However, as was pointed out in the film by the Vatican's chief scientist and the promptly ignored, The Bible is not viewed by most Christians as a scientific work, and is not intended to be one. It is a book about morals and virtues, and many things are meant to be understood as alegory rather than fact. I believe in God and am a religious person, but I also understand the natural laws by which the world and the universe work and believe that God would work within those laws to accomplish his goals. Even Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."? Err, so what you're saying there is that because you can't understand the Big Bang, you're content to believe a bunch of (what are essentially) fairy stories and morality fables written by some guys in the Mid East thousands of years ago are factual history and a good basis for understanding how our world works today?
Okay, when the Bible comes with a foreword clearly stating it is in no way based upon real events or persons, and is meant as moral alegory pure and simple, I shall conceed you that point.
I can't say whether most Christians believe what they read in the Bible or not, certainly there are a lot of creationists in those parts of the western world where Christian churches get their claws into people from cradle to grave. I tend to believe that people have come to view the Bible as alegory rather than truth in spite of religion rather than because of it.
I wonder how unbiased anthropologists approach the subject.
Does such a creature exist? Surely we all of us are biased in one sense or another when it comes to other cultures and beliefs.
I have to say I'm shocked and amazed to see a religion thread on the internet that hasn't devolved into a mudslinging flamewar. Awesome. I heart this thread, as it has given me hope.
|
However, as was pointed out in the film by the Vatican's chief scientist and the promptly ignored, The Bible is not viewed by most Christians as a scientific work, and is not intended to be one. It is a book about morals and virtues, and many things are meant to be understood as alegory rather than fact. I believe in God and am a religious person, but I also understand the natural laws by which the world and the universe work and believe that God would work within those laws to accomplish his goals. Even Einstein said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Well, that might be the case. However, the Bible (Old Testament) was put together from various sources shortly after the exile of the Jews in Babylon, and is intended mainly as a reaffirmation of their culture (given that a lot of Jews who were left behind in Judea, e.g. the Samaritans, had departed from what the exiles considered the "pure" Jewish faith) and history. With the New Testament, it's a cut and paste job from various extant gospels and letters at the time, given a definitive shape by the Nicean Conference under Emperor Constantine. As such, it reflects not just the preferences of the compilers, but also the political aims of the Emperor, and in any case it is clear that most of the writers never knew Jesus at all, and certainly the message in the New Testament is certainly supposed to be different from the message of the historical Jesus (who was a Jew with little interest in gentiles). All of this makes me question it as a text reflecting the anything other than human agendas and ambitions, political as well as mystical.
The problem, in my view, with a religious view where the holy texts are not actually considered to be strictly true but instead allegorical comes from a basic question: if the book isn't true in all parts, is the bit about the existence of God actually true either?
For what very little its worth, I myself am rooted quite firmly in science, especially concerning the history of the world. Being a dinosaur nut as a child will definitely ground you in the long term history.
But my best freind as a child was from an extememly conservative Christian family. So I had exposure to that. In the end, I choose to hope that there is more to this existance than just...this. I am utterly terrified of my own mortality, the thought that I will one day no longer exist, so the idea that I may continue to exist in some for is comforting. Although, rationally, I know that if I don't exist I won't be able to perceive that I no longer exist, so it won't be a problem, but that doesn't do anything to quell the incapacitating fear that I feel.
I don't subscribe to any particular "flavor" of beleif. My upbringing would put me in the "Christian" category, but thats merely from where my oldest influences and the culturally reinforced concepts come from. I don't exactly live around a bunch of people who take Einstein, Tom Cruise, or Optimus Prime's name in vain, much less Allah, Mohammed, their ancestors, or Buddah.
I beleive in the big bang. I also beleive that "something" prompted it. I beleive in evolution. I also beleive that "something" created a system of existance that allows for it. Research has proven that the primordial soup odds are astronomical. Is it easier to beleive that millions of other potentially-life barren planets drift unpopulated because ours won the cosmic lottery than to beleive that a force in this existance gave it a push in the right direction? It doesn't have to be a bearded humanoid with a crown of thunderbolts, it could simply be a fundamental force of reality's burning need to exist.
Hmm, this was enlightening for myself. Sometimes its good to put thoughts into words. Anyhow. Just my 2cp.
No, quite different that. I trust scientists who have to prove (or at...Hmmph...rational. What is the bigger leap of faith? That everything that exists now originated from nothing without cause? Or that everything that exists was designed by a creator who generated it all simply as an act of will?
I believe in cause and effect. Action and reaction. I simply can't rationalize that from nothing came something. This something somehow came together to form some kind of slime and eventually the slime became something living and eventually oozed out of the rest of the slime and so on and so forth. Utterly ridiculous and requiring far more faith than believing in God.
? Err, so what you're saying there is that because you can't understand the Big Bang, you're content to believe a bunch of (what are essentially) fairy stories and morality fables written by some guys in the Mid East thousands of years ago are factual history and a good basis for understanding how our world works today?
Why should our understandable inability to grasp extremely complex and difficult scientific ideas drive us into the clutches of organised religion?
So what you're saying is that because you can't grasp the concept of an eternal creator as the originator of existence, you're content to believe a bunch of theories (i.e. fairy tales) thought up by some guys who feel they're too sophisticated and clever to have been creations of a supreme being?
Why should our understandable inability to grasp the idea of an omnipotent and omnipresent deity drive us into excepting the theories (fairy tales) of men unable to accept faith in God?
See how that works? Ultimately, science is not able to prove or disprove the existence of God and their is no truly universally accepted theory of origin. Even secular scientists don't always agree about the big bang. It all comes back to faith, whether in god or in man.
You're last paragraph is sort of my point. All these scientists more or less believe in the Big Bang Theory but they can't understand how it happened and there are as many different theories as...well, religious denominations. Faith in a nutshell.
|
No, quite different that. I trust scientists who...Hmmph...rational. What is the bigger leap of faith? That everything that exists now originated from nothing without cause? Or that everything that exists was designed by a creator who generated it all simply as an act of will?
I believe in cause and effect. Action and reaction. I simply can't rationalize that from nothing came something. This something somehow came together to form some kind of slime and eventually the slime became something living and eventually oozed out of the rest of the slime and so on and so forth. Utterly ridiculous and requiring far more faith than believing in God.
? Err, so what you're saying there is that because you can't understand the Big Bang, you're content to believe a bunch of (what are essentially) fairy stories and morality fables written by some guys in the Mid East thousands of years ago are factual history and a good basis for understanding how our world works today?
Why should our understandable inability to grasp extremely complex and difficult scientific ideas drive us into the clutches of organised religion?
So what you're saying is that because you can't grasp the concept of an eternal creator as the originator of existence, you're content to believe a bunch of theories (i.e. fairy tales) thought up by some guys who feel they're too sophisticated and clever to have been creations of a supreme being?
Why should our understandable inability to grasp the idea of an omnipotent and omnipresent deity drive us into excepting the theories (fairy tales) of men unable to accept faith in God?
See how that works? Ultimately, science is not able to prove or disprove the existence of God and their is no truly universally accepted theory of origin. Even secular scientists don't always agree about the big bang. It all comes back to faith, whether in god or in man.
Apologies if this rambles on and doesn't make sense in the slightest.
Can both sides of this please realise you are talking at cross purposes and misusing a common language? Science is not religion, religion is not science. Science has nothing to say about the existence or absence of God because, by definition, science is only about natural events and God is, by definition supernatural. Someone should tell Richard Dawkins.
Equally, religion is not science and should not try to fool itself that it is. It is a matter of faith and belief, science is a matter of evidence. We do not know what caused the Big Bang, but the evidence (currently) supports the view that there was a Big Bang of some kind. The evidence also supports evolution, regardless of the fact that the Bible disagrees.
That's the difference. You can't prove God on one hand, and on the other belief doesn't make things true. Also, science means very specific things when it talks about theories, hypothesis and even belief in the context of science. The general usage is not the same meaning.
We now return you to your thread on a movie designed to get free publicity by being 'controversial' and picking an easy target.
All these scientists more or less believe in the Big Bang Theory but they can't understand how it happened and there are as many different theories as...well, religious denominations. Faith in a nutshell.
I would highly recommend you read a book called "Big Bang: the Origin of the Universe" by Simon Singh. Singh does a really good job laying out not only the entire history of science and astronomy, but he details the physics and chemistry of the Big Bang in a way that any layman can understand.
A number of your arguments are ... off ... and reading that book might help you understand the theory a little better.
That's all I will contribute to this thread. As a Paizo employee, I can't really be involved. But I would HIGHLY recommend this book to anyone who even has the remotest interest in the history and facts of the Big Bang theory.
Can both sides of this please realise you are talking at cross purposes and misusing a common language? Science is not religion, religion is not science. Science has nothing to say about the existence or absence of God because, by definition, science is only about natural events and God is, by definition supernatural. Someone should tell Richard Dawkins.
Equally, religion is not science and should not try to fool itself that it is. It is a matter of faith and belief, science is a matter of evidence. We do not know what caused the Big Bang, but the evidence (currently) supports the view that there was a Big Bang of some kind. The evidence also supports evolution, regardless of the fact that the Bible disagrees.
That's the difference. You can't prove God on one hand, and on the other belief doesn't make things true. Also, science means very specific things when it talks about theories, hypothesis and even belief in the context of science. The general usage is not the same meaning.
Great post, Paul -- more or less exactly what I would have written if I'd gotten here first!
|
|
I would also recomend The Whole Shebang by Timpthy Ferris. It is the book that first got me interested in quantum physics and is well written for the layman like me.
Must... Read...
I'm a quantum physics / string theory junkie. I guess it's because I'm bad at math, but can still understand it. Either that, or it explains a lot of the stuff Lovecraft was getting at.
Maybe both...
I'll check out your suggested readings guys. In the meantime I imagine that Rock and I can agree to disagree and go back to more important things like tormenting our players (or our DM as the case may be). I suspect that this movie and the reactions it inspires could get out of hand very quickly.
I'll check out your suggested readings guys. In the meantime I imagine that Rock and I can agree to disagree and go back to more important things like tormenting our players (or our DM as the case may be).
Heh, players in my case. :-)
Agreed though, it's a pointless argument/discussion anyway.
|
According to Maher, who only talked to former members who left the LDS Church, Mormons believe that god is a man who stands 6 feet tall and lives on the planet Cholu and that he had promiscuous sex with multiple women to populate the Earth. He also said that we believe the "Mormon underwear" protects us from fire, disease, and injury. He did add a few factual things, we do believe that some Native Americans are decended from a branch of the tribes of Israel, and Joseph Smith did say that the place where Adam dwelled after being expelled from the Garden of Eden in in Jackson County Missouri, but that is not the official doctrine of the church. Considering that anthropologists and historians now believe that many of the tribes in central America may have originated in Asia and Africa, is it reall that far fetched to believe that some may have originated in the Middle East as well?What was said about Mormonism? (I haven't seen the movie, and am trying to decide whether or not it's worth seeing.)It's as I said if your not a religious and speak out against it. someone comes a long and says you shouldn't be heard.Honestly the two biggest problems I had with the film when I saw it was that he focused almost entirely on the three Abrahamic religions (Judism, Christianity, and Islam) and barely mentions eastern or Native American religions; and that he often misrepresented what the religions believed. For instance I am an active Mormon, and the things he said that Mormons believe are things that I have never heard taught by anyone in our church. Perhaps that tainted my view of the film, but my belief is that if you have to make up things about what people believe, it kinda lowers your credibility.
To your credit there is evidence to show that Native Americans could be descended from the Carthaginians known sailors and explorers from northern Africa. And there was further evidence of Jewish mixes with the Carthaginians after 75 AD and the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Roman general Titus. After the temple was destroyed most of the jewish lines left the holy land until 1946.
|
|
To your credit there is evidence to show that Native Americans could be descended from the Carthaginians known sailors and explorers from northern Africa. And there was further...According to Maher, who only talked to former members who left the LDS Church, Mormons believe that god is a man who stands 6 feet tall and lives on the planet Cholu and that he had promiscuous sex with multiple women to populate the Earth. He also said that we believe the "Mormon underwear" protects us from fire, disease, and injury. He did add a few factual things, we do believe that some Native Americans are decended from a branch of the tribes of Israel, and Joseph Smith did say that the place where Adam dwelled after being expelled from the Garden of Eden in in Jackson County Missouri, but that is not the official doctrine of the church. Considering that anthropologists and historians now believe that many of the tribes in central America may have originated in Asia and Africa, is it reall that far fetched to believe that some may have originated in the Middle East as well?What was said about Mormonism? (I haven't seen the movie, and am trying to decide whether or not it's worth seeing.)It's as I said if your not a religious and speak out against it. someone comes a long and says you shouldn't be heard.Honestly the two biggest problems I had with the film when I saw it was that he focused almost entirely on the three Abrahamic religions (Judism, Christianity, and Islam) and barely mentions eastern or Native American religions; and that he often misrepresented what the religions believed. For instance I am an active Mormon, and the things he said that Mormons believe are things that I have never heard taught by anyone in our church. Perhaps that tainted my view of the film, but my belief is that if you have to make up things about what people believe, it kinda lowers your credibility.
That being said trying to find conclusive evidence that there were Carthaginian settlers and that there were Jewish persons or of persons of even partial Jewish descent is Impossible at this point.
Well, there's always mitochondrial dna...
You must be one of those Evolutionists, trying to poison a fine religious discussion with your unproven scientific "theories" !
(Important note to all scientists and all creationists: relax, I'm just joking with Derek here.)
|
|
The same question came up with the supposed ancestor of Christ. They tested a particular woman's finger bone from the line of the Merovingian kings who were supposedly descended from Christ. So they took test DNA from individuals from the Nazareth area to get a sample to work with then tested her DNA for similarities. Of course it tested negative. And this was taken as conclusive evidence. But the problems associated are with the many groups that conquered and interbred with the area since Christs time such as the Romans the Persians, and the Turks, the DNA sample in the area has changed. Not to mention she was a descendant she lived 700 hundred years after Christ so she would have 1 ancestor from the area she had many many other ancestors not from Nazareth so trying to find comparisons in DNA strands would be next to impossible.
|
|
I saw that too. The biggest problem I saw was that they compared the ancient DNA to a modern person living in Israel. As I understand it the best way to comparing would be to compare it with DNA extracted from the body of a person living in the region during the same general time as the historical Jesus. There is no way to know if the modern person's ancesters were in Palestine during the 1st century A.D. and therefore only proves that the Merevingian queen is not related to people in Israel today.
|
|
Nnnnnhh...
I'm not religious (most people would call me "agnostic"), nor am I a scientist. However, my opinion is thus:
I don't want science in my religion, and I don't want religion in my science. Please don't try to prove Christ's existence via shoddy DNA testing. Please don't tell me that God laid out the plan for all of existence, and that's why little Timmy is cross-eyed. Sure, scientists with religious beliefs and priests with scientific views are fine- in fact, a little bit of cross-disciplinary action is healthy -but seriously, this mix-and-match s$%$'s gotta go.
I'm not trying to press my beliefs on anyone else, and everyone else shouldn't try to press their beliefs on other people. Just don't bother. Sure, go to the Holy Land, get your little ya-yas out, and have a f#@@ing blast; just don't put it on the f%@&ing History channel.
I'm not religious (most people would call me "agnostic"), nor am I a scientist. However, my opinion is thus: I don't want science in my religion, and I don't want religion in my science...
I am religious, and I am a scientist.
Interestingly, my opinion is thus: I don't want science in my religion, and I don't want religion in my science...
I would also recomend The Whole Shebang by Timpthy Ferris. It is the book that first got me interested in quantum physics and is well written for the layman like me.Must... Read...
I'm a quantum physics / string theory junkie. I guess it's because I'm bad at math, but can still understand it. Either that, or it explains a lot of the stuff Lovecraft was getting at.
Maybe both...
Quantum physics is my religion.
Quantum physics is my religion.
Perhaps not the best choice.
Quantum physics teaches us that the physical laws governing the universe are morally neutral, totally random, and indescribably violent -- much like the White House's views on military force.
Just joking... mostly.
|
According to Maher, who only talked to former members who left the LDS Church, Mormons believe that god is a man who stands 6 feet tall and lives on the planet Cholu and that he had promiscuous sex with multiple women to populate the Earth. He also said that we believe the "Mormon underwear" protects us from fire, disease, and injury. He did add a few factual things, we do believe that some Native Americans are decended from a branch of the tribes of Israel, and Joseph Smith did say that the place where Adam dwelled after being expelled from the Garden of Eden in in Jackson County Missouri, but that is not the official doctrine of the church. Considering that anthropologists and historians now believe that many of the tribes in central America may have originated in Asia and Africa, is it reall that far fetched to believe that some may have originated in the Middle East as well?
Ugh. Those really are some rather gross misrepresentations of Mormon faith. I'm not mormon myself, and I disagree with much of the Church's doctrine, but if somebody is trying to level criticism, it certainly helps to know a little about what you are criticizing. Those accusations certainly put the claim that the movie is pro-rational thought to shame.
On the American Indian issue: I don't know of any groups that originated in Africa or the Middle East. From my understanding, the consensus is that Indian groups made their way to the Americas anywhere between 20,000 to 10,000 years ago, possibly across the "Bering Land Bridge". Human inhabitants have been here for at least 15,000 years, which is bit far removed from Joseph Smith's timeline. However, there is still a HUGE amount of scholarly debate on the issue, as earlier and earlier sites are still being discovered (sites that are not Clovis). The most recent group of people that I can think of are the Algonquin peoples of the far north of the Americas, and even they have been here for multiple millennia. There are a number of other models, such as groups of people crossing the Atlantic from Europe or coming from Oceania/Australia, but they aren't commonly accepted hypotheses. I highly reccomend 1492 by Charles C. Mann if you have an interest in anything about American Indians, and the wikipedia article on Indian migrations from the "Old World" is actually pretty good. Not the most reliable of sources, I know, but interesting nonetheless.
Now, I'm not religious, I'm an atheist, but I don't really like movies or books like this. It gives us non-believers a bad rap as a bunch of crotchety, grumpy denouncers of everyone around us. While I have a lot of problems with organized religion and faith in general, it does great things for some people, and who am I to tell them no? I really wish that high-profile atheists and non-believers would spend less time bashing those that do believe and more time working to improve relations between the two.
|
|
According to Maher, who only talked to former members who left the LDS Church, Mormons believe that god is a man who stands 6 feet tall and lives on the planet Cholu and that he had promiscuous sex with multiple women to populate the Earth. He also said that we believe the "Mormon underwear" protects us from fire, disease, and injury. He did add a few factual things, we do believe that some Native Americans are decended from a branch of the tribes of Israel, and Joseph Smith did say that the place where Adam dwelled after being expelled from the Garden of Eden in in Jackson County Missouri, but that is not the official doctrine of the church. Considering that anthropologists and historians now believe that many of the tribes in central America may have originated in Asia and Africa, is it reall that far fetched to believe that some may have originated in the Middle East as well?Ugh. Those really are some rather gross misrepresentations of Mormon faith. I'm not mormon myself, and I disagree with much of the Church's doctrine, but if somebody is trying to level criticism, it certainly helps to know a little about what you are criticizing. Those accusations certainly put the claim that the movie is pro-rational thought to shame.
On the American Indian issue: I don't know of any groups that originated in Africa or the Middle East. From my understanding, the consensus is that Indian groups made their way to the Americas anywhere between 20,000 to 10,000 years ago, possibly across the "Bering Land Bridge". Human inhabitants have been here for at least 15,000 years, which is bit far removed from Joseph Smith's timeline. However, there is still a HUGE amount of scholarly debate on the issue, as earlier and earlier sites are still being discovered (sites that are not Clovis). The most recent group of people that I can think of are the Algonquin peoples of the far north of the Americas, and even they have been here for multiple millennia. There are a number of other models, such...
It came up a few years ago when they were doing human comparison genetic traits.They theorized because similarities between northern africans and certain american indian groups occurred that possible Carthiginian explorers may have made it too the americas, but no further evidence was ever found.
|
I wonder how unbiased anthropologists approach the subject.Does such a creature exist? Surely we all of us are biased in one sense or another when it comes to other cultures and beliefs.
This is certainly true. And if you are a good anthropologist, you will understand that you can minimize, but never obliviate your biases. It is better to try to understand the biases that you have than rid yourself of them.
|
|
It came up a few years ago when they were doing human comparison genetic traits.They theorized because similarities between northern africans and certain american indian groups occurred that possible Carthiginian explorers may have made it too the americas, but no further evidence was ever found.
Also, there have been several articles in different journals over the past decade discussing the similarity in apperance between the Olmec stone heads and sculptures found in Africa. Some have even gone so far as to point out the the Olmec stone heads appear to have African features. Similar observations have been mad about statues fond in Panama and Guatamala having a distinctly Chinese apperance.
I am religious, and I am a scientist. Interestingly, my opinion is thus: I don't want science in my religion, and I don't want religion in my science...
Ditto for me. And it might be exceptionally naive, but I'd also like to see the two divorced from politics as well, allowing for three non-overlapping areas of concern.
|
|
I am religious, and I am a scientist. Interestingly, my opinion is thus: I don't want science in my religion, and I don't want religion in my science...Ditto for me. And it might be exceptionally naive, but I'd also like to see the two divorced from politics as well, allowing for three non-overlapping areas of concern.
I somewhat concur with this suggestion, but I personally like having science in my politics. I like having government decisions assisted by scientific data. What I don't like is the conflict between the two. Politicians are very quick to discredit good science when it conflicts with their world-view or politics.
As for the Olmec heads, while they do have a rather "African" appearance, there isn't really any other evidence of contact between the Americas and the "Old World" before the Spaniards (or Vikings, if we want to be really specific). The features of the heads also match those of many Indian groups, which are decidedly not African. And while Carthage was in Africa, the Carthaginians were actually Phoenicians that had colonized North Africa and would look more like Arabs or Canaanites. Suffice it to say, the current consensus is that the Americas did their awesome stuff on their own, without any real interference before the Spanish brought over smallpox. I again recommend 1492, it is a great read on Pre-Colombian America.
I like having government decisions assisted by scientific data. What I don't like is the conflict between the two. Politicians are very quick to discredit good science when it conflicts with their world-view or politics.
Yes; what I meant was that (a) scientific studies should be divorced from the political process; neither Democrats nor Republicans nor any other party has control over leadership, communications, and policy from scientific research; and (b) scientific organizations focus on science and the communication of scientific research; they do not funnel off research funding into the campaigns of political candidates; and (c) neither party can unilaterally fund scientific research.
If there's a decision that needs to be made regarding, say, carbon sequestration, the president would go to the carbon sequestration scientific research group, not to his personal "pet" carbon sequestration group.
It's been said previously, but I want to re-state it. Thanks for allowing this to be a civil discussion. After the whole edition-wars era on these boards, it's refreshing to see that people can discuss something as potentially inflammatory as religion in a level-headed manner. We've got atheists, agnostics, and theists of various flavors discussing beliefs, rationality, and science and we've almost entirely kept it respectful. It restores my faith in our ability to listen to one another.
Oh, and thanks for the book recommendations as well. I'm always looking for interesting things to read.
I don't want science in my religion, and I don't want religion in my science.
Hmm, I'm the opposite. I want my morality informed by observation and analysis; and I want my science applied with morality (which I believe was what Einstein was getting at).
(As for politics, I would like to see it informed by observation, analysis, and morality, but certainly not the other way around.)
|
|
Hmm, I'm the opposite. I want my morality informed by observation and analysis; and I want my science applied with morality (which I believe was what Einstein was getting at).
(As for politics, I would like to see it informed by observation, analysis, and morality, but certainly not the other way around.)
I agree, the two should go together.IMO the problem isn't with religion or science,there isn't any reason why they collide.Again IMO...God made the big bang and said there you go figure it out.
The problem appears to come from the small politically active group of extremists that push their views at either end.If more moderates would get involved I believe things would calm down a bunch.but most of us are busy living our own lives.8)|
|
I am religious, and I am a scientist. Interestingly, my opinion is thus: I don't want science in my religion, and I don't want religion in my science...Ditto for me. And it might be exceptionally naive, but I'd also like to see the two divorced from politics as well, allowing for three non-overlapping areas of concern.
Props.
|
|
I don't want science in my religion, and I don't want religion in my science.Hmm, I'm the opposite. I want my morality informed by observation and analysis; and I want my science applied with morality (which I believe was what Einstein was getting at).
(As for politics, I would like to see it informed by observation, analysis, and morality, but certainly not the other way around.)
While I agree with you on the particular points you brought up, I do think that you missed my point.
Sure, morality should be informed by observation, and science applied with morality. However, I do not believe it is the place of, say, Pope Benedict XVI* to dictate that certain science should be discounted because it is contrary to what the Catholic Church* holds as sacred doctrine. Nor do I believe it the place of so-called "pure scientists," for example: Richard Dawkins* to dictate that there is/are no god(s) because it interferes with his science. Science is based on evidence, while religion is based on [b]faith[/i], which are two opposing concepts.
What I'm trying to say is that if a scientist is religious, that's fine, and if a priest is a practitioner of science, that's fine as well- I just don't want people using one to validate the other. Morality is universal, and should be factored into both. The misunderstanding was created when I meant doctrine, and you thought I meant morality. Sorry for the confusion.
* - these are purely examples, I am not sure of their exact positions, and am not trying to defame or downplay them in any way
|
|
Morality is universal...
I'm with you all the way up to this point. Morality isn't "universal" (imo), it exists as a religious and/or philosophical construct of human beings. It does not exist in nature. Morals are taught, not inherited, in other words.
Furthermore, "morality" is very culture-centric. Our biggest ideological conflicts over the ages (and currently) have been over differences in "morals".
I'm with you all the way up to this point. Morality isn't "universal" (imo), it exists as a religious and/or philosophical construct of human beings. It does not exist in nature. Morals are taught, not inherited, in other words.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it "universal," but certain tactics are more successful in the long run, when applied in a community of same-species individuals, than others. The successful tactics (benevolence, tolerance, reliability) we call "moral" (or at least "ethical;" I don't want to split hairs over terminology). The ones that are unsuccessful (i.e., that lead to ostracism and/or a series of endless strife -- e.g., murder, rape, deceit, etc.) are "immoral" (or unethical). Note that I say "in the long run," so that the mere appearance of these isn't good enough; sooner or later you slip up.
To this list, any number of the artificial constructs to which you allude are added -- but strip them away and the base list remains, and is largely culture-independent. It's amazing how similar the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount are to the Buddha's Eightfold Noble Path -- that's not a coincidence; it's a reflection of how group societies work most smoothly.
|
|
I'm with you all the way up to this point. Morality isn't "universal" (imo), it exists as a religious and/or philosophical construct of human beings. It does not exist in nature. Morals are taught, not inherited, in other words.I wouldn't go so far as to call it "universal," but certain tactics are more successful in the long run, when applied in a community of same-species individuals, than others. The successful tactics (benevolence, tolerance, reliability) we call "moral" (or at least "ethical;" I don't want to split hairs over terminology). The ones that are unsuccessful (i.e., that lead to ostracism and/or a series of endless strife -- e.g., murder, rape, deceit, etc.) are "immoral" (or unethical). Note that I say "in the long run," so that the mere appearance of these isn't good enough; sooner or later you slip up.
To this list, any number of the artificial constructs to which you allude are added -- but strip them away and the base list remains, and is largely culture-independent. It's amazing how similar the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount are to the Buddha's Eightfold Noble Path -- that's not a coincidence; it's a reflection of how group societies work most smoothly.
Yeah, that's more what I was getting at- I just don't have the time or eloquence to put it that way. Sorry.
Yeah, that's more what I was getting at- I just don't have the time or eloquence to put it that way. Sorry.
Not at all -- I'm honestly impressed -- most younger dudes haven't experienced enough of life to get it (I myself was kind of an evil SOB until I finally figured out which things worked).
|
|
My only point (and i was disagreeing only with semantics, not the general thrust of shiny's post) was that "morals" are a construct of our societies, not something inherently "natural".
And Kirth, don't forget Jesus had 18 years missing from his history, a timespan that would have allowed him ample time to head east and learn some down home buddhism, (which, frankly, is my belief, as to the historical, not legendary, Jeshua).
If you must have an argument for a "natural" morality, don't forget Jung's "archetypes", his Interpretation of Dreams is a pretty compelling argument for either a collective consciousness or a common ancestral origin. I lean towards the latter, as i'm pretty much a sceptic when it comes to "universal" consciousness...
My only point (and i was disagreeing only with semantics, not the general thrust of shiny's post) was that "morals" are a construct of our societies, not something inherently "natural".
Again, I have to disagree slightly -- the core morals are a construct of the way societies function, not of the societies themselves. As for common ancestral origin, I'm all for it -- of course, I claim common ancestry with ferrets as well. And cyanobacteria. It all depends on how far back you care to go...
|
|
Again, I have to disagree slightly -- the core morals are a construct of the way societies function, not of the societies themselves.My only point (and i was disagreeing only with semantics, not the general thrust of shiny's post) was that "morals" are a construct of our societies, not something inherently "natural".
I think we're disagreeing on "construct" in this context. I'd rephrase that as "a function of the way societies are constructed". As to the society itself, the way the "function" of morality (either through laws or peer pressure (e.g. "shame" or "alienation")) is applied is the crux of many conflicts through history.
For example, in some cultures, stoning adulterers to death in the town square is still acceptable, in some, premarital sex is acceptable. Those two cultures do nbot "play well" with each other when they are introduced. Conflict invariably ensues, as each sees the other as "immoral".
|
|
Again, I have to disagree slightly -- the core morals are a construct of the way societies function, not of the societies themselves.My only point (and i was disagreeing only with semantics, not the general thrust of shiny's post) was that "morals" are a construct of our societies, not something inherently "natural".
I think we're disagreeing on "construct" in this context. I'd rephrase that as "a function of the way societies are constructed". As to the society itself, the way the "function" of morality (either through laws or peer pressure (e.g. "shame" or "alienation")) is applied is the crux of many conflicts through history.
For example, in some cultures, stoning adulterers to death in the town square is still acceptable, in some, premarital sex is acceptable. Those two cultures do nbot "play well" with each other when they are introduced. Conflict invariably ensues, as each sees the other as "immoral".
I would argue that the underlying "morals" of almost all societies are roughly the same, due to common ancestry. Just about everyone agrees that killing is bad, rape is bad, stealing is bad, etc., etc. It is when things get complicated that, well, things get complicated. While American society obviously agrees that killing is bad (considering our laws), it is largely in favor of capital punishment, with a large minority in disagreement, making an exception to the rule. Saudi Arabian society also agrees that killing is bad, but has little compunctions about executing people in public.
My point is, there should be a distinction between the underlying, universal "morals" of all societies and the nuances that those societies have in their moral construct.
As for Jeshua discovering Buddhism (or Taoism) in Asia, It is certainly a possibility. There were a number of Buddhist Greek kings in Persia and Afghanistan at that time and travel was certainly possible. I doubt it is probable, however, as I see more of the militant Judaism (and also influence from the Essenes) in his philosophy. I usually interpret the "Kingdom of Heaven" in the historical context, as a physical place, namely Israel, and that the "messiah" would free the Jews from Roman domination. But that's just me.
Note that my interpretation is just my interpretation, and I don't mean to offend anyone who has different religious beliefs. This stuff happened so long ago and there are so few contemporary texts mentioning anything that what little we do know is entirely up to interpretation.
|
|
I would argue that the underlying "morals" of almost all societies are roughly the same, due to common ancestry. Just about everyone agrees that killing is bad, rape is bad, stealing is bad, etc., etc. It is when things get complicated that, well, things get complicated. While American society obviously agrees that killing is bad (considering our laws), it is largely in favor of capital punishment, with a large minority in disagreement, making an exception to the rule. Saudi Arabian society also agrees that killing is bad, but has little compunctions about executing people in public.
My point is, there should be a distinction between the underlying, universal "morals" of all societies and the nuances that those societies have in their moral construct.
As for Jeshua discovering Buddhism (or Taoism) in Asia, It is certainly a possibility. There were a number of Buddhist Greek kings in Persia and Afghanistan at that time and travel was certainly possible. I doubt it is probable, however, as I see...
Oh, I am in total agreement that Jeshua was militant, definitely anti-roman, and most certainly a thorn in the establishment's butt, but I was referring to some of the underlying philosophy in his parables (and the way they were constructed, similar to Koans inmany ways) and the too close for coincidence similarities between some of his pronouncements and those of confucious and the taoists. Of course, Saul of Tarsis took everything to a new level, but Jeshua had some eastern influence going on between his ears...