|
Post by placid-void on Dec 15, 2014 16:34:57 GMT -5
I will try to take some of your statements one at a time.
It isn't a matter of whether I agree or disagree with your view about Dawkins intolerance of others beleifs. I only wondered why you found him so.
You may consider my post a "broad and general question about how most Christians concerning the views of we atheists". However, like your own view of Dawkins's "intolerance," my statement expressed how I have found most Christians to treat my views as an atheist.
You express a "fear that the development of a viable theory to guide the exploration of mechanisms for the processing of information impinging on the brain by processes other than the recognized physical senses (sight, touch, smell, etc.) is being retarded by modern man's reluctance to venture beyond the comfortable confines of empirical data derived from the physical senses."
I see our increased exploding knowledge about the brain as not retarded, but exhilarating.
If I fear anything, it is that information will again be hy-jacked by, dare I say it, another religious element of some kind, into theories adverse to advancement of the human condition.
You express that you "anticipate that there will again be revolutionary advances in the cognitive capacity of homo sapiens in the future."
Good luck with that!
Since that is not how evolution has worked in the past, I wouldn't lay any bets on it.
I would indeed love to see some of the dogmatic pronouncements of today's entrenched ideologies fall by the wayside.
Good afternoon Dmmichgood, I regret that you feel that your views as an atheist have been treated with intolerance. To experience intolerance for any reason is a terrible thing. You have my sympathies as you seek understanding in the future. Reviewing our exchanges on this thread, I lack the wisdom to find a suitable path, from this point forward, for a constructive conversation. Thank you for your interest in and responses to my query about positioning Professor Dawkins as an agnostic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 17:15:30 GMT -5
The term "divinity" is found nowhere in the Bible. Most references to "divine" actually mean "discerning" or seeking out (as in the things of God etc). A few references appear to mean pertaining to, or proceeding from/belonging to, God, (or alternatively may refer to his discerning/searching power/nature), but by and large the term relates to searching or discerning (the future or word of God/the times. etc). It is far less descriptive of the person God than I previously realised. Theologians have hijacked this term for their own purposes and corrupted the Bible/Gospel in the process. As I have said before, this term, along with deity and Holiness etc., has been elevated way out of context as has been the case with the term "saints."
If you see a theologian using the term "divine," be very wary of his/her message. The chances are they have the wrong end of the stick and will sell you a theological pig in a poke! Use the scriptures to "divine" what they say against the Word of God.
The term "God is divine" appears to be something theologians have created for their own understanding and purposes.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 15, 2014 17:49:53 GMT -5
I don't know. I would think if there is a divine source of everything and we are part of that divine source, then we cannot help but be divine too? If God being divine can do atrocities that we see in the OT without losing his divinity, then we should be capable of doing the same things and not lose our divinity either. Snow, as the element you are named after "melts," so did "man" thaw in his divine relationship with God. God is sovereign. He makes the rules. All the laws of the universe are subject to him, not the other way round. As thou rightly sayeth, God is the "source" of that which is divine. The divine nature, divine purpose, etc all proceed from God. I don't know Ram, I still think we're wrong about not being divine! Just because I melt doesn't mean I am a lessor being when I am water. And when I heat up I become quite ethereal now don't I? Just saying ...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 15, 2014 17:52:26 GMT -5
The term "divinity" is found nowhere in the Bible. Most references to "divine" actually mean "discerning" or seeking out (as in the things of God etc). A few references appear to mean pertaining to, or proceeding from/belonging to, God, (or alternatively may refer to his discerning/searching power/nature), but by and large the term relates to searching or discerning (the future or word of God/the times. etc). It is far less descriptive of the person God than I previously realised. Theologians have hijacked this term for their own purposes and corrupted the Bible/Gospel in the process. As I have said before, this term, along with deity and Holiness etc., has been elevated way out of context as has been the case with the term "saints." If you see a theologian using the term "divine," be very wary of his/her message. The chances are they have the wrong end of the stick and will sell you a theological pig in a poke! Use the scriptures to "divine" what they say against the Word of God. The term "God is divine" appears to be something theologians have created for their own understanding and purposes. I discern that I am divine, no wait, I divine that I am discerning... oh heck! See why I just stick to 'love is all that matters'!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 18:04:26 GMT -5
The term "divinity" is found nowhere in the Bible. Most references to "divine" actually mean "discerning" or seeking out (as in the things of God etc). A few references appear to mean pertaining to, or proceeding from/belonging to, God, (or alternatively may refer to his discerning/searching power/nature), but by and large the term relates to searching or discerning (the future or word of God/the times. etc). It is far less descriptive of the person God than I previously realised. Theologians have hijacked this term for their own purposes and corrupted the Bible/Gospel in the process. As I have said before, this term, along with deity and Holiness etc., has been elevated way out of context as has been the case with the term "saints." If you see a theologian using the term "divine," be very wary of his/her message. The chances are they have the wrong end of the stick and will sell you a theological pig in a poke! Use the scriptures to "divine" what they say against the Word of God. The term "God is divine" appears to be something theologians have created for their own understanding and purposes. I discern that I am divine, no wait, I divine that I am discerning... oh heck! See why I just stick to 'love is all that matters'!! I posted recently that I thought you/I were often closer to God's identity (words to that effect) in talking to moslems and atheists. Do you see what I mean? No wonder many people don't want to believe in God. Most of the very people who try to teach us about God haven't a clue who he really is!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 15, 2014 19:51:32 GMT -5
"Divine" ? Wasn't that Hugh Grant's er... girlfriend? I was thinking of the John Water's girlfriend version!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 15, 2014 20:16:23 GMT -5
I will try to take some of your statements one at a time.
It isn't a matter of whether I agree or disagree with your view about Dawkins intolerance of others beleifs. I only wondered why you found him so.
You may consider my post a "broad and general question about how most Christians concerning the views of we atheists". However, like your own view of Dawkins's "intolerance," my statement expressed how I have found most Christians to treat my views as an atheist.
You express a "fear that the development of a viable theory to guide the exploration of mechanisms for the processing of information impinging on the brain by processes other than the recognized physical senses (sight, touch, smell, etc.) is being retarded by modern man's reluctance to venture beyond the comfortable confines of empirical data derived from the physical senses."
I see our increased exploding knowledge about the brain as not retarded, but exhilarating.
If I fear anything, it is that information will again be hy-jacked by, dare I say it, another religious element of some kind, into theories adverse to advancement of the human condition.
You express that you "anticipate that there will again be revolutionary advances in the cognitive capacity of homo sapiens in the future."
Good luck with that!
Since that is not how evolution has worked in the past, I wouldn't lay any bets on it.
I would indeed love to see some of the dogmatic pronouncements of today's entrenched ideologies fall by the wayside.
Good afternoon Dmmichgood, I regret that you feel that your views as an atheist have been treated with intolerance. To experience intolerance for any reason is a terrible thing. You have my sympathies as you seek understanding in the future. Reviewing our exchanges on this thread, I lack the wisdom to find a suitable path, from this point forward, for a constructive conversation. Thank you for your interest in and responses to my query about positioning Professor Dawkins as an agnostic. Thank you for your concern, yknot.
Cheers to you & your family.
Have a nice winter holiday.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 20:18:13 GMT -5
my great uncle was a worker in china and my uncle had to flee to hong kong otherwise he would have been rounded up with the rest and imprisoned or shot because he was a missionary. he blamed both communism and atheism for the plight of the chinese poeple. Would you uncle's name be Willie Jamieson?
I have a letter of his dated April 1, 1927 giving details of the problems they were having soldiers invading the house where they were staying, and how he had to hide himself for several hours.
I have several letters similar to that from workers in certain countries at historic times.
One about from a worker in Germany his comments on Hitler.
no my great uncles name was henry eicher...
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 15, 2014 20:20:08 GMT -5
Would you uncle's name be Willie Jamieson?
I have a letter of his dated April 1, 1927 giving details of the problems they were having soldiers invading the house where they were staying, and how he had to hide himself for several hours.
I have several letters similar to that from workers in certain countries at historic times.
One about from a worker in Germany his comments on Hitler.
no my great uncles name was henry eicher... A fellow Iowan!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2014 20:24:27 GMT -5
no my great uncles name was henry eicher... A fellow Iowan! yes he was from council bluffs...there is also my uncle henry eicher from waterloo iowa both are deceased now....i myself am from iowa also but replanted to wa state...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 15, 2014 20:25:50 GMT -5
Snow, as the element you are named after "melts," so did "man" thaw in his divine relationship with God. God is sovereign. He makes the rules. All the laws of the universe are subject to him, not the other way round. As thou rightly sayeth, God is the "source" of that which is divine. The divine nature, divine purpose, etc all proceed from God. I don't know Ram, I still think we're wrong about not being divine! Just because I melt doesn't mean I am a lessor being when I am water. And when I heat up I become quite ethereal now don't I? Just saying ... Humans are about 65% water with some saline thrown in for good measure. Ah, science has raised it's rational head again!
Note: what do you mean, snow, that when you heat up you become "quite ethereal" ( a bag of hot air?) Sorry, sorry, -I just couldn't pass that up!
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Dec 15, 2014 20:35:27 GMT -5
yes he was from council bluffs...there is also my uncle henry eicher from waterloo iowa both are deceased now....i myself am from iowa also but replanted to wa state... I knew them all. Grew up in Iowa and was in the work there for a few years; Council Bluffs one year during the holidays, and your great uncle Henry was there visiting his brother, Menno and some of the younger ones, David, Jenelle, Joann who was home at the time, forget who else...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 15, 2014 21:07:51 GMT -5
I discern that I am divine, no wait, I divine that I am discerning... oh heck! See why I just stick to 'love is all that matters'!! I posted recently that I thought you/I were often closer to God's identity (words to that effect) in talking to moslems and atheists. Do you see what I mean? No wonder many people don't want to believe in God. Most of the very people who try to teach us about God haven't a clue who he really is! Belief in God is worrisome for me. I just can't believe an all loving source would have so many rules that make absolutely no sense. Too many things to believe that I find I just can't. So I don't.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 15, 2014 21:10:04 GMT -5
I don't know Ram, I still think we're wrong about not being divine! Just because I melt doesn't mean I am a lessor being when I am water. And when I heat up I become quite ethereal now don't I? Just saying ... Humans are about 65% water with some saline thrown in for good measure. Ah, science has raised it's rational head again!
Note: what do you mean, snow, that when you heat up you become "quite ethereal" ( a bag of hot air?) Sorry, sorry, -I just couldn't pass that up!
LOL no, I was thinking more of a bit 'steamed'! but hot moist air worked I guess...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2014 4:52:03 GMT -5
The term "divinity" is found nowhere in the Bible. Most references to "divine" actually mean "discerning" or seeking out (as in the things of God etc). A few references appear to mean pertaining to, or proceeding from/belonging to, God, (or alternatively may refer to his discerning/searching power/nature), but by and large the term relates to searching or discerning (the future or word of God/the times. etc). It is far less descriptive of the person God than I previously realised. Theologians have hijacked this term for their own purposes and corrupted the Bible/Gospel in the process. As I have said before, this term, along with deity and Holiness etc., has been elevated way out of context as has been the case with the term "saints." If you see a theologian using the term "divine," be very wary of his/her message. The chances are they have the wrong end of the stick and will sell you a theological pig in a poke! Use the scriptures to "divine" what they say against the Word of God. The term "God is divine" appears to be something theologians have created for their own understanding and purposes. I discern that I am divine, no wait, I divine that I am discerning... oh heck! See why I just stick to 'love is all that matters'!! I realise NOW that for the greater part of what I have said about "divine" or "divinity" I should have used the word "Holy" which is far more exact and has the broad context for which I have understood "divine" or "divinity" to be. If one does a serious study (not necessarily lengthy) of the word divine and its several derivatives in the Bible (get your concordance out) and check the various references, one soon finds the terms have nothing to do with the understanding that the theologians have concocted and blinded our minds with. Getting back to the basics of the Bible, one easily removes the misunderstandings and the Jesus is Divine = Jesus is God stuff, rapidly becomes nonsense. Seeing the term in its correct Biblical use dissolves the theological understanding that Jesus is both fully God (his "divine" nature) and fully human, leaving him with the identity that his early followers saw him as, i.e. the human being Son of God. Theologians appear to have given new meanings at some point to the term "divine" which allowed their over fertile imagination about God to prosper in a way that the term "Holy" would not permit. Their new imagined understanding of the term "divine" allowed them to pin that solely onto God and "viola" by identifying Jesus as also being divine, we end up with the false conclusion that Jesus is God himself. The true meanings of the few references to "divine" in II Peter Ch. 1 and in Hebrews can easily be seen from the clear understanding the term has in other parts of scripture. "Divine" and "Divinity" etc., as used by theologians in establishing the identity of God and Jesus are extremely wayward to say the least, yet thousands of books and articles, theological papers, have been prepared on the sandy foundation of these terms. As Matt. 10 has often said..."Man has created the Christian God in his imagination," or words to that effect. The Christian God as commonly understood by mainstream Christianity is a false God. Is it any wonder that Matt. 10 spews him out? Matt.10 knows there is a God, but he is not the God served up by the world of Christendom!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 16, 2014 8:37:55 GMT -5
Belief in God is worrisome for me. I just can't believe an all loving source would have so many rules that make absolutely no sense. Too many things to believe that I find I just can't. So I don't. Like you snow, I find the concept of "God" (as most frequently discussed) to be worrisome, all be it for different reasons probably than the reasons you cite. I was fortunate early on to pick up on the idea that the "rules" were separate, distinct and essentially immaterial to a conception of "God". "Rules" seem to me to be a man-made product of "group-think" about "God". I suppose "rules" are important for some people to conceive of "God" and it provides a basis for group identity that can have both positive and negative consequences. For me, "rules" cloud rather than clarify my reflections on purpose/meaning. My question for you, snow, is what awareness/feeling emerges from within as you stand alone in a field on a clear and starry night? Perhaps the answer is "indescribable" (which probably would be my answer). But then I begin to wonder about what awareness a monk might experience on a high Tibetan plateau, a Samaratin on Mount Gerizim, a Mongolian trader on the Steppes, a Bedouin by an oasis in the desert. Is there any commonality experienced by any or all of these individuals? If so, does that commonality have any meaning or significance that might relate to something beyond human comprehension and perhaps help forge a link that would transcend personal/group ego? Just wondering. (P.S. interested in the views of others as well)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 16, 2014 12:08:49 GMT -5
Belief in God is worrisome for me. I just can't believe an all loving source would have so many rules that make absolutely no sense. Too many things to believe that I find I just can't. So I don't. Like you snow, I find the concept of "God" (as most frequently discussed) to be worrisome, all be it for different reasons probably than the reasons you cite. I was fortunate early on to pick up on the idea that the "rules" were separate, distinct and essentially immaterial to a conception of "God". "Rules" seem to me to be a man-made product of "group-think" about "God". I suppose "rules" are important for some people to conceive of "God" and it provides a basis for group identity that can have both positive and negative consequences. For me, "rules" cloud rather than clarify my reflections on purpose/meaning. My question for you, snow, is what awareness/feeling emerges from within as you stand alone in a field on a clear and starry night? Perhaps the answer is "indescribable" (which probably would be my answer). But then I begin to wonder about what awareness a monk might experience on a high Tibetan plateau, a Samaratin on Mount Gerizim, a Mongolian trader on the Steppes, a Bedouin by an oasis in the desert. Is there any commonality experienced by any or all of these individuals? If so, does that commonality have any meaning or significance that might relate to something beyond human comprehension and perhaps help forge a link that would transcend personal/group ego? Just wondering. (P.S. interested in the views of others as well) Mostly when I stand looking up at the thousands of stars my first thought is the insignificance of 'me' in the vastness of all. I've been out camping in some pretty amazing wilderness in the Canadian Rockies and looking up at the stars and wondering about other life in the vastness. I can easily understand why humanity believed in something bigger than themselves when viewing such a vast, awe inspiring tableau. I have also sat in the desert in both the US and the outback Australia and just took in the beauty of the skies. I am sure that there is a shared feeling no matter where they were but as far as being a connection because of their experience I'm not able to believe that as easily. I just think it's a shared feeling because it is such an indescribable experience. We just know so little about anything beyond our little bubble called earth. We certainly are inspired to wonder how it all came to be. But for me, the Christian God and the other various Gods people have imo, made up, do not do justice to the whole experience. If there is a source of all that is, that source imo, would be far superior to any God man has made up yet. I believe that many of the versions of God that are out there would be more of an insult to that being actually. God's having temper tantrums and killing all of their creation just doesn't come across as a conceivable answer to the creator of the splendor of nature/universe. If there even is such a creator which I think is highly improbable. Because as wonderful and awe inspiring as the skies are and the many things we observe, there is also a lot of chaos and imperfection. For me it's that combination of splendor and imperfections that make it all 'perfect'.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 16, 2014 16:20:07 GMT -5
Mostly when I stand looking up at the thousands of stars my first thought is the insignificance of 'me' in the vastness of all. I've been out camping in some pretty amazing wilderness in the Canadian Rockies and looking up at the stars and wondering about other life in the vastness. I can easily understand why humanity believed in something bigger than themselves when viewing such a vast, awe inspiring tableau. I have also sat in the desert in both the US and the outback Australia and just took in the beauty of the skies. I am sure that there is a shared feeling no matter where they were but as far as being a connection because of their experience I'm not able to believe that as easily. I just think it's a shared feeling because it is such an indescribable experience. We just know so little about anything beyond our little bubble called earth. We certainly are inspired to wonder how it all came to be. But for me, the Christian God and the other various Gods people have imo, made up, do not do justice to the whole experience. If there is a source of all that is, that source imo, would be far superior to any God man has made up yet. I believe that many of the versions of God that are out there would be more of an insult to that being actually. God's having temper tantrums and killing all of their creation just doesn't come across as a conceivable answer to the creator of the splendor of nature/universe. If there even is such a creator which I think is highly improbable. Because as wonderful and awe inspiring as the skies are and the many things we observe, there is also a lot of chaos and imperfection. For me it's that combination of splendor and imperfections that make it all 'perfect'. Very nicely expressed, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 16, 2014 21:32:28 GMT -5
Like you snow, I find the concept of "God" (as most frequently discussed) to be worrisome, all be it for different reasons probably than the reasons you cite. I was fortunate early on to pick up on the idea that the "rules" were separate, distinct and essentially immaterial to a conception of "God". "Rules" seem to me to be a man-made product of "group-think" about "God". I suppose "rules" are important for some people to conceive of "God" and it provides a basis for group identity that can have both positive and negative consequences. For me, "rules" cloud rather than clarify my reflections on purpose/meaning. My question for you, snow, is what awareness/feeling emerges from within as you stand alone in a field on a clear and starry night? Perhaps the answer is "indescribable" (which probably would be my answer). But then I begin to wonder about what awareness a monk might experience on a high Tibetan plateau, a Samaratin on Mount Gerizim, a Mongolian trader on the Steppes, a Bedouin by an oasis in the desert. Is there any commonality experienced by any or all of these individuals? If so, does that commonality have any meaning or significance that might relate to something beyond human comprehension and perhaps help forge a link that would transcend personal/group ego? Just wondering. (P.S. interested in the views of others as well) Mostly when I stand looking up at the thousands of stars my first thought is the insignificance of 'me' in the vastness of all. I've been out camping in some pretty amazing wilderness in the Canadian Rockies and looking up at the stars and wondering about other life in the vastness. I can easily understand why humanity believed in something bigger than themselves when viewing such a vast, awe inspiring tableau. I have also sat in the desert in both the US and the outback Australia and just took in the beauty of the skies. I am sure that there is a shared feeling no matter where they were but as far as being a connection because of their experience I'm not able to believe that as easily. I just think it's a shared feeling because it is such an indescribable experience. We just know so little about anything beyond our little bubble called earth. We certainly are inspired to wonder how it all came to be. But for me, the Christian God and the other various Gods people have imo, made up, do not do justice to the whole experience. If there is a source of all that is, that source imo, would be far superior to any God man has made up yet. I believe that many of the versions of God that are out there would be more of an insult to that being actually. God's having temper tantrums and killing all of their creation just doesn't come across as a conceivable answer to the creator of the splendor of nature/universe. If there even is such a creator which I think is highly improbable. Because as wonderful and awe inspiring as the skies are and the many things we observe, there is also a lot of chaos and imperfection. For me it's that combination of splendor and imperfections that make it all 'perfect'. I guess I must think more like an astronomer than any religious angle.
My thoughts are more like, "Wonder how far that is away?" I had heard that you can see the Andromeda galaxy is one of the very few galaxies you can see with your naked eye, so I had to try to see it and I did see it.
I like to try to make out the different constellations.
I like to set out & watch the meteor showers. I am aware of the sky a lot. saw sundogs. those infernal crosses in the sky.
The only sense of awe I have is that I am so small when it comes to the fabric of the universe, that I basically am of no interest to the anything or anyone except myself!
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 17, 2014 10:26:13 GMT -5
I guess I must think more like an astronomer than any religious angle.
My thoughts are more like, "Wonder how far that is away?" I had heard that you can see the Andromeda galaxy is one of the very few galaxies you can see with your naked eye, so I had to try to see it and I did see it.
I like to try to make out the different constellations.
I like to set out & watch the meteor showers. I am aware of the sky a lot. saw sundogs. those infernal crosses in the sky.
The only sense of awe I have is that I am so small when it comes to the fabric of the universe, that I basically am of no interest to the anything or anyone except myself!
Good morning dmmichgood. Enjoyed thinking about your post this morning. It triggered a cascade of thoughts about the spectrum of conceptual awareness accessible by the human mind. It is interesting to me that our experiences condition us to think in certain ways – like an astronomer, a mathematician, an artist, etc. – and we exercise/develop these patterns of thought so that they become essentially second nature. For example, scientific training emphasizes identifications, categorizations and quantitative relationships (e.g. how far). The wonderful thing is, however, the brain does not operate as an either/or device. A scientist can think both as an astronomer and also experience awe, wonderment and aesthetic pleasure. Imagine thinking about an individual’s smallness. Then think about the “butterfly effect” and how the smallest perturbation in the “state” of a non-linear system can have an enormous impact on some future “state”. The mind can grasp both concepts. These ruminations make me think: existence is non-linear. Every metabolic moment changes the universe just a little. Embracing the totality (knowable and unknowable) somehow makes sense to me.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 17, 2014 10:52:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 18, 2014 1:46:23 GMT -5
I guess I must think more like an astronomer than any religious angle.
My thoughts are more like, "Wonder how far that is away?" I had heard that you can see the Andromeda galaxy is one of the very few galaxies you can see with your naked eye, so I had to try to see it and I did see it.
I like to try to make out the different constellations.
I like to set out & watch the meteor showers. I am aware of the sky a lot. saw sundogs. those infernal crosses in the sky.
The only sense of awe I have is that I am so small when it comes to the fabric of the universe, that I basically am of no interest to the anything or anyone except myself!
Good morning dmmichgood. Enjoyed thinking about your post this morning. It triggered a cascade of thoughts about the spectrum of conceptual awareness accessible by the human mind. It is interesting to me that our experiences condition us to think in certain ways – like an astronomer, a mathematician, an artist, etc. – and we exercise/develop these patterns of thought so that they become essentially second nature. For example, scientific training emphasizes identifications, categorizations and quantitative relationships (e.g. how far). The wonderful thing is, however, the brain does not operate as an either/or device. A scientist can think both as an astronomer and also experience awe, wonderment and aesthetic pleasure. Imagine thinking about an individual’s smallness. Then think about the “butterfly effect” and how the smallest perturbation in the “state” of a non-linear system can have an enormous impact on some future “state”. The mind can grasp both concepts. These ruminations make me think: existence is non-linear. Every metabolic moment changes the universe just a little. Embracing the totality (knowable and unknowable) somehow makes sense to me. True, the brain does not operate as an either/or device.
I see a problem of attempting to embrace the totality (knowable and unknowable) for many people.
The main problem is that people will insist on filling the "unknowable" part with creations of their own minds which is ok if they realize that is what they are doing.
It just seems to me that the natural world has so much to offer that why do people NEED to create a supernatural, artificial one called religion, -all those gods & all that which was only of their own making, created in their own brains?
I understand why we need to create the arts, writing, painting, music etc. It is something about wanting to express ourselves in ways not so easily expressed other wise.
One of my sons is a painter. My daughter has a degree in philosophy and is exploring the whole idea of story telling. My other son suffers bi-polar disorder but is the ultimate scientist in how he thinks. We humans are a teller of tales, by word around the the fires, by pictures marked on cave walls We need to express ourselves.
The danger seems to me is when we failed to understand that those tales, those pictures, ARE only our own creations after all! Those pictures, those tales, those gods are not REAL.
We were the ones that breathed life into them and then called them "real" and began to worship our own creations! It wouldn't be so bad if it just stopped there, but it doesn't!
We also create jobs for those GODS to do & then carry them out in their name! Doesn't matter how terrible the actions might be.
Sometimes when I read all the dialogue here, the different interpretations of "scripture," the discussion & disagreements about what one little bit of the bible that someone wrote 1000 of years ago and I feel like the human race will never grow up, will never be able look in the mirror & face themselves for what they really are.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 18, 2014 17:12:57 GMT -5
dmg, humanity is still quite young. Maybe we just still need the fairy tales and the happy ever after's for awhile yet. I agree with you that if that was all it was that would be okay, but unfortunately it gets taken to a whole different level where people start feeling justified in forcing others to believe what they believe and some even will kill for these gods they have created. When I hear of children abused because of religious beliefs I am so sad. Women being burned as witches. Muslims killing Christians, Christians killing Muslims, Jews killing Muslims, Muslims killing Jews. On and on it goes and what is so ironic about this is that they all claim to worship the same God. Both Islam and Christianity have their roots in Judaism and the God of Judaism is their God. Yet these are the groups that are most at odds in this world at this time and predominately these three groups that are killing each other, for their interpretation of 'their' God.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 18, 2014 18:13:04 GMT -5
www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society Interesting article in The Guardian newspaper talks about why the elimination of "religion" in the world , would leave a vacuum , that would be filled with .............. \Article dated 2008, so nothing new, really. Warning- it is called" the atheist delusion." Alvin
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 18, 2014 19:14:28 GMT -5
www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society Interesting article in The Guardian newspaper talks about why the elimination of "religion" in the world , would leave a vacuum , that would be filled with .............. \Article dated 2008, so nothing new, really. Warning- it is called" the atheist delusion." Alvin "Elimination of "religion" in the world, would leave a vacuum, that would be filled with..... resources, time , money that is now used to worship God" used to alleviate some of the human suffering in the world.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 18, 2014 19:24:55 GMT -5
True, the brain does not operate as an either/or device.
I see a problem of attempting to embrace the totality (knowable and unknowable) for many people.
The main problem is that people will insist on filling the "unknowable" part with creations of their own minds which is ok if they realize that is what they are doing.
It just seems to me that the natural world has so much to offer that why do people NEED to create a supernatural, artificial one called religion, -all those gods & all that which was only of their own making, created in their own brains?
I understand why we need to create the arts, writing, painting, music etc. It is something about wanting to express ourselves in ways not so easily expressed other wise.
One of my sons is a painter. My daughter has a degree in philosophy and is exploring the whole idea of story telling. My other son suffers bi-polar disorder but is the ultimate scientist in how he thinks. We humans are a teller of tales, by word around the the fires, by pictures marked on cave walls We need to express ourselves.
The danger seems to me is when we failed to understand that those tales, those pictures, ARE only our own creations after all! Those pictures, those tales, those gods are not REAL.
We were the ones that breathed life into them and then called them "real" and began to worship our own creations! It wouldn't be so bad if it just stopped there, but it doesn't!
We also create jobs for those GODS to do & then carry them out in their name! Doesn't matter how terrible the actions might be.
Sometimes when I read all the dialogue here, the different interpretations of "scripture," the discussion & disagreements about what one little bit of the bible that someone wrote 1000 of years ago and I feel like the human race will never grow up, will never be able look in the mirror & face themselves for what they really are.
Dmmichgood, you make some interesting points. It would be enjoyable to explore some of the points in greater depth but I fear the probable decay of such conversation into counter-productive digressions. I agree with your point that “humans are a teller of tales”. In my mind, that one observation speaks to one of the most profound consequences of the evolutionary process that one can imagine. It is argued by some (e.g. Dr. Yuval Harari, “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind”) that it was the adaptive emergence of “fictive language” that was most responsible for the dominion of homo sapiens over most other species. Almost every aspect of our civilizations (economics, politics, legal systems, cultural identity, etc.) is the consequence of stories we have told ourselves, our neighbors, our friends and enemies and our children since the evolutionary acquisition of language by the species. Religion is not the only tale told in society, it is one of many. Even science is an ever evolving tale about the relationships within and between material objects. Every tale has it’s twists, turns and digressions. Some are rich with insight; some have led to dark corners of the human experience. The age of a text does not seem to me to be a critical feature of the relative significance of a document. Do the ancient clay tablets of cuneiform recording Hammurabi’s Code contribute less to the human experience because they are ancient? I submit that their value transcends the ages. Consider any liberal arts college today; are there not classes year after year where students go to debate words, meanings, interpretations and nuances of the ancients: Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras? Why then not David, Isaiah or Paul? Pythagoras fascinates me. There are few high school students today who cannot quickly determine the length of the third side of a triangle when told that one side is 3 feet long, and another is 4 feet long. Pythagoras’ influenced not only mathematics and geometry but also music and astronomy. His influence has been enormous. But Pythagoras is also considered the founder of Pythagoreanism, a set of metaphysical beliefs that some believe persist to this day in the rituals and beliefs of a small minority religious group in the Middle East, the Druze. By what rational process can one marginalize the beliefs of a small cultural group bonded by the unique metaphysical musings of an ancient while at the same time exploiting the mathematical insights of that ancient Greek to land a craft on the surface of an asteroid? For me, this a challenging question. One thing we can learn from a study of the history of science is that science itself does not stand above the ravages of errant story-telling. Ptolemy had a story to tell, ultimately challenged by Copernicus. Galen had a story to tell . . . the four humors . . . and patients were bled into the 19th century. Phlogiston, miasma, luminiferous aether and eugenics have all had their time in the sun. One claim often brought to the fore in discussion of faith and reason, is the capacity of empirical studies to change in response to new information (data) and the implication that faith-based perspectives lack that capacity. I remain unconvinced that the assertion is valid. Clearly there are examples that can be cited in support of the assertion, but I contend that a rigorous demonstration of the universality of this assertion is yet to be made. Across the same epoch that patients were being bled to adjust the humors one can find much evidence of changes and adaptations in faith-based reasoning. There is so much more that we could explore here, but this rambling has gone on long enough, if not too long. I am very interested in the views of others on these topics and would enjoy a vigorous debate with many participants.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 18, 2014 19:50:34 GMT -5
True, the brain does not operate as an either/or device.
I see a problem of attempting to embrace the totality (knowable and unknowable) for many people.
The main problem is that people will insist on filling the "unknowable" part with creations of their own minds which is ok if they realize that is what they are doing.
It just seems to me that the natural world has so much to offer that why do people NEED to create a supernatural, artificial one called religion, -all those gods & all that which was only of their own making, created in their own brains?
I understand why we need to create the arts, writing, painting, music etc. It is something about wanting to express ourselves in ways not so easily expressed other wise.
One of my sons is a painter. My daughter has a degree in philosophy and is exploring the whole idea of story telling. My other son suffers bi-polar disorder but is the ultimate scientist in how he thinks. We humans are a teller of tales, by word around the the fires, by pictures marked on cave walls We need to express ourselves.
The danger seems to me is when we failed to understand that those tales, those pictures, ARE only our own creations after all! Those pictures, those tales, those gods are not REAL.
We were the ones that breathed life into them and then called them "real" and began to worship our own creations! It wouldn't be so bad if it just stopped there, but it doesn't!
We also create jobs for those GODS to do & then carry them out in their name! Doesn't matter how terrible the actions might be.
Sometimes when I read all the dialogue here, the different interpretations of "scripture," the discussion & disagreements about what one little bit of the bible that someone wrote 1000 of years ago and I feel like the human race will never grow up, will never be able look in the mirror & face themselves for what they really are.
Dmmichgood, you make some interesting points. It would be enjoyable to explore some of the points in greater depth but I fear the probable decay of such conversation into counter-productive digressions. I agree with your point that “humans are a teller of tales”. In my mind, t hat one observation speaks to one of the most profound consequences of the evolutionary process that one can imagine.
It is argued by some (e.g. Dr. Yuval Harari, “Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind”) that it was the adaptive emergence of “fictive language” that was most responsible for the dominion of homo sapiens over most other species. Almost every aspect of our civilizations (economics, politics, legal systems, cultural identity, etc.) is the consequence of stories we have told ourselves, our neighbors, our friends and enemies and our children since the evolutionary acquisition of language by the species. Religion is not the only tale told in society, it is one of many. Even science is an ever evolving tale about the relationships within and between material objects. Every tale has it’s twists, turns and digressions. Some are rich with insight; some have led to dark corners of the human experience. The age of a text does not seem to me to be a critical feature of the relative significance of a document. Do the ancient clay tablets of cuneiform recording Hammurabi’s Code contribute less to the human experience because they are ancient? I submit that their value transcends the ages. Consider any liberal arts college today; are there not classes year after year where students go to debate words, meanings, interpretations and nuances of the ancients: Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras? Why then not David, Isaiah or Paul? Pythagoras fascinates me. There are few high school students today who cannot quickly determine the length of the third side of a triangle when told that one side is 3 feet long, and another is 4 feet long. Pythagoras’ influenced not only mathematics and geometry but also music and astronomy. His influence has been enormous. But Pythagoras is also considered the founder of Pythagoreanism, a set of metaphysical beliefs that some believe persist to this day in the rituals and beliefs of a small minority religious group in the Middle East, the Druze. By what rational process can one marginalize the beliefs of a small cultural group bonded by the unique metaphysical musings of an ancient while at the same time exploiting the mathematical insights of that ancient Greek to land a craft on the surface of an asteroid? For me, this a challenging question. One thing we can learn from a study of the history of science is that science itself does not stand above the ravages of errant story-telling. Ptolemy had a story to tell, ultimately challenged by Copernicus. Galen had a story to tell . . . the four humors . . . and patients were bled into the 19th century. Phlogiston, miasma, luminiferous aether and eugenics have all had their time in the sun. One claim often brought to the fore in discussion of faith and reason, is the capacity of empirical studies to change in response to new information (data) and the implication that faith-based perspectives lack that capacity. I remain unconvinced that the assertion is valid. Clearly there are examples that can be cited in support of the assertion, but I contend that a rigorous demonstration of the universality of this assertion is yet to be made. Across the same epoch that patients were being bled to adjust the humors one can find much evidence of changes and adaptations in faith-based reasoning. There is so much more that we could explore here, but this rambling has gone on long enough, if not too long. I am very interested in the views of others on these topics and would enjoy a vigorous debate with many participants. Oh, I agree! My statement that "Humans are teller of tales" wasn't meant to be derogatory in any way! I simply meant that that is what we humans ARE!
I would absolutely agree with Dr. Yuval Harari, that no doubt it was the adaptive emergence of “fictive language” that was most responsible for the dominion of homo sapiens over most other species. I realized that a long time ago.
By being able to speak, we were able to contemplate our past, talk about our present, then extrapolate what might happen in the future and of course much of that speculation was fiction and no doubt we knew that.
I will continue later................. Have a chore I must do.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 18, 2014 20:00:18 GMT -5
www.theguardian.com/books/2008/mar/15/society Interesting article in The Guardian newspaper talks about why the elimination of "religion" in the world , would leave a vacuum , that would be filled with .............. \Article dated 2008, so nothing new, really. Warning- it is called" the atheist delusion." Alvin The article (link) you posted is a powerful piece of writing. It captures a side of the debate that is rarely publicized in the current environment. On my quick read through, the material seems quite dense and will take considerable effort to digest. Do you happen to know how the article and subsequent book were received by the popular press. It is hard to imagine positive critical reviews but I would be delighted to be surprised. Thanks for the link.
|
|