I wonder how many people are actually following our discussion?
Raithere
I concur. And I too have a problem with the "atheistic" reply. ....
... And all that comes in that paragraph--I think we're in agreement on those points.
And I also find it curious and thoroughly premature when truly considered.
I think that's the problem with such sympathetic regard to the issues; it raises the condition of debating a point which seems unnecessary to debate. Sometimes humans do this; for instance I think we may be looking at the same car from different sides and describing how the wheels turn.
But I may be reading you wrongly.
My point was that I don't see that religion does much in the way of originating.
This is where the two-sides-of-the-car thing comes in.
•
Primarily, I see the issues being raised by philosophy and only then being inserted into the framework of religion. I think this is the prevailing process.
•
Religion then simply becomes a validation of preexisting beliefs, it becomes a defensive structure for societal values. In the modern day I see much of this. It's not
purely a validation. In the speculative, religion
can, under certain conditions, be progressive. For all the faults of, say, Christianity, we cannot deny that the results of its influence include the massive wealth and political power of the United States. I can use a claw hammer to tear down a house, but I can also use it to drive the nails to build one. Beyond that, it's a matter of how sound are my building principles. If I tend toward fragile, impulsive design, no amount of nails can keep the structure standing.
•
Thus we find the caste system built into Hinduism, the political structure of the Roman Empire in the RC Church, the free-love era of 60's America in new age Christianity and various pagan expressions. It's a little stickier than that, but the end result is about the same. I think that a social perspective will migrate toward a religious perspective, but that pattern is breaking during our lifetimes. Religions are often the composite result of various social mores codified and mythicized. It's a tiny distinction, and I point again to the two sides of the car.
•
That certain declarations remain somewhat consistent is only due to the fact that they don't conflict with these external ideals and values and the perception of validating these new concepts. Throw into that a simple idea: religious submission includes the acceptance of an
established order. Now, whether or not that order is proper or even properly established is beside the point, as militant fundamentalists tend to demonstrate. Does life imitate art or vice-versa? The interplay between the religious and social morality has always been fascinating. Christianity bucked Judaism, and Islam bucked Christianity. I think there is a conflict with external ideas, though, as Christianity, Islam, and other religions have shown.
But as you point out later on, religion adapts or dies. Thus the structure needs to be flexible, if it isn't it is replaced.
The structure does need to be flexible. This is part of my point on the churches and religions. But we see in current times a struggle regarding flexibility. As Christianity in America, for instance, progressively adapts in response to incoming data, there grows a conservative backlash against this liberalization. We see more and more people choosing their religious principles of Creation, original sin, and prohibition in favor of ideas and concepts more reflective of real living demands. The religious structure has much effect on belief in the sense that it limits the possibilities of belief. And it is through that device that religion affects the unnecessarily-symbiotic societal beliefs. Watch the American Judeo-Christian morality in action: even when God is removed from the equation, sexual, social, and personal mores still in the US reflect a heavy Judeo-Christian perspective. Sexuality is a good example, in fact, because as we see with the new hedonism, there is a more "comfortable" sexuality. But it still seems somewhat exploitative. I think of gender considerations as blackmail; I know for a fact that I've gotten laid before because a woman decided that it would be too conciliatory to the chauvanists she couldn't live with or without if she let a guy pick her up. This compulsion seems a little neurotic and carries an unhealthy potential. But I don't know which aspect needs to be addressed first--the unreasonable prohibition (Christian) or the unreasonable license (post-Christian pseudo-Capitalist:
acquisitory. The circular aspect is not limited to theistic religions; hence aspersions against ideas like patriotism and so forth--religious adherence to an idea does not require a God. But that's beside the point. Circular reasoning might come more from the human need to feel justified than the need to actually be correct.
But I challenge whether those accretions are founded in those points. As I stated above I see them primarily as an attempt at validating the accretions. Normally, they fail as such.
The accretions are often individual, and then transferred to a societal level. E.g. before a Muslim ever suicide-bombed anyone, someone had to
believe that this was the right course of action. It's a condition of choice.
If we take the five fundamentals of faith and look at them merely as words on paper, we have a starting point. Any two people are bound to read a single sentence--moreso a complete written volume--differently as a result of their experiences. The concept of those fundamentals exist; they have a "dictionary" value as such. But beyond that, the whole thing is speculative and accreted. I accept the infallibility of the Bible, but I've learned that the conditions that equal that acceptance and infallibility are absolutely untenable among Christian perspectives. Of course, I also accept the infallibility of Shel Silverstein's
"Ickle Me Pickle Me Tickle Me Too".
Important to note, of course, is that such infallibility is dependent on a "literalism" that is wholly internal.
If we start with a pure religious idea, the first accretions will be applied unconsciously by the first person to recognize the pure idea. A similar concept of influencing the system observed exists in science. But the religious idea exists, and is perceived. It now exists within that perceiving individual according to the individual's needs. And it will be related, translated, and disseminated according to such priorities. For the second person, the first accretion is inherent, and tends to look like a pure concept. And here's the thing: at the level that we read the Bible, we must account for the accretions already present; the idea passed through a person with priorities and interpretive perspectives that inherently influence the changes between the work received and the work transmitted. Another analogous concept exists in science: wherever two parts of a device come together, you will lose energy. For each stage that a religious concept goes through, it loses some of its original energy and bears the effects of its process.
Direct communication from God, for instance, is a relatively unspoiled concept. Coming back to life is a relatively unspoiled concept. But the priorities requiring the idea of a Virgin Birth are dependent on conditions accreted to human nature. Virgin Birth seems somewhat an accretion by itself, does it not? The idea of dying for a greater cause is also fairly clear to you and me. But to phrase it as "Christ's proxy atonement of sin" is more than a little fancy, don't you think? The Second Coming? The notion of "I'll be back" is as old as human consciousness.
However, if Christianity were a pure idea, it would work. Such seems the nature of pure ideas: they work within their context, unadulterated by foreign demands.
I do agree that validation of the accretions doesn't work as a general rule.
This is where I find "eastern" religions come closer to truth than most "western" interpretations. Philosophically, they are, generally, more advanced; defining relationships and exploring the relative truths rather than attempting to make concrete assertions.
I'll raise a glass to that.
Then what is religion more reflective of, man or nature?
Both. Specifically,
religion is more reflective of human perception of nature.
When we stop and think of science ... I put before you water. Two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen, drink up. I wonder how long it took people to realize that the rain and the river were the same thing as the snow in the mountains or the mists in the morning. But as a scientific process, we did go back as human beings and codify that difference.
In that sense, both science and religion deal with how man perceives nature. Science seeks to understand what is perceived; religion deigns to tell you what you are perceiving. Aside from that fundamental dichotomy, there's not much different. Catholics, as we have seen, have done much formal philosophical research into the tenets of Christian faith, but as you and I know, no amount of tight logic can overcome the basic unfounded presumptions of that theology, namely that God exists and also that the Bible is "His" true word. Aside from that, if you want to see logic taken to its severe ends according to Western constraints, spend a good deal of time with Catholic philosophy. I found my definition of God buried in there, and because of the work of many faithful Catholics I have finally been able to dismiss the Devil. I just gotta give props where due, y'know?
Only in that you occasionally participate in that which you condemn. I understand, I just think you sometimes belabor a point that is only clear to those that already perceive it and will rarely be perceived by those most guilty of it.
Should I give up on the blind because they cannot see the sun? Should I abandon the deaf because they cannot hear music?
While it's a bit of a self-aggrandizing stretch, I hope the concept stands out within the exaggeration.
But come on ... every once in a while I have to stand on a point: this is scheduled to be Post #4465 for me. Less than a quarter of all my posts are of particular consequence to me or anything that I believe. That's over 3100 posts of random commentary, asides and, most importantly, clarification and attempts to augment communication. I should be able to stand on that credential alone in one thing:
I've tried. I have tried the academic. I have tried the polemic. I have tried the sympathetic. I have tried the hack. I have tried the vicious. After 4464 posts, the bulk of which belong to the subjective fora, I have well-concluded that such rudeness is about the only way to deal with the larger portion of regularly-active posters. After over three years of attending this site, I see only a degradation of intellectual prowess. Some of this is understandable, but some of it is obviously a deliberate attempt by posters to drag the rest of Sciforums down into the gutter.
If I thought people in general were paying attention to anything better than this would-be CNN/Crossfire hack routine, I would try to communicate with that part of them. But the shit I drag myself into is often more appealing than leaving Sciforums to the hands of idiots.
You'll notice,
Raithere, the number of people (I need more than one hand to count them) at Sciforums who, in the last couple of months have publicly declared that they don't read my posts because they're "too long" or too complicated or too whatever. That's fine with me. But it's also a clear indicator that the pure bullshit is the only thing these people are willing to deal with. I wrote once probably a year ago that one of the benefits of not being Christian is that I don't have a faith obligation to turn the other cheek. I still hold that to be true; I turn the other cheek based on a pragmatic obligation; thus, that obligation is not uniform.
However, the simple fact is that I am demonstrably capable of writing something more than faux-pith, profanity-laced faith declarations, and questions loaded to forestall any rational and progressive debate. Forgive me if it gets lonely out here, please.
In the meantime, if I don't get down and nasty sometimes, there's no point to me being at Sciforums; after all, when I'm not, people stop paying attention. This wouldn't be a problem, except that people continually wonder where the more civilized discussions are.
Grab a beer. Take a chance. Wander on over into this realm and find out. That's all I want my fellow posters to do. For as much faith as anyone around here seems to be willing to take, I always wonder why people can't have faith in common sense.
If I'm polite about it, though, nobody pays attention. Again, that's not problematic in itself. But it's been a long ethical debate for me because (A) I owe Dave much for his kind provision of this site over the last few years, and (B) I would like to see this site generate some better brainwork. I used to find it tragic when we couldn't manage anything better than the now-defunct Parascope. Now, save for the Jews-killing-your-baby conspiracy theories (an affinity of Parascope's paranoid posters) it's hard to tell the difference between the place I used to go to take it out on those I fundamentally disagree with and the place I still come to in search of genuine thought and ideas.
So I'm happy to take anyone's suggestions. Just remember, the shiny happy compassion routine has already failed, and while I'm sure there's another version forthcoming, I haven't been putting much effort toward it for lack of a reason to.
You'll notice that the people who generally stop arguing with me are also those who never want to get out of the gutter.
However, if we might look at a history you're directly familiar with for having participated in it: look around--people are much less willing to presume certain aspects of each other. I mean, how many pointless and sometimes profane arguments did I get into about "narrow" atheism? I still have them, but they're not so prominent because they're not as frequent. If nothing else, browbeating the hell out of people
seems to work. That's fucking tragic.
And here's a fair question: Is it really "wrong" to point out someone's poor reading comprehension if that poor reading comprehension is frequently the basis of dispute? I mean, I know I've taken some serious swipes at people and their intellects, but for the most part I like to think I'm basing that in what's going on. I mean, really--maybe it sounds mean to pick on someone's reading comprehension, but there are some days I feel like I'm discussing things with a small child stuck in the habit of asking the same question over and over despite having the answer.
Let's move the idea out of the written arena: Yes guns exist, but do we really have to use them? If I'm going to slink on down to the battlefield, I'm going to prepare myself.
Back into the written: I know I stoop to the gutter. But I do have to in order to make my presence at Sciforums worth anything, much less anything of value.
So if I'm going to descend into the common rabble, I'd better be prepared to speak the language. Yes, rough words exist, but do we really have to use them? If I'm going to slink to the gutter, I'd best prepare myself.
If I ask you for help on the street, and you do nothing, and I ask you for help again, and you still do nothing, and I ask yet again to no avail ... what if we don't speak the same language?
I wouldn't mind the battlefield at all if it wasn't for everyone shooting. I wouldn't mind the gutter if it wasn't for the absolute dedication to sludge I find among its denizens.
Of course it appears hypocritical. But as Jeffrey Burton Russell notes in
Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages: "Some instances of causing pain--for example, the surgeon's knife--cannot be classified as violent because the intent is to heal, not to cause suffering." (20-21)
The end result isn't specifically to cause pain. Ever separated a shoulder, finger, or toe? Ever have it set in place?
Of course it appears hypocritical. I won't argue against that notion.
I often wonder. Perhaps only to identify those that do or are attempting to understand and create a platform for discussion amongst those individuals.
But it feels like pole-sitting.
And if anyone at this forum thinks that's a gay joke, they'll only prove my point. Well, one of them. Not necessarily any point related to this topic, now that I think of it. Oh, nevermind.
And by ignoring the more inane aspects of a thread. Often there is a good discussion that threads it's way throughout... which is why I'll hit on certain points within an otherwise meaningless thread. As I observe you to do as well.
But doesn't it feel like a snipe-hunt?
I don't want to dip to deeply into an exploration of comedy, it could be a forum all to itself. But as a brief response: 1) I find various levels of comedy to be appealing for various reasons from simple irony and surprise to deeper explorations of the human condition. 2) Comedy is communication, as such a talented performer can relay humor on various levels, thus the performance may be funny despite the lack of depth in the verbal aspect. Some performances communicate humor almost exclusively on a physical plane. 3) I find that I rarely burst forth with laughter at what I consider to be the best jokes. The visceral response is the easiest to evoke and is accomplished at the most basic levels.
I'll only pause on it long enough to pick out the word
talented.
The word
talented is key. I agree that comedy is communication. However, to look at the "various levels", we might pause to wonder why T&A is such popular entertainment.
I agree that the best jokes don't get open laughter. I'm a
Doonesbury freak. But my beef with comedy is fairly direct: I saw Dennis Miller live in Seattle about a week ago. He did fine. The audience puzzled me. I mean, we were seeing
Dennis fucking Miller! And his best jokes--
whoosh!--went right past people. But the Muslim-heaven joke about inexperienced sex (seventeen virgins or something) and wanting a finger up the ass got the crowd's attention.
And what about
talent? The thing is that most common comedy--sitcoms, stand-up, and cinematic--is generally the kind of stuff I can get at home when a friend is in a bad mood. I mean, sure there are funny menstrual jokes, but how many times can a woman get up and just be pissed about her period and expect the audience to laugh at this like they've never heard it before?
Talent is key, and with that disclaimer I can only agree with your evaluation.
Most simply, I think that few have the time, energy, and dedication to delve too deeply.
True. Sciforums has changed my writing style somewhat. I can't stand to leave a hole in things when I can just hop out on the web and find the information; so much for rhythm. I've always written on-the-fly, but if I was postmodern before, I don't know what I'd be now.
Thus, I find sticking to rather narrowly defined topics to be essential to my continued participation.
The only option I'm prepared to offer right now is the idea of a broader topic with less insistence on narrowing from the peanut gallery.
I don't have the time to teach Lady even the basics of what she is ignorant about... much less properly address the questions in detail.
Fair enough. What to do about it from there is to each their own.
I don't have the time to teach Lady even the basics of what she is ignorant about... much less properly address the questions in detail.
That's part of the problem.
With disorganized, barely-literate cosmologies and theologies, it's rather hard. But being disorganized and severely inconsiderate of reality, those cosmologies and theologies have natural and vital flaws. One cannot expect Rome in a day, nor can one expect a paradigm shift overnight. It's a long process; in fact, that's why "born-again" Christianity seems so sketchy; it's impulsive and without a certain level of consideration I find vital to the human endeavor. But there does exist within that frantic, disorganized faith bloc a certain degree of integrity that can be tapped. It's not uniform; some people will never get it, but the comparative works best when it's intrinsically self-reflective and not loaded with superlatives.
I feel that it often runs deeper and is much more serious than that.
I agree, but it occurs to me that this is a topic by itself, as with other points we're into.
Often the refutation illuminates a contradiction that the one "hiding" attempts desperately to avoid rather than address and examine. They will run around in circles and expound upon one thing or another rather than face such a dilemma.
The method is quite telling, I think. Of people I've had severe disagreements with, I might pick two for comparison. I think both T1 and KB hide from themselves in their posts. But they both do it according to different priorities, and thus engage different methods. The number of common points is striking, but the manifestations are different. KB would lash out without restraint. T1 baits for distraction, a more elegant stratagem.
But watch and see who hits even these meager heights. We're already above what most are willing or perhaps able to address rationally.
The difference between
willing and
able is vital. To note Mr. Spock, in ST2:
Wrath of Khan:
"There are two possibilities. They are unable to respond. They are unwilling to respond."
I put the primary responsibility upon our educational systems... how few and far between are those who actually have been taught to think?
I'll stand with that, but I think the educational system is in some way symptomatic. It may be symbiotic nihilism.
How much more difficult was it for you to learn (mostly) on your own? How many problems did it cause for you in school?
I can't write my biography for a few years ... I hear you.
And therein the honestly of the individual's approach to the subject can be determined. Examining muscleman's behavior one finds no room for earnest discussion... no consideration is given to any alternative thought proffered.
I have to admit that there are reasons I generally don't engage Muscleman. I don't find much room for earnest discussion there. People seem to realize how depraved that approach to things is. There's no need for me to extend my dark side to influence that issue.
Agreed. To wit, I simply did not care to give the time to the discussion till this point. We'll see how it progresses
Fair and more than that.
Not particularly. You simply put forth the effort to understand the position and the time to present it. Other's have not. As to why...
Okay, I do admit that to be one of my more taxing subjective standards. I really don't see that
why. Oh well. Life's no fun without a mystery, right? Hey, let's get a van and a dog, and a couple of chicks and take a lot of drugs and drive around the boonies. (Actually, that's not sarcastic. It sounds like a good idea some days.)
I don't see the identification as problematic. As I've expressed elsewhere, I find I fall into various categories depending upon the agreed definition and manner of approach.
When a black man is presumed guilty because he's black ...? That is, because other black men have comitted crimes? Or when I come across the occasional thinking Christian (imho)? It is unfortunate that the conditions contributing to a person's perception of you are so shallow and silly. But atheism does make strange bedfellows, and it's hard to ignore the side-considerations that come to represent "an atheist" by proxy of an atheist actually being that way. But if I was to decide that I was atheist, that I could no longer reconcile the careful balance of psychology, history, theology and reality satisfactorily, I must admit that it would not puzzle me that my atheism would make people afraid of me. I don't think atheists realize entirely what sort of silliness has come to be associated with the term.
As with the comparison: when I look around at my own experience in the world, taking in as much of the information as I can, I well understand why, were I Christian, people would fear
that label and all the baggage it brings.
There's an old tag-line when dealing with "blondes":
It's okay, dear. Someday they'll find a cure.
That's kind of how I try to feel about Christians. It's also what I think when someone says, "I'm an atheist." And
that is where it all gets problematic.
Which is one of the reasons I attempt to constrain such broad definitions to the narrowest focus I can rightly subscribe to it.[/quote[That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Narrowing the focus only allows for a more specific definition. No issue exists in a vacuum; to me, the broader the considerations, the more complete the picture. Certes such a condition requires a greater amount of specific data, but ten murders in a city might reflect that something is wrong. However, when we view those ten murders as, say, part of the thousands a year in a nation like the US, we gain a better understanding of what's going wrong.
It is simply because labeling and classification are a natural human ability. We do it all the time, without thought or reason. It is what our minds do. However, the natural application is very subjective and loosely defined. When we truly attempt to reason though it we needs be more specific.
Inasmuch as it's what our minds do: our minds compel us to eat, sleep, procreate, and maintain the body. It's not that I contest the human tendency to classify and compare--it's essential to a developing logic system. But just as we do not rely on the most basic functions of our living process to be the whole of what we do (there is an argument to the contrary, but it's a matter of degrees) neither should we let the basic functions of our brain be the whole manifestation of its activity. Either option is "counterevolutionary" in the sense that they are counterproductive to evolutionary prosperity and progress.
I truly wish to continue in this vein but, as I mentioned, I do have time constraints. We need to narrow the topic for me to continue much further. I don't have time for many 3+ page well considered responses.
Such as it is.
I look forward to your further thoughts. I must admit that I've been working
against time constraints themselves, but that battle is about to end in the inevitable defeat.
thanx,
Tiassa
