quote:Consider me a member of the Catholic Fan Club then.
We must be using a different definition of "rigorously derived." But I understand what you mean, in broad strokes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: No, I do mean "portrayed."
Then I've lost you. Can you rephrase that, because I dont understand what you are saying?
I'm not really sure how else to say it.
quote:“Children are systematically taught that there is a higher kind of knowledge which comes from faith, which comes from revelation, which comes from scripture, which comes from tradition, and that it is the equal if not the superior of knowledge that comes from real evidence.”
The speaker isn't saying anything about what religious thought and knowledge are, and this particular quote is not about what the relative values of scientific and religious knowledge are; the speaker is saying that we are raised to respect religious teachings more than scientific learning.
I've omitted the part where he says that he thinks this is wrong and that he's sick of it, which is a judgment on the relative values of those two kinds of knowledge, insofar as they can be compared. I omitted that because I'm specifically interested in the question of whether we really are raised to accord more respect to religious teaching than scientific learning. I think we are.
quote:
quote:Not the periodic table, but as an example, there's tons of fractal art.
there's also "guitar hero". I'll take Michelangelo and Bach for now
Less flippantly, that's a pretty good response, but the fact that it is combined with the gulf it leaves shows, I think, what I am getting at. I'll let it sit.
Guitar Hero is awesome, but I don't understand your second paragraph at all.
quote:
quote:
quote:When was the last time someone waged a succesful war in the name of science?
When was the last time someone waged a just war in the name of any religion?
What does justice matter, if empirical truth is the only truth?
My response to this is essentially the same as Tom's in his 2:41 PM post, though I'll further add that I've never asserted that empirical truth is the only truth. I do think, however, that there's a world of difference between a philosopher exploring the nature of justice and a preacher asserting that God has told him what justice is.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, they weren't, actually. The successful ones were influenced by humanist thinkers.
Could you clarify what you mean by humanist? Do you have evidence that all the successful ones were non Christian humanists? I think the burden of evidence is against you but you are welcome to correct me.
It's like this: Religious objections to slavery have been around since forever. Only when secular thinkers began to think the same things did anything actually get done.
quote:
quote: Influenced, obviously; but you were making the much stronger claim of caused.
By influenced I mean it would not have happened without religion.
Could you state what you think caused the renaissance to occur? [/QB]
The Church, weakened by schism, lost its power to enforce the ban (more social than legal, it's true) on usury, leading to a more capitalistic economy, and therefore rich people with a need for prestige. At the same time the population dropped sharply due to the Black Death; that meant that there was no longer a need for large amounts of labour to be tied up cultivating marginal lands, so agriculture became more productive per capita, leading to a larger surplus overall. Finally, new technologies came along. The only role of religion is the negative one: The fourteenth century was so horrible, and the CHurch so obviously corrupt, that Christianity lost a considerable amount of its stifling hold on the imagination.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky:I'm not really sure how else to say it.
the speaker is saying that we are raised to respect religious teachings more than scientific learning.
I think we are.
Ah! I got you now. I didn't read the initial quote that way, but I still disagree. I was absolutely taught to view empirically proven knowledge as surer knowledge. The best way I coud describe it is that Religion (and Philosophy) deal with what I would label "wisdom" (on the spur of the moment) whereas science deals with knowledge of the physical world. I was taught, by both my scientific and religious instructors, to respect them each in their domains... and Dan Raven evidently was, too.
Thomas Aquinas, certainly the most influential Christian theologian of the post-Roman world, taught that if a scientific fact and a religious, even scriptural, teaching were in conflict, the religious interpretation must be incorrect. He could hardly say fairer than that and the Catholic Church, though it sometimes forgot it had, endorsed his view.
quote:Guitar Hero is awesome, but I don't understand your second paragraph at all.
I was saying that fractal art doesn't reach the level of "greatness" ascribed to other art and that I would let your point stand because of it. I am, by no means, an expert, or even a hack, at visual art critique... but I haven't heard anyone mention fractal artists with Pollock or Church, much less Da Vinci or Monet.
quote: I do think, however, that there's a world of difference between a philosopher exploring the nature of justice and a preacher asserting that God has told him what justice is.
posted
And I gotta go workout and then go home... I'll be on later tonight, if anyone wants more of me Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's like this: Religious objections to slavery have been around since forever. Only when secular thinkers began to think the same things did anything actually get done.
Completely disagree. Slavery was often justified with the misapplication of principles espoused by Christianity,
"Take care of those who are not as fortunate," which is a Christian concept (not saying exclusive, but certainly encouraged)
coupled with
"There are lesser races, and they don't know how to take care of themselves, and are in fact less happy then they could be as slaves." Nowhere is this found in Christianity. In fact its closer to the crazy concept of Eugenics which had lots of supposed scientific backing.
quote: The Church, weakened by schism, lost its power to enforce the ban (more social than legal, it's true) on usury, leading to a more capitalistic economy, and therefore rich people with a need for prestige. At the same time the population dropped sharply due to the Black Death; that meant that there was no longer a need for large amounts of labour to be tied up cultivating marginal lands, so agriculture became more productive per capita, leading to a larger surplus overall. Finally, new technologies came along.
This is an interesting description of its origins. I can't offer any counter arguments at this time, you will have to permit me to study up on some of your particulars before responding to this specific point.
However I do have to disagree that Christianity had nothing but a stifling effect on the creativity and thought of the renaissance. Or were you saying the possibilities of the renaissance would have found greater elbow room outside the paradigms of Christian thought?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For one thing, people might have been able to publish their theories without fear of getting burnt at the stake, so yes.
quote:Completely disagree. Slavery was often justified with the misapplication of principles espoused by Christianity,
Indeed, and this was still true in 1860. But you are apparently missing all the religious people in earlier eras who also disapproved of slavery. The point is that we had 2000 years of Christians arguing both pro and con; then 60 years after the Enlightenment, boom, no more slavery.
On the subject of Crusades, the religion only leads to the choice of goal; it does nothing to actually accomplish that goal. To illustrate, consider that both sides of the Crusades were equally religious; therefore, whichever side you consider to have won, it cannot have been their religion that helped them do so. Oddly enough, in fact, the side with better military technology, leadership, and organisation tended to win; none of these things emanated from religion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Indeed, and this was still true in 1860. But you are apparently missing all the religious people in earlier eras who also disapproved of slavery. The point is that we had 2000 years of Christians arguing both pro and con; then 60 years after the Enlightenment, boom, no more slavery.
But the enlightenment was in fact a look back into what Christianity really said. Widespread reading of the bible clearly showed that the priests were wrong in many of their long held traditions.
quote: On the subject of Crusades, the religion only leads to the choice of goal; it does nothing to actually accomplish that goal. To illustrate, consider that both sides of the Crusades were equally religious; therefore, whichever side you consider to have won, it cannot have been their religion that helped them do so. Oddly enough, in fact, the side with better military technology, leadership, and organisation tended to win; none of these things emanated from religion.
The crusades are a ridiculous example as religion could not really be used to back either conflict. You cannot effectively demonstrate through scripture, why the Christian God would feel it important that Jerusalem be taken back. Now you might argue, "Well the Pope said God wanted it." (I have no idea if this is so) The lack of success suggests that that was not so, (though not necessarily).
You can perhaps use Old Testament passages to back up a crusade but then we are not being Christian are we?
The side with better military technology, leadership, and organization tended to win? And can you trace where all the thinkers who championed all those ideas that ultimately lead to the victory got those ideas from? Even if we disregard that, again I don't think the crusades were a war of right vs wrong anyway, so why should God through religion effect the result at all?
The only war I can assert that I think its LIKELY God would get involved is if one side who is virtuous is in an unprovoked manner attacked by an entity bent on destroying them. When was the last war we had where that was true?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have some misconceptions about the Crusades.
Several of them were successful in various senses. Heck, the first Crusade created a Kingdom of Jerusalem (a Christian one) that held Jerusalem itself for nearly 100 years and existed in the area for nearly 200 years. Most Europeans who were around when the First Crusade happened died thinking it was a splendid success (assuming they thought it a good idea in the first place).
The Popes instigated several of the Crusades, and sanctioned almost all of them. It isn't a matter of him saying "God wanted it", its a matter of him saying to specific people "God wants you to do this". This was no vague support, this was a full on drive by the largest organizing force in Christianity in the world (especially before the Orthodox schism became complete). The man many Christians (particularly in Europe) believed had the ear of God was telling everyone God wanted this, and that it was wholly supported by scripture.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the last couple pages of posts, I've derived the fact that we all pretty much agree that doing good things for other people, creating art, and thinking about new stuff is Good.
Killing people, stifling creativity and the advancement of human knowledge, and working for the detriment of society on the whole is Bad.
Organized religion has, at times, been both Good and Bad. I think if it were Good all the time, and kept out of the Bad actions, those of us who currently have problems with organized religion wouldn't care so much.
Believing in Santa Clause might cause people to waste a little time and money, but that's most of the negative effects. If Santa Clause told Christian children to fight against the heathens, work against human rights, and hold back scientific advancement, it wouldn't be a cool thing to teach kids about.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mankind seems to have a need to latch on to any great idea and take it way too far - so far that it transforms the original great idea into something horrible, and makes them look like fools in the end. It is clear they've done it with Christianity, countless times. Some have done it with Islam. Now some are doing it with science too.
What I don't understand is what science fundamentalists think will happen if science is transformed into some counter-philosophy to battle other religions. Doesn't it seem rather likely that, in such a free-for-all, the other religions are going to win? I'd suspect that the transformation of science into a religion is pretty much the only way, at this point, to get the world to reject science.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Several of them were successful in various senses. Heck, the first Crusade created a Kingdom of Jerusalem (a Christian one) that held Jerusalem itself for nearly 100 years and existed in the area for nearly 200 years. Most Europeans who were around when the First Crusade happened died thinking it was a splendid success (assuming they thought it a good idea in the first place).
Right... which proves that Islam is not a good religion for getting things done. You are kind of missing my point, there; the riff on the Crusades was in response to Jim-Me's assertion that religion was a good tool for power.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the contemporary state of Islam elsewhere, I think it proves no such thing . I'm not even responding to you, though, or much in the flow of this thread, but to a misunderstanding of the Crusades in BB's post.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure what misconceptions you think I have about the crusades. The only one I was not certain on was whether or not the pope actually instigated the crusades.
quote: The man many Christians (particularly in Europe) believed had the ear of God was telling everyone God wanted this, and that it was wholly supported by scripture.
See I think its you who have the misconceptions, or rather you are ignoring something you are probably aware of. Christians at this time had neither the teaching that they should think for themselves, nor the means to do so. The scriptures were not available to anyone but monks and up. Therefore if the Pope said something a combination of fear and ignorance prevented anyone from being able to effectively protest.
Therefore its no surprise a monk really got the protestant movement going as only church officials had access to the Bible and were privy to its words.
Had the Bible always been available to people its doubtful the Catholic Church could have exerted the control and pursued the goals it did at this time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: What I don't understand is what science fundamentalists think will happen if science is transformed into some counter-philosophy to battle other religions...
I'm curious, Tres: what do you think constitutes "science fundamentalism?" An over-insistence on reality?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The scriptures were not available to anyone but monks and up.
this is true because of woeful literacy rates, not because of some Catholic conspiracy. The scriptures *were* readily availible to anyone who could read... it's just that the majority of literate people in western society were clergy and nobility.
KoM, if religion is so ineffectual, why on earth do you care about it?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me be more explicit. In several cases Crusades accomplished their stated goals. That this is only for a time is not particularly relevant. Saying the Crusades had a 'lack of success' is perhaps true overall, but hardly true when we point at specific Crusades, especially the first.
Your mistakenness on the availability of scripture has already been pointed out. Furthermore, you have yet to show intent to deceive on the part of any of those you seem to be suggesting were misleading the populace.
As for the Catholic church's control, it is obviously unclear what effect wider literacy would have had, but given we have extremely good ideas of where its power stemmed from (ties to imperial legitimacy, significant quantities of land and people working for it, effective communications, et cetera), and most of those relied not at all on illiteracy in the populace, your assertion seems more grounded in your personal beliefs about what would happen than any scholarship.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I care about what's true. I care about religion for the same reason I would care if myriads of people were going around asserting the existence of Santa Claus: It's just not true, dammit, and you are cluttering up mind-space that you could be using for something valuable. And finally, do the digits 911 mean anything to you?
(And before you go off on how that makes religion effective, it doesn't. The jihadists can be as suicidal as they like, they aren't getting anywhere without someone else very kindly inventing jet aircraft.)
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
"We must root out the press or the press will root us out."
I believe a cardinal said that soon after the creation of the printing press. But don't believe me until I can locate a name, I have the book were its listed but not at my apt and I am having difficulty finding it on the internet as it is an obscure one.
----
I had nothing to do with literacy, the bible was not permitted to be translated into any other language other then Latin, on pain of death. Good luck finding that tenant within the Bible itself.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Why are we? Science does not answer that question. Science in its purest form offers no reason why we exist. It states how we came to be in our present form, but does not say anything about the why of it, because that is something beyond the realm of research and provability.
There are two answers: First, science does say why, namely, "Because our universe has physical laws (see Appendix A) favourable to the formation of planets and abiogenesis, and also Ug was slightly luckier than his brother Glug and didn't get eaten by the lion, otherwise it would have been Neandertals asking the same question." Second, you're quite right, there is no why. Deal.
And third, religion doesn't answer the question either. "Why are we? God created us. Why is God?" You've just put the question at one further remove; a clever sleight-of-hand, possibly, but no answer.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To whoever asked on the previous page for a just war started by religion, I'd put forth the Crusades. Maybe not always just in their prosecution, but certainly just in their intent.
quote:There are two answers: First, science does say why, namely, "Because our universe has physical laws (see Appendix A) favourable to the formation of planets and abiogenesis, and also Ug was slightly luckier than his brother Glug and didn't get eaten by the lion, otherwise it would have been Neandertals asking the same question." Second, you're quite right, there is no why. Deal.
And third, religion doesn't answer the question either. "Why are we? God created us. Why is God?" You've just put the question at one further remove; a clever sleight-of-hand, possibly, but no answer.
Goes back to what I was saying earlier. First of all, your first answer there is evolution, which is basically survive and multiply, which is exactly what I said earlier that science gives us for an answer when you tried to shut me down. I'd be curious as to your explanation of the differences.
Second, why isn't there a why? Why do I have to deal with that? You, and I think it was twinky earlier, aren't giving me an answer at all. Saying "Deal with it" and "just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can change it," aren't answers, they are cop-outs. Because science works on a basis that really can't accept the existence of a God (because there's no data points on God, science has to exist in a vaccuum), it therefore automatically discounts any further value to life. Just because you say all high and mighty that there isn't anything higher in purpose in life doesn't mean I have to deal, it just means you could really, really suck in your scientific search for it, and I have to take over for your failure and look elsewhere. It's really quite arrogant and condescending, to sit on high and deal out judgements on the purpose of humanity just because YOU with your little beakers and test tubes can't find it. I'm not saying it's in religious text or a burning bush, but declaring for everyone that their life has no purpose, so suck it up, just because you can't hold one up from a lab result is narrow, damned narrow minded. I am perfectly willing to deal with the fact that YOUR life has absolutely no purpose other than evolutionary factors, but don't presume to judge for everyone else. It might just be that I, and the rest of the world, will never find a higher purpose in life, but hey, at least we can say we tried. You gave up and went home.
Third, you skipped a giant, GIANT step there. "Why are we? God created us. Why did God create us?" You have to either be as dense as Mercury, or incredibly dishonest to misrepresent religion's role in a search for a reason for life. The question is why we are here, it's not usually as big (well, not for me anyway) to figure out how God came to be. God IS. DEAL.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm curious, Tres: what do you think constitutes "science fundamentalism?" An over-insistence on reality?
I think fundamentalists "over-insist" upon a reality defined by certain principles they have taken as their end-all and be-all fundamental beliefs. They believe that these fundamental beliefs are rigid, universal, and necessary in all areas of life. Those who take an alternative way of viewing the world are seen as a threat.
Science fundamentalists, in the way I was referring to them, would be those who do this in regards to fundamental beliefs that they consider to be the foundations of science.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: To whoever asked on the previous page for a just war started by religion, I'd put forth the Crusades. Maybe not always just in their prosecution, but certainly just in their intent.
The current American action in Iraq could easily be described as "just in its intent." A democratic Middle East is a worthy goal.
Worthy intent is insufficient.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Just because you say all high and mighty that there isn't anything higher in purpose in life doesn't mean I have to deal...
That wasn't actually my question, though it's King of Men's. My question is: why does there have to be a "higher purpose" that comes from an external source? You have repeatedly suggested that you take this as axiomatic -- that the "maybe there is no purpose" answer is unsatisfactory to you, for reasons you have yet to put forward.
quote:Science fundamentalists, in the way I was referring to them, would be those who do this in regards to fundamental beliefs that they consider to be the foundations of science.
My fundamental belief is that things which happen have physical effects. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry for jumping into the middle of the discussion, but Dan, KoM, and Lyrhawn touched one something I've been thinking about a bit lately.
I don't think it's proper to ask "why?" in a scientific context, unless there is an observable agent involved. It seems to me that "why" implies an actor with some intent. We ask "why" specifically to determine that intent. "Why are we here" is not a question science can answer (short of a deity physically arriving on Earth and holding a press conference).
On the other hand, "How did we get here" is a question science is capable of answering, because it deals with a sequence of physical events. I'd argue that when someone asks "why" in a scientific context, they usually mean "how".
I say usually because it'd be fair to ask, in a scientific way, "Greg, why did you shoot him?" But as I mentioned earlier, the agent in question is present and observable. There are situations, however, where it is not clear to me whether "why" is a proper question or not, such as when dealing with a group of people. Linguistically it makes sense to ask, "Why did the mob tip the car over," but does a group like this necessarily have collective intent? I don't know, but I do think that question itself is scientifically answerable.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering the printing press was invented well after the ninth crusade, even were that quotation true you would be hard-pressed to use it to show anything about deception or lack thereof among the Catholic Church hundreds of years prior.
If you intend that to be a demonstration of the Church's inability to be as influential as they were without lack of widely available texts, several things to notice: the church's power had waned somewhat in this time even without the printing press being in existence. Even after the printing press was created the church retained extraordinary power in most of Europe. Despite availability of the printing press and localized translations of the Bible (more covertly in some places) available everywhere, the places that split off were places that politically benefitted from the separation.
I'm not defending the church's positions as correct positions, but I see no reason to doubt most in the church hierarchy were devout in their actions, whether or not those actions also furthered temporal ends, and there is even less reason to doubt that the church held significant power in Europe for hundreds of years due to its organizational capabilities and the power structures that found those capabilities essential far more than any lack of dissemination of scripture. As states in Europe relied less on those organizational capabilities, the church's power waned.
I could find no reference to even permutations of the significant fragments of your quotation online, btw.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I had nothing to do with literacy, the bible was not permitted to be translated into any other language other then Latin, on pain of death. Good luck finding that tenant within the Bible itself.
My point was that this is both patently false and irrelevant-- virtually eveyrone who was literate at the time was literate in Latin anyhow. As Fugu points out there *were* common language translations of the bible availible in many languages... many sanctioned by the Church herself. Hell, the Latin translation itself was an attempt to bring the bible to the people... note the title "The Vulgate", as in "vulgar". It was not considered mysterious, but universal. Wycliffe's translation was condemned, rightly or wrongly, for being heretical and incisive of disorder -- it was literally causing riots-- not for being a vernacular translation as many are led to believe.
It's true that the common people didn't have much access to the bible, but this was much more due to their relative lack of education than any supposed concerted effort to remove them from scripture by the Catholic Church.
What *was* forbidden in 1408, in response to the Wycliffe Bible, was translating the bible without the Church's sanction. Note that taking the act of forbidding it impliies directly that before that time it was allowable.
Perhaps in my previous attempt at brevity I was too vague, as I was trying to make a fairly narrow point.
quote:My fundamental belief is that things which happen have physical effects. Can you demonstrate otherwise?
What demonstration could I give you that isn't itself a physical effect?
Besides, having fundamental beliefs doesn't make one a fundamentalist. Rather, I think it is the way that you approach those beliefs, and the way you approach alternative views that conflict with those beliefs. For instance, you aren't a Christian fundamentalist just because you have a fundamental belief in the Christian God.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally Posted by twinky: The current American action in Iraq could easily be described as "just in its intent." A democratic Middle East is a worthy goal.
Worthy intent is insufficient.
Oh, now you're adding stipulations. Well alright then, I'd challenge you to show me a war PERIOD, regardless of what started it, secular or religious sources, that was just 100% of the time.
Yes, there were some atrocities during the Crusades, nothing outside the norm of the times, but still, not good. But the Crusades were a response to a couple centuries of Muslim aggression. They'd burned their way across North Africa, turning a thousand and change churches into either rubble or Mosques, and had crossed into Spain. The Crusades were a retaliation, not wars of aggression. Specificaly, the reconquista was a war for survival.
quote:Originally Posted by twinky: That wasn't actually my question, though it's King of Men's. My question is: why does there have to be a "higher purpose" that comes from an external source? You have repeatedly suggested that you take this as axiomatic -- that the "maybe there is no purpose" answer is unsatisfactory to you, for reasons you have yet to put forward.
Whether there is or isn't a higher purpose to life doesn't really matter. The point is, science doesn't have the answer (one way or the other) if there is one. So saying "there's no higher purpose. Deal." As KoM said and you defended, isn't honest. Maybe someone can state this better than me. The point is, that many millions, billions even, of people are struck by a natural search for a higher purpose in life, it's a question of human nature, and it's something science can't measure.
How do you scientifically explain man's need to explore? Columbus didn't need to find North America, we don't need to go into space, we don't need to dive to the depths of the ocean, but we feel compelled by something unexplainable to do these things.
The search for a higher meaning is something science can't explain, let alone answer. Therefore the answers they may try to give just aren't good enough. And by the way, neither you nor KoM have said "MAYBE there is no answer." I've even said that there might not be one, but that doesn't stop us from searching. KoM's "Deal" position is that I have to accept what he gave me for an answer, and I reject that. If I come up short in the end, I come up short, but that doesn't mean I have to stop looking by any means.
quote:Originally Posted by twinky: Pot, meet Kettle.
That was tongue in cheek, but you got the point didn't you? If I said God exists, and you have to deal, are you just going to shut up and do it? Doubtful, since that tactic hasn't really worked very well in the last 2,000 years. So when KoM, and maybe you, tell me that I can't find anything more, and that I have to deal with it, I don't have to accept that. It just means that you two have accepted something less, and that's your choice, just don't push your beliefs on me. You're bordering on science as a religion when you do that, I believe.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Second, why isn't there a why? Why do I have to deal with that? You, and I think it was twinky earlier, aren't giving me an answer at all. Saying "Deal with it" and "just because you don't like it doesn't mean you can change it," aren't answers, they are cop-outs.
They are indeed answers. They're just answers you don't like.
2-2=0. Hold on, you don't want it to be zero, because you feel that's a cop out answer. You think 2-2 should be more meaningful.
How about: 2-2=BLORK BLORK is a mysterious force which doesn't obey math's rules, yet gives you an answer which you enjoy.
Now you've got an answer that satisfies your objections, but what good does that answer do you?
Many people, including me, don't see how the answer follows, because by what we understand as the rules of math, 2-2=0 [Dear math nerds, please play along]. In order for your answer to be meaningful, you have to convince a whole group of people that BLORK applies in this case. 3-3 DOES equal 0, because you don't really give a rip about 3. We should just trust you on BLORK.
That's a poor analogy, but hopefully it gives a little perspective of how an your objection sounds to an atheist.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not adding stipulations, you simply interpreted what it means to be a "just war" more narrowly than I meant it. At a minimum, justice should be evident in both the intent and the outcome, if not the actual prosecution due to the nature of the beast.
quote:And by the way, neither you nor KoM have said "MAYBE there is no answer."
All I've said is the fact that you dislike the idea of there being no answer doesn't mean there is one. I haven't said that there isn't one, nor that we shouldn't look for it.
Also, I say the thing you're claiming I haven't said in the part of my post you just quoted. There's no point in me addressing the rest of your post, since it's directed at a position I haven't taken.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Huh? The problem with your little equation, is that it isn't 2-2=0 OR 2-2=BLORK, it's 2-2= A recipe for Apple Pie. You can't add mathamatical values to the meaning of life, or mix crap around in a beaker and figure it out. It's outside the realm of science.
If you want to stick with your terminology then fine, they ARE answers, but that doesn't mean they are RIGHT answers. If you want to use a math problem then fine. X-Y=Z. What's X? What's Y? What's Z? If you're serious, that science really has some sort of formula for the meaning of life, then let's see it. Or, if the meaning really is what I said it was before (When KoM mistakenly tried to correct me), then again, I'll say that science doesn't have the tools to answer my question, anymore than it can answer the question "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
They're answers I have zero proof of their truth. Accept them if you want, maybe they are good enough for you. And I'm not even saying they aren't for me, just trying to make a point.
twinky -
Alright then, with that definition, there has NEVER been a just war. Atrocities always happen in war, even if they are a one time thing, there's no clean war. So singling out religious wars seems a little silly.
For the what, third time? I never said there definetely is one. I just said that you can't rule one out, and you can't find me one, with scientific means. So whatever mumbo jumbo I want to use to try and find one is my perogative. Accepting that science can't find me one and then saying there obviously CAN'T be one I think turns science into religion. I believe there could be one, but science isn't involved in finding it, and if I come up short in the end, so be it.
Much of it is direct at KoM, who I directed most of my original post at.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nobody is objecting to people searching for a meaning to their lives. But religion goes from "I want a meaning" to "There exists a god", and usually from "There exists a god" to "You must worship as I do or else". Bing! That does not follow!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Alright then, with that definition, there has NEVER been a just war. Atrocities always happen in war, even if they are a one time thing, there's no clean war. So singling out religious wars seems a little silly.
That's exactly how I felt about the statement to which I was responding, when I made the original comment.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ...if I come up short in the end, so be it.
Here's what I'm getting at: why is not finding a "higher" meaning or purpose to life "coming up short?" Why is that a failure of some kind?
The only reason you've given for this is that you don't like the idea of there not being a "higher" purpose; I'm asking you why you don't like that idea.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Huh? The problem with your little equation, is that it isn't 2-2=0 OR 2-2=BLORK, it's 2-2= A recipe for Apple Pie. You can't add mathamatical values to the meaning of life, or mix crap around in a beaker and figure it out. It's outside the realm of science.
That's not a problem with the equation, that's my point. The meaning of life is not just outside the realm of science, it's outside the realm of human knowledge. There IS no meaning of life, in the sense that it isn't a fact, it isn't a descernible thing.
I'm happy if you want to think about stuff and come to some conclusions. I think that there is meaning that each person can attribute to things, but that meaning is not a thing, it's not a FACT, it's their own way of lookin at the world.
I just wish more religious people realized that their way of looking at things might be great for them, but it isn't REAL in the same way that 2-2=0 is real for everybody.
To some people, religious beliefs make their life better, but when they decide that those beliefs are universal truth, which should apply to everyone, I get upset. Any number of beliefs and feelings and rules and motivations may well make an individual's life more meaningful, but they don't necessarily make my life, or the lives of a lot of other people more meaningful, so they shouldn't be imposed upon us by force.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:anymore than it can answer the question "Why do bad things happen to good people?"
But it does answer that question, to wit, "Because goodness is a human-invented quality which does not influence random chance".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where're all the religious people who're supposed to be backing me up? I don't even go to church anymore!
Okay one at a time:
KoM -
Bull. You said flat out on the previous page that there IS no meaning to life, other than the evolutionary process. And your little line of thinking is a gross generalization of faith.
What about those who are merely spiritual, and don't follow an organized religion, but still believe in God? What's your attack for that?
quote:Originally Posted by KoM- But it does answer that question, to wit, "Because goodness is a human-invented quality which does not influence random chance".
lol, that doesn't answer the question, that explains why you don't think the question should be answered at all. You keep avoiding the subject by trying to devalue the question away to nothingness.
twinky -
quote:That's exactly how I felt about the statement to which I was responding, when I made the original comment.
Sorry, when you said specifically religious wars, it threw my perception of the question. I guess I'm a little more generous in my naming what is and isn't a just war. I'd call the American prosecution of WWII a just war, but not the German side. The war as a whole may or may not have been just. Individual crusades were just I believe, and I think as a whole whether they were just and true, they were justified, regardless.
quote:Here's what I'm getting at: why is not finding a "higher" meaning or purpose to life "coming up short?" Why is that a failure of some kind?
The only reason you've given for this is that you don't like the idea of there not being a "higher" purpose; I'm asking you why you don't like that idea.
Depends on who you are. I personally believe there is something more to my life than just breeding and surviving the elements. If I fail to find something higher, than it means I was wrong, and usually human beings equate being wrong to failure, and thus "coming up short." Perhaps we're getting more tripped up on diction than we need to be.
There might just NOT be a higher purpose to life. And I don't necessarily like or not like it, I haven't said either way. All I've said is that YOU, and KoM, can't tell me one way or the other, because neither of you know for sure, and neither do I, so KoM telling me to "Deal" with his supposed 'truths' is bull. Truth, in this case, may or may not be universal, which doesn't match scientific truths which ARE universal between people.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Huh? The problem with your little equation, is that it isn't 2-2=0 OR 2-2=BLORK, it's 2-2= A recipe for Apple Pie. You can't add mathamatical values to the meaning of life, or mix crap around in a beaker and figure it out. It's outside the realm of science.
That's not a problem with the equation, that's my point. The meaning of life is not just outside the realm of science, it's outside the realm of human knowledge. There IS no meaning of life, in the sense that it isn't a fact, it isn't a descernible thing.
I'm happy if you want to think about stuff and come to some conclusions. I think that there is meaning that each person can attribute to things, but that meaning is not a thing, it's not a FACT, it's their own way of lookin at the world.
I just wish more religious people realized that their way of looking at things might be great for them, but it isn't REAL in the same way that 2-2=0 is real for everybody.
To some people, religious beliefs make their life better, but when they decide that those beliefs are universal truth, which should apply to everyone, I get upset. Any number of beliefs and feelings and rules and motivations may well make an individual's life more meaningful, but they don't necessarily make my life, or the lives of a lot of other people more meaningful, so they shouldn't be imposed upon us by force.
I don't believe it's outside the realm of human knowledge. You're doing the same thing you're against. Do you see the similarity between Group A saying "The value of Y is X" and Group B saying that "There is no value to Y."
To some people, the meaning of life IS a fact to them, in the exact way that science has no REAL facts, just theories that are proven so much to the point where we accept them as fact. Personally I don't even agree with that usually, but who am I to tell someone that their personal meaning to life is total crap, or that their life has no meaning. Would you really tell Mother Theresa that her life had no meaning? No purpose?
Saying "Science has decided that life has no meaning" is just as forceful as someone throwing the Bible at you, you're just throwing a text book at them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QB] Where're all the religious people who're supposed to be backing me up? I don't even go to church anymore!
Lately I don't either. Most of us are tired of talking to king of men, but I felt like it wss worth opposing him on the Wednesday before Thanksgiving because I, frankly, didn't have much else to do. Yesterday and today have been much different, and I feel like I've mnade my point well enough that I am ok withdrawing from the argument at this point anyhow.
but thanks for sticking up for us Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you really tell Mother Theresa that her life had no meaning? No purpose?
Let me reiterate this: just because some external authority has not declared that your life has meaning does not mean that your life lacks meaning. People make their own meanings, and it would be incredibly arrogant to suggest to someone that the meaning they've made for themselves is worthless.
Which is exactly what people do to atheists all the time, I need to point out. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you really tell Mother Theresa that her life had no meaning? No purpose?
Let me reiterate this: just because some external authority has not declared that your life has meaning does not mean that your life lacks meaning. People make their own meanings, and it would be incredibly arrogant to suggest to someone that the meaning they've made for themselves is worthless.
Which is exactly what people do to atheists all the time, I need to point out.
Clearly you don't need any convincing. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bull. You said flat out on the previous page that there IS no meaning to life, other than the evolutionary process. And your little line of thinking is a gross generalization of faith.
Bit of a confusion of levels, there. There is no meaning imposed from outside, and no reason to believe there is one. But individual human lives have whatever meaning their owners assign to them. And I do not see where I said anything about evolution having meaning; it doesn't, it's just stuff that happened.
quote:What about those who are merely spiritual, and don't follow an organized religion, but still believe in God? What's your attack for that?
Well, why the devil are they believing in something with no evidence in its favour?
quote:That doesn't answer the question, that explains why you don't think the question should be answered at all. You keep avoiding the subject by trying to devalue the question away to nothingness.
Well, what of it? It's up to you to show that there's some reason for bad things to happen to good people. Just because you asked the question doesn't mean it's a good one, or even one that can be meaningfully answered. It's only a difficult question in a universe that has a benevolent god in it - there's a huge set of assumptions wrapped up in the mere question, and I don't share those assumptions.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, what of it? It's up to you to show that there's some reason for bad things to happen to good people. Just because you asked the question doesn't mean it's a good one, or even one that can be meaningfully answered. It's only a difficult question in a universe that has a benevolent god in it - there's a huge set of assumptions wrapped up in the mere question, and I don't share those assumptions.
Nah I don't have to prove anything at all, not to you anyway. Haven't you been listening?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How did you prove this? Can you demonstrate this?
Sure. Given that "meaning" is a concept relevant only to my "internal context," which I define as my own thoughts (as generated by the interaction of my "perceptive context" (my sensations) with the "external context" (physical reality)), and given that it is impossible to share or precisely duplicate internal contexts with other people under our current technology, it becomes obvious that "meaning" is something which I must choose to define for myself.
So the question "does my life have meaning" is one that I have to answer for myself, barring any evidence that "meaning" can be determined by an outside force or possesses intrinsic external value.
Given that, the simplest answer is this: if I am the only person who can decide whether my life has "meaning," then that is at least one purpose of my life: I am, to quote George Bush, "the decider." No one else can determine meaning for me; whether my life has meaning is therefore a decision I alone can make; ergo, I perform an exclusive function for myself, and thus have value to myself.
This is a bare minimum, but I think it suffices.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's kind of the point. In the absence of evidence, atheism (for this debate, non-meaningfulness) is the rational position. To say "X exists, but I don't have to prove it, and you can't prove it doesn't", is not serious debate. If you can't support your position any better than that, is it not time you re-examined your belief in it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems pretty strange to me to attempt to divorce belief from religious belief, as in suggesting that it's not religion that's relevant to improvements in humanity, it's belief or something along those lines.
To the people that believe in the religions, the distinction is trivial at best. Seems pretty presumptuous to suggest, as is common from both theist and atheist sides of this sort of discussion, that the believer doesn't really know what they think.
-------------
Reading this thread, I asked myself the question: would I rather live in a world today which lacked the advancements in the past six-thousand years in religion, or lacking the advancements in the past six-thousand years in science?
I'm aware of how futile and hypothetical such a question really is. So often-almost exclusively, in fact, over that long a period-have religion and scientist been embodied in the same mind, that removing one would produce a profound change in some of the most important people in history. While recognizing that, I would rather live in a world that has the current blend of religious sensibilities overall, and lacks the current blend of scientific knowledge overall, than the other way around.
---------
quote:In the absence of evidence, atheism (for this debate, non-meaningfulness) is the rational position.
Wouldn't agnosticism be an even more rational belief?
---------------
I believe most people define 'purpose', as it relates to this discussion anyway, as something further than what they decide for themselves. They may make the decision to believe in a Purpose themselves, but that Purpose isn't theirs in the sense that they didn't originate it. Just as assigning all such purpose to an otherwordly/supernatural/divine Creator seems rather herdlike, assigning all such purpose to one's self and suggesting that's all that matters seems rather prideful.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But I understand what you mean, in broad strokes.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
