--that the differences really matter--is even more problematic, since that's the root of racism, sexism, etc.

The principle does not mean that one should deny the differences;  it means you should treat them as the surface things they are.  Do not treat a black man as a black who is a man; treat him as a man who happens to be black.  Deal with the individual always, as someone who is fundamentally your equal.

But differences do exist. It seems to me like you are using Taosim as a justification for some modern, sentimental notion of "equality". Even the borrowing of Freudian jargon (racism, sexism) doesn't seem very traditional to me.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 07:06:05 AM
The principle does not mean that one should deny the differences;  it means you should treat them as the surface things they are.  Do not treat a black man as a black who is a man; treat him as a man who happens to be black.  Deal with the individual always, as someone who is fundamentally your equal.

Think of Osama bin Laden not as a twisted, calculating murderous thug, but as a man who happened to dedicate all his energies to twisted, calculating, murderous thuggery, you mean?

Hitler was a kshatriya who operated without absolute principles (except for gross materialism). A fine product of modernism. If you have lost all sense of the absolute, then you have lost God as well. In that respect Hitler is course no that much farther away from godlessness then the average atheist moralizer, who fancies himself to be the complete antithesis of good old Adolf.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 07:17:50 AM
But how can you kill God? 

Since, as you clearly stated

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 06:03:10 AM
you, me, db71, Richard Dawkins, Barack Obama's Kenyan grandmother--everyone--is equally God

then it follows logically than anyone killing Richard Dawkins, or Hitler, or any other human being is in fact killing God; we might even say that actually it is God who is killing both another God and himself.

Quote
Better to say that Hitler's assassin would release Hitler from the trap of his own ego and ego based delusions, and keep Hitler from killing the God to be found in others.

Poor Hitler, trapped victim as he was...

Quote
Again--the idea I'm stating does not deny that men do evil things, or that differences among people do not exist. But even the most evil of humans can have no existence outside of God, for the simple reason that nothing can exist outside of God.

Doing evil - or good - is a moral choice and this is the most fundamental difference between people, which far surpasses the importance of them having their ultimate source of existence in God. Those choosing evil (especially evil on such a grand scale) freely depart from, and willingly severe their ties with, their divinity. 

Quote
And keeping in mind the divine nature of each and every one of us will keep you from doing things such as Hitler et al. did.

Only humans ar divine, or animals and plants as well? After all, they too have their ultimate source of existence in God. What is so special about humans?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 07:14:09 AM

I find that perspective troubling. Long isn't the same as short. Unity exists only in duality. So to argue that everything is the same is to miss the point as well. A duality means that one side is the opposite of the other. If masculine is vertical, by extension the feminine has to be horizontal. This has nothing to do with concepts of inferiority or superiority, which seem to be sentimental (moralistic) in nature. The masculine isn't superior to the feminine, this entire line of thinking is just childish. The fact there has never been and never will be any female sage or genius is a problem which the perennial traditional school has to deal with at one point, if they truly want to have a chance in saving traditional principles in the midst of the onslaught of modernist disintegration.

There is a Unity that transcends union, that can not be resolved into dualities.
Never have been a female sage--well, that's more cultural reflection of the way women have been limited by societies in the past, and there have been women who could justifiably be called Sages.  But never will be a female sage--sorry, I don't think anyone can say that, and whatever part of the tradition leads to that conclusion can be safely jettisoned as cultural imposition on the real message.

Quote
I'm not sure, really. When i say intellect of course, i'm not talking about reason. I haven't reasoned God out, or anything for that matter. Maybe you could call it intuition, but is intuition experience? All i know is that certitude seems to be a part of it, and certitude is the result of an intellectual process. Its like what Karl Jung said. I don't believe in God, i don't experience God, i don't feel God (well, i added the last two). I simply know.

Okay, I agree with most of that, and certainly don't object to any of that statement.

Quote
Well, i don't know about Judaism, but in most modern Christian circles, claiming to "feel" God points to nothing more then wallow sentimentality, so you always need to be careful when you talk about certain subjects, in order to avoid misunderstanding.

Judaism doesn't quite reject sentimentality, but it does reject it, and tries to keep emotions linked to intellectual understanding.   Emotional outbursts exist in Judaism, but they are usually kept on the side, and sometimes robustly thrown out of the room.

Quote

BTW, do you have any particular recommendation for a good commentary on the old testament (Tanakh, whatever you want to call it)? All i have right now is the translation by Everett Fox (which i hope he is going to complete within my lifetime, blasted hell), which only offers a few secular pointers.

For a commentary, I have no suggestions, for the simple reason that I don't know of any that would serve your purpose.  For an understanding of exoteric Jewish religion, Rashi and the other rabbinical commentators are the obvious place to start.  But for what you need, I know of none.  There are scattered writings which might help, but they are far from systematic, and most of them are either full of recondite Kabbalistic references that would require a commentary themselves, or are in Hebrew and not available in translation, or (usually) both. 
For a Jewish perspective, you might find the writings of Rav Kook useful: http://ravkook.net/
The Wikipedia article has a good bio and some useful links. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rav_Kook

As far as translations go, I think the obvious choice is that produced by the Jewish Publication Society in the 1960s through 1980s

Quote from: karlhenning on November 02, 2011, 07:19:34 AM
Think of Osama bin Laden not as a twisted, calculating murderous thug, but as a man who happened to dedicate all his energies to twisted, calculating, murderous thuggery, you mean?

That's a rather good way of putting it.

Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2011, 07:36:19 AM


Doing evil - or good - is a moral choice and this is the most fundamental difference between people, which far surpasses the importance of them having their ultimate source of existence in God. Those choosing evil (especially evil on such a grand scale) freely depart from, and willingly severe their ties with, their divinity. 

You can never sever your ties with the Divine.  If you could actually do so, you would cease to exist. Or rather, you would never have existed, so total would your lack of existence become.

You can, of course, act in ways that so totally obscure your ties to the Divine that it's very easy to not see them.  But even then, the choice between good and evil, as important and fundamental as it is, is less important and less fundamental than one's identity rooted in the divine.

Quote
Only humans ar divine, or animals and plants as well? After all, they too have their ultimate source of existence in God. What is so special about humans?

Everything is divine.  Show me the thing that does not have its source of existence in God, and I will show you the thing that does not exist.
The special thing about humans is that, uniquely, we can be aware of God and our source in God.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 07:43:47 AM
Everything is divine.  Show me the thing that does not have its source of existence in God, and I will show you the thing that does not exist.

You conflate two different things: (1) having its ultimate source of existence in God and (2) being divine. I wonder how you reconcile this pantheism with the Old Testament about which you said

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on October 30, 2011, 07:36:18 AM
I find the traditional view of the "Old Testament" as representing what happened to fit best with the historical/archeological evidence.

and which posits a radical difference between the Creator and its creatures.

Anyway, if everything is divine then what right do we have to kill turkeys in order to eat them at Christmas (or any other animal in order to eat it at any time) or to kill annoying flies and mosquitoes?

And BTW I think you mean that everything alive is divine, otherwise the very act of climbing a stair violates the divinity of the steps.

Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2011, 08:03:32 AM
You conflate two different things: (1) having its ultimate source of existence in God and (2) being divine. I wonder how you reconcile this pantheism with the Old Testament about which you said

and which posits a radical difference between the Creator and its creatures.

Anyway, if everything is divine then what right do we have to kill turkeys in order to eat them at Christmas (or any other animal in order to eat it at any time) or to kill annoying flies and mosquitoes?

And BTW I think you mean that everything alive is divine, otherwise the very act of climbing a stair violates the divinity of the steps.

Jumping in late here, but perhaps it would help to consider this sort of problem as viewing the same thing through two different perspectives simultaneously. The mystical realization of unity-divinity does not negate the everyday experience of the diversity of existent things and the everyday needs that arise from that diversity, like having to eat and sleep and stop mad dictators. For those uncomfortable with mysticism, we can still adopt that sort of dual-level approach on a scientific level: Hitler was composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons like the rest of us, but on the macro level, he was a mass murderer.

Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2011, 07:36:19 AM
then it follows logically than anyone killing Richard Dawkins, or Hitler, or any other human being is in fact killing God; we might even say that actually it is God who is killing both another God and himself.

Do you know the Hindu concept of Lila? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_%28Hinduism%29 The idea of God "forgetting Himself" as his unity takes on the countless roles of all individual beings and things, playing a sort of cosmic game of hide-and-seek with Himself.

Quote
Doing evil - or good - is a moral choice and this is the most fundamental difference between people, which far surpasses the importance of them having their ultimate source of existence in God. Those choosing evil (especially evil on such a grand scale) freely depart from, and willingly severe their ties with, their divinity. 

If I may, I think you guys might be talking at cross purposes: divinity in the sense I think Jeffrey is using it is a mystical one that is not something that admits of difference or severing--or literal definition. It's not a "thing" or a quality that one has or can distance oneself from.

I've studied religion for many years now and the only poster I'm seeing who demonstrates authentic understanding of transcendental ideas, the methodology of compassion, etc. is Mr. Smith (and maybe a couple others).

To clarify:  I don't mean to suggest that I am an expert.  But I have *a little* knowledge, and the vast majority of posts I see here are indicative of many ideas people have about religion that are floating around in public space:  They demonstrate lack of intense research in spiritual matters, so much so that it is almost pointless to initiate ANY discussion of religion in public, for any reason.  "Debate is pointless when everyone has a different idea of what is being talked about."

Bluntly put:  Transcendental mysticism is actual religion, everything else is pre-school level.  The majority of the public occupy this pre-school understanding of religion, and never leave it. 

Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2011, 08:03:32 AM
Anyway, if everything is divine then what right do we have to kill turkeys in order to eat them at Christmas (or any other animal in order to eat it at any time) or to kill annoying flies and mosquitoes?

See the above post about simultaneous perspectives. Your question arguably mixes conventional ethics with mystical awareness. It also perhaps assumes there are "things" called turkeys in the first place. On a conventional everyday level, obviously there are: I've seen them in the woods, and they make fine eating :) But take a single turkey: what is its "essence" or "true being" or whatever one might want to call it? The turkey is not stable over time: it starts as a couple cells gettin' it on and ends as putrefying flesh in the forest or as someone's dinner--or both if you're a vulture :) It's exchanging and incorporating air molecules with you and me and the trees. Even its physical solidity is illusory from some perspectives: you can shoot an X-ray through one.

From that particular perspective alone (and compare Buddhist Anatta, or "not-self" and Sunyata, "emptiness"), killing a turkey doesn't take anything away from/out of it since it has no impermanent, independently originated characteristics; the act merely hastens the physical change of molecules that once were combined into what we conventionally call a "turkey." Simultaneously, it is the end of a living thing that can suffer pain, and of a unique and irreplaceable consciousness and therefore the object of a serious ethical question.

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on November 02, 2011, 11:04:03 AM
Bluntly put:  Transcendental mysticism is actual religion, everything else is pre-school level.  The majority of the public occupy this pre-school understanding of religion, and never leave it. 

You will find plenty of mystics who would dispute that and continue to practice and teach their "everyday" faiths. Conventional, exoteric religion and its trappings are not necessarily false or juvenile or wrong; nor are they the main point.

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on November 02, 2011, 11:04:03 AM
  Transcendental mysticism is actual religion, everything else is pre-school level. 

why not immanent mysticism?

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on November 02, 2011, 11:04:03 AM
Bluntly put:  Transcendental mysticism is actual religion, everything else is pre-school level.  The majority of the public occupy this pre-school understanding of religion, and never leave it.

The majority of the public has no business dealing with anything but exoteric religion, for the sole reason they do not posses the capacity to grasp transcendence. True religion has always been an elitist affair. This is actually something that bothers me a little, if you look at it from the point of view of the material world having any particular cosmic purpose. If the "mysteries" can only be understood by a few, necessitating an external set of rules and rituals that keep the masses in line with traditional principles without them having any particular knowledge to the nature of the latter, then it seems that for most this world is all there's meant to be in their lives.

Its also no wonder that the west became anti-traditional so quickly, seeing that any esoteric element to the Christian doctrine was almost completely lost even before Constantine made Christianity the official exoteric doctrine of the western world, and that Christianity does not posses a sacred language that maintains the sacred texts alive. So now the western world has sunk into complete spiritual annihilation (and if all true reality is the other reality, this universe being nothing but illusion, it seems that judgement day is already here), reaching the highest level of the Kali Yuga, against which the material advantages of the modern world are a small consolation. Its like God condemned an entire people to be Godless, just to achieve the fulfillment of some sort of cosmic cycle.

Quote from: Grazioso on November 02, 2011, 11:29:59 AM
Simultaneously, it is the end of a living thing that can suffer pain, and of a unique and irreplaceable consciousness and therefore the object of a serious ethical question.

I think that the fact a Turkey can feel pain doesn't implicitly means it has a consciousness. That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Quote from: Grazioso on November 02, 2011, 11:29:59 AM
You will find plenty of mystics who would dispute that and continue to practice and teach their "everyday" faiths. Conventional, exoteric religion and its trappings are not necessarily false or juvenile or wrong; nor are they the main point.

A pre-school is a pre-school.  The problem is not the exoteric religion, the problem is that people in the world are not serious about anything anymore.  People will pass the time with anything, except if it has profundity.  This extends beyond the notions of just religion; this attitude is in music, art, philosophy, etc. 

When these attitudes are called into question, mankind has a tendency to defend the superficial attitudes, the mediocre valuations of things.  People grow disillusioned waiting for the next Beethoven or da Vinci when our own culture actively prevents such types from emerging (or at least becoming known). 

"It's cool man, I mean it's a whatever."

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on November 02, 2011, 12:23:35 PM
A pre-school is a pre-school.  The problem is not the exoteric religion, the problem is that people in the world are not serious about anything anymore.  People will pass the time with anything, except if it has profundity.  This extends beyond the notions of just religion; this attitude is in music, art, philosophy, etc. 

When these attitudes are called into question, mankind has a tendency to defend the superficial attitudes, the mediocre valuations of things.  People grow disillusioned waiting for the next Beethoven or da Vinci when our own culture actively prevents such types from emerging (or at least becoming known). 

"It's cool man, I mean it's a whatever."

I've spent years battling this attitude in this very forum, without much success. I wish you better luck, if you plan on sticking around.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 12:38:41 PM
I've spent years battling this attitude in this very forum, without much success. I wish you better luck, if you plan on sticking around.

yes, people round here are annoyingly resistant to unsubstantiated ex cathedra pronouncements

You deny that most people here sheer away from profundity the moment the word is uttered? (Followed by some ubiquitous statement about how such "serious" attitudes is the reason most people don't like classical music).

I remember once saying that modern culture is incapable of producing a Beethoven myself (for the same exact reasons expressed by Thomas), a statement which was instantly met with ridicule. I mean, after all, its all a question of subjective perspectives, who am I to call modern society frivolous?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 12:50:47 PM
You deny that most people here sheer away from profundity the moment the word is uttered?

Maybe they just shy away from the arrogance.

Arrogance? I spent my entire existence jumping from one thing to the next, looking for substance, and being told i had no right to complain when i didn't find any along the way, for if others enjoyed frivolous things, who was i to criticize? Everything is subjective!

Until i realized that such arguments were pure, utter nonsense. It is not arrogance. Its lack of patience for a mindset that had me bounce around to and fro in a realm of sheer mediocrity through out the best years of my life.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 01:05:59 PM
Arrogance? I spent my entire existence jumping from one thing to the next, looking for substance, and being told i had no right to complain when i didn't find any along the way, for if others enjoyed frivolous things, who was i to criticize? Everything is subjective!

Until i realized that such arguments were pure, utter nonsense. It is not arrogance. Its lack of patience for a mindset that had me bounce around to and fro in a realm of sheer mediocrity through out the best years of my life.

This is one of the most unadulteratedly sensible posts I've known you to make.

None of this is arrogance, nor am I saying that any of this is.

Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 02, 2011, 12:43:43 PM
yes, people round here are annoyingly resistant to unsubstantiated ex cathedra pronouncements

I don't think that we are the problem, exactly. Possibly others though, probably even a majority. :)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 12:38:41 PM
I've spent years battling this attitude in this very forum, without much success. I wish you better luck, if you plan on sticking around.

My dispute with his (and your earlier) statement in general is that it seems to be all-inclusive, when in fact there is a measurable percentage of the population which is 'serious'. Another thing I find irksome about all this is the assumption that at some unspecified time, in a "Golden Age" somewhere, that this percentage was incalculably higher than it is now. That is just plain wrong, and if it could be proved otherwise I would be stunned! 

8)

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on November 02, 2011, 01:11:15 PM
My dispute with his (and your earlier) statement in general is that it seems to be all-inclusive, when in fact there is a measurable percentage of the population which is 'serious'. Another thing I find irksome about all this is the assumption that at some unspecified time, in a "Golden Age" somewhere, that this percentage was incalculably higher than it is now. That is just plain wrong, and if it could be proved otherwise I would be stunned! 

I think there's some misunderstanding here. Its not that the percentage you speak of was any higher in any period of history, its that in other times serious things were, well, taken seriously. Its also a question of maintaining certain standards, whether it is by upholding certain values, or more importantly (and more pertinently with the intellectual mindset of modern society), by criticizing the lack of said values in certain things.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 12:38:41 PM
I've spent years battling this attitude in this very forum, without much success. I wish you better luck, if you plan on sticking around.

The reason I got into classical music was because I thought it was the most profound and moving music I had heard in my life.  Now, a lot of my closest friends are rock musicians and very intelligent ones at that.  But you cannot imagine my sadness when I play the "Eroica" symphony and it rolls right on through them and they feel absolutely nothing (or worse, discomfort).

Coming from a man with no musical training whatsoever:  It is even worse to see a trained classical musician downplay the profundity of his own choice of music.  That's a whole can of worms and I'll just leave it at that for now.

Quote from: Gurnatron5500 on November 02, 2011, 01:11:15 PM
My dispute with his (and your earlier) statement in general is that it seems to be all-inclusive, when in fact there is a measurable percentage of the population which is 'serious'. Another thing I find irksome about all this is the assumption that at some unspecified time, in a "Golden Age" somewhere, that this percentage was incalculably higher than it is now. That is just plain wrong, and if it could be proved otherwise I would be stunned! 

It cannot be proven let's say, in a Law and Order style.  But in the field of literature, you can open any of the perennial classics and compare it with any modern bestseller (or even worst-seller).  Obviously our culture is hollow in comparison, not just in the beauty of the language but in the sophistication of the ideas.  I say this to people and occasionally they tell me that there actually IS good literature, but I'm not exposed to it, that I need to check out this one guy's book . . . I flip through it and it's just as hollow as the other books, except this guy is trying to be clever.

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on November 02, 2011, 01:35:53 PM
  Obviously our culture is hollow in comparison, not just in the beauty of the language but in the sophistication of the ideas.  I say this to people and occasionally they tell me that there actually IS good literature, but I'm not exposed to it, that I need to check out this one guy's book . . . I flip through it and it's just as hollow as the other books, except this guy is trying to be clever.

it is not obviously hollow in comparison and those of us who disagree with you tend to react poorly to the arrogance and lack of respect for other's views typically expressed in these culture-gone-to-hell-in-a-handbasket hissy fits.  No different than the obnoxious tone-nazis (which thankfully have not been around much) who think everything that strays outside of 19th century part writing conventions is some sort of emperor's new clothes scheme to con the gullible masses

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 02:36:41 AM
I currently doing just that. I'm actually starting with Tao Te Ching, since i found a library that carried a version of the book with commentary written by Evola, so i can see how the philosophy relates to perennial thought as understood by some of those western intellectuals.

Excellent choice.  I'm pretty fond of the Feng/Jane English translation, in that it comes close, (from what I heard) the the terseness and implied meanings of the original.   You can access all of the text from that translation here:


http://www.daily-tao.com/ (http://www.daily-tao.com/)


Also, for the Bhagavad Gita, I'm a big fan of the Isherwood translation-- http://www.amazon.com/Bhagavad-Gita-Song-God-Swami-Prabhavananda/dp/0451528441 (http://www.amazon.com/Bhagavad-Gita-Song-God-Swami-Prabhavananda/dp/0451528441) Among other things, the forward by Aldous Huxley describes it in the context of the "Perennial Philosophy"- which may (or may not) be up your alley.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 04:38:05 AM
That's because the attitude reflects reality. Indeed, right off the bat, seems that the duality of the Tao reflects some of the things i've always said regarding the relationship between the sexes. Yin (the feminine), complementing the Yang (the masculine). One represents the heaven (where the masculine I resides), the other, the hearth (which is the feminine ego). The masculine points towards transcendence, and has a vertical understanding of the world. The domain of the feminine is the material world, which is horizontal.

Although the Tao te Ching clearly states the a "man" of wisdom has both halves within them, and keeps to both.  The gender is not specified in original for the "person of wisdom" or "Master" -- the Stephen Mitchell translation uses "he" or "she" in different places to make it clear it is not referring to a man exclusively.

A couple translations of Chapter 28:

Tao Te Ching: Chapter 28
translated by Stephen Mitchell (1988)

Know the male,
yet keep to the female:
receive the world in your arms.
If you receive the world,
the Tao will never leave you
and you will be like a little child.

Know the white,
yet keep to the black:
be a pattern for the world.
If you are a pattern for the world,
the Tao will be strong inside you
and there will be nothing
      you can't do.

or

Tao Te Ching: Chapter 28
translated by Tolbert McCarroll (1982)

Develop the strength of a man,
      but live as gently as a woman.
Become a brook and receive all things under heaven.
If you are such a brook
      then Virtue will constantly flow into you
      and you will become a simple child again.

Interesting quote in  Chapter 10:

Can you play the role of woman?
Understanding and being open to all things,

Female imagery is also there referring to the primal mother, the valley spirit that never dies (Chapter 6), which does not sound too materialistic to me.

Also, in some ways, the female half is described as the more mystical of the two-- the emptness and stillness from with the more male have emerges. See some examples below:

Chapter 25
Something mysteriously formed,
Born before heaven and Earth.
In the silence and the void,
Standing alone and unchanging,
Ever present and in motion.
Perhaps it is the mother of ten thousand things.

Chapter 52 explicitly links the masculine with material manifestations:

Fifty-two
The beginning of the universe
Is the mother of all things.
Knowing the mother, on also knows the sons.
Knowing the sons, yet remaining in touch with the mother,
Brings freedom from the fear of death.

This female side is also described as the more powerful of the two, since it is more aligned with the natural flow:

Sixty-one
A great country is like low land.
It is the meeting ground of the universe,
The mother of the universe.
The female overcomes the male with stillness,
Lying low in stillness.


Some points to ponder...

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 07:06:05 AM
The opposite idea--that the differences really matter--is even more problematic, since that's the root of racism, sexism, etc.

The principle does not mean that one should deny the differences;  it means you should treat them as the surface things they are.  Do not treat a black man as a black who is a man; treat him as a man who happens to be black.  Deal with the individual always, as someone who is fundamentally your equal.

There is a big difference in disliking someone who's actions you perceive are evil, and someone who is in a category you feel may be evil or lesser, but hasn't done anything to deserve it.

Quote from: jowcol on November 02, 2011, 01:57:03 PM
Excellent choice.  I'm pretty fond of the Feng/Jane English translation, in that it comes close, (from what I heard) the the terseness and implied meanings of the original.   You can access all of the text from that translation here:


http://www.daily-tao.com/ (http://www.daily-tao.com/)


Also, for the Bhagavad Gita, I'm a big fan of the Isherwood translation-- http://www.amazon.com/Bhagavad-Gita-Song-God-Swami-Prabhavananda/dp/0451528441 (http://www.amazon.com/Bhagavad-Gita-Song-God-Swami-Prabhavananda/dp/0451528441) Among other things, the forward by Aldous Huxley describes it in the context of the "Perennial Philosophy"- which may (or may not) be up your alley.

Just found the Feng/Jane edition. As for your second recommendation, could you, erm, provide a free ebook link? I'd buy the kindle version but the fact it actually costs more then the paper edition ticks me off. And i can't order the latter since i'm Italy at the moment.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 02:38:08 PM
Just found the Feng/Jane edition. As for your second recommendation, could you, erm, provide a free ebook link? I'd buy the kindle version but the fact it actually costs more then the paper edition ticks me off. And i can't order the latter since i'm Italy at the moment.

Closest I can come it to give you a link to the Huxley forward:

http://parvati.tripod.com/perennial.html


An onlline version hers :   http://www.atmajyoti.org/gi_bhagavad_gita_pr_introduction.asp

Umm.. could not find a free ebook, but the search did indicate some porn sites that seemed interesting.

FWIW-- the Open Source program Calibre is very handy for changing ebook formats.  Their policy is that they don't condone piracy, but if you buy it in one format, you should have rights to it in all formats.


An earlier translation, the Edwin Arnold, is available through project gutenberg, and can be found here.
http://www.manybooks.net/titles/anonetext00bgita10.html

Quote from: Grazioso on November 02, 2011, 11:02:03 AM
For those uncomfortable with mysticism, we can still adopt that sort of dual-level approach on a scientific level: Hitler was composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons like the rest of us, but on the macro level, he was a mass murderer.

I am not uncomfortable with mysticism: Christianity has plenty of mystics. It is Pantheism that I don't buy.

Quote
Do you know the Hindu concept of Lila? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lila_%28Hinduism%29 The idea of God "forgetting Himself" as his unity takes on the countless roles of all individual beings and things, playing a sort of cosmic game of hide-and-seek with Himself.

Thanks for pointing it out. I'll investigate it.

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on November 02, 2011, 11:04:03 AM
Bluntly put:  Transcendental mysticism is actual religion, everything else is pre-school level. 

Says who?

Says i, as well.

Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 02, 2011, 11:32:06 AM
why not immanent mysticism?

:D :D :D

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 01:39:04 AM
Says i, as well.

What if I don't believe you?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 02, 2011, 11:49:15 AM
True religion has always been an elitist affair.

It is precisely against this arrogant and smug religious elitism (who besides being insufferable, engenders the only too normal reaction of becoming an atheist just as aggressive and supercilious) that Christ has preached and acted. God revealed Himself in all His glory to fishermen, publicans and prostitutes and they instantly recognized and accepted Him, while doctors of law and high priests (i.e., the very religious elite you speak of) derided, scorned and finally crucified Him by proxies.

Actually the exact opposite is true: true religion has never been an elitist affair.

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on November 02, 2011, 01:19:32 PM
Now, a lot of my closest friends are rock musicians and very intelligent ones at that.  But you cannot imagine my sadness when I play the "Eroica" symphony and it rolls right on through them and they feel absolutely nothing (or worse, discomfort).

Just to cheer you up a little...I read somewhere that Mick Jagger owns 37 different recordings of the Eroica

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on November 02, 2011, 01:35:53 PM
It cannot be proven let's say, in a Law and Order style.  But in the field of literature, you can open any of the perennial classics and compare it with any modern bestseller (or even worst-seller).  Obviously our culture is hollow in comparison, not just in the beauty of the language but in the sophistication of the ideas. 

The first and foremost function of good literature is to tell a good story in a language best suited to it. In this respect I'd say that not only Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Mario Vargas Llosa, but also Andrei Makine, David Lodge, Juan Marse and Amin Maalouf can stand the comparison.

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 01:56:55 AM
It is precisely against this arrogant and smug religious elitism (who besides being insufferable, engenders the only too normal reaction of becoming an atheist just as aggressive and supercilious) that Christ has preached and acted. God revealed Himself in all His glory to fishermen, publicans and prostitutes and they instantly recognized and accepted Him, while doctors of law and high priests (i.e., the very religious elite you speak of) derided, scorned and finally crucified Him by proxies.

Actually the exact opposite is true: true religion has never been an elitist affair.

When discussing such broad terms, one may wish to be a bit cautious in using terms like "always" and "never"--  such terms are very easy to disprove by counter example, are they not?

I tend to lean towards your side of the camp-- but the fact is there is documented coexistence of both strains throughout history, and both have contributed to our culture.  The more important issue, to me, is how does either distinction pass the "so what" test and and be put into practice?   There is a lot one can say about whether a tomato is a fruit or a vegetable, but how does that affect the taste? 

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 01:56:55 AM
Actually the exact opposite is true: true religion has never been an elitist affair.

You are right. Esoteric religion is no religion at all. Its merely an internal probing into the eternal mysteries. True metaphysics become religion once the mysteries are reduced to mere dogma. Religion is materialistic.

Quote from: Velimir on November 03, 2011, 02:34:27 AM
Just to cheer you up a little...I read somewhere that Mick Jagger owns 37 different recordings of the Eroica

Yeah but how many did he end up snorting up?

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on November 02, 2011, 01:19:32 PM
The reason I got into classical music was because I thought it was the most profound and moving music I had heard in my life.  Now, a lot of my closest friends are rock musicians and very intelligent ones at that.  But you cannot imagine my sadness when I play the "Eroica" symphony and it rolls right on through them and they feel absolutely nothing (or worse, discomfort).

OTOH, maybe they're bowled over by the profundity of Le sacre du printemps, or of Ionisation.  If you make the Sinfonia eroica (or any one piece, no matter how worthy) such a "profundity touchstone," life will be full of sadness for you.

QuoteComing from a man with no musical training whatsoever:  It is even worse to see a trained classical musician downplay the profundity of his own choice of music.  That's a whole can of worms and I'll just leave it at that for now.

Another error you may well be falling into, is that surprising wiggle-word: profundity.  That's a whole can of worms and I'll just leave it at that for now.

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 01:56:55 AM
while doctors of law and high priests (i.e., the very religious elite you speak of)

This is not the elite i'm speaking of. Such an elite is by its very nature hidden, and its influence can be felt only silently. This influence may extend all the way to the fisherman, but unless the fisherman has done some internal probing of his own, i doubt he has any chance at grasping the eternal mysteries merely by following dogma anymore then the heathen does. Case in point, i learned more of the mysteries from my father and my grandfather, who were mere working class laymen, then i ever did by going to church as a kid. This is because without a sense of the sacred, there is no real point to a set of exoteric doctrines. Religion is pointless without a sense of the sacred, and this sense of the sacred derives from the influence of an elite of sages and teachers. No esoteric religion, no point to exoteric religion.

Face it, we can't all be like Lao-Tsu. It would be ideal if that was a possibility for most people, but it isn't. But then, how would you recognize wisdom without ignorance?

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 03:51:46 AM
OTOH, maybe they're bowled over by the profundity of Le sacre du printemps, or of Ionisation.  If you make the Sinfonia eroica (or any one piece, no matter how worthy) such a "profundity touchstone," life will be full of sadness for you.

If you see profundity in one, then you ought to be able to see profundity in the other. Doubtlessly, most people aren't able to make heads and tails of the Eroica anymore then they can for the Le sacre. If you are a superficial person, profundity will escape you no matter what.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 03:51:46 AM
Another error you may well be falling into, is that surprising wiggle-word: profundity.  That's a whole can of worms and I'll just leave it at that for now.

Why, its so much fun. To wit: Lady Gaga, not profound. Eroica. Profound. Its so easy.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 04:04:13 AM
Why, its so much fun. To wit: Lady Gaga, not profound. Eroica. Profound. Its so easy.

Yes, such cherry-picking is easy . . . a little disappointed in you for finding such banality so much fun.

You open yet another can of worms, to wit: whatever profundity is, why should it be the only worthy goal of music? Brahms's Hungarian Dances are not profound, but then: why need they be?

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 01:40:03 AM
What if I don't believe you?

What is that you believe exactly? That one can be one with God merely by following the gospel, without actual understanding of eternal principles?

Ok so, God said many fine things, and his life is supposed to be an example to all. Don't do unto others, what you wouldn't want done unto you . Wonderful advice. But that's all it is, isn't it? Just common sense. Do you see a mystery there? Do you see God at all? Is this the best God can do, to send his son to tell us some nice things, get crucified, and somehow turn his father from a vengeful tyrant into a being all loving, and all accepting in the process?

I mean, its nonsense. There's no mystery to such a tale, no profundity. This is what Christianity is today. Superficial and sentimental to a disgusting degree. I'm sorry, but I for one refuse to believe that this is all there is to the mystery of life. Be nice to people, don't be a jerk, and then go to paradise. Its utopian, that's what it is.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 04:08:02 AM
why should it be the only worthy goal of music?

Why should music have a goal at all? Lets all spend our existence in mediocrity and frivolousness. Why bother with anything of value whatsoever? Life is short, have fun while you can!

This is the doctrine of spiritual death. Music should reflect the sacred. Anything else is a waste of time.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 04:08:02 AM
Brahms's Hungarian Dances are not profound, but then: why need they be?[/font]

Not sure. Don't listen to them, don't even own a recording of them, don't want it.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 04:17:55 AM
I mean, its nonsense. There's no mystery to such a tale, no profundity. This is what Christianity is today. Superficial and sentimental to a disgusting degree. I'm sorry, but I for one refuse to believe that this is all there is to the mystery of life. Be nice to people, don't be a jerk, and then go to paradise. Its utopian, that's what it is.

And yet . . . guess who is the butt of Michael Palin's joke here:

http://www.youtube.com/v/qBArMmngVH4

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 04:08:02 AM
Yes, such cherry-picking is easy . . .

It is? Good jolly. Then it shouldn't be hard for you to prove that Lady Gaga is in fact not profound, right? If its so easy.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 04:26:01 AM
And yet . . . guess who is the butt of Michael Palin's joke here:

http://www.youtube.com/v/qBArMmngVH4

I actually had the Meaning of Life in mind when i wrote that.

BTW, what do you think of John Cleese lamenting the fact London is no longer a British city? Not so smug now, is he.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 04:23:43 AM
Why should music have a goal at all?

I'm guessing you meant that as something of a sarcasm; but in fact, that is part of the point.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 03:49:02 AM
You are right. Esoteric religion is no religion at all. Its merely an internal probing into the eternal mysteries. True metaphysics become religion once the mysteries are reduced to mere dogma. Religion is materialistic.

It is this very dichotomy (exoteric / organized religion for the use of uneducated masses vs. esoteric religion reserved to a tiny elite) that as a Christian I strongly reject. Christ did not reserve His teachings for an elite, but liberally imparted them to anyone willing to listen and commanded His disciples to do the same. Actually, this was the biggest stumbling block for Jews and Gentiles alike: that the hidden, the mysterious, the inaccessible, the esoteric God chose to made Himself manifest, visible and reachable in a physical, sensorial way and - perhaps the greatest scandal - in the form of a humble carpenter, albeit with royal ascendency. In this sense I certainly agree that Christianity is materialistic; look in the Gospels: the parables are filled with the most down-to-earth elements: wine, bread, fish, sheep, money, weddings, feasts, birds, flowers etc. Nothing is more alien to the spirit of genuine Christianity than metaphysical abstractions and philosophical hair-splitting; everything is presented in plain sight and clear language, within the reach of anyone's mind and heart - on condition that both be opened.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 04:23:43 AM
This is the doctrine of spiritual death. Music should reflect the sacred. Anything else is a waste of time.

Then stop wasting your time here. Get thee to a nunnery.


Sarge

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 04:28:47 AM
I'm guessing you meant that as something of a sarcasm; but in fact, that is part of the point.

I know that that is part of the point. What i don't understand is why somebody like you would profess a point of view which derives from godlessness.

See, the real question is: why should art be about the frivolous and nothing but the frivolous?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 03:54:23 AM
Religion is pointless without a sense of the sacred, and this sense of the sacred derives from the influence of an elite of sages and teachers.

Not necessarily. It can also derive from the awe inspired by nature and communion with it, as seen from the historical fact that the inhabitants of highlands and mountainous regions, as well as the peasantry, displayed a high degree of genuine piety and strong religious sentiments - all this despite the absence in those regions of an elite of sages and teachers.

Quote
Face it, we can't all be like Lao-Tsu. It would be ideal if that was a possibility for most people, but it isn't. But then, how would you recognize wisdom without ignorance?

Why do you equate religion with wisdom? I know plenty of people with a vigorous religious sentiment who are not exactly sages.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 04:17:55 AM
I mean, its nonsense. There's no mystery to such a tale, no profundity. This is what Christianity is today. Superficial and sentimental to a disgusting degree. I'm sorry, but I for one refuse to believe that this is all there is to the mystery of life.

That's because too much metaphysics and philosophy and too little real life corrupted your thinking in such high a degree that you cannot accept anything as true which does not present itself as a mystery inaccessible to anyone but a few elect "sages and teachers" of which you strive to be one. You always look for truth in obscure and hidden places, i.e. "many a quaint and curious volumes of forgotten lore" and are always dissatisfied with not finding it. Maybe its time to look elsewhere.

(By saying that I don't want to be rude; it's just what can be gathered from your posts here and elsewhere.)

Quote
Be nice to people, don't be a jerk, and then go to paradise. Its utopian, that's what it is.

How do you know if you never tried?

Good Heavens, back to arguing about so-called profundity in art--what a stupid way to ruin a good thread :( Convenient how some people are just so sure they know what profundity and depth are, and are so sure that most other people wallow in ignorance. What colossal arrogance, especially when some of the same people are singing the praises of mystical traditions, which almost universally emphasize humility and dying to self, not building up the ego by elevating your own tastes and mocking others.

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 04:31:58 AM
It is this very dichotomy (exoteric / organized religion for the use of uneducated masses vs. esoteric religion reserved to a tiny elite) that as a Christian I strongly reject. Christ did not reserve His teachings for an elite, but liberally imparted them to anyone willing to listen and commanded His disciples to do the same. Actually, this was the biggest stumbling block for Jews and Gentiles alike: that the hidden, the mysterious, the inaccessible, the esoteric God chose to made Himself manifest, visible and reachable in a physical, sensorial way and - perhaps the greatest scandal - in the form of a humble carpenter, albeit with royal ascendency. In this sense I certainly agree that Christianity is materialistic; look in the Gospels: the parables are filled with the most down-to-earth elements: wine, bread, fish, sheep, money, weddings, feasts, birds, flowers etc. Nothing is more alien to the spirit of genuine Christianity than metaphysical abstractions and philosophical hair-splitting; everything is presented in plain sight and clear language, within the reach of anyone's mind and heart - on condition that both be opened.

There are strong parallels to this in Buddhism. While Gautama, the historical individual who founded Buddhist teachings, was of princely stock, he a) rejected it to seek wisdom as part of the Samana tradition (basically, independent wandering spiritual philosophers) and then b) preached his findings to all and sundry, both high and low (cf. the concurrent Brahmin tradition, with its privileged priestly caste), and he used simple, everyday parables and metaphors and explicitly rejected metaphysical navel-gazing and hair-splitting as unedifying and distracting.

Buddhism likewise has a strong tradition of the "Boddhisatva vow" of attaining enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings. There are also the Zen Ox-Herding pictures, where the saint returns back to society "with bliss-bestowing" hands. (That said, Buddhism is the religion that instituted organized monasticism as we know it.)

Buddhism from the start, despite the growth of enormously elaborate philosophical systems, has been rooted in firm, everyday practicality for all to try.

Quote from: Grazioso on November 03, 2011, 05:08:32 AM
Good Heavens, back to arguing about so-called profundity in art--what a stupid way to ruin a good thread :(

Aye, it's all so . . . samsara, n'est-ce pas?

Quote from: Grazioso on November 03, 2011, 05:08:32 AM
(That said, Buddhism is the religion that instituted organized monasticism as we know it.)

You cannot mean it? How can Buddhism have instituted Christian monasticism?  Or do you just mean, that you don't know Christian monasticism? ; )

Quote from: Thomas Crystalstick on November 02, 2011, 01:35:53 PM
It cannot be proven let's say, in a Law and Order style.  But in the field of literature, you can open any of the perennial classics and compare it with any modern bestseller (or even worst-seller).  Obviously our culture is hollow in comparison, not just in the beauty of the language but in the sophistication of the ideas.  I say this to people and occasionally they tell me that there actually IS good literature, but I'm not exposed to it, that I need to check out this one guy's book . . . I flip through it and it's just as hollow as the other books, except this guy is trying to be clever.

I've made this point on a few other threads, but a lot of "literature" was not written to be profound, but to entertain and commerical use.  Dickens (whom I adore) was a hack, and wrote serials. Shakespeare needed new productions, and would rush things (like the dreaded 'exit, pursued by bear' to kill off a character in the Winter's Tale.  A lot of scholarly writings seem to elevate these two artists to be something they were not.  Much of what define's "literature" is its staying power.  Hopefully ,the better works were preserved and better distributed, and the crap became neglected over time.  For contemporary works, it's harder to evaluate, since we don't have the distance, nor can we use the staying power as a measure.  I would say that a lot of the lasting literature works since it honestly addresses the human condition-- while the posers get weeded out over time.

I've also wasted time reading works by authors that were so busy trying to be profound, they forgot some of the main needs of fiction.  I consider them just as insincere and derivative as a Harlequin Romance, although hopefully a bit more interesting.

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 04:31:58 AM
It is this very dichotomy (exoteric / organized religion for the use of uneducated masses vs. esoteric religion reserved to a tiny elite) that as a Christian I strongly reject. Christ did not reserve His teachings for an elite, but liberally imparted them to anyone willing to listen and commanded His disciples to do the same. Actually, this was the biggest stumbling block for Jews and Gentiles alike: that the hidden, the mysterious, the inaccessible, the esoteric God chose to made Himself manifest, visible and reachable in a physical, sensorial way and - perhaps the greatest scandal - in the form of a humble carpenter, albeit with royal ascendency. In this sense I certainly agree that Christianity is materialistic; look in the Gospels: the parables are filled with the most down-to-earth elements: wine, bread, fish, sheep, money, weddings, feasts, birds, flowers etc. Nothing is more alien to the spirit of genuine Christianity than metaphysical abstractions and philosophical hair-splitting; everything is presented in plain sight and clear language, within the reach of anyone's mind and heart - on condition that both be opened.

Mind and heart? Not so much. Sentiment? Absolutely.

There's a few problems here. One, this romantic view of humbleness and lowliness, which is, in a way, a bit condescending. Your previous image of the lowly fisherman does not actually have a correspondent in reality. Its a caricature, some that is devoid of a genuine, human element. As one who was bred into a working class environment, i can attest that fishermen can be as profound as the greatest of sages. They just can't attain to the same degree of knowledge. My father always professed that he knew Jesus. But he never once read the gospel, never went to a church. Why? Frivolousness. He hated it, despised it to a degree that even for me is startling. And he despised it precisely because his life was anything but. What does Christianity, as it is preached today, has to offer to a person like that? You go to church, listen to all those wonderful things, but the reality is that you are on your own. When you go home, you are on your own. There's nothing more frightening then a being who has reached any degree of profundity then the realization of being utterly, and completely alone. Godlessness is the greatest of curses precisely for this reason. And the way Christianity is taught today is essentially Godless.

No, not all art is profound: thank God.

Actually, today, no art is profound. None whatsoever. You can thank many things for the present situation, but i'd leave God out of it. 

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 03:54:23 AM
This is not the elite i'm speaking of. Such an elite is by its very nature hidden, and its influence can be felt only silently. This influence may extend all the way to the fisherman, but unless the fisherman has done some internal probing of his own, i doubt he has any chance at grasping the eternal mysteries merely by following dogma anymore then the heathen does. Case in point, i learned more of the mysteries from my father and my grandfather, who were mere working class laymen, then i ever did by going to church as a kid. This is because without a sense of the sacred, there is no real point to a set of exoteric doctrines. Religion is pointless without a sense of the sacred, and this sense of the sacred derives from the influence of an elite of sages and teachers. No esoteric religion, no point to exoteric religion.

Face it, we can't all be like Lao-Tsu. It would be ideal if that was a possibility for most people, but it isn't. But then, how would you recognize wisdom without ignorance?

I agree with some of the main points here.  I fully agree that the experiential component is most important (to quote the Rubiyat, "a vision in a tavern is better than one lost in a temple outright".  I have a healthy distrust for any organized institution that tries to tell me what the answer is.  (I feel the same about political parties...)   To paraphrase the Grand Inquisitor in  the Brothers Karamazov, most people want simple answers and bread.  The last thing they want is the terrible burden of freedom.


THe causality between an elite/esoteric group and a sense of the sacred appears to me as an postulate-- something taken on faith to bulid a logical analysis on.  We all need to make some of these-- but in most logical systems, it's necessary to minimize their use, and often instructive to consider what happens in their absence.  (Such as Non-Eucildian Geometry) If you have assumed that as an unshakeable truth, it will limit where you can go. 

We all need to make such choices.   It's up to you.

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 05:06:24 AM
too little real life

Too little that was any good perhaps.

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 05:06:24 AM
Maybe its time to look elsewhere.

And where should i look, exactly?

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 05:28:15 AM
You cannot mean it? How can Buddhism have instituted Christian monasticism?  Or do you just mean, that you don't know Christian monasticism? ; )

It may be more accurate to say it had organized it first in the major traditions- it had a headstart of 5 centuries.   

Speaking of a bridge between Christian and Buddhist monasticism-- at some point it may be interesting to look at Thomas Merton.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 05:28:15 AM
You cannot mean it? How can Buddhism have instituted Christian monasticism?  Or do you just mean, that you don't know Christian monasticism? ; )

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant--just not clearly ;) I didn't say Buddhism started Christian monasticism, but monasticism, by which I meant organized monasticism. Afaik, Buddhism was the first major world religion to institute elaborate organizations of numerous monks, groups of renunciant seekers, living together abstemiously outside of normal social structures in specialized complexes according to monastic rules. In that sense, very much akin to later Christian monasticism as we usually think of it. Remember that Buddhism started about 500 years before Christ.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 05:41:00 AM
Actually, today, no art is profound. None whatsoever.

Thank you for a perfectly ridiculous statement, which gauges your part in the discussion.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 05:38:39 AM
Mind and heart? Not so much. Sentiment? Absolutely.

There's a few problems here. One, this romantic view of humbleness and lowliness, which is, in a way, a bit condescending. Your previous image of the lowly fisherman does not actually have a correspondent in reality. Its a caricature, some that is devoid of a genuine, human element. As one who was bred into a working class environment, i can attest that fishermen can be as profound as the greatest of sages. They just can't attain to the same degree of knowledge. My father always professed that he knew Jesus. But he never once read the gospel, never went to a church. Why? Frivolousness. He hated it, despised it to a degree that even for me is startling. And he despised it precisely because his life was anything but. What does Christianity, as it is preached today, has to offer to a person like that? You go to church, listen to all those wonderful things, but the reality is that you are on your own. When you go home, you are on your own. There's nothing more frightening then a being who has reached any degree of profundity then the realization of being utterly, and completely alone. Godlessness is the greatest of curses precisely for this reason. And the way Christianity is taught today is essentially Godless.

I'd be careful not to confuse wisdom and knowledge-- as they say, wisdom cannot be taught.  And wisdom, it would strike me as the primary goal.  It was also strike me that too much "book learning" can be an impediment in absorbing and using real life experience-- a theme that is in Ecclesiastes.

Quote from: Grazioso on November 03, 2011, 05:49:13 AM
I meant what I said, and I said what I meant--just not clearly ;) I didn't say Buddhism started Christian monasticism, but monasticism, by which I meant organized monasticism. Afaik, Buddhism was the first major world religion to institute elaborate organizations of numerous monks, groups of renunciant seekers, living together abstemiously outside of normal social structures in specialized complexes according to monastic rules. In that sense, very much akin to later Christian monasticism as we usually think of it. Remember that Buddhism started about 500 years before Christ.

Yes, I know it was much earlier. Since the two institutions are unrelated, I wondered how Buddhism could have instituted Christian monasticism.  But I think now, that isn't what you were saying . . . .

Quote from: jowcol on November 03, 2011, 05:51:40 AM
I'd be careful not to confuse wisdom and knowledge-- as they say, wisdom cannot be taught.

Not sure if it be frivolous or if it be wise . . . but I can hardly help remembering:

Quote from: Frank ZappaInformation is not knowledge. Knowledge is not wisdom. Wisdom is not truth. Truth is not beauty. Beauty is not love. Love is not music. Music is the best.

Quote from: jowcol on November 03, 2011, 05:44:53 AM
THe causality between an elite/esoteric group and a sense of the sacred appears to me as an postulate-- something taken on faith to bulid a logical analysis on.

Maybe, but then, there has to be a correct order of things. We live in a Godless age. That can't be right, can it? But if it takes great metaphysical understanding to grasp God, if even from a distance, and if most people aren't equipped with neither the ability, nor the time, seeing as we are all more or less busy not dying (least of all of starvation), for the most part, it behooves that this task can only be taken by a selected few (or may or may not even be willing). And if we postulate that those people do manage to reach a degree of understanding in the perennial truths of the cosmos, how can they go about passing on this knowledge? If there is one thing that i agree with Florestan, is that it seems to me a bit absurd that God is to remain hidden from most of humanity, except for a few individuals, whom from their part cannot impart their knowledge to anybody except then to people like themselves. Something doesn't square up here. So then, if traditional societies had such elites who dealt with transcendent matters, and if their influence was felt through out their entire culture, if even indirectly, then perhaps that's the way it has to be done. I'm not really sure at this point.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 05:38:39 AM
Your previous image of the lowly fisherman does not actually have a correspondent in reality. Its a caricature, some that is devoid of a genuine, human element. As one who was bred into a working class environment, i can attest that fishermen can be as profound as the greatest of sages.They just can't attain to the same degree of knowledge.

Either you misunderstood me or I was not expressing myself clearly. Of course they can. But then again you are equating knowledge with wisdom. Reading all the books in the world might perhaps give someone knowledge but will not make him a sage. Wisdom comes not from books (though they certainly help) but from life.

Quote
You go to church, listen to all those wonderful things, but the reality is that you are on your own. When you go home, you are on your own. There's nothing more frightening then a being who has reached any degree of profundity then the realization of being utterly, and completely alone.

If someone is sincerely a Christian he'll never be alone. Christianity is communion which is the very opposite of loneliness; the surest sign that somebody is not really a Christian is exactly this feeling of loneliness and despair.

Quote
the way Christianity is taught today is essentially Godless.

Care to elaborate?

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 05:52:20 AM
Yes, I know it was much earlier. Since the two institutions are unrelated, I wondered how Buddhism could have instituted Christian monasticism.  But I think now, that isn't what you were saying . . . .

Right. I just meant Buddhism was the first to implement organized group monasticism as a unique form of large-scale religious/social institution (hundreds or thousands living together outside the social mainstream). Prior to that, "monks" were individual ascetics, philosophers, etc., or small groups of wandering mendicants and the like, belonging to numerous competing sects. Organized Buddhist monks and monasteries share some superficial similarities with the later Christian monastic orders; I did not mean to imply they influenced one another.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 05:50:32 AM
Thank you for a perfectly ridiculous statement

How's the weather in that ivory tower of yours?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 05:45:51 AM
Too little that was any good perhaps.

It's never too late to make good of it. (Yes, I know, sentimentality - but you could try.)

Quote
And where should i look, exactly?

In your heart.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 06:03:20 AM
How's the weather in that ivory tower of yours?

Good Ridiculous Average: You're batting two for two ; )

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 06:02:58 AM
Wisdom comes not from books (though they certainly help) but from life.

Wisdom comes from within. The Kingdom of heaven is in us all. Books can only point you towards the right direction. True knowledge is something we are all born with. Plato says pretty much the same in the Theaetetus (which has been misinterpreted by modern scholars as having been left unanswered).

Life, i'm not sure what life is meant to teach. For some, it is this great, wonderful journey. For others it is such a dreadful experience that they decide to opt out in some gruesome fashion. I don't like thinking about life a whole lot, its a scary thing.

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 06:02:58 AM
Christianity is communion

I hate that word. Really, really hate it. I don't want to commune with anybody. I don't want to be part of a crowd, a shared consciousness. I am my own being, absolute, fully defined, and i am alone. I need God, not communion.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 06:14:56 AM
I am my own being, absolute, fully defined, and i am alone. I need God, not communion.

You need a girlfriend.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 05:56:35 AM
Maybe, but then, there has to be a correct order of things. We live in a Godless age. That can't be right, can it? But if it takes great metaphysical understanding to grasp God, if even from a distance, and if most people aren't equipped with neither the ability, nor the time, seeing as we are all more or less busy not dying (least of all of starvation), for the most part, it behooves that this task can only be taken by a selected few (or may or may not even be willing). And if we postulate that those people do manage to reach a degree of understanding in the perennial truths of the cosmos, how can they go about passing on this knowledge? If there is one thing that i agree with Florestan, is that it seems to me a bit absurd that God is to remain hidden from most of humanity, except for a few individuals, whom from their part cannot impart their knowledge to anybody except then to people like themselves. Something doesn't square up here. So then, if traditional societies had such elites who dealt with transcendent matters, and if their influence was felt through out their entire culture, if even indirectly, then perhaps that's the way it has to be done. I'm not really sure at this point.

The part I bolded shows a fundamental misunderstanding of mysticism and spiritual practice--or perhaps better, a hindering approach to it. The "truths" one finds in these traditions are not things you obtain by striving, things you have to work at or be specially qualified for. For they are not "things," not knowledge or facts that can be learned and transmitted, but--and one can only be metaphorical or poetic here--"experiences." This all entails rectifying a fundamental, pernicious misperception of self/other and sacred/mundane, akin to when you look at this

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Two_silhouette_profile_or_a_white_vase.jpg/200px-Two_silhouette_profile_or_a_white_vase.jpg)

and have only ever seen a vase your whole life and then suddenly see it's simultaneously two faces.

Btw, have you ever read the Huxley book I recommended earlier, The Perennial Philosophy? You might find it interesting vis-a-vis this discussion. But if you are serious about all this, no books can directly give you what you seek, only act as potential guideposts or triggers. Discrete words and symbols and thoughts cannot express the inexpressible, the ineffable.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 06:14:56 AM
Life, i'm not sure what life is meant to teach. For some, it is this great, wonderful journey. For others it is such a dreadful experience that they decide to opt out in some gruesome fashion. I don't like thinking about life a whole lot, its a scary thing.

Thinking about life is one thing, living quite another. Too much of the former can ruin the latter.

Quote
I hate that word. Really, really hate it. I don't want to commune with anybody.

On the contrary, deep inside you long for communion, otherwise why would you bother to have this debate with me and others?

Quote
I don't want to be part of a crowd, a shared consciousness. I am my own being, absolute, fully defined, and i am alone. I need God, not communion.

Actually and honestly I think you need a wife.

QuoteI am my own being, absolute, fully defined, and i am alone. I need God, not communion.

Whoa, for a second there I thought I heard Steve Jobs talking . . . .

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 06:14:56 AM
I hate that word. Really, really hate it. I don't want to commune with anybody. I don't want to be part of a crowd, a shared consciousness. I am my own being, absolute, fully defined, and i am alone. I need God, not communion.

"Yes, I'd like an order of french fries, but hold the potatoes." And as long as you keep adamantly defining yourself and focusing on what "you" need, you're just going to be confused and upset.

Of which, if I can offer some friendly advice: you need to drop your hate. It's a millstone dragging you down into some very murky waters.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 05:28:15 AM
You cannot mean it? How can Buddhism have instituted Christian monasticism?  Or do you just mean, that you don't know Christian monasticism? ; )

Historically plausible, although Grazioso is correct to be restrained about the connection.  Buddhist monasticism began essentially at the very start, in the lifetime of Gautama Buddha or very soon afterwards; it would have been encountered by the armies of Alexander and his immediate successors as they trooped around what is now Pakistan and northwest India; and the basic idea of a monastic community would have percolated westwards during the following few centuries.  The idea of monastic communities was familiar by the first century CE--Philo wrote of one, and the only debate is whether it actually existed (and if so, if it had any relation to the Qumran community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls), or whether he was just producing an ideal in the form of a fantasy. 

Quote from: Florestan on November 02, 2011, 08:03:32 AM
You conflate two different things: (1) having its ultimate source of existence in God and (2) being divine. I wonder how you reconcile this pantheism with the Old Testament about which you said

and which posits a radical difference between the Creator and its creatures.

Anyway, if everything is divine then what right do we have to kill turkeys in order to eat them at Christmas (or any other animal in order to eat it at any time) or to kill annoying flies and mosquitoes?

And BTW I think you mean that everything alive is divine, otherwise the very act of climbing a stair violates the divinity of the steps.

Go off to work (yes, even we mystical types like to have a steady income :) ) and find the thread has grown by three pages in twenty four hours....

Real quickly:  The exact term for my position is panentheism, which is not pantheism.

The Bible does not actually teach that profound difference between the Creator and the created.
There are scattered references in Scripture, the most pertinent being Deuteronomy 4:39.  (But herewith the peril of reading in translation:  most translations take the last phrase of that verse as meaning "there are no other gods (except God)".  The exact Hebrew phrase is ain oid which means "there is nothing else"--that nothing else other than God exists. 
For further reading (at least from a Jewish perspective), try "The Gate of Unity and Faith" which forms the second part of the Tanya (the major work of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe)
http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/45259/jewish/Introduction.htm and then follow the links to the succeeding sections, although the style may take a little getting used to.

And as a purely logical statement, the view that only God exists is a direct implication of monotheism--since if anything could exist independently of God, it would be another God itself.

And even the stairs are divine.  When I said everything, I meant everything. 
For the other points you raise, I refer you to the answer Grazioso posted immediately after yours, in which he's much clearer than than I am.  And when he points to the idea of the Divine "forgetting" Itself--there is an equivalent in Kabbalah, tzimtzum ("Withdrawal")--that God withdrew into Itself to allow creation to exist.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 05:56:35 AM
Maybe, but then, there has to be a correct order of things. We live in a Godless age. That can't be right, can it? But if it takes great metaphysical understanding to grasp God, if even from a distance, and if most people aren't equipped with neither the ability, nor the time, seeing as we are all more or less busy not dying (least of all of starvation), for the most part, it behooves that this task can only be taken by a selected few (or may or may not even be willing). And if we postulate that those people do manage to reach a degree of understanding in the perennial truths of the cosmos, how can they go about passing on this knowledge? If there is one thing that i agree with Florestan, is that it seems to me a bit absurd that God is to remain hidden from most of humanity, except for a few individuals, whom from their part cannot impart their knowledge to anybody except then to people like themselves. Something doesn't square up here. So then, if traditional societies had such elites who dealt with transcendent matters, and if their influence was felt through out their entire culture, if even indirectly, then perhaps that's the way it has to be done. I'm not really sure at this point.

The point is, if you feel something is not adding up, you need to look at what you are adding.   if you a "Debugging" a logical structure, you must validate your inferences.  But, maybe more important, where do you want to go with such a quest?  If you are looking for meaning in a secular age, is it that a hidden elite may hold the answer?  Or could it be inside you?

Pardon the classic rock quote, but, in the words of Traffic:  "Don't look around to find the sound that lies beneath your feet"

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 03, 2011, 06:14:56 AM
Wisdom comes from within. The Kingdom of heaven is in us all. Books can only point you towards the right direction. True knowledge is something we are all born with. Plato says pretty much the same in the Theaetetus (which has been misinterpreted by modern scholars as having been left unanswered).

Life, i'm not sure what life is meant to teach. For some, it is this great, wonderful journey. For others it is such a dreadful experience that they decide to opt out in some gruesome fashion. I don't like thinking about life a whole lot, its a scary thing.

I hate that word. Really, really hate it. I don't want to commune with anybody. I don't want to be part of a crowd, a shared consciousness. I am my own being, absolute, fully defined, and i am alone. I need God, not communion.

As far as what is life to teach-- a bit of revulsion is good to keep around.  The Buddha's fire sermon was all about that.  You dont' want to build something on a foundation of sand.


The last paragraph is-- interesting, to say the least.  If who wish to be a totally independent being, that doesn't leave much room for God, does it?  One notion of sorrow (borrowing form the Tao), is that misfortune  comes from having a separate identify.   Now, in terms of communion-- I must admit I'm  not eager to join in singing Kumbaya with a bunch of strangers.

There is another notion, and that of a private communion with God-- Check out St John of the Cross's Dark Night of the Soul.   It may be more up your allow, but the bake sales aren't as good.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 03, 2011, 08:19:15 AM
Historically plausible, although Grazioso is correct to be restrained about the connection.  Buddhist monasticism began essentially at the very start, in the lifetime of Gautama Buddha or very soon afterwards; it would have been encountered by the armies of Alexander and his immediate successors as they trooped around what is now Pakistan and northwest India; and the basic idea of a monastic community would have percolated westwards during the following few centuries.  The idea of monastic communities was familiar by the first century CE--Philo wrote of one, and the only debate is whether it actually existed (and if so, if it had any relation to the Qumran community that produced the Dead Sea Scrolls), or whether he was just producing an ideal in the form of a fantasy.

On the interactions between Buddhism and Greece, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Buddhist_council#Emissaries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_monasticism

Most interesting, thanks.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 03, 2011, 08:37:43 AM
Real quickly:  The exact term for my position is panentheism, which is not pantheism.

The Bible does not actually teach that profound difference between the Creator and the created.
There are scattered references in Scripture, the most pertinent being Deuteronomy 4:39.  (But herewith the peril of reading in translation:  most translations take the last phrase of that verse as meaning "there are no other gods (except God)".  The exact Hebrew phrase is ain oid which means "there is nothing else"--that nothing else other than God exists. 
For further reading (at least from a Jewish perspective), try "The Gate of Unity and Faith" which forms the second part of the Tanya (the major work of the first Lubavitcher Rebbe)
http://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/45259/jewish/Introduction.htm and then follow the links to the succeeding sections, although the style may take a little getting used to.

And as a purely logical statement, the view that only God exists is a direct implication of monotheism--since if anything could exist independently of God, it would be another God itself.

And even the stairs are divine.  When I said everything, I meant everything. 
For the other points you raise, I refer you to the answer Grazioso posted immediately after yours, in which he's much clearer than than I am.  And when he points to the idea of the Divine "forgetting" Itself--there is an equivalent in Kabbalah, tzimtzum ("Withdrawal")--that God withdrew into Itself to allow creation to exist.

I'll check the link, thank you.

Slightly off topic (or maybe not) question: how do you reconcile your panentheism (which boils down to there are no distinct individuals) with your libertarianism (which boils down to there is nothing but distinct individuals)?

@ Josquin

Quote from: Grazioso on November 03, 2011, 06:31:02 AM
Of which, if I can offer some friendly advice: you need to drop your hate. It's a millstone dragging you down into some very murky waters.

Hate and that permanent lamentation and negative feelings about the spiritual and cultural state of our age. You might dismiss it as "liberal sentimentality" but I firmly believe that "as a man thinks in his heart so shall he be" and "you find what you look for". If your soul is filled only with hate, contempt and despair your life will be correspondingly miserable - and if you look only for signs of decay and degeneration you'll certainly find them anywhere. You really need to cheer up - may I suggest that instead of browsing the net for yet another proof that the Western world is doomed you take a walk in the woods?

Besides, decay and degeneration have been lamented since the beginning of the recorded history. Pick any century you want, before or after Christ and I oblige to find at least one prominent voice lamenting that the world is going straight to hell...

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 11:20:00 AM
I'll check the link, thank you.

Slightly off topic (or maybe not) question: how do you reconcile your panentheism (which boils down to there are no distinct individuals) with your libertarianism (which boils down to there is nothing but distinct individuals)?

There's no need to reconcile; in fact for me libertarianism, at least in its general form, is a direct result.

Remember that panentheism recognizes that distinctions, and therefore individuals, do exist on the day to day level.  Ultimately both you and I are God and therefore one, but in this level of awareness, we are distinct beings.  But since we are all identical in nature, we are all equal in nature; I have no rights over you and you have none over me except what we freely grant each other.  And since we are equals, we can respect each other as equals: God in me relates to God in you.

And of course there's the Golden Rule version of the idea--whatever I do to you I am really doing to myself, and therefore I ought to treat you as if you are myself.

Hope that's clear.

Quote from: Florestan on November 03, 2011, 11:34:02 AM
@ Josquin

If your soul is filled only with hate, contempt and despair your life will be correspondingly miserable - and if you look only for signs of decay and degeneration you'll certainly find them anywhere.

And of course: if you only look for ways to be superior to other people, particularly, black people, women, &c ad infin...

this whole thread is a gigantic exercise in self-deception

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 03, 2011, 12:33:43 PM
There's no need to reconcile; in fact for me libertarianism, at least in its general form, is a direct result.

Remember that panentheism recognizes that distinctions, and therefore individuals, do exist on the day to day level.  Ultimately both you and I are God and therefore one, but in this level of awareness, we are distinct beings.  But since we are all identical in nature, we are all equal in nature; I have no rights over you and you have none over me except what we freely grant each other.  And since we are equals, we can respect each other as equals: God in me relates to God in you.

And of course there's the Golden Rule version of the idea--whatever I do to you I am really doing to myself, and therefore I ought to treat you as if you are myself.

Hope that's clear.

Okay, but how about the libertarian doctrinaire insistence on property rights?

If everything exists in and because of God, and you meant everything as in material things as well, then everything is God's property; "our" property rights are (1) at best those of a caretaker who has been entrusted with managing someone else's property and, which is more, has been given explicit instructions on how to do it, and these emphasize cooperation over competition, solidarity over division, generosity over profit-seeking and the social duties of the rich (to this fact attest each and every religion on Earth)  and (2) at worst those of an usurper who has appropriated for his exclusive personal use what belongs to God, thus depriving of it his equals in God and refusing them their legitimate share in it (to this fact attest that no man can claim that his property has been directly and explicitly bestowed on him by God). The latter applies especially in regard with the libertarian dogma of privatizing natural assets; as to the former, I'll leave it to you to explain how capitalism and libertarianism fit the instructions.

Unrelated question: how does the God-inspired genocides and ethnic cleansings mentioned in the OT (e.g. Amalekites, Book of Ezra) fit in panentheism?

Quote from: Herman on November 03, 2011, 12:49:28 PM
this whole thread is a gigantic exercise in self-deception

Speaking about only looking for ways to be superior to other people...

Quote from: Florestan on November 04, 2011, 01:00:23 AM
Speaking about only looking for ways to be superior to other people...

Zen Parable- -And I am the 4th Pupil


Learning to Be Silent

The pupils of the Tendai school used to study meditation before Zen entered Japan. Four of them who were intimate friends promised one another to observe seven days of silence.

On the first day all were silent. Their meditation had begun auspiciously, but when night came and the oil lamps were growing dim one of the pupils could not help exclaiming to a servant: "Fix those lamps."

The second pupils was surprised to hear the first one talk. "We are not supposed to say a word," he remarked.

"You two are stupid. Why did you talk?" asked the third.

"I am the only one who has not talked," concluded the fourth pupil.

I know that great one - I just couldn't resist...

Quote from: Herman on November 03, 2011, 12:49:28 PM
And of course: if you only look for ways to be superior to other people, particularly, black people, women

Don't forget Jews. 

Vegetarian Thanksgivings are certainly a betrayal of tradition.

Quote from: jowcol on November 04, 2011, 02:36:24 AM
Zen Parable- -And I am the 4th Pupil


Learning to Be Silent

The pupils of the Tendai school used to study meditation before Zen entered Japan. Four of them who were intimate friends promised one another to observe seven days of silence.

On the first day all were silent. Their meditation had begun auspiciously, but when night came and the oil lamps were growing dim one of the pupils could not help exclaiming to a servant: "Fix those lamps."

The second pupils was surprised to hear the first one talk. "We are not supposed to say a word," he remarked.

"You two are stupid. Why did you talk?" asked the third.

"I am the only one who has not talked," concluded the fourth pupil.

"I want the color that is in the bag."

Quote from: karlhenning on November 04, 2011, 03:24:32 AM
Vegetarian Thanksgivings are certainly a betrayal of tradition.

Vegan Thanksgivings are an even greater betrayal.

Too true : )

(Is this seitan in my stuffing?! . . .)

Quote from: karlhenning on November 04, 2011, 04:32:39 AM
Too true : )

(Is this seitan in my stuffing?! . . .)

Worse, is that stuffing in your Tofurky?   :o

the perfect alternative to Turkey for your annoying vegetarian friends and family

(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/111104120748-bacon-pig-story-top.jpg)

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2011/11/04/t-minus-20-beyond-the-bird-a-bacon-pig/?&hpt=hp_c2

(http://ipscasagrande.interfree.it/ternieuropa/2dricette/images/porchetta5.jpg)

Porchetta is where its at. 

Quote from: chasmaniac on November 03, 2011, 06:21:09 AM
You need a girlfriend.

I broke up with a girl just a few weeks ago. It was a rather miserable affair. You need to be pretty shallow to think women are the answer to every existential question.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2011, 07:49:16 AM
I broke up with a girl just a few weeks ago. It was a rather miserable affair. You need to be pretty shallow to think women are the answer to every existential question.

You need to be pretty shallow to think that this is a question of thinking women are the answer to every existential question.

Well, if i pose an existential problem, and if the answer to said problem is "get a girlfriend"...

Need i say more?

Quote from: karlhenning on November 04, 2011, 08:18:32 AM
You need to be pretty shallow to think that this is a question of thinking women are the answer to every existential question.

Indeed. I was thinking, rather, that a romantic relationship might dilute JDP's evident terror of The Other. Worked for me upon a time. Eh bien!

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2011, 08:36:26 AM
Well, if i pose an existential problem, and if the answer to said problem is "get a girlfriend"...

"I want the color... that is in the bag."   0:)

Quote from: Cato on November 04, 2011, 08:48:04 AM
"I want the color... that is in the bag."   0:)

!!!

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2011, 08:36:26 AM
Well, if i pose an existential problem, and if the answer to said problem is "get a girlfriend"...

Need i say more?

You needn't say anything at all. If existential problems were tractable, if they could be solved the way riddles are solved, they wouldn't be existential. They can be grasped and answered, though, in action, by undertaking a certain way of life. (Shades of Wittgenstein here.) Friends and lovers fit into this version of things quite nicely, I think. And if they don't work for you, pick up an instrument or a pallette or a chisel or a pen or a shovel or a telephone and at the very least make yourself useful. Balanced against such created value, existential problems are quite liveable. "In the beginning was the deed."

Quote from: chasmaniac on November 04, 2011, 09:03:15 AM
You needn't say anything at all. If existential problems were tractable, if they could be solved the way riddles are solved, they wouldn't be existential. They can be grasped and answered, though, in action, by undertaking a certain way of life. (Shades of Wittgenstein here.) Friends and lovers fit into this version of things quite nicely, I think. And if they don't work for you, pick up an instrument or a pallette or a chisel or a pen or a shovel or a telephone and at the very least make yourself useful. Balanced against such created value, existential problems are quite liveable. "In the beginning was the deed."

Eminently reasonable.

Sentimentality is not an answer to existential problems. This seems, however, to be the only solution modern society has to offer. Mediocrity and frivolousness everywhere, as usual.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 03, 2011, 06:07:34 AM
Good Ridiculous Average: You're batting two for two ; )

No, you are right. There's no difference between academia and what the general public prefer to waste their time on. Mediocrity across the board. sorry for making that comment, it was unwarranted.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2011, 10:13:16 AM
Sentimentality is not an answer to existential problems.

You have been suggested sentiments, not sentimentality.

Quote from: chasmaniac on November 04, 2011, 09:03:15 AM
Friends and lovers fit into this version of things quite nicely, I think.

What version? Of what things? More sentimental crap that makes no sense. Atheists always talk from this angle of course, when speaking of the value of life.

Quote from: Florestan on November 04, 2011, 11:19:37 AM
You have been suggested sentiments, not sentimentality.

I don't see the difference.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2011, 11:27:19 AM
I don't see the difference.

Don't or won't?

Atheism is about not believing in God. It has nothing to do with sentimentality.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 04, 2011, 12:06:48 PM
Atheism is about not believing in God. It has nothing to do with sentimentality.

"Without God, everything is permissible", by Dostovesky.

Can you refute it?

Quote from: Florestan on November 04, 2011, 11:33:02 AM
Don't or won't?

Can't, really.

Friendship? I have a couple of individuals whom i consider close friends. But they have their own lives, and their own pain, and i can't always count on them.

Love? Never met a girl whom i didn't find to be fickle and superficial. It might be someday that i might find somebody worthy of my love. It might be that one day i might also win the lottery. Not sure which is more likely at this point.

What's left, family? I have two lovely nieces whom i would stake my life for. But they are my sister's children, not mine.

So it seems that in the end i'm left on my own devices, as always.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2011, 12:17:50 PM
"Without God, everything is permissible", by Dostovesky.

Can you refute it?

Immanuel Kant had tackled that question, before Dostoyevsky was born.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2011, 12:24:38 PM

Friendship? I have a couple of individuals whom i consider close friends. But they have their own lives, and their own pain, and i can't always count on them.

Love? Never met a girl whom i didn't find to be fickle and superficial. It might be someday that i might find somebody worthy of my love. It might be that one day i might also win the lottery. Not sure which is more likely at this point.

What's left, family? I have two lovely nieces whom i would stake my life for. But they are my sister's children, not mine.

So it seems that in the end i'm left on my own devices, as always.

How old are you, Josquin?  Fickle and superficial girls are everywhere: perhaps you need to meet more people!





So it seems that in the end i'm left on my own devices, as always.
[/quote]

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2011, 12:17:50 PM
"Without God, everything is permissible", by Dostovesky.

Can you refute it?

For me it's absurd to think without God everything is permissible. Evolution process has given us sense of morality. Even animals show morality. Delphin's have rescued humans from the water. What do they know about Bible or Koran?

Having God as the source of moral codes is problematic because there is no consensus what is God's word. There is more than one religion but there is only one atheism.

Quote from: Cato on November 04, 2011, 12:35:54 PM
Immanuel Kant had tackled that question, before Dostoyevsky was born.

And failed to answer it properly.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 04, 2011, 12:36:08 PM
Evolution process has given us sense of morality.

You mean the law of the jungle?

Quote from: Florestan on November 04, 2011, 12:59:30 AM
Okay, but how about the libertarian doctrinaire insistence on property rights?

If everything exists in and because of God, and you meant everything as in material things as well, then everything is God's property; "our" property rights are (1) at best those of a caretaker who has been entrusted with managing someone else's property and, which is more, has been given explicit instructions on how to do it, and these emphasize cooperation over competition, solidarity over division, generosity over profit-seeking and the social duties of the rich (to this fact attest each and every religion on Earth)  and (2) at worst those of an usurper who has appropriated for his exclusive personal use what belongs to God, thus depriving of it his equals in God and refusing them their legitimate share in it (to this fact attest that no man can claim that his property has been directly and explicitly bestowed on him by God). The latter applies especially in regard with the libertarian dogma of privatizing natural assets; as to the former, I'll leave it to you to explain how capitalism and libertarianism fit the instructions.

Unrelated question: how does the God-inspired genocides and ethnic cleansings mentioned in the OT (e.g. Amalekites, Book of Ezra) fit in panentheism?

First, you will note that I referred to libertarianism "in its general form" in my earlier answer.   Some of the ideas shoved under the rubric of libertarianism are not necessarily germane--such as the absolute insistence on property rights. 

But still it's rather easy.  First off, God has no property.  God does not "own" anything.  God is everything.  There is a difference.  So in using something you're not taking anything that already "belongs" to God.   But the key to property rights is to understand that they are not so much a positive thing--I can keep what's mine no matter what--but instead a negative concept--I can not take something which is already someone else's.  And most models of libertarianism presume co-operation and charity.  In fact, the free market is seen as the ultimate in co-operation.  But even the most Ayn Rand influenced forms accept co-operation, charity and social duty, although they may hide it under a different name.  Nor is there any real problem with capitalism--which libertarianism does not think of (in its ideal form) as some sort of everyone for themselves free for all, but as the relationships of free individuals giving each other their just due.  The sort of crony capitalism that runs rampant in society, by which the elite try to enlarge their share, is not the sort of thing libertarianism thinks of as capitalism.  (Or, as Any Rand said, real capitalism and real free markets have never actually existed at any point in history, because government and political influence have always gotten in the way.)

Jewish law developed a thorough system based on the idea of small businessmen being the key to economic structure, and merely sought to channel and regulate it.  As the rabbis expressed it, if it was not for the evil influence (meaning the ego, or the desire to possess for oneself) houses would not be built and people would not be fed.  It's the New Testament that is more anti-capitalism. 

As to the genocide question--valid point.  Usual response in Jewish tradition is either "Well, it was a one time thing and it doesn't apply now, so we can skip over it" or to argue that the Canaanites and related folks were so depraved that the only possible way to deal with them was to eliminate them--and that even then they were offered a chance to escape being killed or expelled (although only one group accepted the proffer).  Amalek in particular, because Amalek took his evil to the point of attacking the weakest members of the people of Israel at their lowest point.  Which is why Amalek is used as a euphemism for Nazis and Islamist extremists in modern writing.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2011, 12:52:09 PM
And failed to answer it properly.

Thinkest thou, me bucko?

Pray,  0:)  let us read, therefore, your proper answer!   0:)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 04, 2011, 12:54:37 PM
You mean the law of the jungle?

You are on the wrong track. It's a sadly common mistake to think that evolution leads to the law of the jungle only as a moral guide. Think again.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 04, 2011, 04:00:59 PM
You are on the wrong track. It's a sadly common mistake to think that evolution leads to the law of the jungle only as a moral guide. Think again.

Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on your part.

Case in point: racialism, of which Darwin himself was a great proponent.

Quote from: Cato on November 04, 2011, 02:24:03 PM
Thinkest thou, me bucko?

Pray,  0:)  let us read, therefore, your proper answer!   0:)

Dostovesky did it better then i could ever possibly hope to do given an hundred years to mull over the subject. No God, everything goes. The progressive way.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 02, 2011, 07:39:07 AM
As far as translations go, I think the obvious choice is that produced by the Jewish Publication Society in the 1960s through 1980s

I'm not sure i trust officially sanctioned publications. Last time i went to a library i skimmed through most contemporary translations, Christian and Jewish alike, and they were all pretty dreadful.

Right now i have the Oxford version of the original 1611 King James translation, the original Jerusalem Bible translation, the ongoing Everett Fox translation plus the Richard Lattimore's rendition of the New Testament from the original Greek.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 03:18:26 AM
Dostoyevsky did it better than I could ever possibly hope to do, given a hundred years to mull over the subject. No God, everything goes. The progressive way.

That avoids the Kantian imperative!

A pity!

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 03:14:16 AM
Or maybe that's just wishful thinking on your part.

The law of the jungle is one (but strong) principle that depicts what happens in nature. It's not a direct principle for individuals. It's a strong principle only for animals that behave according to their instinct (developed by evolution). People just misinterpret these things (deliberately?). 

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 03:14:16 AMCase in point: racialism, of which Darwin himself was a great proponent.

Darwin was reflecting the beliefs of his time.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 05, 2011, 03:34:07 AM
The law of the jungle is one (but strong) principle that depicts what happens in nature. It's not a direct principle for individuals. It's a strong principle only for animals that behave according to their instinct (developed by evolution). People just misinterpret these things (deliberately?). 

And humans aren't animals?

Quote from: 71 dB on November 05, 2011, 03:34:07 AM
Darwin was reflecting the beliefs of his time.

Where as you are reflecting the beliefs of your own time. Wonder how you get to cherry pick between things you like and things you don't like about those great luminaries of modernism. Evolution? Good science. Racialism? Bad science? Why? Because it has to be.

Prey tell though, what happened to this evolutionary moral compass through out the 19th century that made people believe in racial inequality?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 03:53:21 AM
And humans aren't animals?

Religious animals.  ::)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 03:53:21 AMWhere as you are reflecting the beliefs of your own time.

Sure I am. What else? Hopefully I am reflecting better beliefs of my time.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 03:53:21 AMWonder how you get to cherry pick between things you like and things you don't like about those great luminaries of modernism. Evolution? Good science. Racialism? Bad science? Why? Because it has to be.

I don't think I have done any cherry picking.

Good science means more (accurate) knowledge. Bad science doesn't. The results of good science can be used for bad as well as for good. Racialism is about using good science for bad. Never blame science or good scientists. Blame bad scientists and those who decide how science is used. 

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 03:53:21 AMWhat happened to this evolutionary moral compass through out the 19th century that made people believe in racial inequality?

Our moral compass (nice expression!) is always compromised. That's why bad things happen in the world and has always happened.

Anyway, racial inequality is not an idea of 19th century only. It has always been around, unfortunately.

I can't help seeing confusion in your words JdP. Maybe you trust on old texts too much and wonder how it all works with modern days. In many things our modern understanding is superior to earlier centuries because of scientific progress. We know that the universe is about 1.37*10^10 years old while people of the 19th century or before didn't have a clue. Old days where good only at things they could be like art and philosophy. 

Quote from: 71 dB on November 05, 2011, 07:31:17 AM
Sure I am. What else? Hopefully I am reflecting better beliefs of my time.

Better? This is getting inane. I was under the assumption that science dealt with facts.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 05, 2011, 07:31:17 AM
Good science means more (accurate) knowledge. Bad science doesn't. The results of good science can be used for bad as well as for good. Racialism is about using good science for bad. Never blame science or good scientists. Blame bad scientists and those who decide how science is used.

Once again, i was under the impression that science was supposed to be about fact. Am i a bad scientist if i start measuring differences in IQ, or just a scientist?

Quote from: 71 dB on November 05, 2011, 07:31:17 AM
Our moral compass (nice expression!) is always compromised.

Compromised by what, exactly? So we are all naturally good and wonderful, except when we aren't. Really deep philosophy there.
The point of course is that there is no reason to be nice and good. If i can gain an advantage by cheating, stealing and hurting others, why not do it? If there's nothing more to life then this existence, and if everything is over once we are dead, morality makes little sense. Heck, there is no objective point to life at all, not just morality. Why bother sacrificing your life at the altar of an higher principle, or ideal? Its a waist of time. You are going to die, and that's that. There is only one imperative for such a world view: selfishness. You'd have to be insane to act either wise. Your time is limited, might as well make the best of it, and screw everything else.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 05, 2011, 07:31:17 AM
Anyway, racial inequality is not an idea of 19th century only. It has always been around, unfortunately.

But its the 19th century that saw it under rationalistic, scientific terms. If you believe that the European races are superior and more evolved then, say, the negro races, then the only obvious conclusion is that humanity would be better off if Europeans were to replace the negro altogether. Darwin himself actually espoused such a view. He didn't of course advocate genocide, he merely pointed out that that would have been the natural course of things, eventually. Evolution, in essence.

To me, modern liberalism is nothing more then a secular, exoteric religion developed to mask the frightening truths uncovered by 19th century rationalism, so that people can still pretend to be free and progressive while brushing all those uncomfortable realities under the carpet.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 08:46:02 AM
Better? This is getting inane. I was under the assumption that science dealt with facts.

Facts if they have been discovered, assumptions and theories is not.

I am not familiar with every scientific discovery or theory. The science of today is often so developed that it takes years for a person to assimilate the message. But I have a scientific view of the world and it gives me ability to see the stupidity and dangers of religious faith. You constantly mix things while trying to nullify my words. I am just a person believing in science and admiring it's accomplishments.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 08:46:02 AMOnce again, i was under the impression that science was supposed to be about fact. Am i a bad scientist if i start measuring differences in IQ, or just a scientist?

You are a decent scientists if you can measure the differences in IQ reliably. You are a good scientist if you discover that intelligence is not a constant for each person but can be practiced. Even better scientists know that there is different kinds of intelligence and that an IQ test only tests certain kind of intelligence. Science teaches us that the "facts" are often complex and nuanced.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 08:46:02 AMCompromised by what, exactly?

Fear and greed for example.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 08:46:02 AMSo we are all naturally good and wonderful, except when we aren't. Really deep philosophy there.

Should there be deep philosophy? You are wearing a hat except when you aren't. Does that lack of deeper philosophy give you hard time with your hat? Again you seem to be confused.

What's good and bad is a subjective question but thanks to the moral compass given by evolution we often agree. Religions took that agreement and claims it to be the will of God. Our understanding of the world has changed over the time and so the needle of the moral compass rotates slowly. Religions are reluctant to respond.   

QuoteThe point of course is that there is no reason to be nice and good.

Why do you say something that stupid? How can you expect others to be nice to you if you aren't?

QuoteIf i can gain an advantage by cheating, stealing and hurting others, why not do it?

Penitentiaries are full of inmates who are just as stupid as your question.

QuoteIf there's nothing more to life then this existence, and if everything is over once we are dead, morality makes little sense. Heck, there is no objective point to life at all, not just morality. Why bother sacrificing your life at the altar of an higher principle, or ideal? Its a waist of time. You are going to die, and that's that. There is only one imperative for such a world view: selfishness. You'd have to be insane to act either wise. Your time is limited, might as well make the best of it, and screw everything else.

If you think this way you have a very long way understanding atheism. The fact that this life is all we have makes life extremely valuable. Selfishness leads to greed and other negative thing but it can be a positive force too. We want to be admired, loved, liked, respected etc. "Screwing everything else" won't help much.

Doing good just to get to heaven after death is what's selfish!

QuoteBut its the 19th century that saw it under rationalistic, scientific terms. If you believe that the European races are superior and more evolved then, say, the negro races, then the only obvious conclusion is that humanity would be better off if Europeans were to replace the negro altogether. Darwin himself actually espoused such a view. He didn't of course advocate genocide, he merely pointed out that that would have been the natural course of things, eventually. Evolution, in essence.

Darwin discovered evolution. It's too much to ask him to fully understand perfectly all the implications of his discovery. Also, he wasn't totally free of the views of his time. 

QuoteTo me, modern liberalism is nothing more then a secular, exoteric religion developed to mask the frightening truths uncovered by 19th century rationalism, so that people can still pretend to be free and progressive while brushing all those uncomfortable realities under the carpet.

What is modern liberalism to you? Gay marriages?

In one of Theodore Barber's books called The Human Nature of Birds , he relates two interesting stories: the findings of a bird researcher in the field, and of a chimpanzee researcher also in the field.

The former lived in an open cottage, and spent years allowing birds to fly into her house, placed birdseed on her clothing, and trained the local birds to trust her.  One day a small finch flew into her cottage, hovered by her face, flew away, came back, hovered by her face and chirping, flew away in the same direction, until it struck the researcher that the bird wanted her to follow it!  As she followed it, with the bird repeating the same procedure, she was eventually led to the bird's nest...on the ground, complete with a few eggs.

The bird had deduced that the human would follow - and do the good thing - and replace the nest in the tree.  The human would not take and eat the eggs like a predator, or attack the bird itself, but would perform the opposite of violence, the opposite of (for the bird) something bad.

Certainly for the human, finding eggs might be something good!  But the bird chose to risk having the human involved.

The chimpanzee researcher witnessed something just as - or even more - extraordinary.  An adolescent male had wandered away from its troop, and the researcher spotted some lions on the prowl not far away almost at the same moment that the chimp saw them as well.

The chimp looked back and forth between the lions and the troop: suddenly it squawked an apparent warning to the troop...and then charged at the lions!  Perhaps the chimp had a severe case of over-confidence, but whatever images or non-verbal thoughts were in his mind, his conclusion was not to run and perhaps survive, but to start a fight which he "had to have known he could not win," and to allow the troop to escape.

Who said that there is no greater love than to lay down one's life for a friend?

(Professor Barber was a fellow Ohioan who made his mark in psychology/psychiatry by criticizing "hypnosis," which he usually placed in ironic quotes, and demonstrated that what seemed to be "hypnotic states" were not that at all.  He died some years ago.)

(P.S. My copy of the book is packed away right now in the vast Cato Archives: it strikes me that the "chimpanzee" in the above story might have been another higher primate, but I cannot check for sure.  In either case, the result was the same.)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 03:28:00 AM
I'm not sure i trust officially sanctioned publications. Last time i went to a library i skimmed through most contemporary translations, Christian and Jewish alike, and they were all pretty dreadful.

Right now i have the Oxford version of the original 1611 King James translation, the original Jerusalem Bible translation, the ongoing Everett Fox translation plus the Richard Lattimore's rendition of the New Testament from the original Greek.

The Jewish Publication Society is not an official organization; it's a publisher who specializes in the great works of Jewish learning and literature and ancillary works.     The key thing is that, unlike all the other translations you mention, this one is based on the Masoretic text and nothing else--in other words, it's the Jewish Bible, not the version modified and in some cases corrupted by Greek and Christian translation and transmission. And unlike all those others it was done totally from scratch.  In reading it, you would be reading as close as you could get in a modern European language to reading the Scriptures as, for example, Jesus and his contemporaries read them. 

If for whatever reason you don't like the new JPS translation, than I would suggest the old JPS translation which was published about 1910, or a beautifully printed volume by the Koren Press which uses a translation originally done by an American rabbi in the 19th century.  Both of these translations are based on the King James Version, but with the necessary corrections needed to make the translation conform to the Masoretic Text.

You can in fact find the old JPS translation online with the Hebrew text here:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

BTW, wasn't the King James Version about as officially sanctioned as you could get at that date?
It isn't called the Authorized Version for nothing.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 05, 2011, 06:34:39 PM
The Jewish Publication Society is not an official organization; it's a publisher who specializes in the great works of Jewish learning and literature and ancillary works.     The key thing is that, unlike all the other translations you mention, this one is based on the Masoretic text and nothing else--in other words, it's the Jewish Bible, not the version modified and in some cases corrupted by Greek and Christian translation and transmission. And unlike all those others it was done totally from scratch.  In reading it, you would be reading as close as you could get in a modern European language to reading the Scriptures as, for example, Jesus and his contemporaries read them.

Well, yes, true. This is the reason i asked, i wanted a translation from a Jewish perspective, since all i have right now are Christian translations (except for Everett Fox and Richard Lattimore, who are working from a purely secular point of view).

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 05, 2011, 06:34:39 PM
If for whatever reason you don't like the new JPS translation, than I would suggest the old JPS translation which was published about 1910, or a beautifully printed volume by the Koren Press which uses a translation originally done by an American rabbi in the 19th century.  Both of these translations are based on the King James Version, but with the necessary corrections needed to make the translation conform to the Masoretic Text.

You can in fact find the old JPS translation online with the Hebrew text here:
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0.htm

Thanks, i'll check it out.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 05, 2011, 06:34:39 PM
BTW, wasn't the King James Version about as officially sanctioned as you could get at that date?
It isn't called the Authorized Version for nothing.

Its not a question of who's sanctioning what. The point is that i can't get used to a translation that doesn't have a literary quality to it. The artist in me just won't accept compromises. The reason i didn't like those modern translations is that the language used was of the lowest, most banal type. It carried no poetic beauty, no transcendent quality to it, it almost felt condescending in a way. Now, i could expect something like that from a Christian publication, whom apparently seem to have no qualms in adopting the most absurd methods, no matter how degrading or vulgar, if it gets them new converts, but i was surprised by a similar approach in a Jewish text. As an elitist religion, Judaism should have no need to degrade itself in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a religion which does have a sacred language (Hebrew), one would think that any translation which didn't at least reflect the character of the original would be deemed to be offensive, if not profane, to say the least.

Thus, in the end, a good translation to me hinges on two elements. The literary ability of the translator, and the depth of his understanding of the eternal truths contained in the text. Those are internal qualities and cannot be "sanctioned" by an higher organization. This is why to me it makes no difference whether a publication is recognized officially by this or that denomination or organization. To wit, my favored translation of the Quaran is the one made by A.J. Arberry, which has no affiliation whatsoever to any Muslim organization.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 05, 2011, 08:46:02 AM

But its the 19th century that saw it under rationalistic, scientific terms. If you believe that the European races are superior and more evolved then, say, the negro races, then the only obvious conclusion is that humanity would be better off if Europeans were to replace the negro altogether. Darwin himself actually espoused such a view. He didn't of course advocate genocide, he merely pointed out that that would have been the natural course of things, eventually. Evolution, in essence.

To me, modern liberalism is nothing more then a secular, exoteric religion developed to mask the frightening truths uncovered by 19th century rationalism, so that people can still pretend to be free and progressive while brushing all those uncomfortable realities under the carpet.

That is such utter bullshit.  Yes there was a strong trend of "scientific" racism in the 19th century but it was a self-serving mythos developed to a) explain European economic and military leadership and b) justify slavery and colonialism.  Like the ether, it has since been debunked by modern science.  Today it is naive and rather stupid to look around today and simply attribute the achievements of Europe simply to skin color
The main issue is, as outlined by Jared Diamond, is that sub-saharan Africa, Australia and the Americas had severe disadvantages relative to Europe and Asia in regards to climate, available food crops, domesticable animals and ability to trade and communicate with other cultures.  You would really believe that in the few thousand years since the invention of agriculture or the 100,000 years since humans migrated out of Africa it is possible that those humans evolved into a superior species? 
Not to mention that Europeans were black until about 10,000 years ago - the adaptation for white skin, which allows greater absorption of sunlight into vitamin D - was not a genetic selection factor until the development of agriculture reduced the intake of vitamin D from meat

Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 06, 2011, 03:52:34 AM
Jared Diamond

You just defeated your own position. Jared Diamond is the anthropological equivalent to Richard Dawkins. Mediocrity and nothing but mediocrity. The modern imperative. Come back at me when you have an argument that is actually interesting on more then a banal and superficial level.

Schuon on the meaning of race, the Perennial Traditionalist position on the subject:

Quote"Caste takes precedence over race because spirit has priority over form; race is a form while caste is a spirit... It is not possible, however, to hold that race is something devoid of meaning apart from physical characteristics, for, if it is true that formal constraints have nothing absolute about them, forms must nonetheless have their own sufficient reason; if races are not castes, they must all the same correspond to human differences of another order, rather as differences of style may express equivalence in the spiritual order while also marking divergences of mode..."

"In order to understand the meaning of races, one must first of all realize that they are derived from fundamental aspects of humanity and not from something fortuitous in nature. If racism is something to be rejected, so is anti-racism which errs in the opposite direction by attributing racial difference to merely accidental causes and which seeks to reduce to nothing these differences by talking about inter-racial blood-groups, or in other words by mixing up things situated on different levels. Moreover, that the isolation of a race may have contributed to its elaboration certainly does not mean that this race can be explained in terms of its isolation alone, nor that the isolation was fortuitous and thus something which might not have happened..."

"A certain 'segregation' of white and black people would be neither ill-judged nor unjust if it were not unilateral, that is to say, if it were conceived in the interest of both races and without prejudice of superiority; for it is clear that to abolish 'segregation' altogether means increasingly the probability of racial mixtures and vowing one's own race, whether it be white or black, to a kind of disappearance..."

"Certain traits, which a white man tends to take for signs of inferiority, actually mark either a less mental—though not less spiritual—disposition than that of the average European or else a greater racial vitality. Here we must draw attention to the error of regarding prognathism, relatively low forehead or thick lips, as belonging to an obviously inferior type... As for the forehead, its height or cranial volume denotes—if it denotes anything, which depends on a variety of factors—by no means always an intellectual quality, but more often a capacity which is solely creative or even merely inventive, a capacity which may, by luciferian deviation, become a veritable hypertrophy of the mind—a specific propensity to 'thinking,' but not at all to 'knowledge...'"

"According to a common error there exists an Italian, a German and a Russian "type" and so forth; in reality, there is within each people a series of types, very divergent and of unequal importance, but all characteristic of that people; then there are types which can also be found among other peoples of the same race and, finally, one or more psychological types that are superimposed on these."

Quote"In one respect the metaphysical reason for races is that differences cannot be merely qualitative as in the case of castes; differences can and must also arise "horizontally," from the point of view simply of modes and not of essences. There cannot only be differences between light and darkness, there must also be differences in color.

If each caste is in some way to be found in the other castes, the same thing can be said of races, for the same reasons and apart from any question of racial admixtures. But besides castes and races there are also four temperaments, which Galen relates to the four sensible elements, and the astrological types, which are related to the planets of our system. All these types or possibilities are present in the human substance and form the individual determining him in many different ways: to know the aspects of man is one way of better knowing oneself."

"Races exist and we cannot ignore them... The modern movement towards uniformity, which causes the world to become smaller and smaller, seems able to attenuate racial differences, at any rate at the mental level and without speaking of ethnic mixtures. In this there is nothing surprising if one reflects that this standardizing civilization is at the opposite pole from any higher synthesis, based as it is solely on man's earthly needs; human animality provides in principle a rather facile ground for mutual understanding and favors the breaking down of traditional civilizations under auspices of a quantitative and spiritually inoperative 'culture.' But the fact of thus depending on what gives mankind a 'low level solidarity' presupposes the detaching of the masses, who are intellectually passive and unconscious, from the elites who legitimately represent them and in consequence also incarnate both the tradition, insofar as it is adapted to a given race, and the genius of that race in the most lofty sense."

"Let us take the opportunity to insert here, along side these considerations about races and not unconnected with them, some remarks on the opposition—true or false—between West and East. First of all, there is in both cases an inner opposition between the sacred patrimony and whatever actively or passively moves away from that patrimony; this shows that the distinction between East and West is not absolute, that there is a 'Western East' as there was—and perhaps still is in certain frameworks—an 'Eastern West,' as at Mount Athos or in some other relatively isolated phenomenon. In considering the East we must thus start by differentiating—if we are to avoid inextricable contradictions—between Orientals who owe nothing, or almost nothing, to the West and have every right and reason to resist it, and those who on the contrary owe, or imagine they owe, everything to it, but who also too readily spend their time in enumerating the colonialist crimes of Europe, as though Europeans were the only men to have conquered countries and exploited peoples. The blind haste with which westernized Orientals of every political color press on with the westernizing of the East proves beyond all question how thoroughly they themselves are convinced of the superiority of modern Western civilization, that very civilization which engendered colonialism as also the cult of machines and Marxism. Now there are few things so absurd as the anti-Westernism of those who are themselves westernized. A choice must be made: either that civilization is worthy of adoption, in which case Europeans are supermen to whom unbounded gratitude is owed, or else Europeans are malefactors deserving contempt and then they and their civilization fall together and there is no reason for imitating them. But in practice the West is being completely and whole-heartedly imitated even in the most pointless of its caprices; far from limiting themselves to modern armaments for purposes of legitimate defense or to an equipment of economic tools capable of meeting the situations created by an overpopulation that is itself partly due to the biological crimes of modern science, Eastern nations adopt the very soul of the antitraditional West to the point of seeking in the 'science of religions,' in psychoanalysis and even in surrealism the keys to the age-old wisdom of the East. In a word, they believe in the superiority of the West but reproach Westerners for having believed in it."

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 06, 2011, 04:13:27 AM
Jared Diamond is the anthropological equivalent to Richard Dawkins. Mediocrity and nothing but mediocrity. The modern imperative.

Such a convenient way to discredit those who disagree with you: Just call them mediocre!

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 06, 2011, 01:51:21 AM

Its not a question of who's sanctioning what. The point is that i can't get used to a translation that doesn't have a literary quality to it. The artist in me just won't accept compromises. The reason i didn't like those modern translations is that the language used was of the lowest, most banal type. It carried no poetic beauty, no transcendent quality to it, it almost felt condescending in a way. Now, i could expect something like that from a Christian publication, whom apparently seem to have no qualms in adopting the most absurd methods, no matter how degrading or vulgar, if it gets them new converts, but i was surprised by a similar approach in a Jewish text. As an elitist religion, Judaism should have no need to degrade itself in order to appeal to the lowest common denominator, and as a religion which does have a sacred language (Hebrew), one would think that any translation which didn't at least reflect the character of the original would be deemed to be offensive, if not profane, to say the least.

There are some flawed assumptions there.  Judaism is not an elitist religion.  No religion that teaches that everyone should be earning their own living at a common trade or profession, even the teachers of sacred tradition, could be elitist .  Nor was the Bible written in a sacred language--meaning, a language that was not part and parcel of everyday life. Just like the New Testament was written mostly in the common form of Hellenistic Greek and not in the Attic-derived form favored by the literary elites, the Hebrew Scriptures were written in the everyday language of the Israelites; a translation that reflects that everyday character is faithful, and a translation that makes it seem otherwise is unfaithful.  If it doesn't sound profane, than it is not the Bible.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 06, 2011, 05:05:57 AM
Such a convenient way to discredit those who disagree with you: Just call them mediocre!

Likewise for you. Just call it discredited science!

Jared Diamond is of course as mediocre as you could get. One could almost classify his conclusions as childish.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 06, 2011, 06:55:26 AM
There are some flawed assumptions there.  Judaism is not an elitist religion. No religion that teaches that everyone should be earning their own living at a common trade or profession, even the teachers of sacred tradition, could be elitist.

Well, it isn't elitist from an esoteric point of view, but it is from an exoteric one.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 06, 2011, 06:55:26 AM
Nor was the Bible written in a sacred language--meaning, a language that was not part and parcel of everyday life. Just like the New Testament was written mostly in the common form of Hellenistic Greek and not in the Attic-derived form favored by the literary elites, the Hebrew Scriptures were written in the everyday language of the Israelites; a translation that reflects that everyday character is faithful, and a translation that makes it seem otherwise is unfaithful.  If it doesn't sound profane, than it is not the Bible.

Maybe, may be not. The thing i'm not sure about is whether something could be as mediocre and as profane as modern translations are, and still be capable of delivering any particular profound message in the first place. The Tao that can be expressed, is not the real Tao. The Tao that can be named, is not the real Tao. Considering the limitations written language already has in communicating universal principles, i don't think there's anything to be gained by exacerbating that problem even further.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 04, 2011, 01:59:55 PM
the key to property rights is to understand that they are not so much a positive thing--I can keep what's mine no matter what--but instead a negative concept--I can not take something which is already someone else's. 

This is so vast a topic that it would be to completely highjack this thread were we to discuss it in depth. I will only say that (1) the principle of not taking something which already belongs to someone else is just, but only insofar as that someone else himself gained its property by obeying the same rule (which in the case of inheritance, for instance, cannot be presumed a priori); (2) property rights, in contrast to life and liberty rights, are not individual but social and (3) the whole concept of natural and inalienable rights is hopelessly confused and contradictory and it could be used to argue not only for the minimal state of the libertarians but also for the welfare state of the liberals (think of the right to life, for instance: if people need the police and the military to protect them against internal and external threats to their life, then how much more do they need a clean environment, medical insurance and medical treatment to protect them against dangers no less real, clear and present, such as microbes, viruses and sickness? actually, most people in the Western world today live their whole life without ever being victim of a life-threatening attack or of an aggression war, but all are subject to the life-threatening effects of pollution and epidemies - ergo, "to secure the right to life" a government must see to it that citizens have clean air to breathe, pure water to drink and universal healthcare, three things that are anatema to libertarians...).

Quote
The sort of crony capitalism that runs rampant in society, by which the elite try to enlarge their share, is not the sort of thing libertarianism thinks of as capitalism.  (Or, as Any Rand said, real capitalism and real free markets have never actually existed at any point in history, because government and political influence have always gotten in the way.)

Interestingly enough this (Ayn Rand's) is exactly the same type of response I get from communists when I criticize their doctrine: real communism has never actually existed, what we had was state capitalism or plain fascism, because (foreign) governments and (reactionary) political influence have always gotten in the way. But this means nothing else than elevating communism (or capitalism) to the status of an ideological fairy queen that nobody has ever seen and yet who is to solve all social and economical problems if only given a chance to tackle them.

I don't buy that in neither case. Both communism and capitalism have real historical incarnations which have been implemented in their name; their ideas have inspired a whole lot of social and economical policies; these in turn have yielded practical results which can neither obscure their kinship with the doctrine nor exonerate the doctrine from any responsibility in the shape things have taken.

Quote
Jewish law developed a thorough system based on the idea of small businessmen being the key to economic structure, and merely sought to channel and regulate it.

That is also the economical ideal of the Catholic social doctrine, better known as distributism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism)

Quote
As the rabbis expressed it, if it was not for the evil influence (meaning the ego, or the desire to possess for oneself) houses would not be built and people would not be fed.

A Christian would agree with minor corrections. The desire to possess for oneself is not an evil as long as it limits itself to what is necessary for a man to live as becomes his station in life. Nor is the desire to possess what exceeds his needs (and those of his family, of course) evil by itself - a man can use his excedentary wealth in charitable actions or endowing museums, universities, laboratories or symphonic orchestras thus making use of his fortune for the common good ; it is only keeping this excedent for himself and amassing fortune for its own sake that is evil.

QuoteIt's the New Testament that is more anti-capitalism.

I hope you'll grant it that people built houses and fed themselves long before capitalism was born.  :)

Quote
As to the genocide question--valid point.  Usual response in Jewish tradition is either "Well, it was a one time thing and it doesn't apply now, so we can skip over it"

I'll take this one over the other.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 06, 2011, 11:47:39 AM
Likewise for you. Just call it discredited science!

I just call it (whatever that is) what it is.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 06, 2011, 11:47:39 AMJared Diamond is of course as mediocre as you could get. One could almost classify his conclusions as childish.

I haven't read anything by Jared Diamond so I don't know how childish he is. I have read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins and it's far from mediocre. Can you recommend a better book about people's delusional believe in God?

Quote from: 71 dB on November 07, 2011, 07:27:33 AM
I just call it (whatever that is) what it is.

Ok, explain to me how racialism is bad science, beyond the fact that it has to be.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 07, 2011, 07:29:25 AM
Ok, explain to me how racialism is bad science.

To be honest I didn't even know racialism is science. More like an ignorant approach to make up excuses.

Quote from: Cato on November 04, 2011, 12:35:54 PM
Fickle and superficial girls are everywhere

Yep...  :-X

Quote from: 71 dB on November 07, 2011, 07:36:15 AM
To be honest I didn't even know racialism is science. More like an ignorant approach to make up excuses.

Well, don't feel shy, go right ahead and prove it. Remember, science is your god, not mine. This should be right along your alley.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 07, 2011, 07:27:33 AM
I haven't read anything by Jared Diamond so I don't know how childish he is. I have read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins and it's far from mediocre. Can you recommend a better book about people's delusional believe in God?

Now, I consider much of the criticism of Dawkins's book to be exaggerrated and silly, but I don't think you should be having this mindset from the onset. Don't look for a book to confirm the beliefs you already hold; if you really want to arrive at the truth, you should seek to challenge your preconceptions. Surely, if your beliefs are justified and consistent, they will hold up to scrutiny; if they don't, you should change your beliefs.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 07, 2011, 07:48:22 AM
Well, don't feel shy, go right ahead and prove it. Remember, science is your god, not mine. This should be right along your alley.

It's not my alley and I haven't said to be an expert of racialism. My studies in university included many things relevant to my field. Racialism was not included.

I speak about science as a method to study the world and also about understanding of why science is the best way to do that. Being an expert on a certain field is a whole different thing.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 07, 2011, 08:06:45 AM
It's not my alley and I haven't said to be an expert of racialism.

Enough of an expert to hold that it is not a real science though. Or so it seems.

Quote from: Daidalos on November 07, 2011, 07:58:51 AM
Now, I consider much of the criticism of Dawkins's book to be exaggerrated and silly.

Dawkins a bit more "aggressive" atheist than I am but I think for a reason. It is really alarming how religious people believe in religious crap (say Intelligent Design) without much criticism. Dawkins' writings may seem exaggerrated because people aren't used to such criticism of religion since religion enjoys a special protection (church taxes, blashemy has been/is illegal etc.). I agree with Dawkins that this special status must be removed as fast as possible.

Quote from: Daidalos on November 07, 2011, 07:58:51 AMDon't look for a book to confirm the beliefs you already hold;

Good point. I also read the book to check if I am missing some ideas but you have a point. I wish religious people would read Dawkins.

Quote from: Daidalos on November 07, 2011, 07:58:51 AMif you really want to arrive at the truth

Is that even possible? Which/Who's truth? Religious truth? Scientific truth? I have learned many people just don't believe proven scientific truth. So, truth is obviously what you can believe being true...  ???

Quote from: Daidalos on November 07, 2011, 07:58:51 AMyou should seek to challenge your preconceptions. Surely, if your beliefs are justified and consistent, they will hold up to scrutiny; if they don't, you should change your beliefs.

JdP challenges me all the time in this thread. How am I doing?

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 07, 2011, 08:09:17 AM
Enough of an expert to hold that it is not a real science though. Or so it seems.

I'll tell you how it seems: I haven't studied thing called racialism enough to evaluate how scientific it is. However, since science tends to develop over time, it is pretty clear that scientific racial beliefs of today should be better than those in Darwin's days.

Again with this use of the word "better". Not to mention the use of the word "beliefs". Both very unfortunate choices.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 07, 2011, 07:48:22 AM
Well, don't feel shy, go right ahead and prove it. Remember, science is your god, not mine. This should be right along your alley.

you can start with the fact that the genetic differences are very small compared to the human population in total

QuoteIn 1972 Richard Lewontin performed a FST statistical analysis using 17 markers including blood group proteins. His results were that the majority of genetic differences between humans, 85.4%, were found within a population, 8.3% of genetic differences were found between populations within a race, and only 6.3% was found to differentiate races which in the study were Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, and Australian Aborigines. Since then, other analyses have found FST values of 6%-10% between continental human groups, 5-15% between different populations occupying the same continent, and 75-85% within populations.[23][24][25][26] Lewontin's argument led a number of authors publishing in the 1990s and 2000s to follow Lewontin's verdict that race is biologically a meaningless concept.
While acknowledging the correctness of Lewontin's observation that racial groups are genetically homogeneous, geneticist A. W. F. Edwards in the paper "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy" (2003) argued that the conclusion that racial groups can not be genetically distinguished from each other is incorrect. Edwards argued that when multiple allelles are taken into account genetic differences do tend to cluster in geographic patterns roughly corresponding to the groups commonly defined as races. This is because most of the information that distinguishes populations from each other is hidden in the correlation structure of allele frequencies, making it possible to highly reliably classify individuals using the mathematical techniques described above. Edwards argued that, even if the probability of misclassifying an individual based on a single genetic marker is as high as 30% (as Lewontin reported in 1972), the misclassification probability becomes close to zero if enough genetic markers are studied simultaneously. Edwards saw Lewontin's argument as being based mostly in a political stance that denies the existence biological difference in order to argue for social equality. [4]
Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."[27]
Alan Templeton (2003) argued that in the nonhuman literature an FST of at least 25%-30% is a standard criterion for the identification of a subspecies.[24]
Henry Harpending (2002) has argued that the magnitude of human FST values imply that "kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings. The widespread assertion that this is small and insignificant should be reexamined." [28]
Sarich and Miele (2004) have argued that estimates of genetic difference between individuals of different populations fail to take into account human diploidity. "The point is that we are diploid organisms, getting one set of chromosomes from one parent and a second from the other. To the extent that your mother and father are not especially closely related, then, those two sets of chromosomes will come close to being a random sample of the chromosomes in your population. And the sets present in some randomly chosen member of yours will also be about as different from your two sets as they are from one another. So how much of the variability will be distributed where? First is the 15 percent that is interpopulational. The other 85 percent will then split half and half (42.5 percent) between the intra- and interindividual within-population comparisons. The increase in variability in between-population comparisons is thus 15 percent against the 42.5 percent that is between-individual within-population. Thus, 15/42.5 is 32.5 percent, a much more impressive and, more important, more legitimate value than 15 percent."[29]
Anthropologists such as C. Loring Brace[30] and Jonathan Kaplan[31] and geneticist Joseph Graves[32], have argued that while there it is certainly possible to find biological and genetic variation that corresponds roughly to the groupings normally defined as races, this is true for almost all geographically distinct populations. The cluster structure of the genetic data is therefore dependent on the initial hypotheses of the researcher and the populations sampled. When one samples continental groups the clusters become continental, if one had chosen other sampling patterns the clusters would be different. Weiss and Fullerton have noted that if one sampled only Icelanders, Mayans and Maoris, three distinct clusters would form and all other populations could be described as being composed of admixtures of Maori, Icelandic and Mayan genetic materials.[33] Kaplan therefore argues that seen in this way both Lewontin and Edwards are right in their arguments. He concludes that while racial groups are characterized by different allele frequencies, this does not mean that racial classification is a natural taxonomy of the human species, because multiple other genetic patterns can be found in human populations that crosscut racial distinctions. In this view racial groupings are social constructions that also have biological reality which is largely an artefact of how the category has been constructed.
[edit]Self-identified race/ethnic group

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics#Lewontin.27s_argument_and_criticism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Human_genetic_diversity:_Lewontin's_fallacy%22_(scientific_paper)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12879450

Quote
In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example.

The thing that bothers me is that the fallacy is so patently obvious that i doubt anybody would have been fooled by it unless the conclusion preceded the actual assumption. Racial differences have to be irrelevant, hence, here's an illogical fallacy that will fool those who want to be fooled.

Of course, none of this matters from a metaphysical point of view, which is why the traditionalist approach is superior to both the racist and anti-racist argument. Physical differences between the races are irrelevant when speaking of humanity from an higher point of view, because the characteristics that really matter, closeness to God, capacity for genius etc. are inherent among all races. The only point that one can concede when speaking of physical differences is that separation allows the races to maintain their own uniqueness, and this is probably desirable to a certain extend, if anything because people relate more instinctively with those closer to themselves, so cultural and spiritual unity is easier when populations are kept distinct from each other.

The problem facing the west is a peculiar one because on one side we have wanton aggression towards other cultures and races, particularly in the imposition of modernist western values over traditional ones (which other cultures did not ask for and are not all too happy about it), and on the other end this suicidal tendency towards cultural and racial accommodation of the very ethnic groups which have been victim of western aggression and are by and large hostile to the west and western values, an accommodation which has been possible only by downplaying and occasionally outright suppress the cultural and spiritual identity of the peoples of European ancestry. If this isn't a sign of a schizophrenic civilization, i don't know what is.   

When my step-father used to say-

"of course Africans can run faster and jump higher"

- is that what you're talking about?

Quote from: Florestan on November 07, 2011, 05:58:25 AM
This is so vast a topic that it would be to completely highjack this thread were we to discuss it in depth. I will only say that (1) the principle of not taking something which already belongs to someone else is just, but only insofar as that someone else himself gained its property by obeying the same rule (which in the case of inheritance, for instance, cannot be presumed a priori); (2) property rights, in contrast to life and liberty rights, are not individual but social and (3) the whole concept of natural and inalienable rights is hopelessly confused and contradictory and it could be used to argue not only for the minimal state of the libertarians but also for the welfare state of the liberals (think of the right to life, for instance: if people need the police and the military to protect them against internal and external threats to their life, then how much more do they need a clean environment, medical insurance and medical treatment to protect them against dangers no less real, clear and present, such as microbes, viruses and sickness? actually, most people in the Western world today live their whole life without ever being victim of a life-threatening attack or of an aggression war, but all are subject to the life-threatening effects of pollution and epidemics - ergo, "to secure the right to life" a government must see to it that citizens have clean air to breathe, pure water to drink and universal healthcare, three things that are anathema to libertarians...).

I'm assuming that you mean libertarians don't like government intervention in those matters.  At least, I don't know anyone, libertarian or not, who prefers dirty air and polluted water :)

But it's more precise to say that libertarians don't think those goals (including healthcare) need government bureaucratic intervention to be achieved (not to mention the possibilities of cronyism and corruption); most envisage some sort of scheme which is closely allied to the current law by which neighbors can sue each other in nuisance, etc. for pollution problems.  Universal healthcare is seen as a chimera in which government bureaucracy decides who lives and who dies (or at least who gets properly cared for and who doesn't), without any real improvement.  The best possible medical care in the world for everyone would require spending all the money in the world, and then some, to achieve.  Better, libertarians say, to leave it as much as possible to the individual to decide what sort of health care he/she can afford and what he/she actually needs.

Personally, I'm view the topic as a nearly insoluble problem, because I think that one's access to health care, and therefore one's ability to actually live, should not be tied to one's access to financial resources (either one's own, or through whatever insurance one can afford, or through the charity of whatever friends and relatives is available)--but what bothers me seems to be waved away as a non issue by most libertarians and conservatives.   Out of all the presidential candidates, for instance, now in the Republican field, it's only Ron Paul who showed some understanding of this point, when he remarked that throughout his practice as an MD, while he does not accept government funding via Medicare and Medicaid,  he's always ready to make his services available no matter what the ability to pay might be--and willingly allows those who can not pay to become charity cases (ie, he doesn't charge them).

Quote
Interestingly enough this (Ayn Rand's) is exactly the same type of response I get from communists when I criticize their doctrine: real communism has never actually existed, what we had was state capitalism or plain fascism, because (foreign) governments and (reactionary) political influence have always gotten in the way. But this means nothing else than elevating communism (or capitalism) to the status of an ideological fairy queen that nobody has ever seen and yet who is to solve all social and economical problems if only given a chance to tackle them.

The fact that Ayn Rand and her movement share some of the same structural elements as communism has often been remarked on.  Rand's roots in the Russian intellectual world immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution ran deep, even if she was never a Communist, and influenced her way of thinking far more than she ever admitted to.  Deep down, she seems to be a soul mate to Lenin and Trotsky, even though she was genuinely opposed to almost everything taught in the name of Communism.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 07, 2011, 06:04:15 PM
I'm assuming that you mean libertarians don't like government intervention in those matters.  At least, I don't know anyone, libertarian or not, who prefers dirty air and polluted water :)

Yes of course; a rather uninspired formulation from my part.  :)

QuoteThe best possible medical care in the world for everyone would require spending all the money in the world, and then some, to achieve.  Better, libertarians say, to leave it as much as possible to the individual to decide what sort of health care he/she can afford and what he/she actually needs.

Yes, that's precisely the problem: quality medical care is expensive; what one needs and what one can afford are often two completely different things, at least for the common people.

Quote
Personally, I'm view the topic as a nearly insoluble problem, because I think that one's access to health care, and therefore one's ability to actually live, should not be tied to one's access to financial resources (either one's own, or through whatever insurance one can afford, or through the charity of whatever friends and relatives is available)

I agree. :)

Quote
The fact that Ayn Rand and her movement share some of the same structural elements as communism has often been remarked on.  Rand's roots in the Russian intellectual world immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution ran deep, even if she was never a Communist, and influenced her way of thinking far more than she ever admitted to.  Deep down, she seems to be a soul mate to Lenin and Trotsky, even though she was genuinely opposed to almost everything taught in the name of Communism.

True.  :)

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 07, 2011, 11:27:47 AM
Physical differences between the races are irrelevant when speaking of humanity from an higher point of view, because the characteristics that really matter, closeness to God, capacity for genius etc. are inherent among all races.

and how do you measure "closeness to God"?

The ability to acquire real knowledge, metaphysical knowledge (metaphysics in this sense defined in traditional terms), which is not a function of IQ, which is merely the ability to deal with complex information (information being different from knowledge). Since everything that is real is connected to God in one way or another, this ability to acquire real knowledge will eventually lead one closer and closer to God. 

To wit, one could argue that American Indians could not compete with their European conquerors in terms of generalized IQ (not saying this is actually the case, never saw a study on the matter), but one thing that can be argued is that they were a lot closer to the Absolute that Europeans ever were in that point in time, and have been since. So superior intelligence, whether this be the case, does not at any rate equal superiority in terms of what it means to be human. Not for nothing when Gandhi was asked what he thought of European civilization, he replied that "it would be a good idea".

To see JdP berating Europeans and European civilization... truly the endtimes are near.  :D

Now about that Gandhi quote: it is perfectly understandable that after decades of humiliation he uttered it; but I don't think Europe can be taught a lesson in civilization by a country where, prior to the advent of Europeans, widows and servants were burnt alive on the deceased husband's stake, or were even now dirt and squalor are are the lot of the multitudes.

Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2011, 02:05:19 AM
To see JdP berating Europeans and European civilization... truly the endtimes are near.  :D

Modern Europeans and modern European civilization. When Indian culture first merged with western, Hellenistic culture, it produced an infusion of values and ideas into the east which had an enriching, rather then decaying, quality. I wonder how many easterners actually know that the plastic, anthropomorphic effigies of the Buddha were first carved by Greek artists.

But look at it now. Western culture for the grand majority of the world derives from the sewers of Hollywood, and its influence is corrupting those few cultures who still clung to their traditions.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 08, 2011, 02:20:36 AM
Western culture for the grand majority of the world derives from the sewers of Hollywood.

The most commercial surface perhaps but culture is so much more than that.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 08, 2011, 06:52:07 AM
The most commercial surface perhaps but culture is so much more than that.

High western culture is commercial too (it is the almighty dollar that rules in high profile artistic circles). The west is spiritually and culturally bereft of anything of value whatsoever.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 08, 2011, 07:32:41 AM
High western culture is commercial too (it is the almighty dollar that rules in high profile artistic circles). The west is spiritually and culturally bereft of anything of value whatsoever.

More of your simplistic black & white views of the world. Please dig deeper and find the real culture...

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 08, 2011, 01:48:56 AM
The ability to acquire real knowledge, metaphysical knowledge (metaphysics in this sense defined in traditional terms), which is not a function of IQ, which is merely the ability to deal with complex information (information being different from knowledge). Since everything that is real is connected to God in one way or another, this ability to acquire real knowledge will eventually lead one closer and closer to God. 

From start to finish you're constantly committing petitio principii, or circular reasoning.

So in the above, who determines what is 'real' knowledge?

Who determines what is God?

The idea, obviously, is that you get to say what is "real' knowledge. You're constructing a quasi-philosophical pyramid scheme with yourself well on top.

Quote from: Herman on November 09, 2011, 12:21:46 AM
So in the above, who determines what is 'real' knowledge?

Who determines what is God?

You do. That's the whole point.

Quote from: Josquin des Prez on November 09, 2011, 03:40:43 AM
You do. That's the whole point.

From the Rubiyat of Omar Khayyam:

QuoteI sent my soul into the invisible,

Some letter of that after life to spell.

And by and by my soul returned to me

And answered, I myself am heaven and hell.

Quote from: Florestan on November 08, 2011, 02:05:19 AM
Now about that Gandhi quote: it is perfectly understandable that after decades of humiliation he uttered it; but I don't think Europe can be taught a lesson in civilization by a country where, prior to the advent of Europeans, widows and servants were burnt alive on the deceased husband's stake, or were even now dirt and squalor are are the lot of the multitudes.

Gandhi was talking about civilization from a traditional point of view, in which he was partially correct. There is no doubt that the west is peerless in its conquering of the material world, but that's pretty much all they have left now.

The difference between India and Europe is that the first was already a civilization dying of old age, even before the British vandalized it, but was a civilization nonetheless, in a traditional sense. The west on the other end is a young civilization bent on the destruction, first of tradition, then of everything else (including itself). Modernism is a disintegrating force, not a constructive one (it "liberates", it never sets down). The danger the west posed to the world was not based on its domineering and predatory habits, it was because of its insistence on spreading "civilization" (which, alas, meant modern civilization) buttressed by the irresistible lure of the splendors of its material conquests, against which tradition, which is based on more introspective values, could not hope to compete. The disparity in material comfort between the west and the rest of the world and the envy and the lust it enticed were just too inebriating for traditional values to resit.

So now the entire world is more or less "civilized", and everywhere tradition is in swift retreat.

@ Josquin

When all is said and done, several things remain.

1. You are better fed, better housed, better clothed and have access to better medical care than most people in the traditional societies. Additionally you and your property are protected by law and law-enforcing agencies against all kind of fraud and violence, a protection that most people in traditional societies can only dream of.

2. Consequently, you have much more spare time than most people in those societies.

3. This fact allows you to freely pursue your artistic and intellectual interests.

4. You do that by making use of another feature of modern civilization: the unprecedented availability and affordability of relevant information and knowledge - whatever book or CD you want or need, you have it.

5. You constantly complain about, and criticize, the society you live in; but you lose sight of the fact that you are free to either try to change it or leave it for one that be more to your taste - and this is another stark contrast to most people in traditional societies who do not have this option.

Quote from: Florestan on November 11, 2011, 12:38:23 AM

[What's the emoticon for "hearty applause?]

To add one other thing: if it was that easy for modern civilization to "defeat" tradition, than "tradition" probably wasn't worth that much in the first place.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 11, 2011, 07:52:08 AM
[What's the emoticon for "hearty applause?]

I second this sentiment.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 11, 2011, 07:52:08 AM
[What's the emoticon for "hearty applause?]

(http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/3/5/2/3/0/8/a3930971-193-clap-animated-animation-clap-smiley-emoticon-000340-large.gif?d=1302434801)

 

   

QuoteModernism is a disintegrating force, not a constructive one (it "liberates", it never sets down).

     That's true, modernism is destructive of tradition. That's also largely, though not completely, a good thing. The traditional world was one we were entirely justified in escaping, which is why most traditionalists engage in severe distortion of the past in order to present it as a more desirable alternative to the present or imagined future. Almost no one wants to live in the past as it really was. You can see this even (especially) in religion, where phoney tradition reigns supreme, and belief that it's good to believe does the work formerly done by actual belief. I wonder, though, if beliefs can be recommended like that. I don't recall ever having a belief recommended to me by a teacher or anyone else worthy of trust.

     There were always people fortunate to reach adulthood without being hobbled by traditional mindfoggery, and for the rest part of tradition's allure is that responsibility to think about serious matters was considered too important for intelligent adults and was better left to compliant toadies. On this model Galileo was wrong because he was disobedient, surely as unmodern a view as one might find, and you find it less and less outside of its natural home. (http://www.good-music-guide.com/community/Smileys/classic/grin.gif)

     Authoritarian ideologies don't have to be supernatural. It might even be true that supernatural ideologies don't have to be authoritarian, though I have doubts on that score. I suppose it's too neat to assume that democracy and materialism "go together", since there are too many individuals who straddle the line. Yet it appears true when you step back to the long view.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 11, 2011, 07:52:08 AM

To add one other thing: if it was that easy for modern civilization to "defeat" tradition, than "tradition" probably wasn't worth that much in the first place.

So everything that comes after is always better than what was before?

In that case we should perhaps stop listening to classical music, which is largely an artifact from the past, carefully preserved.

Quote from: Herman on November 12, 2011, 11:29:21 PM
So everything that comes after is always better than what was before?

Not even close.

Knowledge tends to cumulate and technology gets better. Human rights tends to develop because people fight for them and society gets more secular (less religious suppression).

Art forms evolve something different rather than better and have their high points whenever they form positive resonances with the surrounding society.

Development may also create undesired side effects. Pollution of environment is one.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 13, 2011, 02:38:29 AM
Human rights tends to develop because people fight for them and society gets more secular (less religious suppression).

Your prejudices continue to blind you on this point, but religion can be (and historically has been) a driver for promoting human rights.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 13, 2011, 03:15:06 PM
Your prejudices continue to blind you on this point, but religion can be (and historically has been) a driver for promoting human rights.

Would you please provide some examples of this? Thanks in advance.

Quote from: Iconito on November 13, 2011, 04:37:17 PM
Would you please provide some examples of this? Thanks in advance.

You're welcome:

The abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world.
Most social reform movements of the 19th century....

And there is the counterimage of secular society provided by the totalitarian societies of the 20th century, where the abolition of the individual was taken to lengths no religious institution ever came close to. 

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 13, 2011, 07:52:13 PM
You're welcome:

The abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world.
Most social reform movements of the 19th century....

And there is the counterimage of secular society provided by the totalitarian societies of the 20th century, where the abolition of the individual was taken to lengths no religious institution ever came close to. 

Where's that "hearty applause" emoticon when you need it?

To deny the great role played by religion in general and Christianity in particular in bringing about virtually all of the social, moral, and technological blessings that too many take for granted in our Western Civilization of the 21st Century...is to proclaim one's ignorance of history.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 13, 2011, 07:52:13 PM
You're welcome:

The abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world.
Most social reform movements of the 19th century....

And there is the counterimage of secular society provided by the totalitarian societies of the 20th century, where the abolition of the individual was taken to lengths no religious institution ever came close to. 

(http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/3/5/2/3/0/8/a3930971-193-clap-animated-animation-clap-smiley-emoticon-000340-large.gif?d=1302434801)

We could go back even further in time, right in that most Catholic of all Catholic countries: Spain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolom%C3%A9_de_las_Casas)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Salamanca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Salamanca)

... and likewise religion including Christianity has been used to suppress the mentioned blessings. Catholicism in Italy and Spain in the 19th Century was indeed suppressive in relation to social reform; countless scientists of the 19th century had to fight against the dogmas of the church, including that of the Flood, in relation to developing geology and evolution theory. Galilei , Giordano Bruno and Copernicus had to fight the church as well, to mention some well-known examples emerging from the Renaissance current of secular science
...

Statements can be so general that they hardly have any value; one needs to be specific and deal with specific issues in history. Overall, the religious institutions and their accompanying sets of dogmas have tended to support existing hierarchies rather than overthrow them, and social turbulence is mostly the result of material inequality and the weakening of dogmas through alternative thinking to the established order, rather than religious insight.

Quote from: DieNacht on November 13, 2011, 11:58:00 PM
.Catholicism in Italy and Spain in the 19th Century was indeed suppressive in relation to social reform;

...and from this suppression sprang Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, the foundation on which Italian and German Christian-Democracy built the unprecedentedly succesful post-WWII social market economy.

Quote
countless scientists of the 19th century had to fight against the dogmas of the church, including that of the Flood, in relation to developing geology and evolution theory.

Among them Georges Cuvier, outstanding naturalist and zoologist, founder of paleontology and comparative anatomy, a devout Lutheran and a supporter of the Flood theory.

Quote
Galilei , Giordano Bruno and Copernicus had to fight the church as well, to mention some well-known examples emerging from the Renaissance current of secular science

Except they were not secular in the least: Bruno was a Dominican friar turned pantheist, Galilei and Copernicus were all their life devout Catholics (whether the latter was or was not ordained as a priest is yet unclear).

QuoteOverall, the religious institutions and their accompanying sets of dogmas have tended to support existing hierarchies rather than overthrow them, and social turbulence is mostly the result of material inequality and the weakening of dogmas through alternative thinking to the established order, rather than religious insight.

I'm afraid you conflate two different things: religious institutions and religious convictions. One can very well be a devout Christian yet act in manners contrary to what this or that Church mandates. In case of conflict, personal conscience comes before any ritual or dogma and must be obeyed unconditionally (this is formally codified in the Roman Catholic Catechism, no less...). To say that the Church as a whole, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinist or whatever, was always on the side of the good is certainly a gross exaggeration; but to say that countless Christians, clerical and laic alike, acting precisely according to their religious convictions, devoted their life to the promotion of justice and good and contributed immensely to the advancement of society, of science and of arts and letters - this is the truth and nothing but the truth.

 

Quote...and from this suppression sprang Pope Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, the foundation on which Italian and German Christian-Democracy built the unprecedentedly succesful post-WWII social market economy.

Great Britain and France / London and Paris among others had set examples that were hard to ignore; are you seriously saying that a papal paper from 1891 introduced these liberal ideas ?

QuoteAmong them Georges Cuvier, outstanding naturalist and zoologist, founder of paleontology and comparative anatomy, a devout Lutheran and a supporter of the Flood theory.

Does scientific progression include the questioning / abolishing of a literal interpretation of the flood ?

QuoteExcept they were not secular in the least: Bruno was a Dominican friar turned pantheist, Galilei and Copernicus were all their life devout Catholics (whether the latter was or was not ordained as a priest is yet unclear

- were they attacked or stimulated by the dominant church authorities ?

Quote
I'm afraid you conflate two different things: religious institutions and religious convictions. One can very well be a devout Christian yet act in manners contrary to what this or that Church mandates. In case of conflict, personal conscience comes before any ritual or dogma and must be obeyed unconditionally (this is formally codified in the Roman Catholic Catechism, no less...). To say that the Church as a whole, whether Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinist or whatever, was always on the side of the good is certainly a gross exaggeration; but to say that countless Christians, clerical and laic alike, acting precisely according to their religious convictions, devoted their life to the promotion of justice and good and contributed immensely to the advancement of society, of science and of arts and letters - this is the truth and nothing but the truth.

I am saying that the church institutions have mainly been on the side of the rulers and the dogmas. They rarely questioned class structures, unless in popular or radical movements, and usually reacted after an urge for change had been articulated from secular forces below, at least since the Renaissance.

Quote from: DieNacht on November 14, 2011, 02:32:09 AM
  Great Britain and France / London and Paris among others had set examples that were hard to ignore; are you seriously saying that a papal paper from 1891 introduced these liberal ideas ?

I am not quite sure about what those examples refer to and I don't know if by "liberal ideas" you mean liberalism in the American or in the European style. Please elaborate.

Quote
- were they attacked or stimulated by the dominant church authorities ?

Bruno was in constant conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, not least because of his passionate and assertive personality. Copernicus received encouragements, appraisal and work commissions from two popes and several cardinals. At first, pope Urban VIII was sympathetic and supportive of Galilei (to whom he was in personal friendly terms), but the unfortunate and ill-thought choice of the latter to barely disguise Urban as Simplicius eventually alienated his most powerful and influential supporter.

Between black and white there is an infinite number of grey shades. The history of the relationship between science and church(es) is no exception.

Quote from: Florestan on November 14, 2011, 12:36:27 AMAmong them Georges Cuvier, outstanding naturalist and zoologist, founder of paleontology and comparative anatomy, a devout Lutheran and a supporter of the Flood theory.

I have no problems with the general thrust of your argument, but the history employed here is a bit shoddy.  To start, Cuvier was not particularly devout.  While he acted as a liaison between the Catholic leadership and Protestant community in France he was critical of their arguments over theological matters as he found the subject rather pointless.  For that matter, his devout daughter frequently prayed for him because she thought he was going to hell because he wasn't religious enough.

As for the flood theory:  He was not a proponent of 'flood theory' (in its modern form), per se, nor were the majority of serious scientists working within his time.  First of all, he like other serious scientists accepted that the Earth was ancient.  Second, and more importantly, his concern was not with Biblical literalism, but with demonstrating that life on Earth was punctuated with extinctions; he used the Biblical flood, among many other religious and historical texts, to provide evidence of a cause for the apparent mass extinction found in the fossil record.  He was even criticized by a well known priest for being scared of leaning too heavily on the Bible as a scientific document.

Just so we're clear:  I'm not arguing in favor of the religion versus progress model of history; quite the opposite, in fact.  The idea of Cuvier as an extremely religious flood proponent is a piece of false history originally promulgated by those who wish to promote that historical model, but the truth about Cuvier is far more complex and interesting.

Quote from: Geo Dude on November 14, 2011, 03:55:30 AM
. . . The idea of Cuvier as an extremely religious flood proponent is a piece of false history originally promulgated by those who wish to promote that historical model, but the truth about Cuvier is far more complex and interesting.

I am sure the last is true (that the truth is more complex and interesting); I note, though, that extremely is not what Andrei said.

Indeed, Karl - and thank you.

@ Geo Dude

I agree 100 % with what you wrote and am aware of the facts you cite. I didn't consider it necessary to elaborate on Cuvier's case and perhaps I chose a rather unfortunate formulation. In both cases - mea culpa.

Karl:  I happily acknowledge that that part of the post was poorly phrased, and admit with a bit of embarrassment that I was on auto-pilot by that point.

Florestan: it's very rare to meet people who are familiar with the actual history of geology, much less Cuvier, and most derive an interpretation based on what Stephen Jay Gould would call 'textbook cardboard history' to support whichever side of the debate they happen to be on.  I'm glad you're historically aware because I feel that it's a particular tragedy when the real Cuvier gets lost in the midst of such arguments given how shockingly brilliant the man was.


On a more general note, if anyone wants to look more deeply into this subject -- and has the patience for 700 page scholarly tomes -- please look into M.J.S. Rudwick's Bursting the Limits of Time (http://www.amazon.com/Bursting-Limits-Time-Reconstruction-Geohistory/dp/0226731138/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1321282398&sr=8-3) and Worlds Before Adam. (http://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Before-Adam-Reconstruction-Geohistory/dp/0226731294/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321282398&sr=8-1)  For a more accessible, albeit philosophically oriented, history that unfortunately does not deal with Cuvier, try Gould's Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle. (http://www.amazon.com/Times-Arrow-Cycle-Geological-Jerusalem-Harvard/dp/0674891996/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1321282657&sr=1-1)

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 13, 2011, 07:52:13 PM
You're welcome:

The abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world.
Most social reform movements of the 19th century....

And there is the counterimage of secular society provided by the totalitarian societies of the 20th century, where the abolition of the individual was taken to lengths no religious institution ever came close to.

Religions existed for some thousand years before the abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world and most social reform movements of the 19th century (i.e., religion doesn't seem to be the determining factor in those developments)

As for that "counterimage" you mention, I'd like you to know that my personal position is NOT that religions are the sole cause of all the evil in the world (it's more like religions are steaming mountains of bullcrap of which we should get rid)

Quote from: Florestan on November 14, 2011, 12:36:27 AM
I'm afraid you conflate two different things: religious institutions and religious convictions. One can very well be a devout Christian yet act in manners contrary to what this or that Church mandates.

So, anything goes. You just do what you want and screw what the Church mandates.

Quote from: Florestan on November 14, 2011, 12:36:27 AM
In case of conflict, personal conscience comes before any ritual or dogma and must be obeyed unconditionally (this is formally codified in the Roman Catholic Catechism, no less...).

Ditto, with an exquisite twist: "Simon says don't do what Simon says"

QuoteI am not quite sure about what those examples refer to and I don't know if by "liberal ideas" you mean liberalism in the American or in the European style. Please elaborate.

I meant that the economic growth, the rise of the middle classes and the political reforms in 18th - 19th Century France and England & the huge influence from the metropolises of the day (Paris and London in particular) were necessarily a more important part of the inspiration for political reforms in Germany, than a papal paper from 1891.
Another factor was Bismarck´s establishing of a strong coherent democratic state and improved trade conditions as well as public wellfare much earlier than 1891 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck.

QuoteBruno was in constant conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities, not least because of his passionate and assertive personality. Copernicus received encouragements, appraisal and work commissions from two popes and several cardinals. At first, pope Urban VIII was sympathetic and supportive of Galilei (to whom he was in personal friendly terms), but the unfortunate and ill-thought choice of the latter to barely disguise Urban as Simplicius eventually alienated his most powerful and influential supporter.

Between black and white there is an infinite number of grey shades. The history of the relationship between science and church(es) is no exception.

Bruno was not burned alive due to his personality traits, the official reason was heresy, and his books not placed in the papal list of forbidden books in 1600 (the same year that he was burned) for that reason either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

I can only agree that Copernicus received some support from Catholic dignitaries, but some say that the delay of the publication of "De Revolutionibus" was fear of the church authorities. The heliocentric model was not debated for 60 years due to fear of heresy, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
and met very strong opposition from Luther and Calvin. In 1616 the book was included in the papal list of forbidden books, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Galileo spent the later part of his life in house arrest after having been condemned for heresy.


 

Quote from: DieNacht on November 14, 2011, 09:00:16 AM
I meant that the economic growth, the rise of the middle classes and the political reforms in 18th - 19th Century France and England & the huge influence from the metropolises of the day (Paris and London in particular) were necessarily a more important part of the inspiration for political reforms in Germany, than a papal paper from 1891.
Another factor was Bismarck´s establishing of a strong coherent democratic state and improved trade conditions as well as public wellfare much earlier than 1891 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck.

I was specifically talking about post-WWII Germany: a defeated and ruined country. It was not 18th and 19th century English and French Liberalism and much less Bismarck's conservatism that turned its economy into the most prosperous and competitive in Europe but Christian-Democracy, of which Rerum Novarum (an encyclical, not a paper - the difference is enormous) is an integral part. The same applies to Italy.

Quote
Bruno was not burned alive due to his personality traits, the official reason was heresy, and his books not placed in the papal list of forbidden books in 1600 (the same year that he was burned) for that reason either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno

I can only agree that Copernicus received some support from Catholic dignitaries, but some say that the delay of the publication of "De Revolutionibus" was fear of the church authorities. The heliocentric model was not debated for 60 years due to fear of heresy, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism
and met very strong opposition from Luther and Calvin. In 1616 the book was included in the papal list of forbidden books, cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Galileo spent the later part of his life in house arrest after having been condemned for heresy.

None of these true facts invalidate my former comment.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 13, 2011, 03:15:06 PM
Your prejudices continue to blind you on this point, but religion can be (and historically has been) a driver for promoting human rights.

You just MUST disagree with me, don't you? More often than not religion hasn't been used to promote human rights. It has been used to promote the priviledges of the clergy.

Promoting something asks for power. The clergy has it.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 14, 2011, 10:33:18 AM
You just MUST disagree with me, don't you?

The facts disagree with you.  And if you make bigoted remarks, you should expect to be called on them.  Bigotry doesn't magically become a virtue, because the object of the bigotry is religion.

QuoteI was specifically talking about post-WWII Germany: a defeated and ruined country. It was not 18th and 19th century English and French Liberalism and much less Bismarck's conservatism that turned its economy into the most prosperous and competitive in Europe but Christian-Democracy, of which Rerum Novarum (an encyclical, not a paper - the difference is enormous) is an integral part. The same applies to Italy.

I don´t see how the link - a papal encyclical from 1891 and the development of post WW II Germany - can be an important one. So much happened in between, to say the least.  The "De Rerum" seems to be a defense against demands from the growing forces of the left and it seems very vague politically, acknowledging some rights for the workers and that´s about it.

Bismarck is called one of the founders of a modern state model, including minimal wellfare principles.

The Marshall Plan and the support of the Western powers against the Eastern Block is usually seen as an important factor in the development of post-war Germany economy.

The German Social Democratic Party SPD was one of the earlier such parties in Europe and played an important part in German policy, from 1949 it was one of the two largest political parties in the country, either in government or as a rival to the CDU.

Social reforms in Germany were not the result of pressure from the church but from the working classes.

As regards Italy, I don´t know enough about the situation there, but the strong secular movements there such as the communist movement no doubt contributed to the promotion of social equality, and the most backward regions were also some of the most religiously fervent and conservative, like it was the case in Spain.

Quote from: Geo Dude on November 14, 2011, 05:58:22 AM
Karl:  I happily acknowledge that that part of the post was poorly phrased, and admit with a bit of embarrassment that I was on auto-pilot by that point.

I must say how a post like this stands out, in a thread where a number of people are apt to lard their readiness to disagree with unbecoming rancor, for its grace and tolerance. Thank you.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 14, 2011, 10:33:18 AM
You just MUST disagree with me, don't you? More often than not religion hasn't been used to promote human rights. It has been used to promote the priviledges of the clergy.

Promoting something asks for power. The clergy has it.

The clergy have used it to promote their privileges.  Non clergy, motivated by religious convictions, have used it to promote the reverse of privilege.  And sometimes clergy have joined them.  I presume the name Martin Luther King is familiar to you; he's an instance of the latter.

BTW, the very fact that you aren't forced to adhere to a state-mandated religion is due in large part to religious people.  In the Anglo-American context, at least, the idea that the state should have no role in religion was first developed by the early Baptists--you know, the intellectual ancestors of Jerry Falwell, etc.  They were interested in the idea because it would have left them free to worship and believe as they wished, without being forced to adhere to an establishment religion such as the Church of England--and they understood that situation would also mean they had to give up the possibility of forcing other people to adhere to their form of religion.  The Enlightenment thinkers followed in their steps on this point.

Quote from: Iconito on November 14, 2011, 07:44:28 AM
Religions existed for some thousand years before the abolition of slavery in the Euro-American world and most social reform movements of the 19th century (i.e., religion doesn't seem to be the determining factor in those developments)

Abolition was powered by people who acted based on their religious beliefs. The fact that religions people accepted slavery as a fact of life for 1800 years does not invalidate that.  When abolition started, it was religiously motivated people who started it.    Non religious motivation had almost no role to play until the movement was well under way, and even then it still maintained its fundamental position in the movement.  So, yes, religion was the determining factor.

There are other views on this
http://www.historytoday.com/robin-blackburn/anti-slavery-and-french-revolution

Quote from: DieNacht on November 14, 2011, 09:33:16 PM
There are other views on this

That's an interesting incipit. I should call that episode a supplement to, rather than any refutation of, Jeffrey's points.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 14, 2011, 10:51:19 AM
The facts disagree with you.  And if you make bigoted remarks, you should expect to be called on them.  Bigotry doesn't magically become a virtue, because the object of the bigotry is religion.

I don't think the facts are against me, just think about the sale of indulgences and the suppression of women.

My remarks are not bigoted. I am not planning to harm anyone. I am not prohibiting religion, just telling about the negative aspects of it.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 15, 2011, 05:44:32 AM
I don't think the facts are against me, just think about the sale of indulgences and the suppression of women.

Let's think about them.  The discussion was on the matter of human rights, and you've confused the matter by the question of indulgences. I.e., since your purpose here is not to discuss with an open mind, but to denigrate religion, you're just slinging any mud to hand.

As to the question of women's rights, to allude to a more temperate participant in this discussion, the question is more complicated and more interesting than you are implying here.

Quote from: 71 dBMy remarks are not bigoted. I am not planning to harm anyone. I am not prohibiting religion, just telling about the negative aspects of it.

Part of the reason why you are blind to your bigotry is encoded here.  You mistakenly believe that intent to harm, or being in a position of prohibitive power, is some sort of precondition for bigotry. It isn't.  The bloke who doesn't actively harm anyone, but who just thinks that religious people as a class are incapable of free thought, is a bigot.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 15, 2011, 06:05:01 AM
Let's think about them.  The discussion was on the matter of human rights, and you've confused the matter by the question of indulgences. I.e., since your purpose here is not to discuss with an open mind, but to denigrate religion, you're just slinging any mud to hand.

The question of indulgences is connected to how people are teached to see the world. If people are made to believe there is no much hope to improve their condition, they won't fight for their human rights that hard. If they fear hell, they fight even less.

See, I am not confused about what I write here. Do you still think I am against religion for nothing? Who is slinging mud?

Quote from: karlhenning on November 15, 2011, 06:05:01 AMAs to the question of women's rights, to allude to a more temperate participant in this discussion, the question is more complicated and more interesting than you are implying here.[/font]

Yes it is. I agree.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 15, 2011, 06:05:01 AMPart of the reason why you are blind to your bigotry is encoded here.  You mistakenly believe that intent to harm, or being in a position of prohibitive power, is some sort of precondition for bigotry. It isn't.  The bloke who doesn't actively harm anyone, but who just thinks that religious people as a class are incapable of free thought, is a bigot.

Bigotry without power and intention to harm someone is merely a opinion expressed in a loud manner. Religion produces sometimes individuals who are capable of horrible acts but where are atheistic terrorists? Makes you thinks, doesn't it?

A religious person may be well capable of free though in many things but religion causes problems depending on how religious the person is. Luckily people are in fact quite secular in many countries but the church tries hard to maintain their power in society. If the society is that secular, we let the church have so much power?

100 years ago people didn't think smoking is harmful. Today we know better. Is it bigotry to say smoking is bad just because some stubborn individuals brainwashed by cigarette industry think the opposite?

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 14, 2011, 07:36:10 PM
Abolition was powered by people who acted based on their religious beliefs. The fact that religions people accepted slavery as a fact of life for 1800 years does not invalidate that.  When abolition started, it was religiously motivated people who started it.    Non religious motivation had almost no role to play until the movement was well under way, and even then it still maintained its fundamental position in the movement.  So, yes, religion was the determining factor.

So religion can either inspire you to abolish slavery or let you accept slavery as a fact of life for 1800 years? That's some whimsical determining factor.
And you had also "people who acted based on their religious beliefs" opposing abolition, too... Something else must have been at play there, Jeffrey.

As with politics, we seem to be straying (again!) into a subject area notable for the sneering judgmentalism of the most closed-minded among us, those whose self-righteous sense of moral and intellectual superiority precludes the possibility of their learning anything while simultaneously betraying their mistaken belief in their own rationality.

Quote from: Iconito on November 15, 2011, 09:13:33 AM
So religion can either inspire you to abolish slavery or let you accept slavery as a fact of life for 1800 years? That's some whimsical determining factor.
And you had also "people who acted based on their religious beliefs" opposing abolition, too... Something else must have been at play there, Jeffrey.

'
Or maybe there is the mind bending concept that all religious people may not act and think the same. Maybe not all religions, or sects within a different faith are the same.    (For religion, we could substitute "conservatives" or "liberals"   or any other blanket term we'd care to use.)

If you look at the American Civil war, many of the northern abolitionists WERE religiously motivated, but the Southern Baptists broke off from the main Baptist Church since they did not condemn slavery, and waiting more than 100 years to offer a half baked apology. .    Much of the ignorance, prejudice, and butchery in the 20th century has been able to find other excuses-- take a look at Stalin's regime or Pol Pot.  I don't see much value of a human life  in either of them.

Quote from: jowcol on November 15, 2011, 02:04:00 PM
'
Or maybe there is the mind bending concept that all religious people may not act and think the same. Maybe not all religions, or sects within a different faith are the same.    (For religion, we could substitute "conservatives" or "liberals"   or any other blanket term we'd care to use.)

If you look at the American Civil war, many of the northern abolitionists WERE religiously motivated, but the Southern Baptists broke off from the main Baptist Church since they did not condemn slavery, and waiting more than 100 years to offer a half baked apology. .    Much of the ignorance, prejudice, and butchery in the 20th century has been able to find other excuses-- take a look at Stalin's regime or Pol Pot.  I don't see much value of a human life  in either of them.

That's all good (and consistent with my own views), but then don't claim the abolition of slavery was a triumph of Religion when you had Religion on both sides of the issue (plus an 1800 years delay, according to Jeffrey) It's quite evident other factors were at play.

Quote from: Iconito on November 15, 2011, 03:57:28 PM
That's all good (and consistent with my own views), but then don't claim the abolition of slavery was a triumph of Religion when you had Religion on both sides of the issue (plus an 1800 years delay, according to Jeffrey) It's quite evident other factors were at play.

Agreed.  Blaming religion alone for slavery would be an equally flawed premise.  Or most of the other horrible things humans seem to enjoy so much.

Strawman.  It is not necessary to claim abolition as "a triumph of Religion" in order to cite abolition as (in part) a positive impact of Religion upon human rights.

On the other hand, it is naïve fondly to imagine that the "other factors" are hermetically separable from Religion.  Let's say it again:  it is not simply that Christianity is an element of Western social and intellectual life, over time it became the foundation, the framework, the mindset.

There are Other Factors which emerge from Western society, because the intellectual tradition of Christianity furnished the environment.

To quote Ben Franklin (Poor Richard, indeed): Praise-All and Blame-All are both Blockheads.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 16, 2011, 05:58:58 AM
Strawman.  It is not necessary to claim abolition as "a triumph of Religion" in order to cite abolition as (in part) a positive impact of Religion upon human rights.

On the other hand, it is naïve fondly to imagine that the "other factors" are hermetically separable from Religion.  Let's say it again:  it is not simply that Christianity is an element of Western social and intellectual life, over time it became the foundation, the framework, the mindset.

There are Other Factors which emerge from Western society, because the intellectual tradition of Christianity furnished the environment.

To quote Ben Franklin (Poor Richard, indeed): Praise-All and Blame-All are both Blockheads.

QFT, word, hear, hear, etc.  8)

Quote from: DavidRoss on November 16, 2011, 06:15:54 AM
QFT, word, hear, hear, etc.  8)

Aye!

Quote from: karlhenning on November 16, 2011, 05:58:58 AM
Strawman.  It is not necessary to claim abolition as "a triumph of Religion" in order to cite abolition as (in part) a positive impact of Religion upon human rights.

On the other hand, it is naïve fondly to imagine that the "other factors" are hermetically separable from Religion.  Let's say it again:  it is not simply that Christianity is an element of Western social and intellectual life, over time it became the foundation, the framework, the mindset.

There are Other Factors which emerge from Western society, because the intellectual tradition of Christianity furnished the environment.

To quote Ben Franklin (Poor Richard, indeed): Praise-All and Blame-All are both Blockheads.

No straw man. Jeffrey said Religion was the determining factor in the abolition of slavery, i.e. an accomplishment of Religion, an achievement of Religion, a triumph of Religion, a feat of Religion... Although he also said "Abolition was powered by people who acted based on their religious beliefs", as if "Religion" and "people who acted based on their religious beliefs" were synonyms... They seem to be synonyms if the outcome is good. If we were talking about, I don't know, a group of Christians beating some gay man to death, then no, of course not... Those people would be just loonies and Religion would still be good, but I digress... The thing is Jeffrey said that, not me, so no straw man.

On the other hand, are you claiming everything in the West is ultimately an outcome of Christianity? I don't deny Christianity had a huge influence in the West (you think that is a good thing, right?), but everything, to the point that no "other factors" can be separated from it? That will make you number two in my ranking, displacing Florestan ("In case of conflict, personal conscience comes before any ritual or dogma and must be obeyed unconditionally (this is formally codified in the Roman Catholic Catechism, no less...)"... Jeffrey's "I experience God at a more intimate, deeper and tangible way than I do the air around us" stays number one)

Quote from: jowcol on November 16, 2011, 05:36:22 AM
Blaming religion alone for slavery would be an equally flawed premise.  Or most of the other horrible things humans seem to enjoy so much.

Of course.

Quote from: jowcol on November 16, 2011, 05:36:22 AM
Agreed.  Blaming religion alone for slavery would be an equally flawed premise.  Or most of the other horrible things humans seem to enjoy so much.

Of course.

(And of course there are things for which we can actually blame Religion alone... But we are only stating the obvious)

There is no good (i.e. flattering) explanation for the refusal to give religions their due for making the world a better place...especially Christianity.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 14, 2011, 07:36:10 PM
Abolition was powered by people who acted based on their religious beliefs. The fact that religions people accepted slavery as a fact of life for 1800 years does not invalidate that.  When abolition started, it was religiously motivated people who started it.    Non religious motivation had almost no role to play until the movement was well under way, and even then it still maintained its fundamental position in the movement.  So, yes, religion was the determining factor.

except that it was the more heterodox branches of Christianity that were at the forefront of abolitionism - unitarianism and great awakening evangelicalism.  Both Roman Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism endorsed slavery.  If you read Southern writers, they would decry abolitionism as a symbol of the apostate North.  The Southern view of Slavery was at least equally religious and arguable more in line with orthodox Christian traditions:

QuoteThe Northern section of the church stands in the awkward predicament of maintaining, in one breath, that slavery is an evil which ought to be abolished and of asserting, in the next, that it is not a sin to be visited by exclusion from communion of the saints. The consequence is that it plays partly into the hands of Abolitionists and partly into the hands of slaveholders and weakens its influence with both. It occupies the position of a prevaricating witness whom neither party will trust. It would be better, therefore, for the moral power of the Northern section of the church to get entirely quit of the subject.

...

In answering this question, as a church, let it be distinctly borne in mind that the only rule of judgment is the written word of God. The church knows nothing of the intuitions of reason or the deductions of philosophy, except those reproduced in the Sacred Canon. She has a positive constitution in the Holy Scriptures and has no right to utter a single syllable upon any subject except as the Lord puts words in her mouth. She is founded, in other words, upon express revelation.Her creed is an authoritative testimony of God and not a speculation, and what she proclaims, she must proclaim with the infallible certitude of faith and not with the hesitating assent of an opinion. The question, then, is brought within a narrow compass: Do the Scriptures directly or indirectly condemn slavery as a sin? If they do not, the dispute is ended, for the church, without forfeiting her character, dares not go beyond them.

Now, we venture to assert that if men had drawn their conclusions upon this subject only from the Bible, it would no more have entered into any human head to denounce slavery as a sin than to denounce monarchy, aristocracy, or poverty.

...

Indeed, the first organization of the church as a visible society, separate and distinct from the unbelieving world, was inaugurated in the family of a slaveholder. Among the very first persons to whom the seal of circumcision was affixed were the slaves of the father of the faithful, some born in his house and others bought with his money. Slavery again reappears under the Law. God sanctions it in the first table of the Decalogue, and Moses treats it as an institution to be regulated, not abolished; legitimated and not condemned. We come down to the age of the New Testament, and we find it again in the churches founded by the apostles under the plenary inspiration of the Holy Ghost. These facts are utterly amazing, if slavery is the enormous sin which its enemies represent it to be. It will not do to say that the Scriptures have treated it only in a general, incidental way, without any clear implication as to its moral character. Moses surely made it the subject of express and positive legislation, and the apostles are equally explicit in inculcating the duties which spring from both sides of the relation. They treat slaves as bound to obey and inculcate obedience as an office of religion � a thing wholly self-contradictory if the authority exercised over them were unlawful and iniquitous.

...

Let us concede, for a moment, that the law of love, and the condemnation of tyranny and oppression seem logically to involve, as a result, the condemnation of slavery; yet, if slavery is afterwards expressly mentioned and treated as a lawful relation, it obviously follows, unless Scripture is to be interpreted as inconsistent with itself, that slavery is, by necessary implication, excepted. The Jewish law forbad, as a general rule, the marriage of a man with his brother�s wife. The same law expressly enjoined the same marriage in a given case. The given case was, therefore, an exception, and not be treated as a violation of the general rule. The law of love has always been the law of God. It was enunciated by Moses almost as clearly as it was enunciated by Jesus Christ. Yet, notwithstanding this law, Moses and the apostles alike sanctioned the relation of slavery.

The conclusion is inevitable, either that the law is not opposed to it or that slavery is an excepted case. To say that the prohibition of tyranny and oppression include slavery is to beg the whole question. Tyranny and oppression involve either the unjust usurpation or the unlawful exercise of power. It is the unlawfulness, either in its principle or measure, which constitutes the core of the sin. Slavery must, therefore, be proved to be unlawful before it can be referred to any such category. The master may, indeed, abuse his power, but he oppresses, not simply as a master but as a wicked master.

But apart from all this, the law of love is simply the inculcation of universal equity. It implies nothing as to the existence of various ranks and graduations in society. The interpretation which makes it repudiate slavery would make it equally repudiate all social, civil, and political inequalities.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=1124

Quote from: DavidRoss on November 17, 2011, 06:08:34 AM
There is no good (i.e. flattering) explanation for the refusal to give religions their due for making the world a better place...especially Christianity.

But Religions also have their due for making the World a worse place. It's like we love to run in circles, right?  :)

Religion had a fundamental role in Human History. Also crawling was fundamental to me. Now I can walk, run, drive a car, take a plane... Are you guys willing to discuss Religion here and now?

Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 17, 2011, 06:25:08 AM
except that it was the more heterodox branches of Christianity that were at the forefront of abolitionism - unitarianism and great awakening evangelicalism.  Both Roman Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism endorsed slavery.  If you read Southern writers, they would decry abolitionism as a symbol of the apostate North.  The Southern view of Slavery was at least equally religious and arguable more in line with orthodox Christian traditions:

First off, to clear up one sort of confusion, it should be understood that what the Bible referred to as a slavery was rather different from what that word meant in, say, the 19th Century US, or for much of the Gentile world as it was known to, for instance, the first century Christians.  In the Old Testament, slavery was a status better described as permanent servant--the slave was not the master's property in the way that an 1835 Southern plantation owner could say slaves were his property.  That's why the Bible generally uses the word "bondman/bondwoman" and derivate terms.  What the master could do to the slave was far more limited, and he had specific responsibilities to his servants.  And there was an intermediate category in which the 'slave' only served for a certain number of years.  So different was the concept that, in contrast to 19th century Fugitive Slave laws, the Bible forbids returning an escaped slave to his master--the presumption was that if the slave ran away, he must have had some very good reasons to do so.  The whole milieu was rather different--we're talking about family farms or one family households in villages and towns in which the "slaves" lived with the family, sleeping and eating under the same roof (although, like 19th century servants in general, they might have slept and ate in different parts of the building).

This difference of course was not always known or acknowledged in 19th century discussions.

What you quote is of course pertinent to the discussion, but it only proves that, first, ecclesiastical institutions are prone to all the flaws that institutions are prone to, including following the crowd instead of leading it.

But I'll rephrase my point this way: that the Abolitionist movement was started in large part by individuals who did so because of their religious beliefs;  without those beliefs they would have not started agitating for Abolition;  and without them Abolition would have not been much of anything.  Therefore it is proper to give "Religion" the credit for Abolition, just like "Religion" gets the discredit for the Inquisition and the Crusades.

BTW, you underestimate the importance of "established" churches in the growth of Abolition--the first Abolitionists in England were primarily drawn from the Church of England, and those that were not were from Methodism and Baptist backgrounds, which can not be called "heterodox"  within the context of Protestantism.  (After all, from a Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox POV, it is possible to think of all Protestantism as heresy of one sort or another).    In New England, Abolition can be linked as much to the traditional Congregational churches--the "established church" there--as much as it can be to Unitarianism, which was (in the USA at least) an institutional outgrowth of Congregationalism.

Iconito's posts display such a high percentage of willful ignorance and determined refusal to understand the issues involved--not to mention sneering at something he apparently only dimly understands--that there is no point in replying to them.

Jeffrey, as you very well know I don't always agree with you, but this time I have no other option than to

(http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/3/5/2/3/0/8/a3930971-193-clap-animated-animation-clap-smiley-emoticon-000340-large.gif?d=1302434801)(http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/3/5/2/3/0/8/a3930971-193-clap-animated-animation-clap-smiley-emoticon-000340-large.gif?d=1302434801)(http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/3/5/2/3/0/8/a3930971-193-clap-animated-animation-clap-smiley-emoticon-000340-large.gif?d=1302434801)

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 06:35:00 AM
Also crawling was fundamental to me.

Still is, apparently.

Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 17, 2011, 06:25:08 AM
Both Roman Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism endorsed slavery. 

Please prove it.

Additional exercise: please prove that Eastern Orthodoxy endorsed slavery.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 17, 2011, 09:19:23 AM
Still is, apparently.

You need to work on your tendency to call people stupid, immature, or otherwise mentally handicapped when they question your opinions, beliefs, religion... It's childish, it's uncalled for, it doesn't advance the discussion and I'm sure Jesus wouldn't like it. Be nice. Trash my arguments, my opinions, my beliefs all you want, but don't make it personal. Please. Thank you.

Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2011, 10:43:26 AM

Quote from: bwv 1080Both Roman Catholicism and mainstream Protestantism endorsed slavery.

Please prove it.

Hint: It will at the very least involve finding a top-down reversal of Paul III's Sublimis Deus of 1537. Good luck!

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 10:54:13 AM
I'm sure Jesus wouldn't like it.

I love it when people who have absolutely no use for what Jesus taught are sure about what Jesus would do/not do/like/not like.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 17, 2011, 10:58:01 AM
Please prove it.

Hint: It will at the very least involve finding a top-down reversal of Paul III's Sublimis Deus of 1537. Good luck!

which avoided the issue of the Atlantic slave trade, but endorse is too strong a word - tolerate in practice is more accurate

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 17, 2011, 08:59:03 AM
Iconito's posts display such a high percentage of willful ignorance and determined refusal to understand the issues involved--not to mention sneering at something he apparently only dimly understands--that there is no point in replying to them.

Hey, I was only objecting to what you said earlier. You are only now giving a better explanation of what you meant... I'm afraid you are mainly resenting the sneering, but you guys are not innocent of that either. Besides, sneering (Actually I would say "a little teasing" instead of "sneering", but that's just me) is OK as long as it doesn't get personal, I think...

As for your restated point: You still have religious people/institutions (i.e. Religion) at both sides of the abolition issue, and there lies lays one of my objections (the other being the 1800 years delay that you somehow explained saying slavery wasn't that bad before... I still have doubts but let's leave it there). Kudos to those who started the abolition movement, but you can't give Religion credit for it if you had Religion opposing the movement as well... It's like praying for a group of ill people's health, some get well, some die, and then you go ahead and give praying credit for those who got well... What about the others? Let's not deny those who started abolition acted on their religious beliefs, but then what about the others? This is what you need to explain instead of calling me ignorant and stupid.

Quote from: bwv 1080 on November 17, 2011, 11:25:57 AM
endorse is too strong a word - tolerate in practice is more accurate

That's a welcome step backward, yet not enough. Please produce proof that the Roman Catholic Church & the Eastern Orthodox Churches officially supported and justified slavery.

Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2011, 10:59:34 AM
I love it when people who have absolutely no use for what Jesus taught are sure about what Jesus would do/not do/like/not like.

I'm not sure... Please do help me: Would Jesus like Karl (or Jeffrey, or anybody) calling me stupid, immature, or otherwise mentally handicapped when I question his opinions, beliefs, religion?

Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2011, 11:42:31 AM
That's a welcome step backward, yet not enough. Please produce proof that the Roman Catholic Church & the Eastern Orthodox Churches officially supported and justified slavery.

You are getting a little too technical and demanding... Do you have proof of God's existence, so we can end the damn religion discussion right now?  :)

Also, I read somewhere about a couple of Popes buying and owning slaves, so...

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 06:35:00 AM
But Religions also have their due for making the World a worse place. It's like we love to run in circles, right?  :)

They do?  Islam aside--which is a religion in the same way that Socialism or Communism are religions--I'm hard pressed to recall or even imagine any ways in which religions have made the world a worse place.  Enlighten me, please, if you would be so kind.

What happened to Die Nacht's post? He actually read the article and realized that it was not the slam dunk he counted on?

For the record, he helpfully found this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery) on Wikipedia.

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 11:48:39 AM
I'm not sure...

Yes you are:

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 10:54:13 AM
I'm sure Jesus wouldn't like it.

Quote
Please do help me: Would Jesus like Karl (or Jeffrey, or anybody) calling me stupid, immature, or otherwise mentally handicapped when I question his opinions, beliefs, religion?

Please show proof that Karl of Jeffrey or anybody called you stupid, immature or mentally handicapped.

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 11:51:54 AM
You are getting a little too technical and demanding... Do you have proof of God's existence, so we can end the damn religion discussion right now?  :)

Also, I read somewhere about a couple of Popes buying and owning slaves, so...

Please name those Popes.

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 11:51:54 AM
You are getting a little too technical and demanding...

That's my bad habit as an engineer...  ;D

QuotePlease name those Popes.

Inconito is simply right, here are some examples:

Quotehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery

Quote from: DieNacht on November 17, 2011, 12:11:21 PM

Inconito is simply right, here are some examples:

Okay, so please summarize in your own (i.e, DieNacht's) words the Wikipedia article above: is Christianity pro or contra slavery?

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 11:38:36 AM
Hey, I was only objecting to what you said earlier. You are only now giving a better explanation of what you meant... I'm afraid you are mainly resenting the sneering, but you guys are not innocent of that either. Besides, sneering (Actually I would say "a little teasing" instead of "sneering", but that's just me) is OK as long as it doesn't get personal, I think...

As for your restated point: You still have religious people/institutions (i.e. Religion) at both sides of the abolition issue, and there lies lays one of my objections (the other being the 1800 years delay that you somehow explained saying slavery wasn't that bad before... I still have doubts but let's leave it there). Kudos to those who started the abolition movement, but you can't give Religion credit for it if you had Religion opposing the movement as well... It's like praying for a group of ill people's health, some get well, some die, and then you go ahead and give praying credit for those who got well... What about the others? Let's not deny those who started abolition acted on their religious beliefs, but then what about the others? This is what you need to explain instead of calling me ignorant and stupid.

Your condemnation of religion based on the hypocrisy (knowing or not) of some who practiced one form of religion or another is not a condemnation of religion at all, but rather a condemnation of persons whose actions fall short of perfect compliance with the teachings of their religion.  The Quakers, Methodists, Presbyterians, and even Anglicans were instrumental in overthrowing the institution of slavery.  Rather than making your case, your denial of such clear historical facts only undercuts your claim and demonstrates instead the intellectual dishonesty of your cause.

But you needn't take my or Jeffrey's or anyone else's word for it.  All you need do is apply yourself to the study of human history and the role of religions, religious institutions, and people motivated by their religious idealism in shaping that history, and you will quickly see for yourself how mistaken your prejudices are--that is, if you can bring yourself to open your mind sufficiently to examine such matters honestly and objectively without all that ideological baggage undermining your investigation.

Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2011, 12:04:47 PM
Yes you are:

No. I'm sure, not sure  :P

Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2011, 12:04:47 PM
Please show proof that Karl of Jeffrey or anybody called you stupid, immature or mentally handicapped.

Now you are moving the goal posts! Would Jesus like it or not? Answer, and I'll give you the proof you ask.

Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2011, 12:04:47 PM
Please name those Popes.

God gave you Google for a reason  :)

I just saw your answer to DieNacht:

Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2011, 12:17:05 PM
Okay, so please summarize in your own (i.e, DieNacht's) words the Wikipedia article above: is Christianity pro or contra slavery?

You are really pushing it! Give us something, instead of just asking and asking and keep moving the goal posts! Something, anything... I know! Give us proof God doesn't want us to have sex before marriage!  :D

I am entitled to point to some facts; you questioned whether catholic authorities including the pope and papal official decisions and papers had
sanctioned slavery, and you questioned whether popes had had slaves. The article proves decisively with several examples and references, that both things were taking place.

But I find the discussion too heated and political here and won´t be participating, likewise Abolition hasn´t been a subject I studied much. 


(EDIT: typing errors edited later)

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 12:22:42 PM
No. I'm sure, not sure  :P

Strawman.

Quote
Would Jesus like it or not? Answer, and I'll give you the proof you ask.

I am not Jesus.

Quote
God gave you Google for a reason  :)

If Google were wisdom then you'd be King Solomon... Are you king Solomon?

Quote
You are really pushing it! Give us something, instead of just asking and asking and keep moving the goal posts! Something, anything... I know! Give us proof God doesn't want us to have sex before marriage!  :D

Strawman.

Quote from: DieNacht on November 17, 2011, 12:24:42 PM
you questioned whether catholic authorities including the pope and papal official decisions and papers had
sanctioned slavery, and you questioned whether popes had had slaves. The article proves decisively with several examples and references, that both things were taking place.

Then it shouldn't be difficult to name some popes that owned slaves. All I asked was that you name some of them. Why is it so difficult?

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 11:38:36 AM
Hey, I was only objecting to what you said earlier. You are only now giving a better explanation of what you meant... I'm afraid you are mainly resenting the sneering, but you guys are not innocent of that either. Besides, sneering (Actually I would say "a little teasing" instead of "sneering", but that's just me) is OK as long as it doesn't get personal, I think...

In my view, it did.  But I will assume from the above statement that you did not mean to get personal.

Quote
As for your restated point: You still have religious people/institutions (i.e. Religion) at both sides of the abolition issue, and there lies lays one of my objections (the other being the 1800 years delay that you somehow explained saying slavery wasn't that bad before... I still have doubts but let's leave it there). Kudos to those who started the abolition movement, but you can't give Religion credit for it if you had Religion opposing the movement as well... It's like praying for a group of ill people's health, some get well, some die, and then you go ahead and give praying credit for those who got well... What about the others? Let's not deny those who started abolition acted on their religious beliefs, but then what about the others? This is what you need to explain instead of calling me ignorant and stupid.

In your very first sentence in that paragraph if a good example of why I think it proper to say you are indulging in willful ignorance or misunderstanding of the issues involved.  You see, the rest of us understand that there is no such thing as "Religion" that can be praised or blamed;  there are only human individuals acting out their religious beliefs, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. 
As for your example: well, suppose I have a serious disease and go to several doctors in turn;  some of them can't figure out the problem, or make the problem worse in their attempts to heal me.  Does "Medicine" get the blame for that?  And then I finally find a doctor or doctor who know(s) how to cure me, and do so.  Does "Medicine" get the credit for that?  And if so, does the failed attempts of those other doctors mean "Medicine" shouldn't get credit it would otherwise get?

Guess you are kidding, Florestan, but for the record:

QuoteHowever when the Age of Discovery greatly increased the number of slaves owned by Christians, the response of the church, under strong political pressures, was confused and ineffective in preventing the establishment of slave societies in the colonies of Catholic countries. Papal bulls such as Dum Diversas, Romanus Pontifex and their derivatives, sanctioned slavery and were used to justify enslavement of natives and the appropriation of their lands during this era.[6]

QuoteIn 1866 The Holy Office of Pope Pius IX affirmed that, subject to conditions, it was not against divine law for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged.[11]

QuoteNevertheless, early Christianity rarely criticised the actual institution of slavery. Though the Pentateuch gave protection to fugitive slaves,[37] the Roman church often condemned with anathema slaves who fled from their masters, and refused them Eucharistic communio[38]

QuoteIn 340 the Synod of Gangra in Armenia, condemned certain Manicheans for a list of twenty practices including forbidding marriage, not eating meat, urging that slaves should liberate themselves, abandoning their families, ascetism and reviling married priests.[39] The later Council of Chalcedon, declared that the canons of the Synod of Gangra were ecumenical (in other words, they were viewed as conclusively representative of the wider church).

Quote
Pope Gregory I
Pope Gregory I in his Pastoral Care (c. 600), which remained a popular text for centuries, wrote "Slaves should be told ...[not] to despise their masters and recognise they are only slaves". In his Commentary on the Book of Job he wrote that "All men are equal by nature but .... a hidden dispensation by providence has arranged a hierarchy of merit and rulership, in that differences between classes of men have arisen as a result of sin and are ordained by divine justice".[46]

QuoteAquinas defended slavery as instituted by God in punishment for sin, and justified as being part of the 'right of nations' and natural law.

QuoteIn 655 the Ninth Council of Toledo, in an attempt to persuade priests to remain celibate, ruled that all children of clerics were to be automatically enslaved. This ruling was later incorporated into the canon law of the church, but seems rarely to have been enforced. In 1089, Pope Urban II ruled at the Synod of Melfi that the wives of priests were to be enslaved.
.... disabilities of all kinds were enacted and as far as possible enforced against the wives and children of ecclesiastics. Their offspring were declared to be of servile condition .... The earliest decree in which the children were declared to be slaves, the property of the Church, and never to be enfranchised, seems to have been a canon of the Synod of Pavia in 1018.

QuoteSlavery incorporated into Canon Law

In the early thirteenth century, official support for slavery and the slave trade was incorporated into Canon Law (Corpus Iuris Canonici), by Pope Gregory IX,.[63][64] Canon law provided for four just titles for holding slaves: slaves captured in war, persons condemned to slavery for a crime; persons selling themselves into slavery, including a father selling his child; children of a mother who is a slave.

Slavery was imposed as an ecclesiastical penalty by General Councils and local Church councils and Popes, 1179-1535...

QuotePope Gregory XI, excommunicated the Florentines and ordered them to be enslaved if captured[66

QuoteIn 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: "we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery". In 1454 Pope Nicholas explicitly confirmed the rights granted to King Alfonso V in Dum Diversas

QuoteIn 1456, Pope Calixtus III confirmed these grants to the Kings of Portugal and they were renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481; and finally in 1514 Pope Leo repeated verbatim all these documents and approved, renewed and confirmed them.[80]

QuoteThe navy of the Papal States was no different from that of Venice, France, Genoa and other naval powers. Galley-slaves were recruited by criminal sentencing, usually for a term of years many never survived, as well as capture in war, mostly of Muslims, and sometimes the African slave-trade. Some of the Popes were personally involved in the purchase and use of galley-slaves.[86]

QuoteIn 1535 Pope Paul III removed the ability of slaves in Rome to claim freedom by reaching the Capitol Hill, although this was restored some years later. He "declared the lawfulness of slave trading and slave holding, including the holding of Christian slaves in Rome".[88]

QuoteArchbishop of Baltimore, John Carroll, had two black servants - one free and one a slave. In 1820, the Jesuits had nearly 400 slaves on their Maryland plantations. The Society of Jesus owned a large number of slaves who worked on the community's farms. Realizing that their properties were more profitable if rented out to tenant farmers rather that worked by slaves, the Jesuits began selling off their slaves in 1837.

Quote.

Cardinal Avery Dulles makes the following observations about the Catholic Church and the institution of slavery
1.For many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society.
2.The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys.
3.Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law.
4.St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.
5.No Father or Doctor of the Church was an unqualified abolitionist.
6.No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such.
7.But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.[19]

... and goodnight.

EDIT: forgot to list a bit more stuff from the article:

QuoteIn 1488, Pope Innocent VIII accepted the gift of 100 slaves from Ferdinand II of Aragon, and distributed those slaves to his cardinals and the Roman nobility.[83]

QuoteIn 1639 Pope Urban VIII forbade the slavery of the Indians of Brazil, Paraguay, and the West Indies, yet he purchased non-Indian slaves for himself from the Knights of Malta,[89

Quote from: Florestan on November 17, 2011, 12:32:08 PM
Then it shouldn't be difficult to name some popes that owned slaves. All I asked was that you name some of them. Why is it so difficult?

Gregory the Great, for one

a good overview is here

QuoteFor many centuries the Church was part of a slave-holding society. The popes themselves held slaves, including at times hundreds of Muslim captives to man their galleys. Throughout Christian antiquity and the Middle Ages, theologians generally followed St. Augustine in holding that although slavery was not written into the natural moral law it was not absolutely forbidden by that law. St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, and Calvin were all Augustinian on this point. Although the subjection of one person to another (servitus) was not part of the primary intention of the natural law, St. Thomas taught, it was appropriate and socially useful in a world impaired by original sin.

The leaven of the gospel gradually alleviated the evils of slavery, at least in medieval Europe. Serfdom did not involve the humiliation and brutality people today ordinarily associate with slavery. Moral theologians recognized that slaves, unlike mere chattels, had certain rights even against their masters, who no longer had over them the power of life and death, as had been the case in pagan antiquity.

For St. Thomas, slaves (servi) had the right to food, sleep, marriage, and the rearing of their children. Provision had also to be made for them to fulfill their religious duties, and they were to be treated with benevolence. With the conquest of the New World and the enslavement of whole populations of Indians and Africans, theologians such as Bartolomé de Las Casas and Cajetan began to object to the injustices of subjecting conquered peoples and of engaging in the lucrative slave trade. Some prominent Catholics of the early nineteenth century, including J.M. Sailer, Daniel O'Connell, and the Comte de Montalembert, together with many Protestants, pressed for the total abolition of slavery.

Throughout this period the popes were far from silent. As soon as the enslavement of native populations by European colonists started, they began to protest, although Noonan gives only a few isolated examples. Eugene IV in 1435 condemned the enslavement of the peoples of the newly colonized Canary Islands and, under pain of excommunication, ordered all such slaves to be immediately set free. Pius II and Sixtus IV emphatically repeated these prohibitions. In a bull addressed to all the faithful of the Christian world Paul III in 1537 condemned the enslavement of Indians in North and South America. Gregory XIV in 1591 ordered the freeing of all the Filipino slaves held by Spaniards. Urban VIII in 1639 issued a bull applying the principles of Paul III to Portuguese colonies in South America and requiring the liberation of all Indian slaves.

In 1781 Benedict XIV renewed the call of previous popes to free the Indian slaves of South America. Thus it was no break with previous teaching when Gregory XVI in 1839 issued a general condemnation of the enslavement of Indians and Blacks. In particular, he condemned the importation of Negro slaves from Africa. Leo XIII followed along the path set by Gregory XVI.

Although the popes condemned the enslavement of innocent populations and the iniquitous slave trade, they did not teach that all slaves everywhere should immediately be emancipated. At the time of the Civil War, very few Catholics in the United States felt that papal teaching required them to become abolitionists.

Bishop John England stood with the tradition in holding that there could be just titles to slavery. Bishop Francis P. Kenrick held that slavery did not necessarily violate the natural law. Archbishop John Hughes contended that slavery was an evil but not an absolute evil. Orestes Brownson, while denying that slavery was malum in se, came around to favor emancipation as a matter of policy.

In 1863 John Henry Newman penned some fascinating reflections on slavery. A fellow Catholic, William T. Allies, asked him to comment on a lecture he was planning to give, asserting that slavery was intrinsically evil. Newman replied that, although he would like to see slavery eliminated, he could not go so far as to condemn it as intrinsically evil. For if it were, St. Paul would have had to order Philemon, "liberate all your slaves at once." Newman, as I see it, stood with the whole Catholic tradition. In 1866 the Holy Office, in response to an inquiry from Africa, ruled that although slavery (servitus) was undesirable, it was not per se opposed to natural or divine law. This ruling pertained to the kind of servitude that was customary in certain parts of Africa at the time.

No Father or Doctor of the Church, so far as I can judge, was an unqualified abolitionist. No pope or council ever made a sweeping condemnation of slavery as such. But they constantly sought to alleviate the evils of slavery and repeatedly denounced the mass enslavement of conquered populations and the infamous slave trade, thereby undermining slavery at its sources.

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/development-or-reversal-37

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 17, 2011, 12:53:56 PM
In my view, it did.  But I will assume from the above statement that you did not mean to get personal.

In your very first sentence in that paragraph if a good example of why I think it proper to say you are indulging in willful ignorance or misunderstanding of the issues involved.  You see, the rest of us understand that there is no such thing as "Religion" that can be praised or blamed;  there are only human individuals acting out their religious beliefs, sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. 

As for your example: well, suppose I have a serious disease and go to several doctors in turn;  some of them can't figure out the problem, or make the problem worse in their attempts to heal me.  Does "Medicine" get the blame for that?  And then I finally find a doctor or doctor who know(s) how to cure me, and do so.  Does "Medicine" get the credit for that?  And if so, does the failed attempts of those other doctors mean "Medicine" shouldn't get credit it would otherwise get?

Now we are talking! Thank you, Jeffrey.

First of all, I certainly didn't mean to personally insult you or anybody, so apologies if it came out that way (I do have a kind of sarcastic, jerk-ish sense of humor... Too much Dr. House, maybe :) BTW, if you point me to what I said you found personally offensive I'll do my best to explain/apologize/take it back as needed)

To business: Your Medicine/Doctors analogy is good. Those doctors that can't figure out the problem or make it worse: Are they good doctors? i.e. are they doing what Medicine dictates they should do? Is your disease well known? Are there effective treatments for it? Of course Medicine is known to still have a lot of unsolved problems... Let's move to a legal analogy: Jack and Jill commit the same exact crime. They face two different judges. Jack gets a $500 fine, Jill gets the electric chair. Are the judges applying the Law correctly? Is the Law clear enough? Are you still reading? :) If the Law is so open to interpretation that you can get either a small fine or the Death penalty for the same crime then it's a lousy Law indeed. Otherwise a lousy judge should be easy to identify and dismiss.

Now: The phrase "there is no such thing as "Religion" [...] there are only human individuals acting out their religious beliefs" sounds like "There is no clear Law" (or the twisted version: "The Law is perfect, but we are all lousy judges"), so anything goes, and that's why you had religious abolitionists and religious... er... pro-slavery-dudes? (Damn English!) The obvious conclusion of this line of reasoning is... nasty... But I guess this isn't over, so I'm going to bed now :)

Quote from: Iconito on November 17, 2011, 07:13:32 PM
. Let's move to a legal analogy: Jack and Jill commit the same exact crime. They face two different judges. Jack gets a $500 fine, Jill gets the electric chair. Are the judges applying the Law correctly? Is the Law clear enough? Are you still reading? :) If the Law is so open to interpretation that you can get either a small fine or the Death penalty for the same crime then it's a lousy Law indeed. Otherwise a lousy judge should be easy to identify and dismiss.

Now: The phrase "there is no such thing as "Religion" [...] there are only human individuals acting out their religious beliefs" sounds like "There is no clear Law" (or the twisted version: "The Law is perfect, but we are all lousy judges"), so anything goes, and that's why you had religious abolitionists and religious... er... pro-slavery-dudes? (Damn English!) The obvious conclusion of this line of reasoning is... nasty... But I guess this isn't over, so I'm going to bed now :)

Bad move there.  I'm a lawyer :)

Serious answer: there is no such thing as "the Law" , except in an abstract general way.  There are individual laws, and lawyers and judges and police and the rest who apply and misapply them.  They do things, some of them bad, some of them good.  But "the Law" never does anything.  It's just a convenient figure of speech, a Platonic Ideal.

Same with "Religion". There's no one monolithic thing, but masses of individual people doing things motivated by their spiritual ideals.  And some of those things may be bad, and some good;  but some very good things would not have come about if people had not started to act on their religious feelings, Abolition being one of them.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 17, 2011, 08:08:07 PM
Same with "Religion". There's no one monolithic thing, but masses of individual people doing things motivated by their spiritual ideals.  And some of those things may be bad, and some good;  but some very good things would not have come about if people had not started to act on their religious feelings

Let's call it "Ethics" and "Principles" instead. What added value is there in "Religion" if one has good (whatever that means) ethics and principles?

Quote from: petrarch on November 18, 2011, 05:46:25 AM
Let's call it "Ethics" and "Principles" instead. What added value is there in "Religion" if one has good (whatever that means) ethics and principles?

Religion is the source of most of the ethics and principles that have ennobled humankind over the past several centuries.  As a species, we still lag far behind the teachings of great religious leaders who lived long ago, but we are still inspired by them and moving--however slowly and haltingly--toward the vision they offered us.

Quote from: petrarch on November 18, 2011, 05:46:25 AM
Let's call it "Ethics" and "Principles" instead. What added value is there in "Religion" if one has good (whatever that means) ethics and principles?

One of my favorite Thai Monks wrote an essay called "No Religion"--- his point wasn't so much atheism or the elevation of human goodness, since we take such delight in butchering each other.  His thesis was terms like Religion were worthless compared to putting ideas into action.

Quote from: DavidRoss on November 18, 2011, 06:02:57 AM
Religion is the source of most of the ethics and principles that have ennobled humankind over the past several centuries.  As a species, we still lag far behind the teachings of great religious leaders who lived long ago, but we are still inspired by them and moving--however slowly and haltingly--toward the vision they offered us.

I am aware of that; let me rephrase: What value is there still in Religion if what it can give us as guidance and discussed at length previously in this topic is better framed as ethics and principles? In other words, you don't need Religion to convince any reasonable person to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Quote from: petrarch on November 18, 2011, 04:12:29 PM
I am aware of that; let me rephrase: What value is there still in Religion if what it can give us as guidance and discussed at length previously in this topic is better framed as ethics and principles? In other words, you don't need Religion to convince any reasonable person to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

What you get with "Religion" is a structure that helps ensure you actually practice what is preached.

If the morality you practice is seen by you as a rational product of your own mind (however much input from the thinking of others you may have in getting to it), then you can easily become the victim of rationalization and evasion.  There's nothing outside of you to keep you acting morally, and humans being humans, most end up taking advantage of that to act , according to their general standards, immorally--they persuade themselves of some reason that allows this particular action to be considered not immoral.  [Insert here the atheist equivalent of the proverb "the road to H-- is paved with good intentions".]  In a religious context, there is something outside the individual to point out when he or she is misbehaving.  I'm not referring to the idea of God keeping track of all your little sins, etc. although undoubtedly that idea is what keeps at least some people with little faith on the straight and narrow.  What I'm referring to is the religious community in which one lives--whether it's by going to confession with a priest,  allowing oneself to be criticized by fellow congregants, or just listening seriously to the weekly sermon and trying to put what you learned into daily practice--can help keep you true to your ideals.  (Of course, humans being humans, that's not going to happen all the time--people may withold criticism for less than admirable reasons, for instance.)   That's why almost every spiritual tradition insists on the importance of a teacher/guru:  someone who will not only teach you the finer points of spiritual practice, but also keep examining you to make sure you keep practicing what you've been taught.

There's also the fact that most religious traditions have had to grapple with most of the problems we deal with daily life (and often some of the problems we don't always see, and hope we never see for ourselves) in the past, and can provide some firm guidance on what to do.  Atheistic morality has by and large not done that detailed thinking out yet.  But I since that's mostly because "religion" had a headstart of a few millenia, we can presume that eventually non-religious morality will catch up.  But it hasn't, yet.

Quote from: petrarch on November 18, 2011, 04:12:29 PM
In other words, you don't need Religion to convince any reasonable person to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

That's tendentious and actually borderline insulting, of course.

Look at it this way:  if some of your neighbors find value in Religion, who are you to compel them to desist?  Don't others deserve the freedom you would claim for yourself?

And if you do not have the character or moral fortitude to tolerate them in this, too bad for you.  Perhaps Religion would teach you better.

Quote from: petrarch on November 18, 2011, 04:12:29 PM
I am aware of that; let me rephrase: What value is there still in Religion if what it can give us as guidance and discussed at length previously in this topic is better framed as ethics and principles? In other words, you don't need Religion to convince any reasonable person to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Reason is highly overrated: garbage in, garbage out.  And the number of people capable of reason (despite the law's delicious fiction) is miniscule.  For instance, a person who was reasonable would understand that you've introduced a category error by conflating your hypothetical with the topic of discussion, which is historical -- a concern with what actually is rather than with what might have been.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 18, 2011, 05:24:00 PM
What you get with "Religion" is a structure that helps ensure you actually practice what is preached.

If the morality you practice is seen by you as a rational product of your own mind (however much input from the thinking of others you may have in getting to it), then you can easily become the victim of rationalization and evasion.  There's nothing outside of you to keep you acting morally, and humans being humans, most end up taking advantage of that to act , according to their general standards, immorally--they persuade themselves of some reason that allows this particular action to be considered not immoral.

Thanks for the concise explanation. So, it is a peer-pressure, dissuasive framework? I'm sure there is more to it.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 18, 2011, 07:03:44 PM
That's tendentious and actually borderline insulting, of course.

Look at it this way:  if some of your neighbors find value in Religion, who are you to compel them to desist?  Don't others deserve the freedom you would claim for yourself?

And if you do not have the character or moral fortitude to tolerate them in this, too bad for you.  Perhaps Religion would teach you better.

I will forgive the insult in your retort as I see now that I should have better framed the phrase you quoted as a continuation of the question I was asking; it was not an assertion, but a hypothesis generated by the question. I was not compelling anyone to desist, or to be relieved of their freedom. The virtue (and I use this word deliberately) of tolerance is not exclusive to the religious, you know?

Quote from: DavidRoss on November 18, 2011, 07:18:03 PM
Reason is highly overrated: garbage in, garbage out.  And the number of people capable of reason (despite the law's delicious fiction) is miniscule.  For instance, a person who was reasonable would understand that you've introduced a category error by conflating your hypothetical with the topic of discussion, which is historical -- a concern with what actually is rather than with what might have been.

Please see my other reply; it was not an assertion, but a hypothesis for further discussion. And only now did I see that I used the word "reasonable" by accident--I meant a normal, temperate person.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 18, 2011, 07:03:44 PM
Look at it this way:  if some of your neighbors find value in Religion, who are you to compel them to desist?  Don't others deserve the freedom you would claim for yourself?

Yet religious people ask how atheists can have any moral codes in life without God.

The question is why people find value in religion. My opinion is that the reason for that is religious indoctrination. Thats why the children of Muslim parents tend to find their values in Islam, children of Christian parents tend to find their values in Christianity and so on.

I attack religions, not religious people who are victims. All people are born atheists and then most are indoctrinated into the same religion their parents where indoctrinated without asking whether that child wants it or not. It should be so that children are not indoctrinated and they would have 100 % freedom to choose their own belief system when they grow up.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 19, 2011, 01:16:24 AM
Yet religious people ask how atheists can have any moral codes in life without God.

That is nonsense; and has been refuted already within this thread. Some religious people may ask that idiotic question, but not the ones I have ever mixed with, Catholic, Protestant non conformist, charismatic, Jewish, etc, etc.

Your extreme antipithy comes with a good, solid set of blinkers.

Mike

Quote from: knight66 on November 19, 2011, 01:29:05 AM
That is nonsense; and has been refuted already within this thread. Some religious people may ask that idiotic question, but not the ones I have ever mixed with, Catholic, Protestant non conformist, charismatic, Jewish, etc, etc.

Your extreme antipithy comes with a good, solid set of blinkers.

Mike

Yes, only some religious people. You are right about that. Sorry for the inaccuracy. However, I have been asked it online so these idiots are not even rare.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 19, 2011, 01:59:38 AM
Yes, only some religious people. You are right about that. Sorry for the inaccuracy. However, I have been asked it online so these idiots are not even rare.

I have read your canard on-line more often than I have come across such people as you describe. But as we know, the on-line world attracts all sorts of nutcases, provides them with a platform and their white noise can seeming blot out common sense.

Mike

Quote from: knight66 on November 19, 2011, 02:02:04 AM
But as we know, the on-line world attracts all sorts of nutcases, provides them with a platform and their white noise can seeming blot out common sense.

That's why I try to bring sanity back to these debates. It is extremely difficult and leads to abject. I am happier offline but that doesn't take away the need to participate.  ???

Quote from: petrarch on November 18, 2011, 10:45:34 PM
Please see my other reply; it was not an assertion, but a hypothesis for further discussion. And only now did I see that I used the word "reasonable" by accident--I meant a normal, temperate person.

Still, you know, you have this peculiar prejudice that a religious mindset is neither normal nor temperate.  That, neighbor, is not reasonable.

Quote from: karlhenning on November 19, 2011, 03:18:53 AM
Still, you know, you have this peculiar prejudice that a religious mindset is neither normal nor temperate.  That, neighbor, is not reasonable.

No, you are reading too much into it. I meant normal and temperate as in being able to make a balanced judgment, regardless of being religious or not.

Quote from: petrarch on November 18, 2011, 10:45:34 PM
Please see my other reply; it was not an assertion, but a hypothesis for further discussion. And only now did I see that I used the word "reasonable" by accident--I meant a normal, temperate person.

Quote from: petrarch on November 18, 2011, 04:12:29 PM
I am aware of that; let me rephrase: What value is there still in Religion if what it can give us as guidance and discussed at length previously in this topic is better framed as ethics and principles? In other words, you don't need Religion to convince any reasonable person to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Okay. I doubt that substituting "normal, temperate" for "reasonable" buys you anything but more trouble.  (Just think about it for a moment.) ;) 

Whether hypothetical or not, there is no way to test the assertion.  The world in which we live is one in which our ethics and principles have all been shaped by religion -- including Kant's categorical imperative.  There's no escaping its influence.  Speculation about what might be the case in some alternate universe has no application (that I can see) in the world we actually inhabit.

Personally, I'm with you in believing that what I call "enlightened self-interest" should be a sufficient basis for a reasonable person to act (insofar as his actions really are governed by reason) consistently with Christian or Buddhist ethics. In fact, that was my thesis a few decades ago when I was contemplating an academic career in Philosophy.

I regarded myself as an atheist back then, and supremely rational, and also believed that human beings were fundamentally rational, self-governing creatures who would behave sanely (that is, in support of their own genuine self-interest) if only they were to think clearly about the consequences of their behavior.  Subsequent life experience has convinced me that I was mistaken about human nature. And further reflection demonstrated the inherent irrationality of atheism.

Once we open the door to our own unknowing, wonders will be found within.

Quote from: Philoctetes on November 19, 2011, 08:32:49 AM
I'm all for this. I won't push my bullshit onto them, and they won't push their bullshit onto me.

     I'm sorry to see you say that. You should want to "push your bullshit". I only ask that you give reasons, and be willing to discuss them. Nor do I think that such discussions involve comparative bullshit, or that no one can change their opinion. What comes out of such discussions, when they are conducted in a reasonable manner, is that not all opinion is equally unfounded. We should not be led by the bad example believers follow, or the argument that challenging their views amounts to compulsion.

    The believers want to defend their belief by the expedient of their right to hold it. Why would anyone credit such a move? My right to hold beliefs does not make them true. Freedom of belief protects false beliefs, nonsensical beliefs, and true beliefs, and though the defense of the truth may be the first and best justification, I'm inclined to think that freedom of belief is an intrinsic good that must be upheld for its own sake. But that doesn't make beliefs true. For that you need an argument about evidence and standards, not just the freedom to have it.

Quote from: petrarch on November 18, 2011, 10:30:25 PM
Thanks for the concise explanation. So, it is a peer-pressure, dissuasive framework? I'm sure there is more to it.

It's not that at all.  To borrow something from scientific procedure, think of it as peer review--or, if you want to borrow a metaphor from the business world, an outside audit.

The point is, that we tend to fool ourselves about our actions being ethical and moral when they are not;  and we usually need other people to point out our evasions and omissions in those areas.  Non religious morality has not yet developed anything to deal with this, and because it is based on the individual use of reason as the final authority, such a process may not be available to it.

You are not being pressured into being good in a religion;  but you have an outside evaluation as to whether or not you are being good.  (Of course, there are plenty of cases where the outside evaluation has descended into mere peer pressure, but that is not inherent in religious institutions.)

Quote from: 71 dB on November 19, 2011, 01:16:24 AM
Yet religious people ask how atheists can have any moral codes in life without God.

Then I will throw out the following for your consideration: that any atheist who has a moral code is indulging in a very fundamental self contradiction. An atheist may have a very good moral code developed for himself, but he's being irrational in having one.  To explain that:

Either you believe that God (and that term for my purpose can subsume almost any conception of the Deity) is the Creator responsible for the Universe, or you believe the Universe is fundamentally random and chaotic, and the apparent order that we perceive and allows us to exist as human beings on a planet subject to the laws of physics, etc, is simply a transient pocket of order that will ultimately collapse.  After all, a truly random universe will yield sections of order at discrete points in time-space because it is truly random.  If the Universe is truly random/chaotic, than any order we develop for ourselves is simply  our imposition on the surfuace of reality: if you believe in the value of Art, for instance, then you are merely imposing your own value choice, and not something actually deriveable from the nature of the Universe.  You may act morally because you like acting morally--but the only value in that comes from the fact that you like to act morally, and nothing more.  There's nothing beyond yourself to validate that morality, not even reason.

Quote
All people are born atheists and then most are indoctrinated into the same religion their parents where indoctrinated without asking whether that child wants it or not.

On the contrary, I'd argue that everyone is borne religious.  The real basic impulse to religion is a very simple one: the recognition that the universe is much greater than oneself.  And the only people who don't seem to have that feeling seem to be psychological cases. 

Quote from: DavidRoss on November 19, 2011, 05:07:42 AM
Okay. I doubt that substituting "normal, temperate" for "reasonable" buys you anything but more trouble.  (Just think about it for a moment.) ;) 

I don't care about the trouble it gets me in; as evidenced by some of the replies, there is some baggage that led to unwarranted inferences, despite my slip with the word "reasonable". The correct interpretation of "normal, temperate" is no more and no less than "able to make a balanced judgment".

Quote from: DavidRoss on November 19, 2011, 05:07:42 AM
Whether hypothetical or not, there is no way to test the assertion.  The world in which we live is one in which our ethics and principles have all been shaped by religion -- including Kant's categorical imperative.  There's no escaping its influence.  Speculation about what might be the case in some alternate universe has no application (that I can see) in the world we actually inhabit.

I'm not trying to escape or deny the influence of religion. It's more a matter of noting the principles and values mentioned perhaps no longer need religion to advocate and disseminate them, unless the intent is to enforce them, as Jeffrey indicated (if I understood him correctly).

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 19, 2011, 05:52:29 PM
You are not being pressured into being good in a religion;  but you have an outside evaluation as to whether or not you are being good.  (Of course, there are plenty of cases where the outside evaluation has descended into mere peer pressure, but that is not inherent in religious institutions.)

Agreed, it technically isn't inherent, but people being people... (to make use of your argument)--I was raised a catholic, and must say "not being pressured into being good/outside evaluation" is too generous and doesn't fit with my experience of the inculcation of that particular religion.

Quote from: petrarch on November 19, 2011, 06:49:10 PM


I'm not trying to escape or deny the influence of religion. It's more a matter of noting the principles and values mentioned perhaps no longer need religion to advocate and disseminate them, unless the intent is to enforce them, as Jeffrey indicated (if I understood him correctly).

Enforce is not quite the word I would use, since it suggest an outside authority co-ercing the individual to "act morally".   What I meant is more of an objective guide that makes you realize when you are not acting morally.  The human tendency to evade, omit, distort, makes such a thing necessary to anyone practicing the moral life, and I think an atheist based morality would make such an outside objective guide impossible.

As for the need values and morality have for religion,  I refer you to what I said in Reply 422.

Quote from: petrarch on November 19, 2011, 07:03:41 PM
Agreed, it technically isn't inherent, but people being people... (to make use of your argument)--I was raised a catholic, and must say "not being pressured into being good/outside evaluation" is too generous and doesn't fit with my experience of the inculcation of that particular religion.

In regards to Roman Catholicism, I am in complete agreement with you there.  In my experience (which includes a period in which I was an RC communicant*), the Roman Catholic Church accords too much authority to the clergy.  I find the same problem with Orthodox Judaism--one reason why, although I am Jewish, I refuse to consider myself Orthodox. 

(I left in part because of that, and in part because Catholic practices regarding the veneration of relics and the Eucharist went too far over the line into idol worship for my born and bred Jewish attitudes.    I understood the intellectual background which allows Catholics to say these things were not idol worship, but the non intellectual part of my mind was by turns boggled and disgusted.)

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 19, 2011, 06:09:25 PM
Either you believe that God (and that term for my purpose can subsume almost any conception of the Deity) is the Creator responsible for the Universe, or you believe the Universe is fundamentally random and chaotic, and the apparent order that we perceive and allows us to exist as human beings on a planet subject to the laws of physics, etc, is simply a transient pocket of order that will ultimately collapse. After all, a truly random universe will yield sections of order at discrete points in time-space because it is truly random.  If the Universe is truly random/chaotic, than any order we develop for ourselves is simply  our imposition on the surfuace of reality: if you believe in the value of Art, for instance, then you are merely imposing your own value choice, and not something actually deriveable from the nature of the Universe.

Suppose we are, indeed, in a "transient pocket of order". Isn't any concept of God transitively also an "imposition on the surface of reality"?

Quote from: petrarch on November 19, 2011, 07:21:42 PM
Suppose we are, indeed, in a "transient pocket of order". Isn't any concept of God transitively also an "imposition on the surface of reality"?

It would be.  But it would not be an illogical imposition, since it doesn't contradict itself.  Atheistic morality is illogical.  "The universe is totally random, and because of that I think there is a universal moral order" is what any atheistic morality boils down, unless the atheist is frank enough with himself and others to acknowledge that he is basing himself on a subjective value choice, and not on anything inherent in the nature of reality.

ETA: it's also possible to bring in Pascal's Wager here, in a more generous form than Pascal gave.

If I am wrong, and God does not exist--God is just my subjective imposition on reality--then I lose nothing by believing in him; whereas if you are wrong, and God does exist and is not a subjective imposition on reality, you could potentially lose everything. 

IOW, there is no potential downside to believing in God, but there is a potential downside to not believing in God, so the bettor who analyzes risk would choose to believe in God.

Quote from: petrarch on November 19, 2011, 06:49:10 PM
I don't care about the trouble it gets me in; as evidenced by some of the replies, there is some baggage that led to unwarranted inferences, despite my slip with the word "reasonable". The correct interpretation of "normal, temperate" is no more and no less than "able to make a balanced judgment".

Gosh...you really don't understand this, either?  It's quite simple, actually: who is to judge what's normal and what's temperate?

QuoteI'm not trying to escape or deny the influence of religion. It's more a matter of noting the principles and values mentioned perhaps no longer need religion to advocate and disseminate them, unless the intent is to enforce them, as Jeffrey indicated (if I understood him correctly).

And it appears you are still missing this point as well. It's not an option to escape the influence of religion. But that shouldn't be a cause for concern, since you apparently value reason, normalcy, and temperance, and with these qualities guiding your exploration of religions' influence on humankind, you are sure to conclude that--like government--they have been and continue to be a great boon, even though some have gone off the deep end.

Quote from: DavidRoss on November 19, 2011, 08:56:47 PM
Gosh...you really don't understand this, either?  It's quite simple, actually: who is to judge what's normal and what's temperate?

I fear I am being misunderstood, is the baggage so great that it is impossible to read what I wrote without undue color?

Quote from: DavidRoss on November 19, 2011, 08:56:47 PM
you are sure to conclude that--like government--they have been and continue to be a great boon, even though some have gone off the deep end.

Indeed they have. Now, to the followers of those that haven't, who I assume to be normal, temperate, and able of balanced judgments, I ask: What do you see in it? I guess the questions, rhetorical or otherwise, I have been asking can be reduced to this.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 19, 2011, 07:15:56 PM
As for the need values and morality have for religion,  I refer you to what I said in Reply 422.

I'm afraid reply 422 is mine; which one of yours are you referring to?

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 19, 2011, 07:15:56 PM
Enforce is not quite the word I would use, since it suggest an outside authority co-ercing the individual to "act morally".   What I meant is more of an objective guide that makes you realize when you are not acting morally.  The human tendency to evade, omit, distort, makes such a thing necessary to anyone practicing the moral life, and I think an atheist based morality would make such an outside objective guide impossible.

Would it? I subscribe wholeheartedly to something you wrote before, which seems at odds with what you wrote above:

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 18, 2011, 05:24:00 PM
There's also the fact that most religious traditions have had to grapple with most of the problems we deal with daily life (and often some of the problems we don't always see, and hope we never see for ourselves) in the past, and can provide some firm guidance on what to do.  Atheistic morality has by and large not done that detailed thinking out yet.  But I since that's mostly because "religion" had a headstart of a few millenia, we can presume that eventually non-religious morality will catch up.  But it hasn't, yet.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 19, 2011, 07:15:56 PM
In regards to Roman Catholicism, I am in complete agreement with you there.  In my experience (which includes a period in which I was an RC communicant*), the Roman Catholic Church accords too much authority to the clergy.  I find the same problem with Orthodox Judaism--one reason why, although I am Jewish, I refuse to consider myself Orthodox. 

(I left in part because of that, and in part because Catholic practices regarding the veneration of relics and the Eucharist went too far over the line into idol worship for my born and bred Jewish attitudes.    I understood the intellectual background which allows Catholics to say these things were not idol worship, but the non intellectual part of my mind was by turns boggled and disgusted.)

Thank you for the interesting account of your experience. So, you thought critically about the religion you were practicing and found faults that made it incompatible with your ideal of religion, which was, in turn formed through your upbringing. You actually rejected the commonly accepted views of the community of practitioners I assume you were part of. Ultimately, was it not a personal choice, guided by your own principle of right and wrong, no matter what the "outside audit" results might be?

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 19, 2011, 06:09:25 PM
Then I will throw out the following for your consideration: that any atheist who has a moral code is indulging in a very fundamental self contradiction. An atheist may have a very good moral code developed for himself, but he's being irrational in having one.  To explain that:

Either you believe that God (and that term for my purpose can subsume almost any conception of the Deity) is the Creator responsible for the Universe, or you believe the Universe is fundamentally random and chaotic, and the apparent order that we perceive and allows us to exist as human beings on a planet subject to the laws of physics, etc, is simply a transient pocket of order that will ultimately collapse.  After all, a truly random universe will yield sections of order at discrete points in time-space because it is truly random.  If the Universe is truly random/chaotic, than any order we develop for ourselves is simply  our imposition on the surfuace of reality: if you believe in the value of Art, for instance, then you are merely imposing your own value choice, and not something actually deriveable from the nature of the Universe.  You may act morally because you like acting morally--but the only value in that comes from the fact that you like to act morally, and nothing more.  There's nothing beyond yourself to validate that morality, not even reason.

There is much order in the universe but also chaos. That's normal in chaos theory. Art is great because we think it is great (there is not even consensus what is great art. many think Bach sucks  ??? ). We value art because we recognise patterns in it. This ability is created by evolution process so that we can tell for example a good apple apart from a rotten apple based on it's look. Or we can tell a friendly voice from aggressive voice. Our abilities to survive in nature together give us ability to enjoy art. One of our abilities is to act morally. Religious person may act morally just to get to heaven (a selfish reason) but I act morally because I understand it's the right thing to do. You understand that I get very pissed off when my moral base is questioned?

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 19, 2011, 06:09:25 PMOn the contrary, I'd argue that everyone is borne religious.

Bullshit. I wasn't born religious. We are not able to be religious when we born, we are too inexperienced for that. We start to believe in God because we are told God exists. Such "brainwashing" of defenseless young children with BS is a crime in my opinion! Only later when we grow up we start to form thoughts about the nature of existence. I was indoctrinated into Evangelical Lutheran Christianity like most Finns but my parents are not religious at all. Thanks to the secular upbringing I wasn't brainwashed with religious bullshit and I was able to figure out myself the childishness of belief in God around age 10. I have NEVER had religious feelings. I have resigned from the church and I live as free (thinking) atheist. In my opinion (Abrahamic) religions are a problem in the world and I try to advance secularity that is based on science, equality and secular humanism.

Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on November 19, 2011, 06:09:25 PMThe real basic impulse to religion is a very simple one: the recognition that the universe is much greater than oneself.  And the only people who don't seem to have that feeling seem to be psychological cases.

The universe IS much greater, created by God or not. In fact, science gives us much better understanding about this than religion that over-emphasizes our place (first we where the center point of universe and even Sun circulated us!).

Atheists are people who don't believe in God because they are free of religious "mind control" and can use the (scientific) knowledge of the world we have to form their beliefs of the existence.   

You are as free of religion as Debussy was of Wagner.

MIke

Quote from: knight66 on November 20, 2011, 03:06:19 AM
You are as free of religion as Debussy was of Wagner.

MIke

At least I am not a Debussy who thinks he is Wagner. Religion shows itself everywhere in our society and that is the reason I want some clean up.

Quote from: petrarch on November 20, 2011, 12:19:30 AM
I fear I am being misunderstood, is the baggage so great that it is impossible to read what I wrote without undue color?

I for one don't see this as a major issue.  However, I'd have to say that, looking at history, both over the last few millennia and over the last century, that neither "Religion" nor "Ethics" have prevented mankind form engaging in some of the most extreme butchery and depravity.  If you are going to be killed for some idea or abstraction, would you prefer to be killed by the Inquistion, or Pol Pot?

Any idea outside of application is not very meaningful in my view.

Just to get the basic debate  into some basic logical terms:

Necessary means that this must be present, or else the conclusion cannot be reached.
Sufficient meant that the conclusion will be reached if this is present, but their may be other ways.

Is "religion" necessary and sufficient to ensure "good" behavior?
Are "Ethics" necessasry and sufficient to ensure "good" behavior."

There are enough counter examples in history to show that neither is a guarantee.   (Or, to be more terse, People suck.)

If you are saying that Religion cannot lead to good behavior in any case , (which I think is what some others are reacting to), I would disagree.  You might find Bultmann's notions of "Christian Existentialism" very enlightening. 

If you are saying that an ethical system that is not deity centric can, in some cases, lead to good behavior, I'd agree.  (Not a new idea either- at least 2500 years since Gautama sat beneath the Bhoddi tree.)

However, I would strongly deny that Religion is no longer relevant to anybody-- every generation has reinterpreted their faiths to meet their current concerns.

Frankly, my personal belief is that hiding behind abstractions like "religion" and "ethics" is often a slippery slope that allows us to dodge our personal responsibilities.  Either path only has meaning if somebody is living it, not just talking about it.  Not saying that anyone in this discussion is trying to do that, but that is where all of the craziness in the historical record seems to come from.

My own opinions-- your mileage may vary.




My 2 cents. 

Quote from: jowcol on November 20, 2011, 04:31:39 AM
Frankly, my personal belief is that hiding behind abstractions like "religion" and "ethics" is often a slippery slope that allows us to dodge our personal responsibilities.  Either path only has meaning if somebody is living it, not just talking about it.

My 2 cents.

Well said.

Quote from: knight66 on November 20, 2011, 03:06:19 AM
You are as free of religion as Debussy was of Wagner.

+1. Excellent pithy comment.

Quote from: jowcol on November 20, 2011, 04:31:39 AM
Is "religion" necessary and sufficient to ensure "good" behavior?
Are "Ethics" necessasry and sufficient to ensure "good" behavior."

Not exactly what I was debating. The answers are obvious, as you indicated.

Quote from: jowcol on November 20, 2011, 04:31:39 AM
If you are saying that Religion cannot lead to good behavior in any case , (which I think is what some others are reacting to), I would disagree.

If you are saying that an ethical system that is not deity centric can, in some cases, lead to good behavior, I'd agree.  (Not a new idea either- at least 2500 years since Gautama sat beneath the Bhoddi tree.)

The latter. And opening it up for further discussion.

Quote from: jowcol on November 20, 2011, 04:31:39 AM
However, I would strongly deny that Religion is no longer relevant to anybody--every generation has reinterpreted their faiths to meet their current concerns.

Completely agree. Though I did not make (or mean to make) such an absolute statement as implied by the non-bolded portion of the quote above.

Quote from: 71 dB on November 20, 2011, 02:59:33 AM
There is much order in the universe but also chaos. That's normal in chaos theory. Art is great because we think it is great (there is not even consensus what is great art. many think Bach sucks  ??? ). We value art because we recognise patterns in it. This ability is created by evolution process so that we can tell for example a good apple apart from a rotten apple based on it's look. Or we can tell a friendly voice from aggressive voice. Our abilities to survive in nature together give us ability to enjoy art. One of our abilities is to act morally. Religious person may act morally just to get to heaven (a selfish reason) but I act morally because I understand it's the right thing to do. You understand that I get very pissed off when my moral base is questioned?

If there is no God, there is no fundamental order to the universe--what order is there is transient and superficial, even if "transient" ="billions and billions of years".     But the sentence I italicized is not truly valid.  Recognizing an overripe apple is something very different from recognizing bad music.  Humans don't need to figure out what is bad art in order to survive.   Which is one reason why humans have a hard time agreeing on what bad art is.

As for the sentence I bolded--well, why is it the right thing to do?  If the universe has no order, then there is no fundamental moral order, and therefore no objectively "right thing to do". 

I don't meant to imply you have no moral base.  I'm sure you do.  What I'm saying is that your moral base is subjectively chosen--you're moral because you value being moral; but in a universe without God there's no real reason to be moral (or immoral) except because you value being moral (or immoral).  You choose to be moral, but there's nothing outside you that validates that choice.

Quote
I wasn't born religious. We are not able to be religious when we born, we are too inexperienced for that. We start to believe in God because we are told God exists. Such "brainwashing" of defenseless young children with BS is a crime in my opinion! Only later when we grow up we start to form thoughts about the nature of existence. I was indoctrinated into Evangelical Lutheran Christianity like most Finns but my parents are not religious at all. Thanks to the secular upbringing I wasn't brainwashed with religious bullshit and I was able to figure out myself the childishness of belief in God around age 10. I have NEVER had religious feelings. I have resigned from the church and I live as free (thinking) atheist. In my opinion (Abrahamic) religions are a problem in the world and I try to advance secularity that is based on science, equality and secular humanism.

The universe IS much greater, created by God or not. In fact, science gives us much better understanding about this than religion that over-emphasizes our place (first we where the center point of universe and even Sun circulated us!).

Atheists are people who don't believe in God because they are free of religious "mind control" and can use the (scientific) knowledge of the world we have to form their beliefs of the existence.

Actually, science over-emphasizes the place of man in the universe far more than religion does, because if you believe in God, then you believe Existence is not totally comprehensible by the mind of man. 

As for the sentence I bolded in that part of reply:  that is the religious impulse, and you obviously share in it.    Belief in God is an outgrowth of believing the universe is much greater than mankind, and not everyone shares in that (for instance, obviously, yourself).