The Universe is big and maybe your not the center of it (unless of course the universe is infinite then you would be) and the visible universe maybe 16 billion light years, but that is not empirical evidence there is no divinity. I have heard the same argument used as "empirical" evidence that there is a divinity. I have no empirical evidence only my faith, without evidence one way or the other I can only fall back upon my faith.
Still, Where is the empirical evidence?
I never said there was no divinity, nor that I had proof of that assertion. I'm just saying that physical reality provides enough justification for moral action for me, without the need for an authority figure, mortal or extraphyiscal.
In other words: I'm a humanist, but only by accident of birth. (And humanism is only one of my "religions".)
PS Oh, and I don't believe the universe is infinite because I don't believe infinity is rational, but that's another discussion.
1 Pagan, 1 'general' Christian (no denomination), 1 Unitarian Universalist, 1 Roman Catholic, 2 Athiests.
I love that if you aren't a Christian or an Atheist then you must be a pagan, very cleaver, very enlightened.
I guess all the Jews, Muslims, Zarathroists, Budhists, Taoists, Gnostics, Angostics, Deists and so forth aren't really worth mentioning, now are they?
|
I love that if you aren't a Christian or an Atheist then you must be a pagan, very cleaver, very enlightened.
I guess all the Jews, Muslims, Zarathroists, Budhists, Taoists, Gnostics, Angostics, Deists and so forth aren't really worth mentioning, now are they?
Well technically ... almost. Except Jews and Muslims. According to what seems to be most dictionary definitions of the word.
pa·gan /ˈpeɪgən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pey-guhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
?noun 1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
?adjective 4. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim.
5. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.
6. irreligious or hedonistic.--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
[Origin: 1325?75; ME < ML, LL pâgânus worshiper of false gods, orig. civilian (i.e., not a soldier of Christ), L: peasant, n. use of pâgânus rural, civilian, deriv. of pâgus village, rural district (akin to pangere to fix, make fast); see -an1]
?Related forms
pa·gan·ish, adjective
pa·gan·ish·ly, adverb?Synonyms 2. heathen, gentile. 5. See heathen.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source pa·gan (pâ'gən) Pronunciation Key
n.
One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially an adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity.
A Neo-Pagan.
Offensive
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.[Middle English, from Late Latin pâgânus, from Latin, country-dweller, civilian, from pâgus, country, rural district; see pag- in Indo-European roots.]
pa'gan adj., pa'gan·dom (-dəm) n., pa'gan·ish adj., pa'gan·ism n.
(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
paganc.1375, from L.L. paganus "pagan," in classical L. "villager, rustic, civilian," from pagus "rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten," from PIE base *pag- "to fix" (see pact). Religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c.202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (e.g. milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908. Paganism is attested from 1433.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
Now I know this is not what everyone means when they use the word. I expect that some people mean the dictionary definition, others mean "everyone not christian", still others refer to a specific belief system, or a number of belief systems. Other people probably mean other things. I don't think any of these meanings are wrong, words, labels and definitions can quite rightly mean different things to different people.
But it might avoid confusion if people clarified when they are not using the word by its generally accepted dictionary definition.
As for what the OP meant by refering to "pagan" in the context quoted, I don't think he was being un-enlightened or deregotory (after all the "pagan" he was refering to was his wife). I suspect he knows exactly what he meant by pagan in this context and did NOT mean "anyone who's not a christian or an atheist".
Although I'd be interested to know how you do define pagan Fatespinner?
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
1 Pagan, 1 'general' Christian (no denomination), 1 Unitarian Universalist, 1 Roman Catholic, 2 Athiests.
I love that if you aren't a Christian or an Atheist then you must be a pagan, very cleaver, very enlightened.
I guess all the Jews, Muslims, Zarathroists, Budhists, Taoists, Gnostics, Angostics, Deists and so forth aren't really worth mentioning, now are they?
...umm... did you mean to reply to a different post here? I never suggested anything of the sort, I was just noting MY GROUP'S theological composition.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Although I'd be interested to know how you do define pagan Fatespinner?
I define 'Pagan' as someone who believes in a Mother Goddess as a source of life in the world and pays respect to the seasons, the harvest, and the world as a whole in religious reverence. I suppose most people would call it 'Wiccan' but, according to my wife anyway, there is a distinct difference between 'Pagan' and 'Wiccan.' According to her, Wiccans believe in magical rituals, the invocation of spirits, and a distinct supernatural force. Paganism, by contrast, simply reveres the natural world and respects the spiritual power of it. There is no Pagan 'magic' and no rituals that seek to invoke a particular spirit for any purpose other than worship. I'm not a religious person, I just tell it like I see it. This is what my wife tells me and she calls herself Pagan. Therefore, this is my view of what paganism is. I apologize if someone has interpreted it as a derogatory term because, as Mothman pointed out, I would not demean my own wife in such a way. This is what she calls herself.
For what its worth, Unitarian Universalists are not Christians either... well... they CAN be, but ours is not. She's a Universalist Wiccan.
What angers me more are moral relativists, who try to postulate that there is no good or evil.Hmm - yes and no. It is important to have moral compass. But a lack of "flexibility" can have appalling consequences. I doubt George W is a moral relativist. And they aren't in Northern Ireland either. Some things are right (or wrong), but not that important.
Thank you. I was hoping to be able to expound on this some, and you've given me a chance.
Let me begin by saying that two people I care very deeply for are being raised by the "moral relativist" I mentioned before that replied, "No, killing babies in the street isn't intrinsically evil."
I can accept that someone rejects the existence of objective good and evil and is still moral. However, the person in question I happen to know, unfortunately, is the type of person that would use "moral relativism" to explain away any wrong-doing on her part, and has in the past, regardless of how much damage she actually does to someone. These are the people that I speak of when I say that moral relativists anger me.
The subject originally came to my attention when I heard one of those people I care deeply for spewing what I knew was something they had heard from the "moral relativist" in the situation, and it concerned me greatly.
I feel "morals" are like temperature. Hot and cold are certainly real things; some thing can have more or less thermal energy than another thing. However, what hot and cold actually are to certain individuals varies wildly. It is not overly hard to imagine someone who believes 70 degrees Farenhiet (sp?) is "cool," while another person considers it to be "warm." However, as one extends away from the "middle ground," such variations occur less. You will be hard pressed to find a rational person who doesn't consider -75 degrees to be frigid and the surface of the sun a literal inferno.
Likewise with morals. Whether homosexuality, or litering, or giving to charity, or helping old ladies cross the street is inherently "good" or "bad" will vary by person, and is near impossible, if not actually being impossible, to pin down.
However, as one moves away from the "middle ground," such variances decrease. Few are the rational people that come from a self-sustaining, productive society and find cold-blooded murder for profit to be acceptable, or doing something that helps society in general and involving no personal exploitation or cost to innocents to be some sort of sin. The best way to test a theory, in my opinion, is to immediately take it to the extremes and see if it remains constant there.
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that disagree with my "temperature/moral" model, but that is what I meant by belief in the existence of true good and bad.
I think if someone was going to be offended, they would've posted long before now. I'm familiar with the concept of Natural Law, but my understanding of most varieties of Christianity is that the central tenant is accepting Jesus Christ as the savior. I am at a loss as to how Natural Law can lead to an understanding or awareness of Jesus.I think your in dreamland - just about everyone is walking on eggshells in order not to offend and turning the other cheek at posts they have some issues with. The hottest debate we've had so far is about defining Athiesm vs. Agnostiscm and thats not likely to really set off either Atheists of Agnostics. But this topic could easily blow wide open.
I'll settle for the "Nasty" people banging on about heaven and hell, thanks...Osama bin Laden is a great bloke, of course. Or Jim Jones. Or David Koresh.
I was being somewhat faecetious when I wrote that last line.
To be more precise in my views i have to admit that I see religion, science, business, politics, art, music, sport etc, as being expressions of humanities desire to know and explore and shape existance. They become our "vehicles" which which give form and permit action in our lives and our world. Their use as such reveals both who we really are and what we capable of. And all of them are open to abuse, to promote power and abition above well being of others.
The examples you listed chose religion as their "vehicle" and used it in calculated, destructive ways. ( Or in bin laden's cause , still does )They presented their religion AS existance and in doing so, they preyed on the hopes and fears of their followers to fulfill their ambitions and delusions.
Religion, to me, is an acknowledgment of the divine, to provide a moral compass in my life and to rise above the mundane. We are all biological creatures but we are not animals. There is purpose to life and we , as a race and individuals, are a work in progress.
Although I'm baptized as an Orthodox Christian, I feel that religion is just a way to put labels and create fear to individuals.
I truly respect what you say at the last paragraph but I would like to point a theory that might change the way you think and is called the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin. If that does not ring a bell then consider whether your viewpoint is consistent when scientists will find traces of alien intelligence thus we won't be alone in the universe or the fact that some religions don't offer afterlife and I'm sure there is no wrong or right in religion since it is a matter of spirituality.
I'm down with the theory of evolution. I am there. It makes perfect sense to me. Always has. It has ALSO been abused as an idea, being put forward as justification for the horrible treatment of workers throughout the Industrial revolution or the "proof" that europeans were superior to other races (Kind of hard when there's only one human race).
As for Aliens...(smirk)...I'll believe in ET when he lands on the White House lawn. Not saying (and didn't say) we're all alone in the universe. Either way it doesn't change a single thing I said or what I meant in my last post.
I'm down with the theory of evolution. I am there. It makes perfect sense to me. Always has. It has ALSO been abused as an idea, being put forward as justification for the horrible treatment of workers throughout the Industrial revolution or the "proof" that europeans were superior to other races (Kind of hard when there's only one human race).
As for Aliens...(smirk)...I'll believe in ET when he lands on the White House lawn. Not saying (and didn't say) we're all alone in the universe. Either way it doesn't change a single thing I said or what I meant in my last post.
Then how can you differentiate humans from other animals, while we might have evolved from them plus the fact that some religions believe in reincarnation as an animal, vermin etc. I think that religion doesn't have more to often than philosophy except the fact that faith comes only from believing and not from proving.
Baptized Catholic, now a practicing Pastafarian.
"I have been touched by his noodly appendage"
I thought pastafarians had perciatelli dreads and puffed on dried oregano? No idea they believed in the sanctity of noodledom.
I was thinking the other day about the hubris of man casting the almighty in his own image but then I was talking to my cat Finster on the couch and he said that Catgod was a very charismatic Abyssinian with glowing white eyes. So I guess such racially familiar depictions are only natural.
The Egyptians sure bucked that trend though, eh?
If I wanted to worship an ass headed man I'd look in the mirror.
I think your in dreamland - just about everyone is walking on eggshells in order not to offend and turning the other cheek at posts they have some issues with. The hottest debate we've had so far is about defining Athiesm vs. Agnostiscm and thats not likely to really set off either Atheists of Agnostics. But this topic could easily blow wide open.
For those fearing to speak, head on down to our little discussion in the Off-Topic forum. Thus far, I know I at least haven't pulled any punches in my discussions (though perhaps my long-windedness simply drives folks away before they have a chance to be offended...). And everyone's managed to remain civil as well! We are, interestingly enough, touching on some of the same topics (evolution for instance popped up yesterday).
And Searn, interestingly enough I "invented" (I know now that it wasn't an original concept of my own creation, but I sure thought so at the time!) the philosophical test of using extremes back in my college days. It has indeed still proven useful as an initial too for testing the validity of certain hypotheses.
And Jade, that last sentence cracked me up...good one!
And Searn, interestingly enough I "invented" (I know now that it wasn't an original concept of my own creation, but I sure thought so at the time!) the philosophical test of using extremes back in my college days. It has indeed still proven useful as an initial too for testing the validity of certain hypotheses.
Yes; it is certainly a common occurance that those predisposed to contemplation of philosophical matters will arrive at conclusions and, if they have any skill whatsoever, will then find that those exact same conclusions and methods have already been discovered by someone else. Nevertheless, one still feels proud (and rightfully so!) for having come to those ends by one's own means.
I think they're all true.you sound like a buddhist but what do I know.
It's be just as Buddhist to say, "None of them are true." Buddhism is a system of spiritual beliefs regarding suffering and the alleviation thereof; it's not a catalogue of gods nor a name for religious free-for-all.
Cool post Saern, ethical theory is one of my favourite topics. I want to defend moral relativism a little if I can, as I think it gets a bad rap that it doesn't really deserve.
I can accept that someone rejects the existence of objective good and evil and is still moral. However, the person in question I happen to know, unfortunately, is the type of person that would use "moral relativism" to explain away any wrong-doing on her part, and has in the past, regardless of how much damage she actually does to someone. These are the people that I speak of when I say that moral relativists anger me.
I know the sort you mean. People like that have given moral relativism a bad name among intelligent people.
The ethicists who first formulated the idea of moral relativism said that there is no such thing as objective morality. Fair enough. They then went on to note, however, that just because something is subjective doesn't mean it isn't real. Much of 20th century philosophy is concerned with this idea, something that used to be self-evident to people (and still is in many cultures) before logical positivism destroyed the modern west's ability to accept two different truths at the same time.
As Neil Gaiman says in Anansi Boys: "In the stories, Anansi is a spider, but he is also a man. It is not hard to keep two things in your head at the same time. Even a child could do it." That's all moral relativism is; There is no one truth, so it is true that say, human sacrifice is good in one society and evil in another. Both of those statements are true, human sacrifice is both good and evil depending on context. But by the same token if you come from a society where it is evil, then it is truthfully and completely evil to you. It doesn't need to be objectively evil for it to be truthfully and sincerely evil. So you're right, a moral relativist can't say that killing a baby (or even an adult) without provocation or reason is an evil act by nature. But what they can (and do) say is that it is evil in every single human society throughout history so it is really, truthfully evil for all intents and purposes. Even if a society emerged which rewarded such behaviour it would still be truthfully evil in all the other societies. Like most philosophy, moral relativism sounds radical on paper but has precisely no effect on the way someone actually interprets morality and acts in their society, unless they misunderstand it. Which, because it is a comparatively new idea in the public consciousness, happens a lot. Ethical theorists are about evenly divided between relativists and objectivists. I find the arguments of moral relativism make sense to me, but my ethics prof at university for example was a moral objectivist.
Moral relativism is usually rejected on the grounds of logical positivism: Logically, something cannot be simultaneously true and false. That's cool if you live by logic. What is not cool is what this woman is doing, which is rejecting moral relativism while claiming to be a relativist. Instead of saying "I believe only things that are objective truths really exist, morals exist, therefore moral relativism is crap" she is saying "I believe only things that are objective truths really exist, morals aren't objective, therefore morals don't exist." That is not moral relativism, that is classic amorality. The point of moral relativism is that morals DO exist; they just aren't objective. That doesn't mean you have a license to act like they aren't there...
The best way to test a theory, in my opinion, is to immediately take it to the extremes and see if it remains constant there.
Heh. I don't know how much philosophy you've studied (if any) but in case you didn't know that is a venerable and respected technique called reductio ad absurdum!
The thing I think people worry about with the whole moral relativism thing is that it may affect people's behaviour. But it can only do that if people misunderstand it. It is actually an ontological argument, not an ethical one. It is about whether such things as "morals" exist, and if they do, what sort of things they are. Moral relativism is an abstract concept used by philosophers to discuss the nature of reality, not a thing designed to provide someone with a credible sounding word to justify being amoral.
before logical positivism destroyed the modern west's ability to accept two different truths at the same time.
I love this, and especially love Gaiman's take on it. For a real fun time, people should regularly try holding two directly conflicting ideas in their heads at once. Better than drugs.
Although I'm baptized as an Orthodox Christian, I feel that religion is just a way to put labels and create fear to individuals.
I truly respect what you say at the last paragraph but I would like to point a theory that might change the way you think and is called the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin. If that does not ring a bell then consider whether your viewpoint is consistent when scientists will find traces of alien intelligence thus we won't be alone in the universe or the fact that some religions don't offer afterlife and I'm sure there is no wrong or right in religion since it is a matter of spirituality.
Charles Darwin was a religious man with a deeply felt belief in GOD
Charles Darwin was a religious man with a deeply felt belief in GODAlthough I'm baptized as an Orthodox Christian, I feel that religion is just a way to put labels and create fear to individuals.
I truly respect what you say at the last paragraph but I would like to point a theory that might change the way you think and is called the Theory of Evolution by Charles Darwin. If that does not ring a bell then consider whether your viewpoint is consistent when scientists will find traces of alien intelligence thus we won't be alone in the universe or the fact that some religions don't offer afterlife and I'm sure there is no wrong or right in religion since it is a matter of spirituality.
Agreed (I think; this line of posts is somewhat muddled). "Life on other worlds exist, therefore, God doesn't," seems illogical to me. I'm not completely sure that's what was said, now that I think about it, but I just want to thow that out there.
And, Kahoolin, I have absolutely no formal training in philosophy whatsoever, so I'm happy to hear I've been using a commonly accepted theory all along. :) I'm just starting into Socrates and Plato in a Literature class, but have not gotten around to any logic or philosophy courses yet, and was, of course, not provided with any opportunities to really study the subject in high school. Everything I "know" on the matter are just things I've come up with myself, so I should probably invest in those classes soon!
Also, I realize that I've slipped into my problematic wording of "good" and "evil" again, which seem to be overly charged words. No one really seems to have taken exception here yet, but they have in the past. I think "right" and "wrong" are more accurate and acceptable.
|
What angers me more are moral relativists, who try to postulate that there is no good or evil.
Hmm - yes and no. It is important to have moral compass. But a lack of "flexibility" can have appalling consequences. I doubt George W is a moral relativist. And they aren't in Northern Ireland either. Some things are right (or wrong), but not that important.
Thank you. I was hoping to be able to expound on this some, and you've given me a chance.
Let me begin by saying that two people I care very deeply for are being raised by the "moral relativist" I mentioned before that replied, "No, killing babies in the street isn't intrinsically evil."
I can accept that someone rejects the existence of objective good and evil and is still moral. However, the person in question I happen to know, unfortunately, is the type of person that would use "moral relativism" to explain away any wrong-doing on her part, and has in the past, regardless of how much damage she actually does to someone. These are the people that I speak of when I say that moral relativists anger me.
The subject originally came to my attention when I heard one of those people I care deeply for spewing what I knew was something they had heard from the "moral relativist" in the situation, and it concerned me greatly.
I feel "morals" are like temperature. Hot and cold are certainly real things; some thing can have more or less thermal energy than another thing. However, what hot and cold actually are to certain individuals varies wildly. It is not overly hard to imagine someone who believes 70 degrees Farenhiet (sp?) is "cool," while another person considers it to be "warm." However, as one extends away from the "middle ground," such variations occur less. You will be hard pressed to find a rational person who doesn't consider -75 degrees to be frigid and the surface of the sun a literal inferno.
Likewise with morals. Whether homosexuality, or litering, or giving to charity, or helping old ladies cross the street is inherently "good" or "bad" will vary by person, and is near impossible, if not actually being impossible, to pin down.
However, as one moves away from the "middle ground," such variances decrease. Few are the rational people that come from a self-sustaining, productive society and find cold-blooded murder for profit to be acceptable, or doing something that helps society in general and involving no personal exploitation or cost to innocents to be some sort of sin. The best way to test a theory, in my opinion, is to immediately take it to the extremes and see if it remains constant there.
I'm sure there are plenty of people out there that disagree with my "temperature/moral" model, but that is what I meant by belief in the existence of true good and bad.
I agree that there is a degree of moral relativism, but I don't really think that is the same as amorality (which it seems to me you describe re your friend). I would sugest that someonewho is amoral will say that "I can do what I like, you cannot conclusively demonstrate to me what I am doing is wrong" and yes, strictly they would be right.
However, most people don't like people like that. Morals are largely socially constructed, but they serve a purpose - people can get on with other people. A basic rule could be "treat others as you would wish to be treated", which probably encapsulates the whole thing quite nicely. You don't treat people like s$%~ because you might end up poisoning quite a useful relationship in the future. And trust is quite an important commodity - a lot of business, even the basic idea of lending money, is based on trust, and a meaningful relationship is virtually impossible without it.
So a tendency towards morality holds communities together, for the benefit of all. (Again, not original thought by me - probably David Hume). This may be inbred, even "genetic", since individuals with a innate moral sense will operate more effectively in a community. But this doesn't make them any less relativistic - they exist simply because they are useful, and the moment they might cease to be useful the "evolutionary process" would eliminate them. They do not exist as eternal moral verities apart from humanity to which we refer for guidance - they exist because of humanity and the way we have evolved.
But there are bigger issues where a rigid morality can be a hindrance, and lead to a sub-optimal outcome. And lots of moral choices are really complicated, particularly the bigger ones with more ramifcations. The invasion of Iraq? You can argue it either way - certainly, I was in favour of the idea of the invasion, though the execution was obviously dismal. A woman's right to abortion - the idea of abortion repels me, and I find some of the apologetics in its favour dubious, but on the other hand should a woman be forced to have a child when she is not in the position to care for it effectively (and women have had dangerous non-medical abortions for centuries).
In those circumstances, one needs to consider the greater good, in itself a nebulous concept to pin down. Simple moral approaches (often promulgated by simple-minded religious belief, a la Messers Bush and Blair) break down, because there are several competing moral imperatives. I often think that cynicism about politicians is, to some extent, just slightly misplaced - they need to make dfficult decisions all the time, which no one else wants to make, quite often. That doesn't mean, of course, that they can't be disastrously wrong.
EDIT - just read Kahoolin's post, which says it better.
|
|
Charles Darwin was a religious man with a deeply felt belief in GOD
WRONG. He certainly started out as a conventional member of the Engish gentry, and considered a career as a Church of England vicar. But as he explored the ramifications of his theory of evolution, he began to drift away from faith. He also describes in one of his letters how he ultimately lost his faith - one of his daughters died of one of the childhood infectious diseases that laid low small children in the 19th Century, and he found his belief in God died when she did.
Then how can you differentiate humans from other animals, while we might have evolved from them plus the fact that some religions believe in reincarnation as an animal, vermin etc.
since you ask...I usually find that those who consider the human race to be just another animal certainly do not consider themselves to be animals. Some of us do act like animals but that's not the same thing. I usually find that the lack of animal created science, art, logic, religion etc. , allow me quite easily put animals in 1 bracket and humanity in another.
Oh...also, I can guarentee you that I don't believe in reincarnation, either as humans or animals.
Personally I'm an atheist. I've gamed with a number of Jews and a few atheists and am friends with a number of Jews, Christians, a few Muslims, a Baha'i (sp?) or two and a number of atheists. To me, science can (and eventually will) explain everything in existence and such there is no such thing as supernatural. The tricky part is that we communicate with words and words can be altered in their meaning and context (faith, belief, religion, atheism, deity, etc like the word nation in Canadian politics recently; for Canadians you know what I mean and for non Canadians DON'T ask, it'll take too long to explain) individuals don't perceive these concepts in identical ways; similar perhaps but not absolutely identical. On moral relativism it's tricky but kahoolin dealt with it well but taking things to extremes tends to produce skewed results. Now I'm looking at it as an analogy for statistics since most data points will be clustered on the bell curve and the outliers skew the data significantly but to cultures good and evil exist subjectively but nevertheless they do exist; after all the Aztecs made many human sacrifices; it is repulsive to us today but to their view it was necessary and prevented greater tragedies by appeasing the gods.
I also happen to be very pro evolutionist (believing in evolution, including humans evolving from apes) and we are animals we just happen to have developed some societal features that other animals did not need to develop to survive and thrive. Aubrey the religion centre or whatever one wishes to call it won't disappear if it becomes unused, it'll disappear if it becomes a significant hindrance to survival. After all, we still have appendices (the internal organ) even though it is useless. As far as abortion goes the choice should be available but safe sex and adoption would be preferable but again the choice should be available in my view. If you don't agree thats your prerogative. As far as the paganism thing goes the northern european pagan/heathen belief mixed with elements of christianity sounds like some native american beliefs and the beliefs in some parts of Indonesia where the locals held on to animist beliefs and incorporated elements of Islam into that belief creating a fusion of cultures. Finally, fanaticism can arise out of anything, even Christianity (Spanish Inquisition, anyone?) and should be opposed by interaction, inclusiveness and embracing others. Tolerance means that you don't particularly LIKE having others around but don't necessarily get too angry about it either.
Charles Darwin was a religious man with a deeply felt belief in GODWRONG. He certainly started out as a conventional member of the Engish gentry, and considered a career as a Church of England vicar. But as he explored the ramifications of his theory of evolution, he began to drift away from faith. He also describes in one of his letters how he ultimately lost his faith - one of his daughters died of one of the childhood infectious diseases that laid low small children in the 19th Century, and he found his belief in God died when she did.
Interesting thing that I recently heard: apparently, when Darwin's theory had spread, a guy named Ducasse (I believe) heard it and was shaken to his core. Prior to this, he had believed that he was evolving into an angel, literally. Very religious guy, but he had the scientific chops to realize that Darwin was really on to something. He was so tortured by the realization that he wrote "Maldoror", a short story or novel wherein he, as the protagonist, meets God as an old beggar on the road and...commits certain scatalogical acts that should not be named herein. He was supposedly fourteen years old at the time. So...yeah, folks have been upset about that Darwin cat and his crazy ideas for a long time.
|
|
I also happen to be very pro evolutionist (believing in evolution, including humans evolving from apes) and we are animals we just happen to have developed some societal features that other animals did not need to develop to survive and thrive. Aubrey the religion centre or whatever one wishes to call it won't disappear if it becomes unused, it'll disappear if it becomes a significant hindrance to survival. After all, we still have appendices (the internal organ) even though it is useless.
A bit like men's nipples and armpit hair. I would probably see religion as a slightly pointless appendage of historical interest but of no real contemporary value.
As far as abortion goes the choice should be available but safe sex and adoption would be preferable but again the choice should be available in my view. If you don't agree thats your prerogative.
I wasn't really making a point about abortion as such, but using it as an example of a difficult ethical subject where black-and-white morality doesn't work.
As far as the paganism thing goes the northern european pagan/heathen belief mixed with elements of christianity sounds like some native american beliefs and the beliefs in some parts of Indonesia where the locals held on to animist beliefs and incorporated elements of Islam into that belief creating a fusion of cultures. Finally, fanaticism can arise out of anything, even Christianity (Spanish Inquisition, anyone?) and should be opposed by interaction, inclusiveness and embracing others. Tolerance means that you don't particularly LIKE having others around but don't necessarily get too angry about it either.
Totally agree.
|
|
One line of thought holds that body hair traps pheromones and this helps to arouse a potential mate who gets close enough to detect them.
Veering off into hijack land....
Maybe. Mr Purcell mentions that the "God detector" would only disappear when it is actively a hindrance to survival, rather than when they are a bit useless. In other word, this is a phenomenon known as "selection pressure" - if is really good or really bad, there is lots of pressure to improve/remove a particular feature, depending. If it doesn't make a whole lot of difference (like a man's nipples, for example), evolution will probably leave it be since it doesn't have much impact either way.
It's probably a mistake to assume that everything has a biological purpose. Male nipples are really just a pointless hold-over to an embryonic development process where we all start off as girls. Armpit hair a big turn-on? Maybe, but then again there isn't much pressure either way to gain or get rid of armpit hair (it can be shaved off and a girl still looks, and presumably smells, OK to me) so maybe it, y'know, just "is" without doing anything much.
A very interesting article by the late, great Steven Jay Gould called "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples" (quite an eye-catching title) suggests that the female orgasm may fall into a similar category. No idea if it is true, but it certainly a good explanation of selection pressure.
Well, just so you know; the advance of science is a religion; clear and simple. If you say that science will explain everything or any such that is dogma. If you have rules, you have dogma, you have traditions and a culture to procreate that dogma you have a religion.
for me there is Good and Evil; one is not shades of the other; they are absolute and real; it is only our understanding that is the problem. Good is very hard to understand; Evil is very hard to admit. If you are human; you have a seed of both, which are you growing? Which do people see in you? Which are you inspiring in others?
I have found that everyone regardless of culture, training or background or religious belief has a concept of Good and Evil and can in the right settings have a very deep and personal conversation about the formentioned questions as long as the listener also shares, neither preaches, and both listen. In my years of these discussions; I have found that most of us are really not all that different, we are all just travelers along the path at different places along the road, we stop and meet others and procede to our destinations, to which and where none of us knows. I always like the ladder analogy as some of the rungs are slippery, but haven't heard it in a long time.
I always wonder why people are or follow the religion that they do; was there a single moment; did they just follow the crowd; an epiphany or what if any was their defining moments or are they still lost and searching; that interests me.
The posts about group demographics is pretty cool; anyone sat down and thought about what it all means. I have read all the posts be can't really follow the themes of most of it. When you hear the word Pagan, does it resonate for you with any particular stinging, seems so for one person at least, why is interesting; kinda strange to attack the language though do peeps have to difine their diction and word choice. To me your either a Catholic; a Protestant; Jew; Muslim; Apostate; Heathen; and probably sometimes something better or something worse; I didn't make up the words; dont use them as weapons and always wonder why some people feel a sting from them. Each describes a certain mindset and belief; they have definitions. I just don't understand how people get all worked up about it; is a mystery.
I have not read many of the undoubtedly interesting posts already made on this subject.
I am a practicing member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormon). I was once one of those missionaries riding around on bicycles you've probably seen. My religious beliefs and my wonderful wife are the two most important things in my life.
Two others in my group of 10 are Mormons also, although I do not know if either currently practices.
Two members of my group are Wiccans.
A former member in a group I played in identified himself as believing in the Norse pantheon, which I assume would classify him as a Pagan.
Well, just so you know; the advance of science is a religion; clear and simple. If you say that science will explain everything or any such that is dogma. If you have rules, you have dogma, you have traditions and a culture to procreate that dogma you have a religion.
Quite so...belief that scientific thinking will save us all and reign supreme is just that: a belief with little to show in terms of evidence.
Ninian Smart defined dimensions of religions as doctrinal, ethical, sensual, mythical, social, ritual and material, dimensions which can be studied. However, same dimensions apply also for most other philosophical systems, socialism, nationalism, science-optimism...we can tell tales how Galilei and Darwin, brave martyrs, suffered in hands of non-believers (mythical) or say Pledge of Allegiance (ritual)...
Has this gone off-thread a bit?
Then how can you differentiate humans from other animals, while we might have evolved from them plus the fact that some religions believe in reincarnation as an animal, vermin etc.since you ask...I usually find that those who consider the human race to be just another animal certainly do not consider themselves to be animals. Some of us do act like animals but that's not the same thing. I usually find that the lack of animal created science, art, logic, religion etc. , allow me quite easily put animals in 1 bracket and humanity in another.
Oh...also, I can guarentee you that I don't believe in reincarnation, either as humans or animals.
I never meant to offend and sorry if I did. The fact that we are far more intelligent does not mean that we are not animals. Or that a tiger is more of an animal than a mere mouse.
You don't believe in reincarnation because you don't believe but you believe in Christ because... they taught you?
I have one more last question to make. If you lived in India you would believe in Hinduism or Christianity?
"A Religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a number of persons". The above passage is the definition of religion from Wikipedia. "Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research". This passage come also from Wikipedia. I think that clarifies the critical difference between religion and science. To believe that science will eventually explain anything I think is very difficult but it will surely give better answers to our pleas for help when we have dangers concerning our life than religion.
But, NO, in no way science is an entity that should be worshipped.
But, NO, in no way science is an entity that should be worshipped.
Yet there is a difference between words "should be" and "is". Religion and science are clearly different things but human mind is not the most logical of systems and sometimes things get muddled up...
Some might say that human mind is religious by nature and start applying sort of religious thinking even in areas where religion does not typically show, like starting to treat science as sort of divinity. Term I have heard used on this type of thinking is "science optimism". Sometimes connected to devout atheism (and for Sebastian and others who claim that atheism is not a belief system, to some atheists it clearly is if not to all).As I said before, religious thinking can easily creep into things like nationalism or environmentalism or, say, football...
Well what the hell this isn't stopping anytime soon.
2. Many athiest seem to have just given up too quickly. Many either are rebelling, as above, or they had a bad experience in a church somewhere and decided to throw the whole thing out. I can have a crappy car, but I don't reject the use of automobiles or the concept that machines can provide superior transportation.
I think that the entire problem (and indeed the main focus of this discussion now) is people coming to their religious views or practicing them for the wrong reason. Atheists Theists and Agnostics included.
However, I somehow feel that these people are limiting themselves, and for that reason I actually am a bit sad for many of them.
Officially tired of this one. It's annoying like no other. Atheists might feel sorry for you because you haven't come to the deep personal truth and clarity that they have. Christians might feel sorry for Hindus because Bhraman doesn't have jesus built in. All these statements are equally crappy.
Just because your way works for you doesn't mean it is right to assume others are lacking in fufillment. If you are not an atheist then you might not understand what it means to look at a loved one and realize that no divine is looking out for them. Theres no pearly gates waiting to accept their soul. Their life and happiness is up to you to protect and ensure up to the best of your ability. Even then you have to accept that doing everything possible is not enough to avoid catastrophy. That some day you are going to be looking into a casket and you will have to ask yourself "Did I do enough?" "Was I a good enough son?, uncle?, friend?" "This time was all they had, did I do my part to help make it worth it?".
It would be just as easy for me to say that until you have come to grips with the weight of that responsibility. You don't know what happiness is. To feel the laughter of a child with the certainty that you made it happen. That you have made a difference and that no Jesus is waiting around a corner to pop in and say "nice job pal but I'm all she really needs". To feel truely useful and needed and every blessing you have comes from the palpable love of those who care for you. That they are the center of your universe.
I could rant all day how sorry I feel for Theists and ans Agnostics for not "feeling all the love that I feel". But I would be wrong. I don't claim to experiance anything more than they do but I sure as hell feel plenty and I know my beliefs have a very real impact on that.
Stop feeling sorry for others. Your beliefs are what is best for you (hopefully). That doesn't mean everyone else is missing out.
We look through different goggles to view the world. They give you protection and the ability to see things in different colors. They do not grant superior vision.
Oh and by the way, the hostility that I suspect seems inherent to this post is not very intense. I don't really expect Saern or anyone else meant anything personally and I have no hard feelings. That phrase has just always bugged me so I decided to post on it. A lifetime of growing up atheist in a huge family of Catholics will make you a little tired of people feeling sorry for your beliefs. Especially as none of them seem to realize that I used to be Catholic and gave it up by choice. Becoming an atheist is not some terrible and irreversable accident. It is an eye opening and deeply rewarding experiance (at least it was for me). And yes it is insulting when someone fails to acknowledge that or at least to consider the possibility.
|
|
I'd like to reiterate Sexi's comments above. I fail to comprehend this "spiritual" feeling lots of people on this thread go on about. It seems to be great, since lot's of people feel sorry for me for not feeling it. Personally, I pity them back for what I consider to be their delusional state.
I know the philosophical position on either side is totally unresolved. That isn't really the point. My position is considerably less "woolly" than either vague feelings of something indescribable or belief in the ineffable. I reckon there is nothing out there. And I LIKE IT. The same way that the spiritual types like feeling spiritual. And my feelings are as valid as theirs.
Science cannot be called religion. Science is a method of study and learning. Unlike dogma, science is subject to change. It does not hold that what it states is truth revealed by divine providence. It presents its findings a result of repeated observations based on controlled experiments. Everything is subject to challenge and change
This is a facinating discussion and one I have tried to stay out of since I am not religous. That said, my background is philosophy and I just cant miss the opportunity to throw my hat into the ring on this one.
While on the day to day level I agree with Bills discription of science, on the philosphical level I would like to raise a point.
Science establishes universal laws based on numerous individual instances of observed events (as Bill points out).
For example; the sun came up this morning and I have observed this many times before. Everyone I know also observed this therefore we can postulate a law that says the sun comes up in the morning (for now lets ignore the Descartian view that these are all sense based observations and that we cant trust our senses, or the gramatical issue that the sun rising is the definition of morning. Its an example. I could have used water boiling at 100 degrees or others).
The laws of science are claimed to be universal. They hold true at all points of space and time. Gravity always works in a certain way. Water boils at the same temperature on earth now and in 1000 years or a million years.
Heres the problem. Since we can not observe every instance we are extrapolating from our experience to the universal. And making a clain about all points in space and time.
Let me demonstrate. Suppose I flip a coin 100 times and it comes downn heads each time. In science I would form the rule. The coin lands on heads when it is flipped. We all know this is not true and that its 50/50 but our experience and observations of the 100 flips demonstrate the law. Scientific laws are the same. We have thousands or years worth of observations but there are millions of years worth of missing data and in terms of space an endless amout of other places we have not been to check the rules. Plus we cant know if tomorrow the laws might just change, the coin land on tails.
This is the problem of induction (look it up if you want). Science rests on this shaky pillar.
My question is this. Since the induction process to get to universal laws is unprovable does science not also rest on a belief. A belief that induction tells us something about the universe. Different from Religion I grant you but equally as difficult to prove.
Does this make science a religion? Don't think so. Does it mean its fact based? As far as possible. Does it mean its belief free? Definitely not.
Please note that this is a philosophical point and no conlusions of my religous beliefs should be drawn. Actually I would put myself in the science camp if I had too but that doesnt mean I cant see the problem.
Elcian
PS I used to be agnostic but now I'm not so sure.
I completely agree. As I say I would put myself in the science camp and I would not say its a religion. That said, while I think the scientific method is the best way we have of working out how the universe works on a philosophical level I find the induction problem facinating. It lies right at the heart of how science functions.
I am probably not doing a good job of explaining it but wikipedia might have a better discription. As a scientist I think you would fnd it interesting. It wont change you view, or mine for that matter, but it is interesting to think about.
Elcian
for now lets ignore the Descartian view that these are all sense based observations and that we cant trust our senses,
Why? It llustrates your point so much cleanly I think. With this view we cannot even prove the existance of anything. If this is true we have to have faith that this undisproveable theory is not true before we can base our assumptions on anything.
First, science would have to provide a lot of experiments that have findings supporting the idea that the coin will not land on tails. Even then science would not claim the coin "could not" even if the coin was flipped for eternity and never landed on tails. For science to accept something like that an experiment would have to show that some abnormal property of the coin made landing on tails improbable. Not to mention the fact that simple mathematics will even tell you that such things are possible. Just a very small probabilities.
I also add that very few things in science (none by my standards in fact) are accepted as absolute truths. Science has always grown to accomidate new ideas and discarded and or modify those that were previously in place. Laws are terms given out rarely to only the most solid and dependable forces in observable physics and mathematics.
There was once a philosophy proffessor that taught a friend of mine. The proffessor placed a chair in the middle of the class and posed a pop quiz.
"Take out a peice of paper and write on it your proof as to why this chair exists."
My friend turned in a paper that read. "What chair?"
1. I would like to voice my prefered word useage concerning the variability of certain scientific "laws" and "theories." We'll continue with Boyle's Law, since it was already thrown out. Boyle's Law doesn't change so much as have a clause added to it in certain situations. Effectively, the Law we know of and use in every day settings is Clause 1 of Boyle's Law. Other settings are simply different Clauses of the same Law. I don't know if this is how scientists actually classify these changes or not, but I feel like they should be. Obviously, gases continue to change, and to change in patterned ways, under all circumstances. Thus, it's not that the Laws themselves change so much as they are subject to deeper, constant Laws that govern both the norms and the extremes (and may, themselves, be subject to deeper, more basic Laws), or the Laws are simply "incomplete" in that we only defined one Clause, that being the one operating under "normal" conditions.
However, the induction problem remains, and all the above is based upon ignoration of said issue.
Simultaneously, one must remain mindful of the practical issues at hand. Perhaps this entire world is just a dream, and nothing beyond your own consciousness is real. You can't prove that it's not, since all tools that would be used to do so would only be part of the delusion.
At the same time, what does this really matter? Unless one becomes convinced that jumping in front of a bus will somehow liberate you from the "dream," there's nothing you can do about it. The world/illusion will continue to opperate in the same fashion, presumably, and if not, well, there's nothing you can do about that, either. Unless, of course, you become cognizant of the "dream" and capable of directing in as in lucid dreaming, but one would be aware of such a thing and thus render all of the above moot. Until such time, while it can be an entertaining thought, I find skepticism over the reality of reality to be largely a waste of time.
2. I didn't take offense to Sexi's above points regarding my feelings towards atheists. At the same time, they were not meant as an attack. I realize that many religious/spiritual sorts may use them as an attack to somehow better themselves in their own minds compared to someone else, or to try and change that person by inducing some sort of guilt trip, and I would condemn that act.
However, that is not my intent. I truly feel that way; one does not have absolute control over one's thoughts and feelings. Such things can come unbidden to one's mind, and often do. It is beyond either my ability or desire, or both, to change the way I feel towards such people, but again, I'm not going out acting on that or using it in some offensive sense. Though many people might, I would warn against becoming overly defensive of that point, and of falling to using it oneself. The above posters were not out of line in any way, however I simply felt stating that warning would be prudent as a general rule.
Allow me to further explain:
Spiritual feelings give me a pleasant feeling. I am sorry that other people don't necessarily feel that same sensation, because it is a good one for me, and I would wish such a good thing upon them.
It's not a perfect analogy, but it works. "Mmm, that cake was tasty! Too bad there's none left. I feel sorry that no one else will taste how good that cake was."
"Yes, but this pie is also very tasty."
"I have no doubt that it is also good, perhaps as good as the cake, yet I cannot help but feel somewhat saddened that you can't taste the cake, because it was good."
That's all I was getting at, and in the case of some people, particularly family who cares for you, that may be all they were getting at, too. I could be way off; I don't know the nuances of anyone else's family and history but my own. However, make sure you at least consider that possibility. If it turns out that wasn't all they were intended, then proceed with your typical feelings and responses, as they are certainly warranted.
|
|
The two problems set out above (the problem of induction - "how do you know the future will resemble the past" and the problem of ontology - "how can I trust my senses are actually telling me the truth") basically floor any discussion of religion, or any other belief about the universe. We don't know, we never will know. It is a question of faith.
However, in my view, the scientific view is more useful in that it's predictions, while strictly speaking contingent, seem to be alright so far. Yes, while the specifics of scientific knowledge may alter, the basic premise that cause and effect can be explained without recourse to supernatural elements appears to be holding water better than some of the special pleading in favour of more deistic views. That forms my intellectual argument in favour of the non-existence of God(s). My emotional one, as outlined above, is that I don't feel "the presence" of anything, and don't really like the idea. I suspect the latter informs the former, rather than the other way round.
However, the induction problem remains, and all the above is based upon ignoration of said issue.
This is true, Kuhn suggested that this might be a paradigm shift version of scientific understanding. In his opinion we continue with our current view and modify it in the face of evidence to the contrary untill we have so many amendments that the curent theory is replaced by a simpler one that explains the known facts better.
"Simultaneously, one must remain mindful of the practical issues at hand. Perhaps this entire world is just a dream, and nothing beyond your own consciousness is real. You can't prove that it's not, since all tools that would be used to do so would only be part of the delusion."
This is well known in Philosophy as the problem of "Brains in Vats" you can not know you are not a brain in a vat with all of your experience fed to you by some super scientist/ technician. Since nothing in your experience reveals the truth you can not justifiable trust your senses.
I would refute this point by saying that if you have nothing in your experience that is inconsistent (which would prove the control or delusion) you can trust that your senses to show you the world you live in. Even if it is not real the rules you form are valid for that universe.
" I find skepticism over the reality of reality to be largely a waste of time."
It also has other issues as well as a waste of time, Sexi Golem, this is why I excluded the senses argument earlier. If you doubt everything as Descartes tried to do in an attempt to prove rationalism over skeptacism even the affirmation "I think therefore I am" can itself be doubted. It assumes a single thinker to do the thinking. But it could be a randon thought buble or it could be the agreed upon thought of several behind the scenes actors.
The interesting question for science comes from within the system. It uses scientific reasoning to raise an issue. Anything outside the system just meets with criticism that you have not understood the basis of science.
The other issue with the senses can be wrong argument is that it can be a double edged sword. If we go down the road of "my senses are sometimes wrong and I cant tell when they are fooling me therefore I will trust none of them" we logically should equally assume that since "my senses sometimes are correct and I can not tell when they are I will trust all of my sense input"
Elcian
The two problems set out above (the problem of induction - "how do you know the future will resemble the past" and the problem of ontology - "how can I trust my senses are actually telling me the truth") basically floor any discussion of religion, or any other belief about the universe. We don't know, we never will know. It is a question of faith.
Aubrey, I know from other posts that you are in the UK, as am I. Am I to guess from this that you also have some Philosophy background as I do. If so what? I'm just curious. Your summation was spot on.
Elcian
There was once a philosophy proffessor that taught a friend of mine. The proffessor placed a chair in the middle of the class and posed a pop quiz.
"Take out a peice of paper and write on it your proof as to why this chair exists."
My friend turned in a paper that read. "What chair?"
Great answer! LOL
Elcian
I think we are all aware that the idea that science is some infallible truth-finding device is a flawed one. That is why (IMHO) science and religion cannot be usefully compared; One (the scientific method) is essentially a tool for discovering testable knowledge. It does not make statements of unconditional truth, and anyone who thinks it does (which I don't think includes anyone in this discussion) is misunderstanding it.
Religion is very different. Each religion is a set of metaphysical claims, NOT speculations. There are no theories in religion. That is the fundamental difference between the two, so it doesn't matter how much you say "God can't be sceintifically proved" or "science requires faith just like religion", the two things are not the same thing. They subscribe to different standards of truth, no matter how much they may appear to be similar phenomena to the casual observer.
I agree with Sexi Golem; I don't see much use in bringing brains in vats or Descartes into the discussion. If we want to start worrying about epistemology then perhaps we should start with some philosophy of language? No-one has yet come up with a solution to Quine's indeterminacy of translation problem, which means none of us can ever be sure that what we mean by a word is what the other person means. So before we even start to worry about whether our sense-perceptions are reliable we have to come to grips with the idea that this entire discussion is in fact impossible!
Or we could just assume that our words DO have shared meaning and that we all DO exist, and start again from there ;)
Oh great I forgot what we were talking about... I wish I could read previous posts while I'm writing this one!
EDIT: That's right, the problem of induction. As far as I know it's not even regarded as a problem :/ It's only a problem if you think the purpose of science is to provide unconditional truths, which it isn't. The purpose of science is to provide probable truths based on inductive testing of the most probable claim (given what we know at the time) so that we can make tools to improve life. Everything else is a side-effect. Scientific atheists are just people who think the existence of God is not the most probable claim given what we know, and so doesn't deserve inductive testing. This whole religion versus science rivalry thing is false, each one starts from and ends with directly conflicting assumptions about metaphysics, most notably, religion makes claims about metaphysics and science doesn't. The two disciplines (or whatever; I can't even think of a word that could be used to describe this mismatched pair that would accuratelyy include both of them) cannot engage in a dialogue without one of them giving up their most basic assumptions about the nature of truth.