|
Post by emy on Dec 18, 2014 20:03:16 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. Thanks for the thoughts, Yknot.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 18, 2014 20:42:09 GMT -5
Adapted from a lecture by Y. Harari A man mounts the steps of a massive building in the middle of town. Statues occupy each alcove in the building and iconic images adorn the walls of a cavernous room with a vaulted ceiling of the public space. The man walks purposefully to the antechamber, off the back corner of the large room. There he is met with attendants who whisper messages as the man is cloaked in ceremonial robes. Around the walls of the antechamber are cases and shelves of old texts. The man gives the text he holds in his hand a quick and cursory glance and then stands by the large, heavily carved wooden door awaiting the attendant’s moment of opening. In the large public area all attendees stand and a hush falls across the space. The heavy door opens. The man in robes proceeds to an elevated dais, turns and bows obliquely to the masses before him. He then turns to the handful of celebrants that surround the elevated dais and in tones most serious and grave whispers words of deep import to each. The man then turns again to the texts before him, utters barely audible Latin phrases, ceremoniously imparts his seal and in celebratory fashion raises the texts upward for all to see.
What essential service has just been described by this brief anecdote?
Has the blood and body of Christ been made manifest here on earth?
No, a corporation has just been created by a judge.
Is one interpretive version of the “tale” more real than the other?
It is left to the reader to decide.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 18, 2014 21:32:02 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 Good article, Alvin. As yknot has expressed, there is a lot there to consider. A few of the quotes that jump out at me on a first read: "As in the past, this is a type of atheism that mirrors the faith it rejects." "Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion." "Both science and religion are systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science, for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather than explanation." My visceral reaction to militant atheists is the same as to any religious fundamentalist. In my mind, the two do not differ substantially - I would tend to categorize them both as fundamentalists. If anything, I might tend to judge the militant atheists more harshly, because there is a part of my mind that thinks they should know better. I have never taken mind expanding drugs, but I do love ambiguity, paradox and mystery. (I also love clarity.) I have no problems holding two apparently contradictory thoughts, and acknowledging the truth in both of them. Perhaps it is due in part to an upbringing largely influenced by Dr Suess and the KJV, along with some pretty rigorous scientific training. Many people in a religious context bristle at the word "myth" being applied to any of their religious constructs. I do not see it that way. I see "myth" as being a very powerful means of expression, often capturing Truths that no other approach can really get to. (Or at least it puts the Truths in a context that we are more readily able to understand. For example, why did Jesus teach in parables?)
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 18, 2014 21:44:49 GMT -5
Sharon, I agree with your thoughts on myths. I think they are actually more powerful in relaying a meaning or a moral than a historical story. As dmg said in an earlier post, we are story tellers. It has served the purpose to relay information for thousands of years. I actually see the bible as being a lot like that. Stories told by men to try and get their thoughts across. I think when we take these myths and stories and turn them into history we do the whole process a big disservice.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 18, 2014 21:56:08 GMT -5
Sharon, I agree with your thoughts on myths. I think they are actually more powerful in relaying a meaning or a moral than a historical story. As dmg said in an earlier post, we are story tellers. It has served the purpose to relay information for thousands of years. I actually see the bible as being a lot like that. Stories told by men to try and get their thoughts across. I think when we take these myths and stories and turn them into history we do the whole process a big disservice. Yeah, I think this is one of life's paradoxes. We ARE story tellers and stories are one of the ways that we capture some of the most important Truths in life. (Read Rachel Naomi Remen's "Kitchen Table Wisdom" as a powerful example.) At the same time, if we do not have the ability to at least occasionally drop "The Story of ME" (aka the story of me, others, past and future), and settle into stillness and silence, we risk driving ourselves insane. Or at least more insane than we already are.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 18, 2014 22:01:08 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. I just stumbled on to it a while ago, and totally agree that it is a powerful piece of writing. I don't know how it was received , but it seems like it was largely ignored Soooooo much wisdom there ,I thought. I sure appreciated your thoughts also, and Sharon arnolds' also. It seems like it is hard to stop and seriously consider thoughts expressed ,contrary to our own, and just dismiss the writers as immature "babies" who have not given any thought to their "position" This, for any position , we happen to have taken . I am guilty. Very often, our position is based on our "experience" and how we perceived it, and think it should and MUST be the same for everybody else. "I think, like Sharon said, the evangelical fundamentalist in any "group" of thought, is not usually too safe to follow. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 18, 2014 22:17:19 GMT -5
Sharon, I agree with your thoughts on myths. I think they are actually more powerful in relaying a meaning or a moral than a historical story. As dmg said in an earlier post, we are story tellers. It has served the purpose to relay information for thousands of years. I actually see the bible as being a lot like that. Stories told by men to try and get their thoughts across. I think when we take these myths and stories and turn them into history we do the whole process a big disservice. Yeah, I think this is one of life's paradoxes. We ARE story tellers and stories are one of the ways that we capture some of the most important Truths in life. (Read Rachel Naomi Remen's "Kitchen Table Wisdom" as a powerful example.) At the same time, if we do not have the ability to at least occasionally drop "The Story of ME" (aka the story of me, others, past and future), and settle into stillness and silence, we risk driving ourselves insane. Or at least more insane than we already are. i haven't read that, I'll have to check it out. The Story of Me, oh yes, I need to get away from that daily or I begin to think that's all I am. Lately it's been a lot harder and I see the negatives that go along with that.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 18, 2014 22:29:19 GMT -5
for the record- In reading some of the various very knowledgeable and "experienced" posts here, I realize I am out of my "league", but I remind myself, that doesn't eliminate me from enjoying the reading of them. Last week, we had a family gathering , and a nephew , who is very interested in, and experienced and knowledgeable about snowmobiles, was in discussion with others about a certain snowmobile enthusiasts magazine. He was asked, in sincerity, if he contributed articles to that magazine, and he just laughed and replied, "no, I can barely read them". That is how I feel when reading some of your "articles" , and also like the link I posted. Thank you for "contributions" here. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 18, 2014 22:32:55 GMT -5
for the record- In reading some of the various very knowledgeable and "experienced" posts here, I realize I am out of my "league", but I remind myself, that doesn't eliminate me from enjoying the reading of them. Last week, we had a family gathering , and a nephew , who is very interested in, and experienced and knowledgeable about snowmobiles, was in discussion with others about a certain snowmobile enthusiasts magazine. He was asked, in sincerity, if he contributed articles to that magazine, and he just laughed and replied, "no, I can barely read them". That is how I feel when reading some of your "articles" , and also like the link I posted. Thank you for "contributions" here. Alvin I think you're more knowledgeable than you give yourself credit for. I enjoyed the link you gave. I love anything that provokes deep thought! Ya I'm weird that way lol...
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 18, 2014 22:43:15 GMT -5
Thanks, snow. I appreciate your "weirdness". Do you think the article was fair? Interested in others thoughts on it. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 19, 2014 0:09:36 GMT -5
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. 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 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. 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. I am aware that science is an ever evolving tale. That is why I trust it by for more than any faith based story
However, We haven't always used the scientific process to determine what was never-the-less called "science." In truth we didn't begin to use that method to understands "science" until about the 1700's. So, many of our earlier ideas that went under the banner of "science" weren't always so reliable.
I absolutely do consider valid within the discussion of "faith and reason", -that the capacity of empirical studies is able change in response to new information while faith-based perspectives lack that capacity.
"Faith " doesn't just lack that capacity, to change in response to new information, "Faith" often refuses to put their beliefs to the same rigorous tests 0r methods that "reason" does!
That fact that science is ever evolving and when new knowledge comes along it must be rigorous replicated by fellow scientists before it is considered to be "science," whereas "religion" does not & will not confine itself to that kind of rigorous methods, is what causes me to not trust " religion" for anything that I feel safe to live by.
I never claimed that just because documents or ideas are OLD, that they are unimportant! Of course Hammurabi’s Code, although ancient is important! So is Moses recording of the ten commandments.
Students certainly do debate words, meanings, interpretations and nuances of the ancients: Homer, Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras? You ask, "Why then not David, Isaiah or Paul?"
My daughter, who received her degree in philosophy from the University of Chicago did indeed get her first introduction to the Bible from that hollowed institution!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2014 0:25:28 GMT -5
Here's how science can blind you.
The author of the Book of Daniel mentions the coming of the Greeks, with details which appear to refer to Alexander the Great - therefore scholars "safely date" the Book of Daniel - not to 560BC but 334 BC. On the understanding that no-one can predict the future "because it hasn't happened yet."
Yes science has little idea of what time even is.
Worse, where Daniel and others speak of Rome and its destruction of Israel and the Messiah, the same scholars simply ignore the references completely because it was so obvious that these OT texts were widely known prior to the Romans.
I am not anti-science. I attend a few science conferences, have been a part of science based organizations and read tons of science literature. But I can see where science is being abused.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Dec 19, 2014 1:01:37 GMT -5
Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion. I think many religions are much better at demonizing themselves than any atheist. I agree. I think at times the atheist behavior you see is simply a reaction to endless unsupported claims made by theists. Could you provide an example of ambiguity that you like? This sounds like two ideas that are made up of a multitude of parts some of which you consider true. For most people, believing contradictory thoughts, for whatever reason, is not comfortable and they will go to some effort to resolve their beliefs. Or so I have heard. But Festenger could have been wrong! Do you have an example? I believe Jesus said the reason was to hide the truth from all but selected people. Almost seems to be contrary to teaching.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 19, 2014 1:05:01 GMT -5
Adapted from a lecture by Y. Harari A man mounts the steps of a massive building in the middle of town. Statues occupy each alcove in the building and iconic images adorn the walls of a cavernous room with a vaulted ceiling of the public space. The man walks purposefully to the antechamber, off the back corner of the large room. There he is met with attendants who whisper messages as the man is cloaked in ceremonial robes. Around the walls of the antechamber are cases and shelves of old texts. The man gives the text he holds in his hand a quick and cursory glance and then stands by the large, heavily carved wooden door awaiting the attendant’s moment of opening. In the large public area all attendees stand and a hush falls across the space. The heavy door opens. The man in robes proceeds to an elevated dais, turns and bows obliquely to the masses before him. He then turns to the handful of celebrants that surround the elevated dais and in tones most serious and grave whispers words of deep import to each. The man then turns again to the texts before him, utters barely audible Latin phrases, ceremoniously imparts his seal and in celebratory fashion raises the texts upward for all to see. What essential service has just been described by this brief anecdote? Has the blood and body of Christ been made manifest here on earth? No, a corporation has just been created by a judge. Is one interpretive version of the “tale” more real than the other? It is left to the reader to decide. According to the person's life experiences, what place of the world that they reside, and the time period in which it happens, -all these go into their interpretation.
Why would one be "real" and another "Not be real?"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 19, 2014 3:33:55 GMT -5
Thanks, snow. I appreciate your "weirdness". Do you think the article was fair? Interested in others thoughts on it. Alvin I don't think it was unfair, but it wasn't completely accurate either. I don't agree that atheists are trying to convert the world to their beliefs. In my case anyway, and I can only speak for myself, I would just like to see parents not using the bible for a parenting guide, the various religions killing each other and all the other things that belief in God seems to bring out in people that are not loving, compassionate or uniting. I have to live here too and when religions do things that are dangerous it affects me too. I don't believe in being militant, but there are days when I hear of children dying because of something called a 'Christian diet', or another child freezing to death because of biblical discipline, well, it's hard not to hate what religious beliefs can do to people. Sorry, I'm tired writing this at 1:30 in the morning. So I guess I'll shut up and go to bed now! night all
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Dec 19, 2014 6:03:23 GMT -5
Thanks, snow. I appreciate your "weirdness". Do you think the article was fair? Interested in others thoughts on it. Alvin I don't think it was unfair, but it wasn't completely accurate either. I don't agree that atheists are trying to convert the world to their beliefs. In my case anyway, and I can only speak for myself, I would just like to see parents not using the bible for a parenting guide, the various religions killing each other and all the other things that belief in God seems to bring out in people that are not loving, compassionate or uniting. I have to live here too and when religions do things that are dangerous it affects me too. I don't believe in being militant, but there are days when I hear of children dying because of something called a 'Christian diet', or another child freezing to death because of biblical discipline, well, it's hard not to hate what religious beliefs can do to people. Sorry, I'm tired writing this at 1:30 in the morning. So I guess I'll shut up and go to bed now! night all Another one to add to your list Snow, is children not being vaccinated because their Christian parents believe that God will protect them. And then there's the JWs who would rather bleed to death than take a blood transfusion.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Dec 19, 2014 10:09:11 GMT -5
This sounds like two ideas that are made up of a multitude of parts some of which you consider true. For most people, believing contradictory thoughts, for whatever reason, is not comfortable and they will go to some effort to resolve their beliefs. Or so I have heard. But Festenger could have been wrong! Do you have an example? I believe Jesus said the reason was to hide the truth from all but selected people. Almost seems to be contrary to teaching. Yeah. Kind of contradictory, wouldn’t you say? Almost paradoxical. I am no stranger to cognitive dissonance: 1) Sometimes it is just annoying. The grocery store checkout question “Paper or plastic?” (Either choice, you know you are a terrible person, doing terrible things to the planet.) Or, these days, standing in front of the egg selections in a supermarket. (Buy the most expensive ones or you are being mean to chickens or not valuing your own health.) 2) Sometimes you have to resolve it for your own mental health. Going through the process of leaving 2X2ism would be an example of this for me. (So Festenger would have been right in this instance.) 3) Sometimes it’s kind of fun to just sit with the questions themselves. I would think that contradictory ideas/thoughts/beliefs would only qualify as cognitive dissonance if it causes you stress. The words on a t-shirt someone was wearing the other day “Deep down I am really shallow” didn’t cause me too much stress. In my 30s, I went through a phase of being fascinated by Japanese koans. Reflecting on this now, I think that was the period when I was actively coming to grips with surrendering to the process of life. For the most part now (to borrow from Gibran), I am pretty content as I “march in majesty and proud submission towards the infinite.” I think I have learned to love life’s questions: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? What should I do while I am here? None of these cause me stress. As Rilke says ”Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.” Or perhaps not. Either way, I’m good.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 19, 2014 10:42:40 GMT -5
Thanks, snow. I appreciate your "weirdness". Do you think the article was fair? Interested in others thoughts on it. Alvin I don't think it was unfair, but it wasn't completely accurate either. I don't agree that atheists are trying to convert the world to their beliefs. In my case anyway, and I can only speak for myself, I would just like to see parents not using the bible for a parenting guide, the various religions killing each other and all the other things that belief in God seems to bring out in people that are not loving, compassionate or uniting. I have to live here too and when religions do things that are dangerous it affects me too. I don't believe in being militant, but there are days when I hear of children dying because of something called a 'Christian diet', or another child freezing to death because of biblical discipline, well, it's hard not to hate what religious beliefs can do to people. Sorry, I'm tired writing this at 1:30 in the morning. So I guess I'll shut up and go to bed now! night all . Morning, I agree, religion is, has, and will make many mistakes, and people suffer because of it. The same can be said for almost anything. Using fixit's example of parents not vaccinating their children. Our atheist neighbour's choose not to vaccinate their children because of "scientific" studies that "proved " to them that vaccination causes autism. Who, what, or whatever is at fault if their child died from not being vaccinated. Science, atheism, only individual parents ??and the list goes on. Lots of scapegoats available. Eliminate them all and the world would be wonderful? I suppose if their child developed autism, and had been vaccinated, it sure would increase the parents belief that the science they had believed was indeed true and accurate, despite the fact there are many many many scientific studies "proving" it not true. Ya, eliminate science, oops nope, atheism, nah maybe let's just eliminate religion - no more suffering ....happy times... oh I forget. there are already places that operate without religion.. let's all move to N.korea. Hmmmmmmmmm. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 19, 2014 11:40:02 GMT -5
I don't think it was unfair, but it wasn't completely accurate either. I don't agree that atheists are trying to convert the world to their beliefs. In my case anyway, and I can only speak for myself, I would just like to see parents not using the bible for a parenting guide, the various religions killing each other and all the other things that belief in God seems to bring out in people that are not loving, compassionate or uniting. I have to live here too and when religions do things that are dangerous it affects me too. I don't believe in being militant, but there are days when I hear of children dying because of something called a 'Christian diet', or another child freezing to death because of biblical discipline, well, it's hard not to hate what religious beliefs can do to people. Sorry, I'm tired writing this at 1:30 in the morning. So I guess I'll shut up and go to bed now! night all . Morning, I agree, religion is, has, and will make many mistakes, and people suffer because of it. The same can be said for almost anything. Using fixit's example of parents not vaccinating their children. Our atheist neighbour's choose not to vaccinate their children because of "scientific" studies that "proved " to them that vaccination causes autism. Who, what, or whatever is at fault if their child died from not being vaccinated. Science, atheism, only individual parents ??and the list goes on. Lots of scapegoats available. Eliminate them all and the world would be wonderful? I suppose if their child developed autism, and had been vaccinated, it sure would increase the parents belief that the science they had believed was indeed true and accurate, despite the fact there are many many many scientific studies "proving" it not true. Ya, eliminate science, oops nope, atheism, nah maybe let's just eliminate religion - no more suffering ....happy times... oh I forget. there are already places that operate without religion.. let's all move to N.korea. Hmmmmmmmmm. Alvin I think the final option is not to get rid of religion or atheists, but to embrace humanity with a humane stance. All groups have made mistakes that have had tragic endings. But the more we allow ourselves to see others as struggling with the same issues as we are we can maybe reach out easier with more understanding of this 'being human' thing? If we have issues, we can be sure others do too. Maybe not the same ones, but ones that cause just as much distress to them as our issues cause us. In the end, we all just want life to be better for ourselves. My thought on that is making someone else's life better will help our lives be better too. Happy people seem to love easier, have more compassion etc. Those who feel beat down and unloved usually feel more of a need to strike out. So I guess what I'm trying to say is being militant about religion or atheism really isn't the answer. Recognizing the need to care about each other more, might help?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 19, 2014 15:34:46 GMT -5
I don't think it was unfair, but it wasn't completely accurate either. I don't agree that atheists are trying to convert the world to their beliefs. In my case anyway, and I can only speak for myself, I would just like to see parents not using the bible for a parenting guide, the various religions killing each other and all the other things that belief in God seems to bring out in people that are not loving, compassionate or uniting. I have to live here too and when religions do things that are dangerous it affects me too. I don't believe in being militant, but there are days when I hear of children dying because of something called a 'Christian diet', or another child freezing to death because of biblical discipline, well, it's hard not to hate what religious beliefs can do to people. Sorry, I'm tired writing this at 1:30 in the morning. So I guess I'll shut up and go to bed now! night all . Morning, I agree, religion is, has, and will make many mistakes, and people suffer because of it. The same can be said for almost anything. Using fixit's example of parents not vaccinating their children. Our atheist neighbour's choose not to vaccinate their children because of "scientific" studies that "proved " to them that vaccination causes autism. Who, what, or whatever is at fault if their child died from not being vaccinated. Science, atheism, only individual parents ??and the list goes on. Lots of scapegoats available. Eliminate them all and the world would be wonderful? I suppose if their child developed autism, and had been vaccinated, it sure would increase the parents belief that the science they had believed was indeed true and accurate, despite the fact there are many many many scientific studies "proving" it not true. Ya, eliminate science, oops nope, atheism, nah maybe let's just eliminate religion - no more suffering ....happy times... oh I forget. there are already places that operate without religion.. let's all move to N.korea. Hmmmmmmmmm. Alvin Why do you single out your "atheist neighbour" as not vaccinating their children?
Are their ideas correct when they believe that autism can result from vaccinations? Why do you single out your "atheist neighbour?" There are no doubt at least 20 Christian neighbors of yours who also won't vaccinate their children for the that same supposed "scientific" studies.
All it shows is that people who fear something enough, "autism" in this case, they react in in ways that may actually be determental to them & their children. Much as religion ideas can be harmful.
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Dec 19, 2014 15:50:15 GMT -5
Yeah. Kind of contradictory, wouldn’t you say? Almost paradoxical. I am no stranger to cognitive dissonance: 1) Sometimes it is just annoying. The grocery store checkout question “Paper or plastic?” (Either choice, you know you are a terrible person, doing terrible things to the planet.) Or, these days, standing in front of the egg selections in a supermarket. (Buy the most expensive ones or you are being mean to chickens or not valuing your own health.) 2) Sometimes you have to resolve it for your own mental health. Going through the process of leaving 2X2ism would be an example of this for me. (So Festenger would have been right in this instance.) 3) Sometimes it’s kind of fun to just sit with the questions themselves. I would think that contradictory ideas/thoughts/beliefs would only qualify as cognitive dissonance if it causes you stress. The words on a t-shirt someone was wearing the other day “Deep down I am really shallow” didn’t cause me too much stress. In my 30s, I went through a phase of being fascinated by Japanese koans. Reflecting on this now, I think that was the period when I was actively coming to grips with surrendering to the process of life. For the most part now (to borrow from Gibran), I am pretty content as I “march in majesty and proud submission towards the infinite.” I think I have learned to love life’s questions: Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going? What should I do while I am here? None of these cause me stress. As Rilke says ”Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answer.” Or perhaps not. Either way, I’m good. Tour de Force! Wow! Reminds me of Robert Woodward, as he completed his lecture on the complete synthesis of chlorophyll in one lecture, turning to the audience and asking . . . . . "Any questions?"
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 19, 2014 16:26:29 GMT -5
. Morning, I agree, religion is, has, and will make many mistakes, and people suffer because of it. The same can be said for almost anything. Using fixit's example of parents not vaccinating their children. Our atheist neighbour's choose not to vaccinate their children because of "scientific" studies that "proved " to them that vaccination causes autism. Who, what, or whatever is at fault if their child died from not being vaccinated. Science, atheism, only individual parents ??and the list goes on. Lots of scapegoats available. Eliminate them all and the world would be wonderful? I suppose if their child developed autism, and had been vaccinated, it sure would increase the parents belief that the science they had believed was indeed true and accurate, despite the fact there are many many many scientific studies "proving" it not true. Ya, eliminate science, oops nope, atheism, nah maybe let's just eliminate religion - no more suffering ....happy times... oh I forget. there are already places that operate without religion.. let's all move to N.korea. Hmmmmmmmmm. Alvin Why do you single out your "atheist neighbour" as not vaccinating their children?
Are their ideas correct when they believe that autism can result from vaccinations? Why do you single out your "atheist neighbour?" There are no doubt at least 20 Christian neighbors of yours who also won't vaccinate their children for the that same supposed "scientific" studies.
All it shows is that people who fear something enough, "autism" in this case, they react in in ways that may actually be determental to them & their children. Much as religion ideas can be harmful.
. You make a good observation . The decision has nothing to do with with religion or atheism, and either one will be used as the scapegoat, with people on an agenda. Alvin
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 19, 2014 16:49:14 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 Good article, Alvin. As yknot has expressed, there is a lot there to consider. A few of the quotes that jump out at me on a first read: "As in the past, this is a type of atheism that mirrors the faith it rejects. "Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion." "Both science and religion are systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science, for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather than explanation." My visceral reaction to militant atheists is the same as to any religious fundamentalist. In my mind, the two do not differ substantially - I would tend to categorize them both as fundamentalists If anything, I might tend to judge the militant atheists more harshly, because there is a part of my mind that thinks they should know better. I have never taken mind expanding drugs, but I do love ambiguity, paradox and mystery. (I also love clarity.) I have no problems holding two apparently contradictory thoughts, and acknowledging the truth in both of them. Perhaps it is due in part to an upbringing largely influenced by Dr Suess and the KJV, along with some pretty rigorous scientific training. Many people in a religious context bristle at the word "myth" being applied to any of their religious constructs. I do not see it that way. I see "myth" as being a very powerful means of expression, often capturing Truths that no other approach can really get to. (Or at least it puts the Truths in a context that we are more readily able to understand. For example, why did Jesus teach in parables?) First of all, I don't see many atheists trying to be "Evangelical atheists." Even Dawkins knows that he isn't going to convince those who are dyed-in-the-wool believers!
His hope is that his work will reach those that are an open minded.
However, if some atheists are evangelizing, hasn't religion been doing that for centuries as well as "demonizing" atheists as well?
As for "myths," Yes there are grains of truth within them. The problem is that people who accept any part of myth as true usually accept the whole mythological story as true.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 19, 2014 17:04:02 GMT -5
Just curious, if you read the article, dmmichgood? Alvin
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 19, 2014 17:24:35 GMT -5
[quote author=" bert" source="/post/619632/thread" timestamp="1418966728" The author of the Book of Daniel mentions the coming of the Greeks, with details which appear to refer to Alexander the Great - therefore scholars "safely date" the Book of Daniel - not to 560BC but 334 BC. On the understanding that no-one can predict the future "because it hasn't happened yet." [/quote] Great Disappointment William Miller
I thought this might interest you, Bert. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Disappointment "The Great Disappointment was a major event in the history of the Millerite movement, a 19th-century American Christian sect that formed out of the Second Great Awakening. Based on his interpretations of the prophecies in the book of Daniel, William Miller, a Baptist preacher, proposed that Jesus Christ would return to the earth during the year 1844.
The specific date of October 22, 1844, was preached by Samuel S. Snow. Thousands of followers, some of whom had given away all of their possessions, waited expectantly. When Jesus did not appear, the date became known as the Great Disappointment.
Between 1831 and 1844, on the basis of his study of the Bible, and particularly the prophecy of Daniel 8:14—"Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed"—William Miller, a Baptist preacher, predicted and preached the imminent return of Jesus Christ to the earth.
He first assumed that the "cleansing of the sanctuary" represented purification of the earth by fire at Christ's Second Coming. Then, using an interpretive principle known as the day-year principle, Miller, along with others, interpreted a prophetic "day" to read not as a 24-hour period, but rather as a calendar year. Miller became convinced that the 2,300-day period started in 457 B.C. with the decree to rebuild Jerusalem by Artaxerxes I of Persia. Simple calculation revealed that this period would end—and hence Christ would return—in 1843.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 19, 2014 17:54:15 GMT -5
Just curious, if you read the article, dmmichgood? Alvin Yes, I read it, Alvin. I don't react to something I haven't read.
I can tell you of many of Gray's statements that I don't agree with.
Gray states, "Dawkins's "memetic theory of religion" is a classic example of the nonsense that is spawned when Darwinian thinking is applied outside its proper sphere. I just finished another book on "memes" concerning religion.
The Religion Virus: Why we believe in God, by Craig James.
James uses the term "memes" though out his book to describe the "evolution of religion" comparing it to the Darwinian application of the word "genes."
How religion began as several, small, not very strong, local gods & grew to bigger wider area gods & finally into the this hugh GOD whom commands most of the Western world.
It is concise & well written.
Being able to compare the "genes" & "memes" in the manner that James does is very insightful, therefore, I believe that Gray's use of the term "nonsense" for Dawkins's "memetic theory of religion" is not a very scholarly term as well as biased & not accurate.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Dec 19, 2014 18:11:38 GMT -5
Would you agree with him that it is possible to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion, or that everybody would be better off , being atheist, like yourself and oppose it whenever possible. é Alvin
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 19, 2014 20:56:58 GMT -5
Would you agree with him that it is possible to have no religious beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion, or that everybody would be better off , being atheist, like yourself and oppose it whenever possible. é Alvin Yes, I would agree that it is possible to have no religious beliefs, and yet be "friendly" to religion.
I hold that belief, as most atheists I know do, because of the belief that everyone has an equal right to their beliefs in a free society where there is freedom of speech & freedom of the press prevail. How about the question, "can someone have a certain religious belief, yet be be friendly to a different religious belief? "
We really haven't seen much of that kind of reciprocity in the past.
Neither have atheists seen much friendliness in return from religious people.
For many years I tried NOT to show antipathy toward religious beliefs. I still believe that they certainly have a right to their belief, unless their actions harm others.
Beliefs & acting on those beliefs in a harmful way, cross that border.
IN the recent few decades I have seen the rise of the fundamentalist Christian religion in our own country & too many people believing them. Now we see the rise of fundamentalism in Islam and who are the first to yell foul? Those same fundamentalist Christians!
Those same Christians can't seem to see that if they had their way in making US law, that they would be just as violent!
I kind of diverged a bit. To your original question, -I would like to remain friendly toward religion but it gets more difficult every day.
I should not have to take a blind eye at the abuse of religion that I see, abuse against sound scientific principles, abuse of false indoctrination of children, are but a few.
|
|