QuoteInterview with Fukuyama:
Author Francis Fukuyama spoke with Global Viewpoint editor Nathan Gardels on Tuesday, Oct. 20.
Nathan Gardels: In 1989, you wrote an essay, later developed into a book, that stated your famous "end of history" thesis. You said then:
"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."
What mostly holds up in your thesis 20 years on? What doesn't? What changed?
Francis Fukuyama: The basic point – that liberal democracy is the final form of government – is still basically right. Obviously there are alternatives out there, like the Islamic Republic of Iran or Chinese authoritarianism. But I don't think that all that many people are persuaded these are higher forms of civilization than what exists in Europe, the United States, Japan, or other developed democracies; societies that provide their citizens with a higher level of prosperity and personal freedom.
The issue is not whether liberal democracy is a perfect system, or whether capitalism doesn't have problems. After all, we've been thrown into this huge global recession because of the failure of unregulated markets. The real question is whether any other system of governance has emerged in the last 20 years that challenges this. The answer remains no.
Now, that essay was written in the winter of 1988 or '89 just before the fall of the Berlin Wall. I wrote it then because I thought that the pessimism about civilization that we had developed as a result of the terrible 20th century, with its genocides, gulags, and world wars, was actually not the whole picture at all. In fact, there were a lot of positive trends going on in the world, including the spread of democracy where there had been dictatorship. Sam Huntington called this "the third wave."
It began in southern Europe in the 1970s with Spain and Portugal turning to democracy. Then – and later – you had an ending of virtually all the dictatorships in Latin America, except for Cuba. And then there was the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the opening of Eastern Europe. Beyond that, democracy displaced authoritarian regimes in South Korea and Taiwan. We went from 80 democracies in the early 1970s to 130, or 140, 20 years later.
Of course, this hasn't all held up since then. We see today a kind of democratic recession. There have been reversals in important countries like Russia, where we see the return of a nasty authoritarian system without rule of law, or in Venezuela and some other Latin American countries with populist regimes.
Clearly, that big surge toward democracy went as far as it could. Now there is a backlash against it in some places. But that doesn't mean the larger trend is not still toward democracy.
Gardels: The main contending argument against the "end of history" was offered by Sam Huntington. Far from ideological convergence, he argued, we were facing a "clash of civilizations" in which culture and religion would be the main points of conflict after the cold war. For many, 9/11 and its aftermath confirmed his thesis of a clash between Islam and the West. To what extent was his argument valid?
Fukuyama: The differences between Huntington and I have been somewhat overstated. I wrote a book called "Trust" in which I argue that culture is one of the key factors that determines economic success and the possibilities of prosperity. So I don't deny the critical role of culture. But, overall, the question is whether cultural characteristics are so rooted that there is no chance of universal values or a convergence of values. That is where I disagree.
Huntington's argument was that democracy, individualism, and human rights are not universal, but reflections of culture rooted in Western Christendom. While that is true historically, these values have grown beyond their origins. They've been adopted by societies that come out of very different cultural traditions. Look at Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Indonesia.
Societies rooted in different cultural origins come to accept these values not because the US does it, but because it works for them. It provides a mechanism for government accountability. It provides societies with a way to get rid of bad leaders when things go wrong. That is a huge advantage of democratic societies that someplace like China doesn't have. China, at the moment, is blessed with competent leaders. But before that they had Mao. There is nothing to prevent another Mao in the future without some form of democratic accountability.
Problems of corruption or poor governance are much easier to solve if you have a democracy. For enduring prosperity and success, institutionalized, legal mechanisms of change and accountability are essential.
Gardels: In an earlier book, "Political Order in Changing Societies," Huntington argued that Westernization and modernization were not identical. He thought modernization – an effective state, urbanization, breakdown of primary kinship groups, inclusive levels of education, market economies, and a growing middle class – were quite possible without a society becoming Western in terms of a liberal secular culture or democratic norms.
We see this today from Singapore to China, from Turkey to Malaysia and even Iran. Any observant visitor to China these days can see that beneath the logos of Hyatt and Citigroup the soul of old Confucius is stirring, with its authoritarian bent. In Turkey, we see an Islamist-rooted party running a secular state, battling to allow women to wear head scarves in public universities.
In other words, isn't "non-Western modernization" as likely a path ahead as Westernization through globalization?
Fukuyama: For me, there are three key components of political modernization. First, the modernization of the state as a stable, effective, impersonal institution that can enforce rules across complex societies. This was Huntington's focus. But there are two other components of modernization in my view. Second, the rule of law so that the state itself is constrained in its actions by a preexisting body of law that is sovereign. In other words, a ruler or ruling party cannot just do whatever he or it decides. Third is some form of accountability of the powers that be.
Huntington would have said that rule of law and accountability are Western values. I think they are values toward which non-Western societies are converging because of their own experience. You can't have true modernization without them. They are in fact necessary complements to each other. If you have just political modernization defined as a competent state, you may only have a more effective form of tyranny.
What you can certainly have is effective state building and a certain amount of prosperity under authoritarian conditions for a time. That is what the Chinese are doing right now. But I am convinced that their prosperity cannot in the end endure, nor can Chinese citizens ever be secure in their personal progress, without the rule of law and accountability. They can't go to the next stage without all three components that comprise modernization. Corruption and questionable legitimacy will ultimately weigh them down, if not open unrest.
Gardels: Modernization has usually also meant the growing secularization of society and the primacy of science and reason. Yet, in a place like Turkey today, as I mentioned, we see modernization and growing religiosity side by side. That certainly departs from the Western-oriented trajectory charted by Ataturk.
Fukuyama: I agree. The old version of the idea of modernization was Euro-centric, reflecting Europe's own development. That did contain attributes which sought to define modernization in a quite narrow way. Most importantly, as you point out, religion and modernization certainly can coexist. Secularism is not a condition of modernity. You don't have to travel to Turkey to see that. It is true in the United States, which is a very religious society but in which advanced science and technological innovation thrive.
The old assumption that religion would disappear and be replaced solely by secular, scientific rationalism is not going to happen.
At the same time, I don't believe the existence, or even prevalence of cultural attributes, including religion, are so overwhelming anywhere that you will not see a universal convergence toward rule of law and accountability.
Gardels: Still, must accountability entail the same democratic, electoral norms of Europe or the United States?
Fukuyama: You can have nonelectoral accountability through moral education, which forges a sense of moral obligation by the ruler. Traditional Confucianism, after all, taught the emperor that he had a duty to his subjects as well as himself. It is not an accident that the most successful authoritarian modernization experiments have all been in East Asian societies touched by Confucianism.
In the end, though, that is not enough. You cannot solve the problem of the "bad emperor" through moral suasion. And China has had some pretty bad emperors over the centuries. Without procedural accountability, you can never establish real accountability.
Gardels: Some top Chinese intellectuals today argue that when China arises again as the superior civilization in a post-American world, the "tired" global debate over autocracy versus democracy will yield to a more pragmatic debate over good governance versus bad governance. I doubt you would agree.
Fukuyama: You are right, I don't believe that. You simply can't get good governance without democratic accountability. It is a risky illusion to believe otherwise.
Good article, but I think they are wrong: If we define modernity as a combination of three factors, effective state, rule of law and democratic accountability ( a quite good definition IMHO) then secularism is a condition of modernity.
Without secularism
- Freedom of expression is impossible, and without freedom of expression democracy is impossible too.
- True rule of law becomes unlikely - to say the least - since there is a religious set of rules (a "higher law") that competes... unless laws are submitted to religious supervision & approval, and then democracy becomes a sham, a fig leaf for theocracy.
In short, religion implies an eternal status quo with a immutable set of rules and a non democratic ruling body. That's not compatible with any kind of democracy unless religion is expelled from public businesses and reduced to a private matter, i.e. secularism.
In another order of things I think the article is quite right regarding China. You can have a competently ruled tyranny for a time, trouble comes when an incompetent or a group of them reaches power and can't be removed without bloodshed. In China they can have an effective state, and even rule of law of a sort trough Confucianism, but solving the problem of accountability without democracy is far more difficult... the history of the USSR says it all in this aspect, really.
But regarding Turkey I think their opinion is completely wrong. In Turkey we are seeing exactly the opposite process. Turkey has an effective state, rule of law and democracy, and in consequence even when an Islamist (moderate) party reaches power it is reduced to things like trying to make legal wearing scarves in universities. Hardly an Iranian style revolution... and now that I mention Iran, that country is a perfect example of what I'm saying: even with formal democracy religious supervision means that the state is not truly effective, rule of law is shaky or non existent, and democracy is a bad joke.
I bet someone said that the monarchy form of government was the endpoint of human ideological evolution during the age of kings and emperors.
Who knows. The next era could be dominated by Mircosoft, corporations, direct democracy, or Goldman Sachs. Or maybe we could see the Rise of the Machines.
Modern democratic free market societies pay lip service to religion and philosophy and the ideas of illiterate goat herders.
Modern society is NOT a society that has modern amenities, but rather a society which can invent and produce those amenities should the knowledge of them be lost.
Saudi Arabia has clean water, mobile phones, an efficient oil industry etc.etc. but it cannot be considered a modern society by any means.
The US is a modern society.
I will repeat what I posted once before regarding state/religion:
Europe is a moderate drinker. America is a sober alcoholic.
They both work reasonably well.
Quote from: The Brain on October 23, 2009, 05:43:05 AM
The US is a modern society.
Well, about the modernity of the US...
Effective State? Check.
Rule of the Law? Check.
Democratic Accountability? Check.
On secularism, few people would disagree if we say Europe is more secular than the US, but in spite of the usual religious rhetoric and the best efforts of creationists and other fundamentalists America is secular too, only less so.
Quote
Secularism is the concept that government or other entities should exist separately from religion and/or religious beliefs.
In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and freedom from the government imposition of religion upon the people, within a state that is neutral on matters of belief, and gives no state privileges or subsidies to religions. In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political ones, should be based on evidence and fact unbiased by religious influence.
QuoteSecularism is not a condition of modernity. You don't have to travel to Turkey to see that. It is true in the United States, which is a very religious society but in which advanced science and technological innovation thrive.
This summer I travelled in SE Asia, visiting Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines and Timor-Leste. In Manila I checked in to a hotel in the area preferred by tourists, "one of the safer areas of the city" according to my Lonely Planet guidebook. I guess it took about five minutes before the first pick-pocket attempt, and it wasn't long until the next one. Then I was swarmed by street children in a narrow passage, forcing me to use mild violence to make myself loose to allow me to run away. So I decided to keep myself to city's many malls, mostly the Mall of Asia which is the fourth largest mall in the world, but still only the second largest in Manila. There I purveyed the book stores to acquaint myself with Filipino history and literature (I can especially recommend Nick Joaquin's "Culture and History" if anyone's interested).
The impression I got was of a culture who thought themselves better and more western than their neighbours on account of being Asia's only christian country. They see christianity as dominating the world, and look to America for inspiration. They do not realize that western civilization only flourished when looking elsewhere than christianity for inspiration, for example by rediscovering ancient pre-christian ideals, thus ending the dark ages when christianity had lay itself like a wet blanket over the minds of all. They take their religion very seriously and because they are catholic, and they do not use contraceptives, this means over-population and massive malthusian poverty. Manila had the worst poverty I have seen not only in SE Asia but anywhere - worse, even, than the time I was given a tour of the slums of Bombay by a sikh taxi driver who wanted to show the spoiled westerner how bad some people have it. To give you one example, garbage is carried down-river from the interior of Luzon and is then thrown back by the waves along the docks of Manila, where it gathers in thick layers, so thick, in fact, that it keeps small children buoyant as they quite literally walk on the water scavenging the trash.
It's true that America is a very religious society that is also scientifically advanced. It's also true that 93% of American National Academy of Sciences members do not belive in god. This in a very religious country. America has managed to become scientifically advanced despite being a religious country, but while America is large and pluralistic enough to produce rational scientists despite being a country largely composed of backward irrational believers in bronze-age myths, that does not mean all countries are. It is because backward countries do not abandon their backward ways that they are backward, and they need to be told this.
Well we may be "religious" there are many many many different religions and sects in the US and we rarely agree with each other. That is dramatically different than what people usually mean by a religious society where there is a church who dominates public policy.
Quote from: Valmy on October 23, 2009, 07:45:03 AM
Well we may be "religious" there are many many many different religions and sects in the US and we rarely agree with each other. That is dramatically different than what people usually mean by a religious society where there is a church who dominates public policy.
The way religion works in the west and other modern and secular states is that religion really represents a suspension of normal critical reasoning. You can be a scientist studying evolution or the big bang or building a model of abiogenesis and then go to church on sunday. The reason this works is that for most of the society treats religion as a solution to the specific problem of being moral and achieving heavens reward. Religion has in effect surrendered the issue of material truth, and focussed on the issue of spiritual truth (which can't be disproven).
So you can have a successful modern secular society which is still highly religious as long as the secular basic rules are followed. The most fundamental of these is the separation of Church and State.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2009, 07:52:25 AM
The way religion works in the west and other modern and secular states is that religion really represents a suspension of normal critical reasoning.
Well I certainly noticed critical reasoning being pretty rare over here but I never connected it to religion before. Languish must be a pretty religious place.
Quote from: Valmy on October 23, 2009, 07:56:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2009, 07:52:25 AM
The way religion works in the west and other modern and secular states is that religion really represents a suspension of normal critical reasoning.
Well I certainly noticed critical reasoning being pretty rare over here but I never connected it to religion before. Languish must be a pretty religious place.
I suspect that in addition to religion there are many other means of suspension of reason.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2009, 07:52:25 AM
So you can have a successful modern secular society which is still highly religious as long as the secular basic rules are followed. The most fundamental of these is the separation of Church and State.
The Eurolands with state churches seem to do alright. England in particular.
Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2009, 08:09:04 AM
The Eurolands with state churches seem to do alright. England in particular.
True. Once you separate religion and the church, the church can co-exist alongside the state quite well. Religion is the problem, not the church.
Quote from: grumbler on October 23, 2009, 08:20:04 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2009, 08:09:04 AM
The Eurolands with state churches seem to do alright. England in particular.
True. Once you separate religion and the church, the church can co-exist alongside the state quite well. Religion is the problem, not the church.
Historically, the Church of England has tended towards being a religion, and in some parts of the world it remains as such.
Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2009, 08:09:04 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2009, 07:52:25 AM
So you can have a successful modern secular society which is still highly religious as long as the secular basic rules are followed. The most fundamental of these is the separation of Church and State.
The Eurolands with state churches seem to do alright. England in particular.
First, the power relationship is all one way, the government rules the church, period. So liberal and socialist governments will impose gay marriage, acceptance of abortion etc.etc. on the churches. The CofE and the Scandinavian Lutheran churches are by no means energetic, or full.
Second, these churches have independence with the exception of the periodic intervention by the government. But most importantly all of these state churches are in favour of separation and their justification for being is to keep religion sane and keeping the fundies from running all the churches.
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2009, 07:52:25 AM
So you can have a successful modern secular society which is still highly religious as long as the secular basic rules are followed. The most fundamental of these is the separation of Church and State.
Bingo.
The reason that the West is "secular" is not that there are not a lot of religious people, it is that there is an understanding among the sane people (who are the vast majority) that for the most part, religion should not play any significant role in public policy.
Which is why we should continue to resist the feeble attempts to change this, and continue to work towards eradicating any remaining vestiges of interference.
Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2009, 08:22:40 AM
Historically, the Church of England has tended towards being a religion, and in some parts of the world it remains as such.
Disagree. I don't think the CoE has been about religion since Oliver Cromwell's day. It was too focused on the privileges of the aristocratic class to bother with their souls.
Quote from: grumbler on October 23, 2009, 08:28:01 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2009, 08:22:40 AM
Historically, the Church of England has tended towards being a religion, and in some parts of the world it remains as such.
Disagree. I don't think the CoE has been about religion since Oliver Cromwell's day. It was too focused on the privileges of the aristocratic class to bother with their souls.
CoE was rather broad. Look at men like Wilberforce and Porteus, who were without a doubt powerful forces in the Anglican church during their lifetimes.
QuoteFirst, the power relationship is all one way, the government rules the church, period. So liberal and socialist governments will impose gay marriage, acceptance of abortion etc.etc. on the churches. The CofE and the Scandinavian Lutheran churches are by no means energetic, or full.
The state churches have never been about religion for religions sake quite as much as they have been about religion for reasons of secular politics. Montaigne could see this even in the 1500s; he opposed the protestant reformation on the ground it would lead to atheism. Turned out he was right, but also turned out that was a good thing. Look at how the church stunted development in catholic countries.
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 03:03:28 AMTurned out he was right, but also turned out that was a good thing. Look at how the church stunted development in catholic countries.
Meh, I'd think colonial governments and the power vacuums they left had more to do with that than the home office in Rome.
I think Galileo would be with me on that one.
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 06:02:31 AM
I think Galileo would be with me on that one.
Galileo didn't wake up one morning and find the government gone, with nobody to run the power plants.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2009, 06:08:43 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 06:02:31 AM
I think Galileo would be with me on that one.
Galileo didn't wake up one morning and find the government gone, with nobody to run the power plants.
Galileo woke up and found the government run by the church. That was the problem.
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2009, 06:12:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2009, 06:08:43 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 06:02:31 AM
I think Galileo would be with me on that one.
Galileo didn't wake up one morning and find the government gone, with nobody to run the power plants.
Galileo woke up and found the government run by the church. That was the problem.
They had nice buildings, though. Belgian Congo couldn't say that.
QuoteGalileo didn't wake up one morning and find the government gone, with nobody to run the power plants.
QuoteBelgian Congo couldn't say that.
Don't understand the relevance.
Quote from: Valmy on October 23, 2009, 07:45:03 AM
Well we may be "religious" there are many many many different religions and sects in the US and we rarely agree with each other. That is dramatically different than what people usually mean by a religious society where there is a church who dominates public policy.
I disagree. This may have been true in the past, where churches often bickered over doctrinal issues, but these days they work more or less as a single political entity and have similar political goals (e.g. on abortion, gay rights etc.). Of course some may be more extreme than others, and some more moderate, but the same is true even in countries like Poland where 95% of people declare themselves catholic.
Take the US Catholics and Mormons for example. They couldn't be farther from each other in terms of the dogma, but they work as one when it comes to social and political issues.
Quote from: Valmy on October 23, 2009, 07:56:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2009, 07:52:25 AM
The way religion works in the west and other modern and secular states is that religion really represents a suspension of normal critical reasoning.
Well I certainly noticed critical reasoning being pretty rare over here but I never connected it to religion before. Languish must be a pretty religious place.
People are prone to suspending their critical reasoning due to many things. However, very few ideologies, except for religion, actually make this suspension of critical reasoning a central tenet of their process.
Even racism, nazism and communism despite being wildly illogical, purport to have scientific and reasonable basis (and thus make themselves vulnerable to criticism based on reason).
Religion is the only one that claims to deal with truths that are ineffable and thus impossible to assail with reason.
So, in essence, many people are idiots, but only religious people are openly proud of their idiocy.
Quote from: The Brain on October 23, 2009, 05:43:05 AM
Europe is a moderate drinker. America is a sober alcoholic.
Actually, not to piss in your cereals (as they also mine to some extent :P) but I think it's the opposite.
It's Europe that used to have bloody wars of religion and now avoids religious entanglements with significant zeal, whereas Americans never had religious wars and thus are "moderate drinkers" in that they partake of religion, oblivious to the dangers of it (and despite the European "sober alcoholics" telling them they are playing with fire). ;)
Quote from: Neil on October 23, 2009, 08:09:04 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 23, 2009, 07:52:25 AM
So you can have a successful modern secular society which is still highly religious as long as the secular basic rules are followed. The most fundamental of these is the separation of Church and State.
The Eurolands with state churches seem to do alright. England in particular.
Funny you mention that since yesterday the official Lutheran church of Sweden offered full religious recognition to gay marriage and is performing religious gay marriage ceremonies.
So I agree, state religion works very well in Europe. :D
QuoteWell, about the modernity of the US...
Effective State? Check.
Oh I don't know, I find they always talk about how inefficient their state is. ;)
Fortunately, homos in Europe will soon be exterminated.
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2009, 06:12:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2009, 06:08:43 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 06:02:31 AM
I think Galileo would be with me on that one.
Galileo didn't wake up one morning and find the government gone, with nobody to run the power plants.
Galileo woke up and found the government run by the church. That was the problem.
Well, considering he was put on trial while in Rome, it couldn't exactly come to him as a surprise to find out one day that the government of Rome was run by the church. ;)
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 06:20:22 AM
QuoteGalileo didn't wake up one morning and find the government gone, with nobody to run the power plants.
QuoteBelgian Congo couldn't say that.
Don't understand the relevance.
My point is, the sometimes abrupt disappearance of colonial governments did more for the dysfunctionalism of states than the presence of the church. But, since you're apparently another Romebasher, you go ahead and blame the state of modern sub-saharan Africa on the church.
Oh, right, I understand wherein the confusion lies. That was unrelated to my earlier post and I wasn't refering to the third world. I was talking about the church stunting development in catholic Europe. Though I'd certainly say they greatly stunt development in the modern third world as well, particularly by condemning use of condoms, even though there are certainly additional factors at play in the poverty and under-development of the third world (though I'm not so sure about the power vacuum theory - surely they've had quite some time to fill that vacuum by now?)
Quote from: Viking on October 24, 2009, 06:12:57 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2009, 06:08:43 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 06:02:31 AM
I think Galileo would be with me on that one.
Galileo didn't wake up one morning and find the government gone, with nobody to run the power plants.
Galileo woke up and found the government run by the church. That was the problem.
Galileo woke up and found insulting a sitting head of state was a poor decision. If he had insulted a secular head of state like the King France he would have been executed rather then put under house arrest.
The pope apologized for Galileo and said the church was wrong, and the pope is infallible. :smarty:
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 07:07:58 AM
The pope apologized for Galileo and said the church was wrong, and the pope is infallible. :smarty:
He wasn't infallible at the time as that doctrine hadn't come about yet.
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 07:07:58 AM
The pope apologized for Galileo and said the church was wrong, and the pope is infallible. :smarty:
Not on matters like that he isn't.
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 06:02:31 AM
I think Galileo would be with me on that one.
You know that Galileo was a devout Catholic, right? And the reason he was sentenced was not that his theory was somehow completely unpalatable by the Church. The Pope was his friend and gave him the opportunity to argue his case, it's when Galileo decided to make ad hominem attacks against the Pope that he was condemned.
Quote from: Solmyr on October 24, 2009, 08:39:54 AM
You know that Galileo was a devout Catholic, right? And the reason he was sentenced was not that his theory was somehow completely unpalatable by the Church. The Pope was his friend and gave him the opportunity to argue his case, it's when Galileo decided to make ad hominem attacks against the Pope that he was condemned.
That's quite a bit of pro-papal spin control. Galileo wasn't given the opportunity to argue the case; he was only allowed to present heliocentric theory as a possible hypothesis without actually arguing for it or defending it. he got in trouble because he wouldn't stick strictly to those limitations. And he was prosecuted not for making fun of the Pope, but for making fun of the Pope's *arguments*.
I still think Galileo would have been rational enough to agree with me that the church impeded progress when they brought him before the inquisition on charges of heresy :huh:
And Galileo is just one example. There are many more, as you know. They burned Giordano Bruno at the stake :huh: What excuses do you have for that?
edit: Though OK that was on theological grounds as well as for his heliocentrism. But it should be self-evident that the church was the enemy of free inquiry, and the Inquisition did it's best to turn catholic countries into deserts of the mind. No one can deny that. Hell, the church only recently stopped carrying it's list of banned books.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2009, 07:01:32 AM
[Galileo woke up and found insulting a sitting head of state was a poor decision. If he had insulted a secular head of state like the King France he would have been executed rather then put under house arrest.
He didn't insult a secular head of state though. To the contrary the person he was dealing with was supposedly the representative of Jesus Christ on earth. You know - the guy who talked about "turning the other cheek" and all that. Perhaps Galileo took the Church's PR a little too much at face value. ;)
QuoteSecularism is not a condition of modernity. You don't have to travel to Turkey to see that. It is true in the United States, which is a very religious society but in which advanced science and technological innovation thrive.
Too many people think secularism means atheism. Secularism is indeed a condition of modernity.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 24, 2009, 06:42:12 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 06:20:22 AM
QuoteGalileo didn't wake up one morning and find the government gone, with nobody to run the power plants.
QuoteBelgian Congo couldn't say that.
Don't understand the relevance.
My point is, the sometimes abrupt disappearance of colonial governments did more for the dysfunctionalism of states than the presence of the church. But, since you're apparently another Romebasher, you go ahead and blame the state of modern sub-saharan Africa on the church.
You mean "Jew-basher" I hope?
The last good thing Rome did was trying to stamp out the Judean heresy by putting Christians to the sword. It all went down hill when they abandoned the Capitoline gods for the Jewish upstart.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 24, 2009, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2009, 07:01:32 AM
[Galileo woke up and found insulting a sitting head of state was a poor decision. If he had insulted a secular head of state like the King France he would have been executed rather then put under house arrest.
He didn't insult a secular head of state though. To the contrary the person he was dealing with was supposedly the representative of Jesus Christ on earth. You know - the guy who talked about "turning the other cheek" and all that. Perhaps Galileo took the Church's PR a little too much at face value. ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5McSEU48Y8
The church still has the best variete.
Quote from: miglia on October 24, 2009, 09:17:33 AM
I still think Galileo would have been rational enough to agree with me that the church impeded progress when they brought him before the inquisition on charges of heresy :huh:
And Galileo is just one example. There are many more, as you know. They burned Giordano Bruno at the stake :huh: What excuses do you have for that?
edit: Though OK that was on theological grounds as well as for his heliocentrism. But it should be self-evident that the church was the enemy of free inquiry, and the Inquisition did it's best to turn catholic countries into deserts of the mind. No one can deny that. Hell, the church only recently stopped carrying it's list of banned books.
:huh:
Giordano Bruno was a real religious nut. If he would have been alive, he would have been the worst kind of religious nut: using science to prove Creationism. I'm amazed by how people still use him as an example of Catholic intolerance towards reason and science. We had a Romanian writer that declared in his autobiography that his school colleagues used to place their fingers in the open flames of a candle and let them burn for as long as possible just like Bruno would do.
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2009, 10:35:56 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 24, 2009, 10:20:38 AM
As for Galilei,
OMG, the Church got Alexandru too!
Neah! :rolleyes:
Galilei is a tough subject. While I think the amount of exaggeration from the anti-religious crowd is staggering (house arrest is like the nicest punishment there is), I do like the way he satirised his "friend", the Pope. His trial was just a personal vendetta of Barberini; there were a lot of Catholic astronomers that used the Copernician method just fine, without having to kiss the arse of the Pope.
It's so odd to find the Poles so keen on attacking religion after so many years of soviet domination. Hell with out the Catholic church the Poles would probably be part of Russia now.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 10:41:36 AM
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2009, 10:35:56 AM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 24, 2009, 10:20:38 AM
As for Galilei,
OMG, the Church got Alexandru too!
Must be the miracles he saw on his walls.
And despite those, I'm still more reasonable than you. I support a secular state in which religion is a matter of personal preference that shouldn't hit anyone else in the head (the same category that includes sexual preference or bodily fluids). You want all religious people to die, believing in the same time that somehow atheism was invented to allow men free use of other men's penises.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2009, 10:51:51 AM
It's so odd to find the Poles so keen on attacking religion after so many years of soviet domination. Hell with out the Catholic church the Poles would probably be part of Russia now.
I'm not a Catholic but I respect it more than any other religion in the world mainly because of Polish Catholicism.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2009, 10:51:51 AM
It's so odd to find the Poles so keen on attacking religion after so many years of soviet domination. Hell with out the Catholic church the Poles would probably be part of Russia now.
Half of the Polish catholic priests are antisemitic plebeans. The other half are former commie agents.
Unlike in any other communist country, the Catholic church in Poland (as a whole - I am not talking about some individual priests who got involved in anti-communist politics) had a rather comfy relationship with the communist party. After all, it was allowed to practice freely; churches were not turned into warehouses like in Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union; etc.
And after the fall of communism it took the full advantage of the "to the victor go the spoils" rule and claimed a number of privileges (e.g. it is tax-exempt, it holds vast property, only catholic priests can give religious marriages that are automatically recognised by the state - everybody else needs to go before a civil official to have their marriage formally conducted; only catholic religion is taught - alternatively to "ethics" - in public schools - no other religion is being taught as a school subject) that now make even actual devout catholics resent its influence.
It also had at least three situations (since 1989) that could possibly blossom into a Boston-style pedophiliac abuse scandals, but each case was hushed up, since the catholic church in Poland is much MUCH more influential than it is in the US.
Who in your family were commie agents?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2009, 12:59:56 PM
Who in your family were commie agents?
Predicted marty response: You are a cretin and wishes some form of death upon you.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 24, 2009, 03:07:49 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 24, 2009, 12:59:56 PM
Who in your family were commie agents?
Predicted marty response: You are a cretin and wishes some form of death upon you.
Thank you, kindly. That why I won't have to waste time responding to that cur.
I wonder about the perceived automatic disconnect between reason and religion when we have such things as the scholastics (for instance) re-introducing and refining reason in the West (and given Averroes, attempting the same in Muslim Spain) who were both philisophically aimed toward Aristotelian Rationality and their own faith.
I think that religion and uncritical religion may well be two different things that are being lumped together by some.
FWIW every single person I know that I consider highly intelligent is non-religious. I have no reason to assume I've just been lucky.
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2009, 03:56:01 PM
I wonder about the perceived automatic disconnect between reason and religion when we have such things as the scholastics (for instance) re-introducing and refining reason in the West (and given Averroes, attempting the same in Muslim Spain) who were both philisophically aimed toward Aristotelian Rationality and their own faith.
I agree. I'm as secular as one can be, but as a student of history it irks me that people bash the medieval Catholic Church like it was the root of all evil and ignore all its contributions to scholarly thought.
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2009, 03:56:01 PM
I wonder about the perceived automatic disconnect between reason and religion when we have such things as the scholastics (for instance) re-introducing and refining reason in the West (and given Averroes, attempting the same in Muslim Spain) who were both philisophically aimed toward Aristotelian Rationality and their own faith.
I think that religion and uncritical religion may well be two different things that are being lumped together by some.
I thought we were discussing here and now, and not talking about some ideal and abstract universals.
There have indubitably been many great thinkers and scholars in the history of mankind who thought the Earth was flat. And there have been many men who were thought to be of high morals and ethics, and who nonetheless thought it is perfectly moral to put a disobedient slave to death.
Surely, noone would argue that if one was to hold such views today he would be a great scholar or a deeply ethical man, respectively, though.
Noone denies that the religion has served its purpose in the development of human thought. But today it is an obstacle, not a stepping block.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 06:22:21 AM
I disagree. This may have been true in the past, where churches often bickered over doctrinal issues, but these days they work more or less as a single political entity and have similar political goals (e.g. on abortion, gay rights etc.). Of course some may be more extreme than others, and some more moderate, but the same is true even in countries like Poland where 95% of people declare themselves catholic.
Take the US Catholics and Mormons for example. They couldn't be farther from each other in terms of the dogma, but they work as one when it comes to social and political issues.
Um...Marty those are secular political goals. I do not think a requirement of Secularism is allowing gay rights and abortion. A religious society would have a church that controls the educational system, thought, and discourse so as to control the political system and society. Merely having religions that have political opinions is not the same thing as having a religious type of society as opposed to a secular one.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 04:32:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 06:22:21 AM
I disagree. This may have been true in the past, where churches often bickered over doctrinal issues, but these days they work more or less as a single political entity and have similar political goals (e.g. on abortion, gay rights etc.). Of course some may be more extreme than others, and some more moderate, but the same is true even in countries like Poland where 95% of people declare themselves catholic.
Take the US Catholics and Mormons for example. They couldn't be farther from each other in terms of the dogma, but they work as one when it comes to social and political issues.
Um...Marty those are secular political goals. I do not think a requirement of Secularism is allowing gay rights and abortion. A religious society would have a church that controls the educational system, thought, and discourse so as to control the political system and society. Merely having religions that have political opinions is not the same thing as having a religious type of society as opposed to a secular one.
Oh please. They are quoting Bible at gays. They are saying gays are going to burn in hell. They are saying America lost God's protection because it allows gays to live. And you are saying these are merely political goals? It's laughable.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:28:58 PM
Noone denies that the religion has served its purpose in the development of human thought. But today it is an obstacle, not a stepping block.
Religion will always be necessary, humans have a deep need for it as has been pointed out many times before. The question is how can religion come to serve our modern ideals? I believe the religion I am apart of does that becuause it actually concerns itself with eternal truths not trying to preserve old superstitions and irrational nonsense. Removing religion will only have it replaced with more nonsense of a different stripe.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:35:39 PM
They are quoting Bible at gays. They are saying gays are going to burn in hell. They are saying America lost God's protection because it allows gays to live. And you are saying these are merely political goals? It's laughable.
They are political goals in service of their beliefs. Beliefs I believe are fundamentally false and based on ignorance and poor literacy but beliefs non the less.
I fail to see what is not secular about people advancing a political program in support of their beliefs.
Gays can and have made good use of religious texts to support their own cause as well. Are they therefore demanding a religious society? Of course not they are using that in support of their political program.
In a sense you are saying to be secular you have to ban religious thinking and politics...which is not secular but totalitarian atheism.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:28:58 PM
Noone denies that the religion has served its purpose in the development of human thought. But today it is an obstacle, not a stepping block.
the religion I am apart of
From. :contract:
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 04:39:28 PM
In a sense you are saying to be secular you have to ban religious thinking and politics...which is not secular but totalitarian atheism.
I am not saying you have to ban religious thinking but yes, you have to ban religious politics. This is how the separation of church and state is perceived in many European countries, for example France.
It's funny how you denounce Europeans misunderstanding America as a fundamentalist theocracy, yet call European secular states to practice "totalitarian atheism".
Religion is a private thing. It should be kept to homes and churches. It has no place in the public sphere.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:28:58 PM
Noone denies that the religion has served its purpose in the development of human thought. But today it is an obstacle, not a stepping block.
Religion will always be necessary, humans have a deep need for it as has been pointed out many times before. The question is how can religion come to serve our modern ideals? I believe the religion I am apart of does that becuause it actually concerns itself with eternal truths not trying to preserve old superstitions and irrational nonsense. Removing religion will only have it replaced with more nonsense of a different stripe.
Well, even well-meaning, religion is a fallacy. It relies on false information. It supports lies about reality. Even if these lies are used for a good purpose, they are still lies, which may have - and often does have - negative long term consequences.
Are you familiar with informatics and programming? There is a concept called GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. If you feed false premises to a reasoning process ("There is a judge in heaven." "We will live after death." "This life is not important") this will lead to all kinds of fallacious conclusions ("Why bother saving human lives? It's important we save souls instead." "There is no point trying to improve out lot here - justice will be served in the afterlife." "The earth is just a short stop - no point to save it from ecological oblivion then.")
Regular people don't reason.
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2009, 04:52:53 PM
Regular people don't reason.
Perhaps. But if you intentionally lie to people - no matter how good your intentions - negative side consequences of this are much more unpredictable than if you tell them the truth.
The mob does not reason, true. But it can do enough damage if it just allowed to run away with a true fact and distort it in their heads. Its destructive power is much more unpredictable and chaotic when you feed it a fundamental lie.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:47:35 PM
Well, even well-meaning, religion is a fallacy. It relies on false information. It supports lies about reality. Even if these lies are used for a good purpose, they are still lies, which may have - and often does have - negative long term consequences.
Are you familiar with informatics and programming? There is a concept called GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. If you feed false premises to a reasoning process ("There is a judge in heaven." "We will live after death." "This life is not important") this will lead to all kinds of fallacious conclusions ("Why bother saving human lives? It's important we save souls instead." "There is no point trying to improve out lot here - justice will be served in the afterlife." "The earth is just a short stop - no point to save it from ecological oblivion then.")
Well I am in Voltaire's camp that a true religion cannot have claims that cannot be arrived by rational thought.
Alot of your claims in the second paragraph are pretty ridiculous even by religious people. Your fallacy is to take the most ridiculous ideas and claim that they are held by all religious people. Also the fact that people, millions if not billions, of people cling to such beliefs supports my point that there is something about religion that satisfies very deep human needs and it will always have an important place in society.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:55:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2009, 04:52:53 PM
Regular people don't reason.
Perhaps. But if you intentionally lie to people - no matter how good your intentions - negative side consequences of this are much more unpredictable than if you tell them the truth.
The mob does not reason, true. But it can do enough damage if it just allowed to run away with a true fact and distort it in their heads. Its destructive power is much more unpredictable and chaotic when you feed it a fundamental lie.
I get that you hate religion but you are changing the subject. Having religion in your country does not make it religious or not-secular.
@Valmy: How do you have a secular society if you make laws based on religion (non-rhetorical)?
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:55:44 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 24, 2009, 04:52:53 PM
Regular people don't reason.
Perhaps. But if you intentionally lie to people - no matter how good your intentions - negative side consequences of this are much more unpredictable than if you tell them the truth.
The mob does not reason, true. But it can do enough damage if it just allowed to run away with a true fact and distort it in their heads. Its destructive power is much more unpredictable and chaotic when you feed it a fundamental lie.
I don't think that's particularily important. Mobs that are full of allegedly rational ideology are just as dangerous as mobs full of snake-handlers. Material comfort and perceived safety are far more important.
A Secular society can have religious freaks running around the place telling everybody to follow the bible. They can even be in government and administration and be openly religious.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
... Also the fact that people, millions if not billions, of people cling to such beliefs supports my point that there is something about religion that satisfies very deep human needs and it will always have an important place in society.
With enough brain surgery, genetic modifications and appropriate drugs you can do away with all this superfluous evolutionary luggage.
However if you need to worship something - then worship something that is transcendent, visible and tangible all at once: the State.
G.
Doubleplusgood!
Quote from: The Brain on October 24, 2009, 05:08:59 PM
@Valmy: How do you have a secular society if you make laws based on religion (non-rhetorical)?
By making the laws subject to the will of the people and not a self-appointed mullahcracy.
Quote from: Solmyr on October 24, 2009, 04:01:42 PM
Quote from: PDH on October 24, 2009, 03:56:01 PM
I wonder about the perceived automatic disconnect between reason and religion when we have such things as the scholastics (for instance) re-introducing and refining reason in the West (and given Averroes, attempting the same in Muslim Spain) who were both philisophically aimed toward Aristotelian Rationality and their own faith.
I agree. I'm as secular as one can be, but as a student of history it irks me that people bash the medieval Catholic Church like it was the root of all evil and ignore all its contributions to scholarly thought.
It is true that there are some contributions to scholarly thought from within the catholic tradition, just as there are contributions to scholarly thought from within the muslim tradition. It's also true that the catholic church made as their enemy contributions to scholarly thought from without the catholic tradition, and would burn the books of Spinoza and others. Look at the development of the muslim world as a good example of what happens when scholarly thought only comes from within the religious tradition.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 04:39:28 PM
In a sense you are saying to be secular you have to ban religious thinking and politics...which is not secular but totalitarian atheism.
Well it is familiar to him.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2009, 06:59:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 24, 2009, 05:08:59 PM
@Valmy: How do you have a secular society if you make laws based on religion (non-rhetorical)?
By making the laws subject to the will of the people and not a self-appointed mullahcracy.
Exactly.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:47:35 PM
Well, even well-meaning, religion is a fallacy. It relies on false information. It supports lies about reality. Even if these lies are used for a good purpose, they are still lies, which may have - and often does have - negative long term consequences.
Are you familiar with informatics and programming? There is a concept called GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. If you feed false premises to a reasoning process ("There is a judge in heaven." "We will live after death." "This life is not important") this will lead to all kinds of fallacious conclusions ("Why bother saving human lives? It's important we save souls instead." "There is no point trying to improve out lot here - justice will be served in the afterlife." "The earth is just a short stop - no point to save it from ecological oblivion then.")
Well I am in Voltaire's camp that a true religion cannot have claims that cannot be arrived by rational thought.
What does it even mean in that context? I am talking about truth and facts, not about rational thought, in any case. There is nothing rational in stating that we will go to heaven after we die, or that Jesus resurrected on the third day, or that God created the Earth 6000 years ago. These are statements about reality, and they are false.
QuoteAlot of your claims in the second paragraph are pretty ridiculous even by religious people. Your fallacy is to take the most ridiculous ideas and claim that they are held by all religious people. Also the fact that people, millions if not billions, of people cling to such beliefs supports my point that there is something about religion that satisfies very deep human needs and it will always have an important place in society.
I was just using these as an example of how the religious thinking can go awry. However you failed to address at all my general point about the "garbage in garbage out" principle.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2009, 06:59:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 24, 2009, 05:08:59 PM
@Valmy: How do you have a secular society if you make laws based on religion (non-rhetorical)?
By making the laws subject to the will of the people and not a self-appointed mullahcracy.
So every democratic society with separation of state and church is secular?
There seems to be different versions of "secular" floating around. A society where I cannot eat pork because a law based on the words of Allah forbids it may not be very secular to some observers.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2009, 06:59:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 24, 2009, 05:08:59 PM
@Valmy: How do you have a secular society if you make laws based on religion (non-rhetorical)?
By making the laws subject to the will of the people and not a self-appointed mullahcracy.
That's a definition of democracy. Are you saying that any democracy is by definition secular? This is a rather unique view, I must say.
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 11:11:06 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on October 24, 2009, 06:59:38 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 24, 2009, 05:08:59 PM
@Valmy: How do you have a secular society if you make laws based on religion (non-rhetorical)?
By making the laws subject to the will of the people and not a self-appointed mullahcracy.
Exactly.
So a country with an overwhelmingly muslim populace, where the democratically elected representatives of the people pass laws that penalize apostasy, adultery and homosexuality with death, and forbid drinking wine and eating pork, would be "secular" to you? :lol:
Seriously, you are the best example of the GIGO principle. You are a smart and decent guy, who has right ideas on most of things, but because your reasoning process is contaminated with religious falsehoods, you end up saying things like that.
Quote from: The Brain on October 24, 2009, 05:08:59 PM
@Valmy: How do you have a secular society if you make laws based on religion (non-rhetorical)?
I think there's an important distinction to be made between laws based on doctrine and those based on morality. The great majority of people, both religious and non-religious, will support some laws based on their own moral code. These tend to have much broader similarities among a wider variety of people than those simply following one particular faith.
Frex, only Muslims will have a problem with blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed. But a law against prostitution will get support from Muslims, Christians, Jews, Feminazis and others. The people are basing that law on their (often religiously-inspired) morality, but having such laws certainly doesn't make the state non-secular.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 03:54:52 AM
So a country with an overwhelmingly muslim populace, where the democratically elected representatives of the people pass laws that penalize apostasy, adultery and homosexuality with death, and forbid drinking wine and eating pork, would be "secular" to you? :lol:
I would say that it would depend on how the laws were arrived at. As we know, it is possible for secular societies to have religiously-derived laws.
QuoteSeriously, you are the best example of the GIGO principle. You are a smart and decent guy, who has right ideas on most of things, but because your reasoning process is contaminated with religious falsehoods, you end up saying things like that.
You and that principle. You're even worse than Malthus and Kohlberg.
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2009, 03:09:59 AM
So every democratic society with separation of state and church is secular?
There seems to be different versions of "secular" floating around. A society where I cannot eat pork because a law based on the words of Allah forbids it may not be very secular to some observers.
You're right. Fukayama is using secular in the sense of absence of religious belief.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2009, 05:28:19 AM
Frex, only Muslims will have a problem with blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed. But a law against prostitution will get support from Muslims, Christians, Jews, Feminazis and others. The people are basing that law on their (often religiously-inspired) morality, but having such laws certainly doesn't make the state non-secular.
The thing I find really strange about this is that the ban on the depiction was to prevent idolatry of mohammed. Now it seems to be idolatrous to consider mockery of mohammed to be blasphemy.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 11:01:01 AM
Half of the Polish catholic priests are antisemitic plebeans. The other half are former commie agents.
Unlike in any other communist country, the Catholic church in Poland (as a whole - I am not talking about some individual priests who got involved in anti-communist politics) had a rather comfy relationship with the communist party. After all, it was allowed to practice freely; churches were not turned into warehouses like in Czechoslovakia or the Soviet Union; etc.
And after the fall of communism it took the full advantage of the "to the victor go the spoils" rule and claimed a number of privileges (e.g. it is tax-exempt, it holds vast property, only catholic priests can give religious marriages that are automatically recognised by the state - everybody else needs to go before a civil official to have their marriage formally conducted; only catholic religion is taught - alternatively to "ethics" - in public schools - no other religion is being taught as a school subject) that now make even actual devout catholics resent its influence.
It also had at least three situations (since 1989) that could possibly blossom into a Boston-style pedophiliac abuse scandals, but each case was hushed up, since the catholic church in Poland is much MUCH more influential than it is in the US.
Ah. Earlier, I thought you were talking about the US being the country where p[eople were surrounded by the symbols of religion. Now I understand that you meant Poland.
Ditto, I suppose, for your contention that the US Catholic and Mormon churches are in lockstep on social issues. You meant Poland and just, again, wrote "US" by mistake. I was wondering how you could be so positive a(nd yet erroneous) on issues in a country about which you know so little, but that was because you confused me with your typos.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 02:41:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:47:35 PM
Well, even well-meaning, religion is a fallacy. It relies on false information. It supports lies about reality. Even if these lies are used for a good purpose, they are still lies, which may have - and often does have - negative long term consequences.
Are you familiar with informatics and programming? There is a concept called GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. If you feed false premises to a reasoning process ("There is a judge in heaven." "We will live after death." "This life is not important") this will lead to all kinds of fallacious conclusions ("Why bother saving human lives? It's important we save souls instead." "There is no point trying to improve out lot here - justice will be served in the afterlife." "The earth is just a short stop - no point to save it from ecological oblivion then.")
Well I am in Voltaire's camp that a true religion cannot have claims that cannot be arrived by rational thought.
What does it even mean in that context? I am talking about truth and facts, not about rational thought, in any case. There is nothing rational in stating that we will go to heaven after we die, or that Jesus resurrected on the third day, or that God created the Earth 6000 years ago. These are statements about reality, and they are false.
While there's quite a bit of evidence showing that the earth is not 6000 years old, I would challenge you to show any evidence that proves Jesus was not resurrected, or that we do not go to heaven.
Most atheists would only argue there's no proof either way on those points. But you went the extra difference to say that things like heaven and the resurrections aren't just unknown, but false. Which must means you think you have some evidence on those points...
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:41:40 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 04:39:28 PM
In a sense you are saying to be secular you have to ban religious thinking and politics...which is not secular but totalitarian atheism.
I am not saying you have to ban religious thinking but yes, you have to ban religious politics. This is how the separation of church and state is perceived in many European countries, for example France.
It's funny how you denounce Europeans misunderstanding America as a fundamentalist theocracy, yet call European secular states to practice "totalitarian atheism".
Religion is a private thing. It should be kept to homes and churches. It has no place in the public sphere.
That is the problem with democracy: lots of people believe deeply in stuff I disapprove of because it's irrational.
Of course when I am dictator, that won't be a problem.
But until that happy day ... we have to put up with people believing in what I consider nonsense and having equal voting power anyway.
The solution, I suspect. lies in having certain principles established as constitutional rights that cannot be voted away, and a system of laws based on that. This avoids the problem, in part, of religious types creating laws demanding that their gods be given some sort of legal sanction.
What one cannot prevent, is people voting on issues in ways they believe pleasing to their gods, rather than on utilitarian principles.
Quote from: Grallon on October 24, 2009, 06:08:31 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
... Also the fact that people, millions if not billions, of people cling to such beliefs supports my point that there is something about religion that satisfies very deep human needs and it will always have an important place in society.
With enough brain surgery, genetic modifications and appropriate drugs you can do away with all this superfluous evolutionary luggage.
However if you need to worship something - then worship something that is transcendent, visible and tangible all at once: the State.
G.
Yech. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 11:47:45 AM
While there's quite a bit of evidence showing that the earth is not 6000 years old, I would challenge you to show any evidence that proves Jesus was not resurrected, or that we do not go to heaven.
Most atheists would only argue there's no proof either way on those points. But you went the extra difference to say that things like heaven and the resurrections aren't just unknown, but false. Which must means you think you have some evidence on those points...
#¤%!#¤%"#&!"#¤% Lawyers and your theory of knowledge BS. Most well informed rational secular humanists would argue that we have
A) Very very very good evidence that the Earth is at least 780,000 times older than that.
B) That there is no good evidence (anecdotes are evidence, just very very poor) for the resurrection.
C) That there is no evidence (none at all what so ever) for the existence of heaven.
These three examples are at three very different levels of knowledge.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 02:41:26 AM
What does it even mean in that context? I am talking about truth and facts, not about rational thought, in any case. There is nothing rational in stating that we will go to heaven after we die, or that Jesus resurrected on the third day, or that God created the Earth 6000 years ago. These are statements about reality, and they are false.
Interesting that you cite the GIGO principal, and then ignore it by starting with unproven (and unprovable) theses of your own! :lmfao: You don't know whether these "statements of fact" are true or false. You merely assume that they are, and then draw conclusions based on them.
QuoteI was just using these as an example of how the religious thinking can go awry. However you failed to address at all my general point about the "garbage in garbage out" principle.
Indeed, and part of the reason for this is that you clearly do not (and maybe cannot) understand the "garbage in garbage out principle." The answer to the problem proposed by the principal is
not to invent new garbage that gives a satisfactory output (as you do), but rather to change the assumptions and see what impact that change has on the output (as those of us who understand the GIGO principal do).
To use your example, let's assume that people go to heaven when they die and figure out the output. Then, lets assume that they do not, and see what output we get. If there is no significant change (and I myself believe that this is what we would find, given the relative novelty of the life after death concept and the relative consistency in moral reasoning), then we can ignore that assumption as meaningless.
That's how it works. Maybe logic is something they don't teach in Polish law schools.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2009, 12:00:34 PM
Most well informed rational secular humanists would argue that we have
A) Very very very good evidence that the Earth is at least 780,000 times older than that.
B) That there is no good evidence (anecdotes are evidence, just very very poor) for the resurrection.
C) That there is no evidence (none at all what so ever) for the existence of heaven.
These three examples are at three very different levels of knowledge.
Again, the assumption here is that all knowledge is capable of being fully transmitted to others. Let us suppose that there is a human who knows, for sure, that there is a heaven. The human has been there, talked with denizens, talked with the people who run it, discovered the requirements for ending up in heaven after death, and comes back and tells you about it. Would you believe it? Remember, we are making the assumption here that heaven does, in fact, exist.
I suspect that you would not believe the person, thinking them either delusional or deceitful.
Then, let us assume that heaven does not, in fact, exist, bt the human who talks to you tells the exact same story. Does this assumption change the output?
I suspect that it does not.
Therefor, spending time on such issues is futile.
Now, the issue of "God's word" as justification for laws does force us to address whether or not gods exist and whether any existing gods should have a voice in human law. If we assume that they do not exist (or don't care about human law if they do exist), then we reach a far different outcome than if we assume that they exist and do care about human law.
QuoteIf there is no significant change (and I myself believe that this is what we would find, given the relative novelty of the life after death concept and the relative consistency in moral reasoning), then we can ignore that assumption as meaningless.
There is a significant difference, however, in that if there is no life after death, then our life here on earth becomes a lot more important. We have all seen the nihilism of those certain of life after death.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glogster.com%2Fmedia%2F2%2F5%2F95%2F87%2F5958774.jpg&hash=5967fae5d8f76f952a6644b9ce4061a286bda36d)
USA! USA! USA!
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 12:49:37 PM
There is a significant difference, however, in that if there is no life after death, then our life here on earth becomes a lot more important. We have all seen the nihilism of those certain of life after death.
Death cults and moon gods = bad.
I'm with you. It's just that it's a good example of the GIGO principle. If you start with the assumption that there is an after-life, and you go there by doing certain things, then it can lead to things like that.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 12:49:37 PM
There is a significant difference, however, in that if there is no life after death, then our life here on earth becomes a lot more important.
And that's why religion is essential. Without some hope of a comfortable afterlife, there's nothing to keep the lower orders in their place.
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2009, 01:04:50 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 12:49:37 PM
There is a significant difference, however, in that if there is no life after death, then our life here on earth becomes a lot more important.
And that's why religion is essential. Without some hope of a comfortable afterlife, there's nothing to keep the lower orders in their place.
Right. That is one of the main reasons for organized religion.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 01:15:39 PM
Right. That is one of the main reasons for organized religion.
It's also why insufficiently religious societies will always fail.
Look at the Indian religions, for example. That's exactly what they're designed to do. With christianity, as well, life on earth is supposed to be a life of suffering.
Same with Islam, which allows polygamy, and where the wealthy have many wives and the poor none. So they are promised virgins in the after-life if they die for their faith.
QuoteIt's also why insufficiently religious societies will always fail.
Somalia is one of the most religious places around.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 01:31:51 PM
QuoteIt's also why insufficiently religious societies will always fail.
Somalia is one of the most religious places around.
And? What exactly are you arguing?
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2009, 01:39:35 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 01:31:51 PM
QuoteIt's also why insufficiently religious societies will always fail.
Somalia is one of the most religious places around.
And? What exactly are you arguing?
Presumably you would make the case that Islam is to Christianity what Aircraft Carriers are to Dreadnaughts?
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 12:56:35 PM
I'm with you. It's just that it's a good example of the GIGO principle. If you start with the assumption that there is an after-life, and you go there by doing certain things, then it can lead to things like that.
To expand on this. I was in India during the Bombay attacks (had been sitting at Leopold cafe drinking beer just a few days before they attacked it with hand-grenades and automatic weapons).
On TV, in the papers, on the streets, everywhere: the mantra was that of "Terrorists have no religion". Yes, that is what they were telling themselves. That these terrorists, who had so eagerly given their lives, had no religion. When it was so obviously the opposite. Those terrorists were some of the most religious people around.
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2009, 01:39:35 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 01:31:51 PM
QuoteIt's also why insufficiently religious societies will always fail.
Somalia is one of the most religious places around.
And? What exactly are you arguing?
America is like Somalia only with more hispanics.
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2009, 01:43:14 PM
America is like Somalia only with more hispanics.
And the Pirates suck.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 11:47:45 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 02:41:26 AM
Quote from: Valmy on October 24, 2009, 05:01:46 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:47:35 PM
Well, even well-meaning, religion is a fallacy. It relies on false information. It supports lies about reality. Even if these lies are used for a good purpose, they are still lies, which may have - and often does have - negative long term consequences.
Are you familiar with informatics and programming? There is a concept called GIGO - garbage in, garbage out. If you feed false premises to a reasoning process ("There is a judge in heaven." "We will live after death." "This life is not important") this will lead to all kinds of fallacious conclusions ("Why bother saving human lives? It's important we save souls instead." "There is no point trying to improve out lot here - justice will be served in the afterlife." "The earth is just a short stop - no point to save it from ecological oblivion then.")
Well I am in Voltaire's camp that a true religion cannot have claims that cannot be arrived by rational thought.
What does it even mean in that context? I am talking about truth and facts, not about rational thought, in any case. There is nothing rational in stating that we will go to heaven after we die, or that Jesus resurrected on the third day, or that God created the Earth 6000 years ago. These are statements about reality, and they are false.
I would challenge you to show any evidence that proves Jesus was not resurrected, or that we do not go to heaven.
If the "we" still includes Marty, someone sufficiently snarky could argue that there's pretty evidence that we're not going to heaven.
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2009, 01:41:21 PM
Presumably you would make the case that Islam is to Christianity what Aircraft Carriers are to Dreadnaughts?
Not at all. I'm saying that insufficiently religious states will fail. Sure, Chrisitianity is superior to Islam because of its' subordination to the authority of the state, but any faith is better than none.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 01:42:21 PMThose terrorists were some of the most religious people around.
How do you quantify that? By the body count?
Was there some different quality to religion in the Middle Ages that allowed rational scholars to use consistent logical means to reach conclusions, was William of Ockham a mutant religious type, for he was both religious and deeply questioning of universals? Perhaps the blanket condemnation of religion is better suited toward a pentecostal/fundamental variety of religion that obviates logic for those who have such a mindset?
I find that the consistent scientific endeavors of the Jesuits, the religious nature of others in the sciences, shows not that a strict compartmentalization of religion and logic need be the case, but rather that a worldview combining such factors in the human mind (quite capable of such radically different beliefs, religious or otherwise) is more important.
Quote from: PDH on October 25, 2009, 02:23:39 PM
blah, blah, blah
<miglia> Religion is bad, mmkay? </miglia mode>
Remember, the Middle Ages was a time when religion didn't have to be about anything.
Quote from: The Brain on October 25, 2009, 02:37:01 PM
Remember, the Middle Ages was a time when religion didn't have to be about anything.
Yep, most folks went into the monastery for the "three hots and a cot".
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 01:42:21 PM
To expand on this. I was in India during the Bombay attacks (had been sitting at Leopold cafe drinking beer just a few days before they attacked it with hand-grenades and automatic weapons).
Please don't tell us you're one of those weirdo Indian dudes with an English accent. That only works for the chicks.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 12:49:37 PM
There is a significant difference, however, in that if there is no life after death, then our life here on earth becomes a lot more important. We have all seen the nihilism of those certain of life after death.
This is a statement of personal belief, though. Many nihilists have existed in societies without a belief in life after death. Your implication that the WTC bombers believed that there was no purpose to life (i.e. were nihilists) is curious, because you seem to be arguing the opposite in your other statements. Whether they were or not is not really relevant to the discussion, though, since no one here is arguing that they are typical of anything in particular.
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2009, 01:39:35 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 01:31:51 PM
QuoteIt's also why insufficiently religious societies will always fail.
Somalia is one of the most religious places around.
And? What exactly are you arguing?
I assume this is a variance of the argument that a man who do not believe in god will not die for his country. Indeed, I do not doubt that many of the Americans who died in Iraq believed themselves to be doing god's work.
But let's look at it from a larger perspective. What is Fukuyama's thesis? That we have reached, what he calls, "the end of history". I haven't read his books but I have been thinking in similar lines myself. My conclusions, however, are different.
In a malthusian state of nature red in tooth and claw, with exponential population growth, you will have competition over resources. War, has, therefore, been a necessity of human life. Life has been nasty, brutish, and short. In this respect we have been no different from other creatures of nature. All traditional organized religions are pre-malthusian, adapted for these conditions.
You may, however, have noticed that human life has changed somewhat in the time following the industrial revolution for those people who participated in it. The industrial revolution led to, among many things, the invention and wide-spread use of contraceptives. Today almost all developed countries have stable or negative population growth (and so would America have, if not for hispanics and other immigrants who still maintain the reproductive habits of their countries of origin, but can not be expected to do so for much longer).
The global population is expected to peak around 2050 and then decline. It would have peaked, and declined, sooner, if America hadn't since Reagan worked against family planning in the third world (thankfully Obama removed these american conditions for "aid"). Of course religious people opposed all development, at every step of the way, in what is now the developed world, and now oppose it, at every step of the way, in the undeveloped world. This is because their religions are adapted to the conditions of the status quo and if society changes too much then they'll have to come up with something new. And sometimes the changes warranted are simply so incompatible with earlier doctrine that change is impossible. This is why the pope tell the Filipinos not to use condoms. He wants them to be poor, because catholicism is irrelevant in post-malthusian societies. One block away from the Vatican you will find a machine selling condoms. No one, even in Rome, cares what the pope has to say on the matter.
I will give you that newer mutations of christianity, merely based on different vague and mutually incompatible testimonies of the life of Jesus that can be interpreted pretty much any way you like, have an easier way of adapting and changing it's message. Islam, however, with it's necessarily literal interpretation of the Quran, which is the final revelation of God, recited to Mohammed by the arch-angel Gabriel, simply can not adapt - try to imagine, if you will, improving on the final word of God - and is therefore utterly incompatible with modern society with rules in the Quran that no one can pass off as merely symbolic, such as death for apostates, for example. Which is why they, more than anyone else, have made modernity their enemy.
What violent competition for resources there still is, today, are in places too poor to have military-industrial complexes of any importance. There is already almost no violent competition over resources, and we'll only see less of it. The Europe of the late 1800s saw little need for war, but of course, sooner or later the old order, entirely incompatible with what the world had become, must collapse. This was the Great War, which, indeed, might have been the war to end all wars, had it only gone differently. Though there is no way of knowing if that, indeed, was possible. Instead, as we know, the lack of satisfactory replacement of the old order gave way to competition over what new order would replace the old order. These were wars over ideas, not wars over resources. There is really very little reason to make war over ideas which is why we today prefer to vote on things and not make war over them, but of course, fascism and communism were not democratic ideologies. Fascism and communism are now dead, and I am grateful to America for their work to accomplish just that. But there is no longer any ideological competition to democracy resting on foundations claiming to be rational. Those are all dead. The American way of thinking that was relevant to the cold war is now archaic.
All rational people today see little reason for war. The problem is with those who remain irrational. As we have seen, and as America has had to experience. This is why there is no longer any use for religion in modern society, and why religions are the enemy of stability and modernity.
Quote from: grumbler on October 25, 2009, 03:01:45 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 12:49:37 PM
There is a significant difference, however, in that if there is no life after death, then our life here on earth becomes a lot more important. We have all seen the nihilism of those certain of life after death.
This is a statement of personal belief, though. Many nihilists have existed in societies without a belief in life after death. Your implication that the WTC bombers believed that there was no purpose to life (i.e. were nihilists) is curious, because you seem to be arguing the opposite in your other statements. Whether they were or not is not really relevant to the discussion, though, since no one here is arguing that they are typical of anything in particular.
To just give away your life as if it had no meaning is to be a nihilist. There are other irrational ways of thinking, some of them not related to religion, that can produce nihilism as well.
And you're wrong when you say no one here is arguing they are typical of anything in particular. *I* am arguing they are.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2009, 02:50:36 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 01:42:21 PM
To expand on this. I was in India during the Bombay attacks (had been sitting at Leopold cafe drinking beer just a few days before they attacked it with hand-grenades and automatic weapons).
Please don't tell us you're one of those weirdo Indian dudes with an English accent. That only works for the chicks.
No, I'm not :lol:
Quote from: citizen k on October 25, 2009, 02:11:34 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 01:42:21 PMThose terrorists were some of the most religious people around.
How do you quantify that? By the body count?
Actions speak louder than words
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 03:05:02 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2009, 02:50:36 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 01:42:21 PM
To expand on this. I was in India during the Bombay attacks (had been sitting at Leopold cafe drinking beer just a few days before they attacked it with hand-grenades and automatic weapons).
Please don't tell us you're one of those weirdo Indian dudes with an English accent. That only works for the chicks.
No, I'm not :lol:
Thank Christ. We had one of those in Emperor Gupta, and he'd all be about the Queen and shit like a typical Brit until someone mentioned "chutney" or "daughters set on fire to dodge dowrys", and then you'd think he was Straight Outta New Delhi.
Quote from: grumbler on October 25, 2009, 03:01:45 PM
This is a statement of personal belief, though.
Next you will say he has faith in his system of belief, Islamofascist.
:lol:
Yeah, I know about Gupta (I've occasionally been lurking here, on and off, since the forum's inception, and occasionally even posting, though under a different name and I don't think I ever had more than a few hundred posts on the old forum)
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2009, 01:57:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 25, 2009, 01:41:21 PM
Presumably you would make the case that Islam is to Christianity what Aircraft Carriers are to Dreadnaughts?
Not at all. I'm saying that insufficiently religious states will fail. Sure, Chrisitianity is superior to Islam because of its' subordination to the authority of the state, but any faith is better than none.
That's a pretty definitive statement. Would you like to defend Aztec religion or Shakerism or Ba'al worship or Jehovas Witnesses vis a vis secular humanism as you might find in scandinavia, canada or japan?
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 03:14:36 PM
:lol:
Yeah, I know about Gupta (I've occasionally been lurking here, on and off, since the forum's inception, and occasionally even posting, though under a different name and I don't think I ever had more than a few hundred posts on the old forum)
I mean, pick a team, ya know? if you're going to be a Brit, be a Brit. Don't get all defensive about people setting their daughters on fire because you have a pigmentation problem.
Also, a rule of thumb--
Indian chicks with Brit accents: hot.
Indian dudes with Brit accents: douchebag medical students.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 03:02:14 PM
I assume this is a variance of the argument that a man who do not believe in god will not die for his country. Indeed, I do not doubt that many of the Americans who died in Iraq believed themselves to be doing god's work.
I assume this is some kind of weird attempt to preempt someone else's argument. It makes no sense on its own.
QuoteBut let's look at it from a larger perspective. What is Fukuyama's thesis? That we have reached, what he calls, "the end of history". I haven't read his books but I have been thinking in similar lines myself. My conclusions, however, are different.
I don't think you understand what Fukuyama meant by "the end of history." In fact, he has been changing the meaning as older meanings become less tenable. What he was saying in his book is that "history" (which is just a catchy name to be used in a book title) is the search for the optimal organization of society, and that the free-market democratic state is what history was aiming for. Now that this is the universally-accepted ideal (according to him 20 years ago) "history" is over. Of course, China didn't become democratic as he assumed it shortly would, so history wasn't quite over by his standards, but you get the idea.
QuoteIn a malthusian state of nature red in tooth and claw, with exponential population growth, you will have competition over resources. War, has, therefore, been a necessity of human life. Life has been nasty, brutish, and short. In this respect we have been no different from other creatures of nature. All traditional organized religions are pre-malthusian, adapted for these conditions.
You may, however, have noticed that human life has changed somewhat in the time following the industrial revolution for those people who participated in it. The industrial revolution led to, among many things, the invention and wide-spread use of contraceptives. Today almost all developed countries have stable or negative population growth (and so would America have, if not for hispanics and other immigrants who still maintain the reproductive habits of their countries of origin, but can not be expected to do so for much longer).
The global population is expected to peak around 2050 and then decline. It would have peaked, and declined, sooner, if America hadn't since Reagan worked against family planning in the third world (thankfully Obama removed these american conditions for "aid"). Of course religious people opposed all development, at every step of the way, in what is now the developed world, and now oppose it, at every step of the way, in the undeveloped world. This is because their religions are adapted to the conditions of the status quo and if society changes too much then they'll have to come up with something new. And sometimes the changes warranted are simply so incompatible with earlier doctrine that change is impossible. This is why the pope tell the Filipinos not to use condoms. He wants them to be poor, because catholicism is irrelevant in post-malthusian societies. One block away from the Vatican you will find a machine selling condoms. No one, even in Rome, cares what the pope has to say on the matter.
I will give you that newer mutations of christianity, merely based on different vague and mutually incompatible testimonies of the life of Jesus that can be interpreted pretty much any way you like, have an easier way of adapting and changing it's message. Islam, however, with it's necessarily literal interpretation of the Quran, which is the final revelation of God, recited to Mohammed by the arch-angel Gabriel, simply can not adapt - try to imagine, if you will, improving on the final word of God - and is therefore utterly incompatible with modern society with rules in the Quran that no one can pass off as merely symbolic, such as death for apostates, for example. Which is why they, more than anyone else, have made modernity their enemy.
What violent competition for resources there still is, today, are in places too poor to have military-industrial complexes of any importance. There is already almost no violent competition over resources, and we'll only see less of it. The Europe of the late 1800s saw little need for war, but of course, sooner or later the old order, entirely incompatible with what the world had become, must collapse. This was the Great War, which, indeed, might have been the war to end all wars, had it only gone differently. Though there is no way of knowing if that, indeed, was possible. Instead, as we know, the lack of satisfactory replacement of the old order gave way to competition over what new order would replace the old order. These were wars over ideas, not wars over resources. There is really very little reason to make war over ideas which is why we today prefer to vote on things and not make war over them, but of course, fascism and communism were not democratic ideologies. Fascism and communism are now dead, and I am grateful to America for their work to accomplish just that. But there is no longer any ideological competition to democracy resting on foundations claiming to be rational. Those are all dead. The American way of thinking that was relevant to the cold war is now archaic.
All rational people today see little reason for war. The problem is with those who remain irrational. As we have seen, and as America has had to experience. This is why there is no longer any use for religion in modern society, and why religions are the enemy of stability and modernity.
Wow! Talk about garbage in and garbage out! :huh: Global population would already have peaked if Reagan hadn't cut funding for contraceptives? The Malthusian state of nature is accepted as true (despite evidence to the contrary) without question? The Bible is more vague than the Koran? The implicit assumption that wars are fought over resources? The explicit assumption that you know what "all rational people" know?
There are so many fundamentally debatable implicit or explicit assumptions here that your conclusions cannot be accepted as evidenced at all.
Tear 'em a new one, grumbler. Show him who's tuff around here!
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2009, 03:18:53 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 03:14:36 PM
:lol:
Yeah, I know about Gupta (I've occasionally been lurking here, on and off, since the forum's inception, and occasionally even posting, though under a different name and I don't think I ever had more than a few hundred posts on the old forum)
I mean, pick a team, ya know? if you're going to be a Brit, be a Brit. Don't get all defensive about people setting their daughters on fire because you have a pigmentation problem.
Also, a rule of thumb--
Indian chicks with Brit accents: hot.
Indian dudes with Brit accents: douchebag medical students.
:lol:
A bit like Iranians in Sweden. They're all medical students too. Indian dudes in India are cool, though. The people in India are the nicest people I've encountered anywhere, and that goes even for the Indian muslims (if they hated me for being a westerner I sure as hell didn't notice). And the food is great. Never eaten so well as in India. Every single meal was absolutely delicious.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 03:03:58 PM
To just give away your life as if it had no meaning is to be a nihilist.
Not sure what you mean here, or how it applies. The WTC attackers were not giving their lives away, they were sellling them for a cause, and getting top dollar (as they saw it). This is the
opposite of nihilism.
QuoteThere are other irrational ways of thinking, some of them not related to religion, that can produce nihilism as well.
Rational thinking will lead to nihilism. That is the problem with nihilism; it is pretty much irrefutable except by using concepts like faith. Ultimately, the lives of any humans, and indeed of the race as a whole, is meaningless. Compared with the scope and scale of the cosmos, whether you are good or bad, or live 20 minutes or 200 years, is unnoticeably trivial. Only a god or some kind of immortality can give it meaning.
QuoteAnd you're wrong when you say no one here is arguing they are typical of anything in particular. *I* am arguing they are.
Ah, well you are communicating very poorly, then, because I don't know what you are arguing that the WTC attackers are typical of.
Quote from: grumbler on October 25, 2009, 03:29:00 PM
Rational thinking will lead to nihilism. That is the problem with nihilism; it is pretty much irrefutable except by using concepts like faith. Ultimately, the lives of any humans, and indeed of the race as a whole, is meaningless. Compared with the scope and scale of the cosmos, whether you are good or bad, or live 20 minutes or 200 years, is unnoticeably trivial. Only a god or some kind of immortality can give it meaning.
You are joking?
QuoteI don't think you understand what Fukuyama meant by "the end of history." In fact, he has been changing the meaning as older meanings become less tenable. What he was saying in his book is that "history" (which is just a catchy name to be used in a book title) is the search for the optimal organization of society, and that the free-market democratic state is what history was aiming for. Now that this is the universally-accepted ideal (according to him 20 years ago) "history" is over. Of course, China didn't become democratic as he assumed it shortly would, so history wasn't quite over by his standards, but you get the idea.
That's exactly what I thought he was saying, even though I said I hadn't read his books :huh:
QuoteWow! Talk about garbage in and garbage out! Global population would already have peaked if Reagan hadn't cut funding for contraceptives? The Malthusian state of nature is accepted as true (despite evidence to the contrary) without question? The Bible is more vague than the Koran? The implicit assumption that wars are fought over resources? The explicit assumption that you know what "all rational people" know?
There are so many fundamentally debatable implicit or explicit assumptions here that your conclusions cannot be accepted as evidenced at all.
I'm not asking to have it accepted as evidence. If you don't share my view, that's ok. You've done nothing to refute them though.
You need to read more carefully. I did not say it would already have peaked. I said it would have peaked
sooner than when is now believed to be the time it will peak. It need not be a big difference, but I'm sure it'd be some difference.
I did not say the Koran is less vague than the bible. I said that the Koran is considered the final word of God. The testimonies on the life of jesus is just that, testimonies. Of course some people belive it to be the literal word of god anyway, but you don't have to see it that way. The Koran is the word of god, period.
Exponential population growth does lead to competition over resources. This is self-evident. That is not to say all wars
must be waged over resources, but to say that there is no competition over resources is to say war
must not be waged.
Quote from: grumbler on October 25, 2009, 03:29:00 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 03:03:58 PM
To just give away your life as if it had no meaning is to be a nihilist.
Not sure what you mean here, or how it applies. The WTC attackers were not giving their lives away, they were sellling them for a cause, and getting top dollar (as they saw it). This is the opposite of nihilism.
As they saw it. Exactly. From my view, they were giving their lives away.
Quote
QuoteThere are other irrational ways of thinking, some of them not related to religion, that can produce nihilism as well.
Rational thinking will lead to nihilism. That is the problem with nihilism; it is pretty much irrefutable except by using concepts like faith. Ultimately, the lives of any humans, and indeed of the race as a whole, is meaningless. Compared with the scope and scale of the cosmos, whether you are good or bad, or live 20 minutes or 200 years, is unnoticeably trivial. Only a god or some kind of immortality can give it meaning.
No. :lol: I seem to be doing just fine. Maybe it's just you?
If you acknowledge that good things are good, and bad things are bad, and these things are good respectively bad because human nature makes some things fundamentally good and some things fundamentally bad, (like, for example, to live is good, and to die is bad), you will never end up with nihilism unless you consider bad things good. Or you suffer from depression or something that is unrelated to your philisophy.
Quote
QuoteAnd you're wrong when you say no one here is arguing they are typical of anything in particular. *I* am arguing they are.
Ah, well you are communicating very poorly, then, because I don't know what you are arguing that the WTC attackers are typical of.
The GIGO principe. Which, would be evident from context, since I was quoting a post of your talking about it. And which I SAID I MEANT, but of course you seem to be reading as poorly as always.
QuoteI'm with you. It's just that it's a good example of the GIGO principle. If you start with the assumption that there is an after-life, and you go there by doing certain things, then it can lead to things like that.
This is why arguing with grumbler never goes anywhere. It always becomes an argument about the argument.
No, I'm sorry, that was a bit flippant of me and I apologize. I do understand the nihilism argument. I'll try to adress it in a sec in more detail
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 03:02:14 PM
I assume this is a variance of the argument that a man who do not believe in god will not die for his country. Indeed, I do not doubt that many of the Americans who died in Iraq believed themselves to be doing god's work.
To some extent. However, far more importantly, it helps secure the social system. It sates the masses, giving them the hope that although they might have much less than their betters, if they behave themselves they can enjoy the pleasures of life forever in the afterlife.
QuoteI will give you that newer mutations of christianity, merely based on different vague and mutually incompatible testimonies of the life of Jesus that can be interpreted pretty much any way you like, have an easier way of adapting and changing it's message. Islam, however, with it's necessarily literal interpretation of the Quran, which is the final revelation of God, recited to Mohammed by the arch-angel Gabriel, simply can not adapt - try to imagine, if you will, improving on the final word of God - and is therefore utterly incompatible with modern society with rules in the Quran that no one can pass off as merely symbolic, such as death for apostates, for example.
None of that is important. What is important is rendering unto Caesar.
QuoteAll rational people today see little reason for war. The problem is with those who remain irrational. As we have seen, and as America has had to experience. This is why there is no longer any use for religion in modern society, and why religions are the enemy of stability and modernity.
When you make such blanket statements as 'all rational people today see little reason for war', you're just begging to be shown to be wrong. I can think of all kinds of situations where I would see a reason for war, and I am Reason.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 03:38:45 PM
That's exactly what I thought he was saying, even though I said I hadn't read his books :huh:
Oh. I thought you were referring to Fukuyama when you wrote your post, since you mentioned his name. You and he seem pretty much in the opposite corners when it comes to the forces of history.
QuoteQuoteThere are so many fundamentally debatable implicit or explicit assumptions here that your conclusions cannot be accepted as evidenced at all.
I'm not asking to have it accepted as evidence. If you don't share my view, that's ok. You've done nothing to refute them though.
If you are agreeing that they are not evidenced, then by definition they cannot be refuted. :huh:
QuoteYou need to read more carefully. I did not say it would already have peaked. I said it would have peaked sooner than when is now believed to be the time it will peak. It need not be a big difference, but I'm sure it'd be some difference.
Peaked is past tense. You need to write more carefully. If you mean to speak of the future, you use future tense.
QuoteI did not say the Koran is less vague than the bible. I said that the Koran is considered the final word of God. The testimonies on the life of jesus is just that, testimonies. Of course some people belive it to be the literal word of god anyway, but you don't have to see it that way. The Koran is the word of god, period.
Again, just because you believe the Koran to be the "word of God" and the Bible not to be, does not establish your preposition as truth. It is merely a preposition.
QuoteExponential population growth does lead to competition over resources. This is self-evident. That is not to say all wars must be waged over resources, but to say that there is no competition over resources is to say war must not be waged.
This is mere argument by assertion. World War 2 was not fought due to competition over resources, nor was World War 1, nor the Franco-Prussian War, the US Civil War, the 20 Years War, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of the roses, etc, etc. It is trivial to disprove the idea that "to say that there is no competition over resources is to say war
must not be waged." I am not, of course, arguing with the contention that people compete to consume. this is a fundamental tenet of economics. The point, though, is that
this occurs whether there is exponential population growth or not. Plus, population
does not grow to match the available resources, as Malthus assumed. There are reasons why families restricted size that didn't involve the fact that they couldn't feed or clothe more children.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 03:52:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 25, 2009, 03:29:00 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 03:03:58 PM
To just give away your life as if it had no meaning is to be a nihilist.
Not sure what you mean here, or how it applies. The WTC attackers were not giving their lives away, they were sellling them for a cause, and getting top dollar (as they saw it). This is the opposite of nihilism.
As they saw it. Exactly. From my view, they were giving their lives away.
Ah. I misunderstood. I thought you were calling them nihilists, but now you concede that they were the opposite of nihilists. From the viewpoint of a nihoilist, they could be arguing that they were "throwing their lives away," but a proper hihilist wouldn't care, since their lives have no meaning anyway.
QuoteQuoteRational thinking will lead to nihilism. That is the problem with nihilism; it is pretty much irrefutable except by using concepts like faith. Ultimately, the lives of any humans, and indeed of the race as a whole, is meaningless. Compared with the scope and scale of the cosmos, whether you are good or bad, or live 20 minutes or 200 years, is unnoticeably trivial. Only a god or some kind of immortality can give it meaning.
No. :lol: I seem to be doing just fine. Maybe it's just you?
I have no idea what this means. Is it meant to be a response to what I wrote? If so, you need to read what i wrote again, because it wasn't about you, nor was it about me.
QuoteIf you acknowledge that good things are good, and bad things are bad, and these things are good respectively bad because human nature makes some things fundamentally good and some things fundamentally bad, (like, for example, to live is good, and to die is bad), you will never end up with nihilism unless you consider bad things good. Or you suffer from depression or something that is unrelated to your philisophy.
Exactly. What you refer to here is faith, which (as Kiekengaard and Neitsche pointed out long ago) is the only alternative to nihilism. Rationality cannot get you there, you just have to "believe" (or "acknowledge,: to use your slightly erroneous term) that good things are good, etc.
That is, of course if you care so much about "meaning." I don't need either your faith-based path or the nihilists logic-based path because "meaning" isn't important to me.
QuoteQuoteQuoteAnd you're wrong when you say no one here is arguing they are typical of anything in particular. *I* am arguing they are.
Ah, well you are communicating very poorly, then, because I don't know what you are arguing that the WTC attackers are typical of.
The GIGO principe. Which, would be evident from context, since I was quoting a post of your talking about it.
:huh: The World Trade Center attackers were typical of the GIGO principle?
That doesn't even make sense! :lmfao: Something "typical" of a set must belong to that set to begin with, and people cannot be part of the set "principles." Unles you are confusing "principle" as the idea with "principal" as a type of person? The two words are completely different.
QuoteAnd which I SAID I MEANT, but of course you seem to be reading as poorly as always.
I admit that I cannot (as always) read gibberish well. Not even well enough to know whether you are writing it well, or poorly.
QuoteThis is why arguing with grumbler never goes anywhere. It always becomes an argument about the argument.
Ah, the old "I cannot argue my point, so I will blame my opponent" weasel. When you pose inarticulate arguments, and your opponent points out that they don't make sense, consider whether or not it might be your own fault for writing poorly in the first place. It is bad form to blame the reader when you write gibberish.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 04:06:09 PM
No, I'm sorry, that was a bit flippant of me and I apologize. I do understand the nihilism argument. I'll try to adress it in a sec in more detail
Okay. My post was before I saw this, so we will both retract claws and I will await further clarification.
You say "Only a god or some kind of immortality can give [life] meaning."
I disagree. I think most people can get meaning from doing things that feel good to them such as for example spending time with people they love, or by, hell I don't know, perhaps taking a walk in a place that is beautiful and serene and can make them feel as one with nature, or perhaps by experiencing the religious feeling that can be inspired by great art. Or great literature written by people inspired by truth in a way that is indeed prophetic (and far more relevant to our lives than such inspirations thousands of years old, which may have been relevant then but no longer is).
It is true that human nature is, in a way, religious. That is not, and this is the important part, not to say men are by nature inclined to organized religion, led by leaders who tell them lies. If it were so the indoctrination inflicted by the religious on their children would not be necessary. They would not tell them to have "faith", they would appeal to their reason (and children are usually quite clever have they not been propped full of pre-conceived notions - one of the great Russian writers, I'll be damned if I can remember which one at the moment, says some thing like "I have found that anyone can understand the most complex of concepts as long as they do not already hold beliefs to the contrary", and I agree since I have found the same thing; perhaps someone recognize it and can help me with a more exact quotation?).
But anyway, as for human nature and religion; religion has been a useful evolutionary adaptation by allowing knowledge to be passed on over generations before we had a written language. Why not let it remain being a useful tool, by allowing these archaic beliefs from a time long gone die the death they deserve? God knows (figuratively speaking, of course ;)) other things can take their place just fine.
Science can create religious experiences by stimulating parts of the brain. So not only has science killed god, it can also bring him back to life at will. The amount of self-deception and lying to oneself that is required to still believe in him knowing what we know today must be incredible.
I will also add that I find it absolutely immoral to say "maybe there is no God, but people need to be lied to for reasons of utility".
[When I clicked the "Post" button I saw your new reply. I shall therefore adress that one as well]
You bring up Kierkegaard and Nietzsche (whose names are spelled like this, by the way). I have not read Kierkegaard and my acquaintance of him is too shallow to be of any use. I have read some Nietzsche, and while I am in no way an expert on him, I will say what I think of him and his thought (I hope you will correct me if I mischaracterize it more than you find permissable for the purpose of argument, which does sometime call for simplification of things).
Nietzsche rejected God along with egalitarianism and, well, being nice to people, since that would lead to the slave morality which he loathed. He philosophised with his hammer and eventually he turned that hammer on himself.
But Nietzsche was from an authoritarian and anti-egalitarian society. He was from Germany, which due to it's weakness had been the battle-field of Europe and constantly tred on by foreign armies. And learnt it's lesson, and learnt to value strength. So of course, when he disposed of traditional morality, especially christianity which he saw as a religion for slaves that helped along the downfall of the roman empire, the morality to put in it's place had to be a morality of strength and not one of weakness.
You, grumbler, also come from an anti-egalitarian society which values strength over weakness, and perhaps one of the reasons America remains the huge exception in the modern world on account of it's religiosity, while almost all european cultures independently of each other have abandoned religion long ago, is that religion remains relevant in America because America has preserved some of the darwinism that produced the traditional religions.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 05:36:42 PM
You say "Only a god or some kind of immortality can give [life] meaning."
I disagree. I think most people can get meaning from doing things that feel good to them such as for example spending time with people they love, or by, hell I don't know, perhaps taking a walk in a place that is beautiful and serene and can make them feel as one with nature, or perhaps by experiencing the religious feeling that can be inspired by great art. Or great literature written by people inspired by truth in a way that is indeed prophetic (and far more relevant to our lives than such inspirations thousands of years old, which may have been relevant then but no longer is).
You are using "the meaning of life" in an entirely different way than I am. In English, at least, that phrase has a specific meaning, and I keep forgetting that you are not a native speaker of the language.
QuoteIt is true that human nature is, in a way, religious. That is not, and this is the important part, not to say men are by nature inclined to organized religion, led by leaders who tell them lies. If it were so the indoctrination inflicted by the religious on their children would not be necessary. They would not tell them to have "faith", they would appeal to their reason (and children are usually quite clever have they not been propped full of pre-conceived notions - one of the great Russian writers, I'll be damned if I can remember which one at the moment, says some thing like "I have found that anyone can understand the most complex of concepts as long as they do not already hold beliefs to the contrary", and I agree since I have found the same thing; perhaps someone recognize it and can help me with a more exact quotation?).
This is a mere diatribe against religion, and not an argument at all. I know you consider "religion" to be an " indoctrination inflicted by the religious on their children," and know that you cannot understand an alternative viewpoint because you already hold beliefs to the contrary. Well, i shan't attempt to enlighten you, because I don't really care what anyone believes about religion, and one cannot debate beliefs.
QuoteBut anyway, as for human nature and religion; religion has been a useful evolutionary adaptation by allowing knowledge to be passed on over generations before we had a written language. Why not let it remain being a useful tool, by allowing these archaic beliefs from a time long gone die the death they deserve? God knows (figuratively speaking, of course ;)) other things can take their place just fine.
I very, very much doubt that religion is an evolutionary adaptation. That you would want to think so is evident from your dismissal of religion as "archaic beliefs from a time long gone" that "deserve" death. If religion is necessary, i would agree that it is not for evolutionary reasons, but I think you have some fundamentally erroneous concepts of what evolution is.
QuoteScience can create religious experiences by stimulating parts of the brain. So not only has science killed god, it can also bring him back to life at will. The amount of self-deception and lying to oneself that is required to still believe in him knowing what we know today must be incredible.
Mere argument by assertion. Redefining religious experiences so that they can be described as stimulation of the brain misses the entire point. If one is describing religion exclusively that way, one can describe anything in those terms. Thus, "science can create the experience of spending time with people one loves by stimulating the brain. So not only has science killed love, it can also bring it back to life at will. The amount of self-deception and lying to oneself that is required to still believe in love knowing what we know today must be incredible."
QuoteYou, grumbler, also come from an anti-egalitarian society which values strength over weakness
I have no idea what this means. Are you saying that egalitarian societies value weakness over strength? That seems to me to be pretty absurd.
As a side note, I don't come from whatever anti-egalitarian society you believe I come from. I was born and raised in the US, and while the US is not exactly egalitarian, it is certainly not anti-egalitarian. Either you don't know where I am from, don't know anything about the US, or else don't comprehend that there are shades between "perfectly egalitarian" and "anti-egalitarian."
Quoteand perhaps one of the reasons America remains the huge exception in the modern world on account of it's religiosity, while almost all european cultures independently of each other have abandoned religion long ago, is that religion remains relevant in America because America has preserved some of the darwinism that produced the traditional religions.
No, the reason why religion remains popular in the US and not in Europe is because European countries had official religions until very recently, and the US did not. Thus, when governments in Europe became discredited (and they all were, over the last century or so), the religions so closely associated with them also were discredited. The fact that the US, unlike Europe, has such a long history of credible government is almost certainly not primarily due to the separation of church and state, but that separation probably played a part. Now that the Europeans are learning to separate church and state, it will be interesting to see if religion becomes more popular there. Certainly it is far to early to tell whether the European "abandonment" of religion* is a permanent thing. Religious interest tends to be cyclical, though the current ebb of religious interest in most of Europe is the lowest of which I am aware.
* As an aside, it is amusing, to someone who knows enough history to see the longer view, to see something that happened in the last century described as having occurred "long ago."
I now saw this post as well. I'm struggling to keep up so please bear with me here.
QuotePeaked is past tense. You need to write more carefully. If you mean to speak of the future, you use future tense.
If I was unclear in my writing I apologize. English is my second language but I do hope I can make myself somewhat understood anyway, and if not, and something is unclear, feel free to ask and I'll try to explain better what I mean.
QuoteThis is mere argument by assertion. World War 2 was not fought due to competition over resources, nor was World War 1, nor the Franco-Prussian War, the US Civil War, the 20 Years War, the Hundred Years War, the Wars of the roses, etc, etc. It is trivial to disprove the idea that "to say that there is no competition over resources is to say war must not be waged." I am not, of course, arguing with the contention that people compete to consume. this is a fundamental tenet of economics. The point, though, is that this occurs whether there is exponential population growth or not. Plus, population does not grow to match the available resources, as Malthus assumed. There are reasons why families restricted size that didn't involve the fact that they couldn't feed or clothe more children.
OK but let's assume we have exponential population growth.
Let us assume, for ease of counting, that each family has four children. This is less than in many pre-industrial societies today.
Without malthusian checks, this means the population doubles every generation. Of course, this is untenable, since resources in pre-industrial societies, especially agricultural ones, living off the land, simple do not double every generation.
Humans like to fuck. This is human nature. And if you do not have contraceptives you will have problems if there are no cultural values to counteract this. Different societies have come up with different ways of dealing with it. In polynesian societies they'd practice penile subincision so the sperm could escape from the base of the penis outside the vagina, but they still had to ritually embark into suicide journeys into the unknown whenever the population grew too big. This continued into modern times; there are islands in the pacific where you can talk to people who remembers this, and who will specifically tell you that it was to keep the population down. This is how the polynesians traversed the great distances of the pacific ocean to colonize remote islands, and probably how they traversed even the indian ocean to colonize Madascar (the Malagay language is a polynesian language).
In semitic cultures they'd sacrifice children to Baal. Archaelogists at Carthage have found this practice increased in times when resources were scarce.
Of course, if you're strong, and your neighbour is weak, you make your neighbour your enemy and take his resources. You drive him off his land; now it is your land. In pre-industrial society it is easier to defeat the enemy and win resources, than it is to defeat the enemy that is lack of resources. Because that is a war that simply could not be won, until we invented contraceptives.
I'm not saying all wars are over resources. I do not deny there have been wars over ideas. I even wrote that in my post. But it is wrong to say there have been no malthusian pressure on people in human history. That would be to say that the polynesians suicide-journeyed into the unknown, and the carthaginians sacrificed their children, for no reason at all. That there were no reason for these practices (and practices to counter over-population can be found in all but the most warlike of pre-industrial societies, by the way; in most agricultural societies it took the shape of taboo on sex before marriage and intricate dowry rules meaning many could not marry).
QuoteI very, very much doubt that religion is an evolutionary adaptation. That you would want to think so is evident from your dismissal of religion as "archaic beliefs from a time long gone" that "deserve" death. If religion is necessary, i would agree that it is not for evolutionary reasons, but I think you have some fundamentally erroneous concepts of what evolution is.
We know that we can stimulate parts of the brain to create experiences that are religious. I assume you are not a creationist. Why, then, did this part of the brain evolve? What is your explanation?
I'll give you an example from recorded history to illustrate how religion has helped humans evolutionarily.
The plague that'd be known as the Black Death most likely originated in India, and was carried across rivers by mongol messengers to the asian steppes, where it became endemic among the marmot populations living in colonies beneath (some believe the resulting depopulation of the steppes was a greater reason for the Mongol withdrawal than having to elect a new Khan). Anyway, the marmots on the Asian steppes now carried the plague. It is interesting to note how the beliefs of Manchurian nomads adapted to these new conditions. Because now they started to believe that when their ancestors died of disease, they were reincarnated as marmots. So great care had to be taken when hunting marmots so that one did not kill a sick marmot. And out of respect one had to strike one's tents and move away if one's camp so much as happened to be close to a marmot colony.
I suppose benevolent religion like this was the norm before the organized religions of today.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 06:27:55 PM
OK but let's assume we have exponential population growth.
Okay, and then we will assume that we don't.
QuoteLet us assume, for ease of counting, that each family has four children. This is less than in many pre-industrial societies today.
That is assumption A0. Assumption A1 is that each family has two children. This is more than many pre-industrialized societies today.
QuoteWithout malthusian checks, this means the population doubles every generation. Of course, this is untenable, since resources in pre-industrial societies, especially agricultural ones, living off the land, simple do not double every generation.
Even without malthusian checks, this means that population remains fairly static. Of course, this is tenable in either industrial or pre-industrial societies.
QuoteHumans like to fuck. This is human nature. And if you do not have contraceptives you will have problems if there are no cultural values to counteract this.
Contraceptives are not just the little manufactured thingies you buy in packages. Contraception has been known for millennia. It hasn't been widely practiced because in most pre-industrial socieities infant mortality was high enough to make six to eight babies a necessity if enough children were to survive to support the couple in old age.
Cultural values have restricted birth rates in some classes and some societies. France during the Napoleonic Wars became the first pre-industrial society to see contraception gain favor in all classes at the same time, as far as I know.
QuoteOf course, if you're strong, and your neighbour is weak, you make your neighbour your enemy and take his resources.
Yes, and you would do this even if there were no population pressures at home.
QuoteIn pre-industrial society it is easier to defeat the enemy and win resources, than it is to defeat the enemy that is lack of resources. Because that is a war that simply could not be won, until we invented contraceptives.
Again, you falsely associate industrial societies and contraception, which isn't correct. It is definitely true that contraception became more safe and effective as medical knowledge grew, but it wasn't invented in the industrial era.
QuoteI'm not saying all wars are over resources. I do not deny there have been wars over ideas. I even wrote that in my post. But it is wrong to say there have been no malthusian pressure on people in human history.
Malthus developed a specific theory that (a) population will always outgrow food supply, and (b) when this occurs, population will be reduced through war, disease, and famine, to a rate below what the land can support, at which point he cycle will begin again. Malthus's conclusion was that society was not perfectible. I don't know what a "malthusian pressure" is, though. He doesn't use that term.
QuoteThat would be to say that the polynesians suicide-journeyed into the unknown, and the carthaginians sacrificed their children, for no reason at all.
:huh: This is the logical Fallacy of the False Dichotomy. The choices are not just (1) "malthusian pressure" or (2) "no reason at all."
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 07:01:22 PM
We know that we can stimulate parts of the brain to create experiences that are religious. I assume you are not a creationist. Why, then, did this part of the brain evolve? What is your explanation?
"We" don't know that at all.
We do know that we can stimulate portions of the brain that cause total recall of events in the past, including events involving love.
QuoteThe plague that'd be known as the Black Death most likely originated in India, and was carried across rivers by mongol messengers to the asian steppes, where it became endemic among the marmot populations living in colonies beneath (some believe the resulting depopulation of the steppes was a greater reason for the Mongol withdrawal than having to elect a new Khan). Anyway, the marmots on the Asian steppes now carried the plague. It is interesting to note how the beliefs of Manchurian nomads adapted to these new conditions. Because now they started to believe that when their ancestors died of disease, they were reincarnated as marmots. So great care had to be taken when hunting marmots so that one did not kill a sick marmot. And out of respect one had to strike one's tents and move away if one's camp so much as happened to be close to a marmot colony.
:huh: You think the human species has evolved in any measurable way since the Fourteenth century?
I'm gonna need a cite on that one. Evolution generally takes place over thousands, and tens of thousands, of generations. You are talking about events that occurred within the last twenty to thirty generations.
QuoteNo, the reason why religion remains popular in the US and not in Europe is because European countries had official religions until very recently, and the US did not. Thus, when governments in Europe became discredited (and they all were, over the last century or so), the religions so closely associated with them also were discredited. The fact that the US, unlike Europe, has such a long history of credible government is almost certainly not primarily due to the separation of church and state, but that separation probably played a part. Now that the Europeans are learning to separate church and state, it will be interesting to see if religion becomes more popular there. Certainly it is far to early to tell whether the European "abandonment" of religion* is a permanent thing. Religious interest tends to be cyclical, though the current ebb of religious interest in most of Europe is the lowest of which I am aware.
I need look no further than my own country to say that your theory is wrong. Sweden, too, has a long history of credible government, and it certainly wasn't lack of credibility in government that caused a lack of faith in religion. In 1809 we made a product of the french revolution our king and instated a liberal constitution that wasn't replaced until 1976, as a mere formality of modernization. At the time it was the second oldest constitution in the world, after the American. We had a stable and gradual transition from monarchy to democracy, and a stable and gradual transition from religion to atheism.
Edit: Sorry, what was I thinking. Constitution was in 1809, Jean-Baptiste only elected king the next year, in 1810 (and not coronated until 1818).
QuoteYou think the human species has evolved in any measurable way since the Fourteenth century?
I'm gonna need a cite on that one. Evolution generally takes place over thousands, and tens of thousands, of generations. You are talking about events that occurred within the last twenty to thirty generations.
Not at all, it's just an example to show how it the manner it has worked throughout all of human history. There will have been many similar instances of religion adapting to new knowledge.
This was to illustrate the importance of religion to pass on knowledge in the time before writing. The Manchurian nomads, many generations after their ancestor died from catching plague from a marmot, will keep avoiding marmots even though they don't know why.
BTW, an anecdote: When the Manchu-dynasty of China was toppled in 1909 (I think) and the last emperor had to change his job to being a gardener, the ban of Chinese to settle in Machuria, that the Manchu-dynasty had enacted to maintain their power-base, was lifted. So they built a railway into Manchuria and colonized it. The Chinese thought the Manchus were rediculous with their stupid archaic beliefs, and didn't understand why you wouldn't hunt marmots. So the Chinese hunted the marmots indescriminately. And got the plague. Which spread along the rail-road lines to the rest of China. And a lot of people died.
I'm not saying Malthus was right. Malthus was wrong, but only because he didnt foresee what I in may earlier post called the "invention and wide-spread use" of contraceptives.
It is true that there have existed primitive contraceptives for a long time, but these have been expensive, ineffective, cumbersome to use, or all three. Widespread use of contraceptives is quite recent.
(To further accentuate the link between contraceptives and loosening of traditional morals, one may point to the sexual revolution and the pill)
What I refer to as malthusian pressure is the same thing as population pressure.
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 11:47:45 AM
While there's quite a bit of evidence showing that the earth is not 6000 years old, I would challenge you to show any evidence that proves Jesus was not resurrected, or that we do not go to heaven.
Most atheists would only argue there's no proof either way on those points. But you went the extra difference to say that things like heaven and the resurrections aren't just unknown, but false. Which must means you think you have some evidence on those points...
You have a funny idea of proof for a trial lawyer. :lol:
Anyway, since you consider these ideas non-falsified, and from this derive that they have to be allowed as true (i.e. you lead your life as if resurrection happened and if people were going to heaven), I cannot but marvel at your selectiveness.
When was the last time you sacrificed a young male goat to Zeus? Or made auguries to Janus before embarking on a new venture? I will not even suggest going to your neighbouring village and kidnapping their young men to tear their hearts out on the altar of Huitzilopochtli.
Of the countless thousands of gods, goddesses, half-gods and heroes, you ignore and consider false all but one. At least I am consequent in what I do - I extend the same treatment to all of them.
QuoteAssumption A1 is that each family has two children. This is more than many pre-industrialized societies today.
Which ones?
edit: I mean since there are many, I suppose you'd have little problem mentioning, say, three?
Can we introduce a rule against arguing with posts line by line, the way grumbler does? It makes the entire thread unreadable.
Now I could go on and ignore him wholesale, but whenever people ignore his inane ramblings, he seems to announce himself a winner of the debate for some inexplicable reason.
I'm the winner in this thread. For not arguing this stupid shit.
Anyway, I must commend miglia for his resilience, even if arguing with grumbler is like arguing with a dirty old pig.
Is grumbler haram or halal?
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2009, 07:58:52 PM
Is grumbler haram or halal?
I wouldn't eat Grumbler. He's way past his due date.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2009, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2009, 07:58:52 PM
Is grumbler haram or halal?
I wouldn't eat Grumbler. He's way past his due date.
So he is like that fruitcake that has been in the cabinet for 50 years?
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 08:08:45 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2009, 08:06:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 25, 2009, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 25, 2009, 07:58:52 PM
Is grumbler haram or halal?
I wouldn't eat Grumbler. He's way past his due date.
So he is like that fruitcake that has been in the cabinet for 50 years?
Liberace?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mrbreakfast.com%2Fimages%2Frip2.jpg&hash=165e00a1748d534fdf2076ccd410daa7478561b8)
Quote from: grumbler on October 25, 2009, 07:11:40 PM
I'm gonna need a cite on that one. Evolution generally takes place over thousands, and tens of thousands, of generations. You are talking about events that occurred within the last twenty to thirty generations.
Not at all. Evolution happens all the time. That said, significant evolutionary change, even within a species, is usually at minimum in the hundreds of generation ranges.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:53:41 PM
Can we introduce a rule against arguing with posts line by line, the way grumbler does? It makes the entire thread unreadable.
No. Because you want it.
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2009, 08:20:19 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:53:41 PM
Can we introduce a rule against arguing with posts line by line, the way grumbler does? It makes the entire thread unreadable.
No. Because you want it.
What if we simulataneously make a rule against making replies as you read the thread, ending up with 5 or 6 consecutive posts saying almost exactly the same thing?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2009, 08:42:34 PM
What if we simulataneously make a rule against making replies as you read the thread, ending up with 5 or 6 consecutive posts saying almost exactly the same thing?
How would Martinus feel about that?
Outraged, no doubt.
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2009, 08:18:46 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 25, 2009, 07:11:40 PM
I'm gonna need a cite on that one. Evolution generally takes place over thousands, and tens of thousands, of generations. You are talking about events that occurred within the last twenty to thirty generations.
Not at all. Evolution happens all the time. That said, significant evolutionary change, even within a species, is usually at minimum in the hundreds of generation ranges.
Indeed, breeding dogs wouldn't be feasible if evolution was something that took place over thousands and tens of thousands of generations.
Lactose tolerance only came about quite recently (after agriculture and animal husbandry) and yet 95% of swedes are now lactose tolerant.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 09:15:54 PMand yet 95% of swedes are now lactose tolerant.
Really? Another fucking weird Swede thing.
Highest prevalence of lactose tolerance in the world; some try to explain it by hypothesizing there was a separate evolution of lactose tolerance in Sweden
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 09:24:51 PM
Highest prevalence of lactose tolerance in the world; some try to explain it by hypothesizing there was a separate evolution of lactose tolerance in Sweden
I'd like to see a separate evolution of Scandinavia by having it separate from the European continent and sinking into the ocean.
I don't think you mean that :)
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 09:32:04 PM
I don't think you mean that :)
Well, maybe not Norway. But Swedenistan and those goofy Finnish fucks, hell yeah.
What about Denmark?
Oh, I supposed they'd still be attached to Europe.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 09:34:08 PM
What about Denmark?
Overated German beachfront property, but not warranting drowning.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 09:15:54 PM
Lactose tolerance only came about quite recently (after agriculture and animal husbandry) and yet 95% of swedes are now lactose tolerant.
Mandible size has also decreased significantly in humans ever since cooking came in, especially in Europeans (where cooking came earlier and was more important).
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fa%2Faa%2FAtlantica.jpg%2F250px-Atlantica.jpg&hash=8f81932a55d369bffd3da95f6f5acb943bd53f09)
Olof Rudbecks Atlantica, where he argues for Sweden being Atlantis.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on October 25, 2009, 09:35:52 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 09:34:08 PM
What about Denmark?
Overated German beachfront property, but not warranting drowning.
Listen to C4 talk about spanking for five minutes and you'll change your mind.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 09:42:36 PM
Olof Rudbecks Atlantica, where he argues for Sweden being Atlantis.
Sweden wasn't even civilized during the ancient era.
According to Rudbeck, Sweden was cradle of civilization, and Swedish the language that Hebrew and Latin evolved from :)
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 07:12:47 PM
I need look no further than my own country to say that your theory is wrong. Sweden, too, has a long history of credible government, and it certainly wasn't lack of credibility in government that caused a lack of faith in religion. In 1809 we made a product of the french revolution our king and instated a liberal constitution that wasn't replaced until 1976, as a mere formality of modernization. At the time it was the second oldest constitution in the world, after the American. We had a stable and gradual transition from monarchy to democracy, and a stable and gradual transition from religion to atheism.
I thought a big chunk of Sweden broke off in 1905 and formed their own country. :mellow:
Maybe I am incorrect, though, and that was a different Sweden which suffered the schism. If your Sweden didn't suffer this, then I will concede that your country disproves the "all" portion of my statement about governments losing credibility. It certainly does not impact the theory itself.
If a single case disproves a theory, then the fact that i am not religious disproves your theory that the US is a religious country.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 07:40:36 PM
I'm not saying Malthus was right. Malthus was wrong, but only because he didnt foresee what I in may earlier post called the "invention and wide-spread use" of contraceptives.
He ignored contraception completely. He also ignored any possibility of increasing crop yields exponentially.
QuoteIt is true that there have existed primitive contraceptives for a long time, but these have been expensive, ineffective, cumbersome to use, or all three. Widespread use of contraceptives is quite recent.
Population growth at less than exponential rates is ancient, though, so Malthus was wrong there.
QuoteWhat I refer to as malthusian pressure is the same thing as population pressure.
But, as we have seen, countries act aggressively and wage wars absent population/"malthusian" pressures. The whole idea that population pressures drive wars is bogus, though it is possible that some wars were fought because of population pressures.
Malthus was making a statement about the perfectibility of society, btw, not on the causes of wars.
I thought Scandinavia suffered a famine in the 19th century.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:57:17 PM
Anyway, I must commend miglia for his resilience, even if arguing with grumbler is like arguing with a dirty old pig.
I must commend you for not making your inevitable
ad hom until the second page. :hug:
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 06:41:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:57:17 PM
Anyway, I must commend miglia for his resilience, even if arguing with grumbler is like arguing with a dirty old pig.
I must commend you for not making your inevitable ad hom until the second page. :hug:
Well a Pig is a higher life form then Marty, so he may have meant it as a compliment. Don't know about the dirty part.
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2009, 08:18:46 PM
Not at all. Evolution happens all the time. That said, significant evolutionary change, even within a species, is usually at minimum in the hundreds of generation ranges.
Had you included the previous sentence of mine in your quote, which was referring to evolution in a "measurable way," you would have discovered that you were simply repeating my point.
Not that it doesn't bear repeating, of course.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:53:41 PM
Can we introduce a rule against arguing with posts line by line, the way grumbler does? It makes the entire thread unreadable.
Don't read it, then! :lmfao:
Nothing more funny than whiners trying to make the smart people here write for the stupid people like them. "I can read threads where specific arguments are used! Can't we make everyone just use moronic analogies and
ad homs like Marti?"
QuoteNow I could go on and ignore him wholesale, but whenever people ignore his inane ramblings, he seems to announce himself a winner of the debate for some inexplicable reason.
Trust me, I won't mind if you never post on languish again.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 06:41:33 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:57:17 PM
Anyway, I must commend miglia for his resilience, even if arguing with grumbler is like arguing with a dirty old pig.
I must commend you for not making your inevitable ad hom until the second page. :hug:
I believe that is merely name-calling, not an ad hom argument. :contract:
Wait who are the smart people?
If you don't know by now, we can't tell you.
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 09:55:59 PM
According to Rudbeck, Sweden was cradle of civilization, and Swedish the language that Hebrew and Latin evolved from :)
Hyper-nationalists say all kinds of crazy things.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 06:44:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2009, 08:18:46 PM
Not at all. Evolution happens all the time. That said, significant evolutionary change, even within a species, is usually at minimum in the hundreds of generation ranges.
Had you included the previous sentence of mine in your quote, which was referring to evolution in a "measurable way," you would have discovered that you were simply repeating my point.
Not that it doesn't bear repeating, of course.
How do you measure evolution?
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 03:54:52 AM
So a country with an overwhelmingly muslim populace, where the democratically elected representatives of the people pass laws that penalize apostasy, adultery and homosexuality with death, and forbid drinking wine and eating pork, would be "secular" to you? :lol:
Seriously, you are the best example of the GIGO principle. You are a smart and decent guy, who has right ideas on most of things, but because your reasoning process is contaminated with religious falsehoods, you end up saying things like that.
Well I consider freedom of religion a basis for a secular state so I would probably nix the apostasy part...but how can you reasonably propose that a society is secular because it has no laws based on religion?
How is outlawing eating pork different from outlawing anything else if done via a legal and democratic process? The motivations of the voters is not what makes a secular state. If the voters voted for things based on Astrology or the belief that the world is going to end in 2012 that would be just as 'secular'.
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:41:40 PM
I am not saying you have to ban religious thinking but yes, you have to ban religious politics. This is how the separation of church and state is perceived in many European countries, for example France.
Religion is a private thing. It should be kept to homes and churches. It has no place in the public sphere.
Yet France is not a secular state by your definition because there is nothing preventing people from voting for or against things based on their religious convictions. In fact many people in France do just that. Ergo according to you: not secular.
And religion is a private thing in the United States. I am free to believe in and worship however I want. There is no government agent around telling me what the acceptable dogma is.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 02:41:26 AM
What does it even mean in that context? I am talking about truth and facts, not about rational thought, in any case. There is nothing rational in stating that we will go to heaven after we die, or that Jesus resurrected on the third day, or that God created the Earth 6000 years ago. These are statements about reality, and they are false.
Which is why I do not believe in the literal reality of those ideas.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 26, 2009, 06:49:19 AM
I believe that is merely name-calling, not an ad hom argument. :contract:
You are mistaken. He is arguing that to debate me is futile due to a personal trait of mine. that is an argument "to the man" which, translated into Latin, is
ad hominim shortened to
ad hom. :contract:
Of COURSE France is secular, it is not Muslim!
Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2009, 07:12:47 AM
How do you measure evolution?
Through the changed characteristics of species over time.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 08:08:00 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2009, 07:12:47 AM
How do you measure evolution?
Through the changed characteristics of species over time.
:rolleyes:
Next you'll tell us that such characteristics as lactose tolerance may simply be in part a factor of environment rather than pure evolution with even such disparate peoples as tropical asians able to gain it in a matter of generations when living in milk drinking societies. Dream on, evolutionotard!
Quote from: PDH on October 26, 2009, 08:12:56 AM
:rolleyes:
Next you'll tell us that such characteristics as lactose tolerance may simply be in part a factor of environment rather than pure evolution with even such disparate peoples as tropical asians able to gain it in a matter of generations when living in milk drinking societies. Dream on, evolutionotard!
:lol: Exactly. The use of lactose tolerance/intolerance (which is seldom genetic) as evidence for evolution (especially evolution between one generation and the next) is teh funnay.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 08:06:55 AM
You are mistaken. He is arguing that to debate me is futile due to a personal trait of mine. that is an argument "to the man" which, translated into Latin, is ad hominim shortened to ad hom. :contract:
He is claiming that, but as a statement, not an argument. He obviously didn't feel the need to go into his reasons.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 08:08:00 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2009, 07:12:47 AM
How do you measure evolution?
Through the changed characteristics of species over time.
An excellent way to measure it.
My main quibble was with your 'thousands of generations', when it is clearly possible to measurable change in hundreds of generations, even without deliberate intervention.
Quote from: PDH on October 25, 2009, 02:23:39 PM
Was there some different quality to religion in the Middle Ages that allowed rational scholars to use consistent logical means to reach conclusions, was William of Ockham a mutant religious type, for he was both religious and deeply questioning of universals? Perhaps the blanket condemnation of religion is better suited toward a pentecostal/fundamental variety of religion that obviates logic for those who have such a mindset?
I find that the consistent scientific endeavors of the Jesuits, the religious nature of others in the sciences, shows not that a strict compartmentalization of religion and logic need be the case, but rather that a worldview combining such factors in the human mind (quite capable of such radically different beliefs, religious or otherwise) is more important.
Logic is not a binary switch. The human mind can easily operate logically and illogically at the same time. For example, it is fairly reasonable to conclude that a +7 damage Magical Sword is better than a +3 damage Magical Sword, despite the lack of evidence for the existence of magical swords at all.
In the end the basic premises are bullshit, so however bright the author, most attempts to introduce reason within a religious framework usually end up like 'Who would win, the USS Enterprise or an Imperial SSD?' debates on the web.
I think that while it is entirely possibly to "combine" reason and religion, it is not at all important to do so.
It comes about simply from a standpoint that the religious are made so usually long before they have any ability to evaluate their beliefs logically or rationally. And that belief, especially in the past, is built in at a culturally unassailable position. It is simply not conceivable to question your faith, so the brilliant minds either compartmentalize their faith away from their scientific curiosity, or go to incredible lengths to build this Rube Golbergesque sort of logical constructs to try to shoehorn their fundamentally irrational faith into a rational structure.
The former results in science, the latter results in Jesuits. :P
Jesuits, though, are quite famous for questioning their faith...
Quote from: Iormlund on October 26, 2009, 09:30:28 AM
Logic is not a binary switch. The human mind can easily operate logically and illogically at the same time. For example, it is fairly reasonable to conclude that a +7 damage Magical Sword is better than a +3 damage Magical Sword, despite the lack of evidence for the existence of magical swords at all.
In the end the basic premises are bullshit, so however bright the author, most attempts to introduce reason within a religious framework usually end up like 'Who would win, the USS Enterprise or an Imperial SSD?' debates on the web.
I think that my main quibble is that such illogic/logic combinations are a constant part of the human mind and psyche...it is naturalized by some into not being important.
Quote from: PDH on October 26, 2009, 10:34:28 AM
Jesuits, though, are quite famous for questioning their faith...
Nobody ever said reconciling faith with an inquiring mind was easy!
It is a small mind indeed that can't hold two conflicting idea at the same time.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 06:35:17 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 25, 2009, 07:12:47 PM
I need look no further than my own country to say that your theory is wrong. Sweden, too, has a long history of credible government, and it certainly wasn't lack of credibility in government that caused a lack of faith in religion. In 1809 we made a product of the french revolution our king and instated a liberal constitution that wasn't replaced until 1976, as a mere formality of modernization. At the time it was the second oldest constitution in the world, after the American. We had a stable and gradual transition from monarchy to democracy, and a stable and gradual transition from religion to atheism.
I thought a big chunk of Sweden broke off in 1905 and formed their own country. :mellow:
Maybe I am incorrect, though, and that was a different Sweden which suffered the schism. If your Sweden didn't suffer this, then I will concede that your country disproves the "all" portion of my statement about governments losing credibility. It certainly does not impact the theory itself.
If a single case disproves a theory, then the fact that i am not religious disproves your theory that the US is a religious country.
That was not a part of Sweden, that was Norway, which was a part of Sweden-Norway. Which was a union between Sweden and Norway, two countries with different parliaments, different legal systems, etc.
Norwegians leaving the union was a matter of Norwegians losing faith in the Swedish king of Norway-Sweden, and had nothing to do with Swedish people losing faith in Swedish government. Most people in Sweden thought we did the right thing by letting them go.
I seriously doubt anyone is buying that this would lead to Swedish people losing faith in religion.
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 11:47:45 AM
While there's quite a bit of evidence showing that the earth is not 6000 years old, I would challenge you to show any evidence that proves Jesus was not resurrected, or that we do not go to heaven.
Most atheists would only argue there's no proof either way on those points. But you went the extra difference to say that things like heaven and the resurrections aren't just unknown, but false. Which must means you think you have some evidence on those points...
You have a funny idea of proof for a trial lawyer. :lol:
Anyway, since you consider these ideas non-falsified, and from this derive that they have to be allowed as true (i.e. you lead your life as if resurrection happened and if people were going to heaven), I cannot but marvel at your selectiveness.
When was the last time you sacrificed a young male goat to Zeus? Or made auguries to Janus before embarking on a new venture? I will not even suggest going to your neighbouring village and kidnapping their young men to tear their hearts out on the altar of Huitzilopochtli.
Of the countless thousands of gods, goddesses, half-gods and heroes, you ignore and consider false all but one. At least I am consequent in what I do - I extend the same treatment to all of them.
That is where you are mistaken. I consider heaven and the resurrection as non-falsified, then through faith accept them as true. I have never claimed that my faith is proven.
But you didn't actually answer my question - instead you just turned around and attacked me. What basis do you have for saying that heaven is proven to be false? Or did you (as I think you did) over-reach in your statement?
I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.
Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.
Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2009, 08:32:36 AM
An excellent way to measure it.
My main quibble was with your 'thousands of generations', when it is clearly possible to measurable change in hundreds of generations, even without deliberate intervention.
We are in agreement here, and indeed, when environments change rapidly, measurable evolution is speeded up by perhaps orders of magnitude over evolution that is merely tweaking the capability of a species to exploit a fairly static environment.
Quote from: Iormlund on October 26, 2009, 09:30:28 AM
Logic is not a binary switch. The human mind can easily operate logically and illogically at the same time. For example, it is fairly reasonable to conclude that a +7 damage Magical Sword is better than a +3 damage Magical Sword, despite the lack of evidence for the existence of magical swords at all.
I like this analogy, and within two months will be claiming it as an original.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:06:32 PM
I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.
Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.
I was only asking for proof because Marty seemed to say he had such proof, or else why would he say that heaven and the resurrection were "false".
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:06:32 PM
I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.
Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.
I see you still have trouble distinguishing between presumptions and "truths." "Heaven does not exist" is an assertion of fact, while "I won't believe that heaven exists until you show me proof" is a statement of presumption. Making statements of fact about topics on which data is entirely absent is presumption of an entirely different kind.
Faith trumps reason on this topic for those for whom, on this topic, faith trumps reason. Attacking that belief is futile. Arguing that it is only for the feeble-minded is absurd (Kant famously believed that faith trumped reason, as did many others. I don't believe it myself, but that is a statement about me, not about "reality."
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:16:03 PM
I was only asking for proof because Marty seemed to say he had such proof, or else why would he say that heaven and the resurrection were "false".
Perhaps because his statement was a bit of hyperbole?
I am amused by the argument over the existence of heaven, which takes place even though I am convinced that everyone would pretty much agree that they would behave no differently if their current beliefs on the subject were disproven.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 12:39:05 PM
That is where you are mistaken. I consider heaven and the resurrection as non-falsified, then through faith accept them as true. I have never claimed that my faith is proven.
Please please please tell me that you don't do your work based on that standard of truth?
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 12:39:05 PM
But you didn't actually answer my question - instead you just turned around and attacked me. What basis do you have for saying that heaven is proven to be false? Or did you (as I think you did) over-reach in your statement?
Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false. There is no evidence. You have your faith and your faith has a doctrine on truth and untruth. I say your faith is just as true as any hypothesis your faith defines as untrue.
Now ultimately I (nor anybody else) should need to prove anything false, you are making a claim and you have the burden of proof. I can't prove any untestable hypothesis wrong, but I can treat it as irrelevant or untrue without consequence.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:16:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:06:32 PM
I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.
Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.
I was only asking for proof because Marty seemed to say he had such proof, or else why would he say that heaven and the resurrection were "false".
For the same reason you think Binky the 800ft. Carrot God is "false".
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 01:28:30 PM
Perhaps because his statement was a bit of hyperbole?
It clearly was, but I am curious if he'll acknowledge that or not.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 01:28:30 PM
I am amused by the argument over the existence of heaven, which takes place even though I am convinced that everyone would pretty much agree that they would behave no differently if their current beliefs on the subject were disproven.
:huh:
I would certainly be sitting in the pew on Sunday morning.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 01:24:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:06:32 PM
I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.
Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.
I see you still have trouble distinguishing between presumptions and "truths." "Heaven does not exist" is an assertion of fact, while "I won't believe that heaven exists until you show me proof" is a statement of presumption. Making statements of fact about topics on which data is entirely absent is presumption of an entirely different kind.
Faith trumps reason on this topic for those for whom, on this topic, faith trumps reason. Attacking that belief is futile. Arguing that it is only for the feeble-minded is absurd (Kant famously believed that faith trumped reason, as did many others. I don't believe it myself, but that is a statement about me, not about "reality."
I am not attacking Beebs faith - just saying that for anyone who does not share it, the phrase "heaven does not exist" is perfectly reasonable. I make no claim about its "truth", but simply note that I presume that things that are not evidenced do not exist.
I don't think there is any particular difference between "Heaven does not exist" and "I will presume heaven does not exist until shown otherwise".
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 01:29:37 PM
Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.
I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false". I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).
That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing. Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:35:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 01:29:37 PM
Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.
I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false". I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).
That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing. Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.
Now discuss Scientology.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:35:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 01:29:37 PM
Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.
That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing. Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.
Are you joking?
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:35:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 01:29:37 PM
Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.
I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false". I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).
That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing. Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.
So religion comes does to a popularity contest?
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:35:57 PM
That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing.
And this is untrue anyway - I have claimed such a thing.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:33:41 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 01:24:59 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:06:32 PM
I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.
Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.
I see you still have trouble distinguishing between presumptions and "truths." "Heaven does not exist" is an assertion of fact, while "I won't believe that heaven exists until you show me proof" is a statement of presumption. Making statements of fact about topics on which data is entirely absent is presumption of an entirely different kind.
Faith trumps reason on this topic for those for whom, on this topic, faith trumps reason. Attacking that belief is futile. Arguing that it is only for the feeble-minded is absurd (Kant famously believed that faith trumped reason, as did many others. I don't believe it myself, but that is a statement about me, not about "reality."
I am not attacking Beebs faith - just saying that for anyone who does not share it, the phrase "heaven does not exist" is perfectly reasonable. I make no claim about its "truth", but simply note that I presume that things that are not evidenced do not exist.
I don't think there is any particular difference between "Heaven does not exist" and "I will presume heaven does not exist until shown otherwise".
I am sure glad scientist working on theories that could not be proven until technology was improved were insane enough to pursue theories that could not yet be "evidenced".
People have lots of believes in lots of fields. Some prove right some prove wrong and some remain unproven. Religion, like philosophy, is a field where there is a lot of argument, a lot of strongly held views but no evidence.
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 01:37:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:35:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 01:29:37 PM
Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.
I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false". I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).
That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing. Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.
Now discuss Scientology.
There appears to be a significant amount of actual evidence that L Ron Hubbard went out and created Scientology as a deliberate scam. :)
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:35:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 01:29:37 PM
Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.
I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false". I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).
That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing. Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.
Truth is not democratic. The number of gullible idiots you can convince to join your cult does not make my 800 ft carrot god (or in my case either Thor or FSM) any more true. In any case of truth you don't hold a referendum on if the earth is flat or not or if the sun goes round the earth or if pluto is a planet (whoops..they actually did that). 1 Billion factually wrong persons are stilll wrong.
The Koran claims to be the recited and true word of god. It also claims that the bible is forged. Furthermore it claims that jesus was a non divine mortal prophet. I can't think of any modern christian sect which can agree with that.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:35:57 PM
I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).
Interesting. What is the spiritual message that is distinct from Christianity? Is it that there is only one God whereas Christians (or at least some Christians) believe in at least two?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 01:41:09 PM
I am sure glad scientist working on theories that could not be proven until technology was improved were insane enough to pursue theories that could not yet be "evidenced".
You are confusing evidence with proof.
Scientists who posit hypothesis that do not explain anything are not very good scientists. Could you provide some examples of scientists who crated hypothesis to explain non-existent phenomenon, and how much success they had with that?
Quote
People have lots of believes in lots of fields. Some prove right some prove wrong and some remain unproven. Religion, like philosophy, is a field where there is a lot of argument, a lot of strongly held views but no evidence.
Religion is not "special". It is just a catch all phrase to describe the human fascination with the supernatural, and the idea that there is something "more" than that which we can actually evidence.
Religion is not at all like philosophy in fact.
Religion is pretty interesting, but only insofar as it is rather fascinating that human are so susceptible to belief in imaginary things.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:41:34 PM
There appears to be a significant amount of actual evidence that L Ron Hubbard went out and created Scientology as a deliberate scam. :)
Tax dodge. A scam is usually illegal whereas Scientology is, so far, legal.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 01:41:09 PM
I am sure glad scientist working on theories that could not be proven until technology was improved were insane enough to pursue theories that could not yet be "evidenced".
You are confusing evidence with proof.
Scientists who posit hypothesis that do not explain anything are not very good scientists. Could you provide some examples of scientists who crated hypothesis to explain non-existent phenomenon, and how much success they had with that?
Quote
People have lots of believes in lots of fields. Some prove right some prove wrong and some remain unproven. Religion, like philosophy, is a field where there is a lot of argument, a lot of strongly held views but no evidence.
Religion is not "special". It is just a catch all phrase to describe the human fascination with the supernatural, and the idea that there is something "more" than that which we can actually evidence.
Religion is not at all like philosophy in fact.
Religion is pretty interesting, but only insofar as it is rather fascinating that human are so susceptible to belief in imaginary things.
Berk,
Before science had microscopes powerful enough so see them, scientists were actively theororizing about atoms. One small example but I am sure if Hamilcar were still here he could inform us about all kinds of theories that have been produced by scientists based on incomplete data.
Another example was the old debate (pre DNA sampling) about whether all humans came out of Africa or not. During the 80s and 90s there were huge scientific debates about the issue. It wasnt until DNA sampling showed that in fact we all came out of Africa.
If scientists were precluded from forming ideas simply because there was no concrete proof of their theories, we would be a poorer society for it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 01:51:24 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 01:41:09 PM
I am sure glad scientist working on theories that could not be proven until technology was improved were insane enough to pursue theories that could not yet be "evidenced".
You are confusing evidence with proof.
Scientists who posit hypothesis that do not explain anything are not very good scientists. Could you provide some examples of scientists who crated hypothesis to explain non-existent phenomenon, and how much success they had with that?
Quote
People have lots of believes in lots of fields. Some prove right some prove wrong and some remain unproven. Religion, like philosophy, is a field where there is a lot of argument, a lot of strongly held views but no evidence.
Religion is not "special". It is just a catch all phrase to describe the human fascination with the supernatural, and the idea that there is something "more" than that which we can actually evidence.
Religion is not at all like philosophy in fact.
Religion is pretty interesting, but only insofar as it is rather fascinating that human are so susceptible to belief in imaginary things.
Berk,
Before science had microscopes powerful enough so see them, scientists were actively theororizing about atoms. One small example but I am sure if Hamilcar were still here he could inform us about all kinds of theories that have been produced by scientists based on incomplete data.
Of course - but you can evidence things you cannot see. We cannot "see" gravity, but we know it is there, and we can create hypothesis about what makes it, test those hypothesis, and create theories from our tested hypothesis.
This is not unevidenced claims at all, so your bitch about my comment does not apply.
Quote
Another example was the old debate (pre DNA sampling) about whether all humans came out of Africa or not. During the 80s and 90s there were huge scientific debates about the issue. It wasnt until DNA sampling showed that in fact we all came out of Africa.
And? This is science, and is not based at all on "belief" or faith, but on evidence and data - incomplete data f course, but still data. There is no comparison between this and whether or not there is a heaven.
Quote
If scientists were precluded from forming ideas simply because there was no concrete proof of their theories, we would be a poorer society for it.
Who are you arguing with?
Berk, to the extent I am arguing with anyone it is you I suppose because of your statement:
Quoteimagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.
I have given you a some examples of perfectly sane scientists working with "non-evidenced" theories to explain the natural world. The thing that distinguishes science from Religion or Philosophy is that through the scientific method the hope is that an unproven theory will be proven through more study.
In Relgion all there is, is faith.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:03:51 PM
In Relgion all there is, is faith.
I don't think that's fair. Religion has reason. Religion has science.
Religion
also has faith, but it does not have
only faith.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 01:51:24 PM
Berk,
Before science had microscopes powerful enough so see them, scientists were actively theororizing about atoms. One small example but I am sure if Hamilcar were still here he could inform us about all kinds of theories that have been produced by scientists based on incomplete data.
We proved the existence of atoms about 100 years before the electron microscope. But I assume you are talking about the Ionian enlightenment. Democritus and the other Ionians belived that everything was made of matter and the nature of that matter was such that there was an ammount of matter which could not be cut with a knife, no matter how sharp. So he postulated atoms. He couldn't test so it remained the Atom Hypothesis until the late 18th century when Atomic Theory started.
Quote
Another example was the old debate (pre DNA sampling) about whether all humans came out of Africa or not. During the 80s and 90s there were huge scientific debates about the issue. It wasnt until DNA sampling showed that in fact we all came out of Africa.
Yes, and I want to point out that there were competing hypothesis for the origin of man, none of which were considered true until the hypothesis could be tested and all but one were found false. Confusing scientific inquiry and the scientific method with the untested, untestable and unproductive (i.e. makes no useable predictions) religion.
Quote
If scientists were precluded from forming ideas simply because there was no concrete proof of their theories, we would be a poorer society for it.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.proteinpower.com%2Fdrmike%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F04%2Fscience.PNG&hash=2a5004e3838ad25b64f9c830f21decf75fe27c8d)(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.proteinpower.com%2Fdrmike%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2007%2F04%2Ffaith.PNG&hash=11e8f81619be693aba2912c22191c7581057b635)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:03:51 PM
Berk, to the extent I am arguing with anyone it is you I suppose because of your statement:
Quoteimagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.
I have given you a some examples of perfectly sane scientists working with "non-evidenced" theories to explain the natural world. The thing that distinguishes science from Religion or Philosophy is that through the scientific method the hope is that an unproven theory will be proven through more study.
In Relgion all there is, is faith.
A theory is not evidenced. It doesn't even make sense to say a theory is "evidenced" or "non-evidenced". A theory is tested hypothesis which attempts to explain some observed characteristic of the natural world. Said "observed characeristics" are in fact evidence - they are data.
A theory can be dis-proven, but never proven.
And no, you have given NO examples of sane scientists working with unevidenced data to prove anything. Quite the opposite in fact - science is about using the evidence given to create hypothesis, then test those hypothesis by (typically) obtaining MORE evidence.
Science has nothing to do with beliefs that are not evidenced, and the very basis of science precludes it dealing with things for which there is no evidence. Data is its bread and butter.
Viking, I agree.
My simple point is it is not insane to believe in something not yet evidenced. Indeed that is where a lot of good science comes from. Pursuing an idea that is not yet proven or evidenced.
A lot of science is simply the best theory at the moment - take for example the non out of Africa folks. They had some evidence but not prove one way or the other. They could have been right. But DNA proved them wrong.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:06:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:03:51 PM
In Relgion all there is, is faith.
I don't think that's fair. Religion has reason. Religion has science.
Religion also has faith, but it does not have only faith.
Can you make one single falsifiable statement about religion? If not, it's not science.
Religion does have reason, incomplete reason since it does start with an unproven and unprovable ipso fact, but reason non the less. Modern Theology does use reason in religion.
Viking, your chart on religion isn't true. Or it is true for only a certain amount of religious persons.
Christianity once accepted as a matter of faith that the sun revolved around the earth, and the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for saying otherwise. Once science demonstrated that was false, religion came to accept and embrace that fact.
While some religious people may deny evolution based on pure faith, many do not.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:06:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:03:51 PM
In Relgion all there is, is faith.
I don't think that's fair. Religion has reason. Religion has science.
Religion also has faith, but it does not have only faith.
Really? What sience is there to prove the ressurection? If you were to apply reason (like textual analysis) you would also say it didnt happen.
So all you are left with is faith.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:11:34 PM
Viking, I agree.
My simple point is it is not insane to believe in something not yet evidenced. Indeed that is where a lot of good science comes from. Pursuing an idea that is not yet proven or evidenced.
A lot of science is simply the best theory at the moment - take for example the non out of Africa folks. They had some evidence but not prove one way or the other. They could have been right. But DNA proved them wrong.
:frusty:
So in fact they DID have evidence, and so in fact they were NOT "believing in something not yet evidenced".
Still waiting for the single example of a scientists who made hay believing in things for which he had no evidence.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 08:23:42 AM
Quote from: PDH on October 26, 2009, 08:12:56 AM
:rolleyes:
Next you'll tell us that such characteristics as lactose tolerance may simply be in part a factor of environment rather than pure evolution with even such disparate peoples as tropical asians able to gain it in a matter of generations when living in milk drinking societies. Dream on, evolutionotard!
:lol: Exactly. The use of lactose tolerance/intolerance (which is seldom genetic) as evidence for evolution (especially evolution between one generation and the next) is teh funnay.
"Roman authors recorded that the people of northern Europe, particularly Britain and Germany, drank unprocessed milk (as opposed to the Romans who made cheese).[citation needed] This corresponds very closely with modern European distributions of lactose intolerance, where the people of Britain, Germany and Scandinavia have a good tolerance, and those of southern Europe, especially Italy, have a poorer tolerance.[37]
In east Asia, historical sources also attest that the Chinese did not consume milk, whereas the nomads that lived on the borders did. Again, this reflects modern distributions of intolerance. China is particularly notable as a place of poor tolerance, whereas in Mongolia and the Asian steppes horse milk is drunk regularly. This tolerance is thought to be advantageous, as the nomads do not settle down long enough to process mature cheese. Given that their prime source of income is generated through horses, to ignore their milk as a source of calories would be greatly detrimental. The nomads also make an alcoholic beverage, called Kumis, from horse milk, although the fermentation process reduces the amount of lactose present.
The African Fulani have a nomadic origin and their culture once completely revolved around cow, goat, and sheep herding. Dairy products were once a large source of nutrition for them. As might be expected if lactase persistence evolved in response to dairy product consumption, they are particularly tolerant to lactose (about 77% of the population). Many Fulani live in Guinea-Conakry, Burkina Faso, Mali, Nigeria, Niger, Cameroon, and Chad.
There is some debate on exactly where and when genetic mutation(s) occurred, although a recent study[38] suggests that the genetic change that enabled early Europeans to drink milk without getting sick has appeared in dairying farmers who lived around 7,500 years ago in a region between the central Balkans and central Europe. Some have argued earlier for separate mutation events in Sweden (which has one of the lowest levels of lactose intolerance in the world) and the Arabian Peninsula around 4000 BC. However, others argue for a single mutation event in the Middle East at about 4500 BC, which then subsequently radiated. Some sources suggest a third and more recent mutation in the East African Tutsi. Whatever the precise origin in time and place, most modern Northern Europeans and people of India, as well as people of European or Indian ancestry, show the effects of this mutation (that is, they are able to safely consume milk products all their lives), while most modern East Asians, sub-Saharan Africans and native peoples of America and the Pacific Islands do not (making them lactose intolerant as adults).[39] The Maasai ability to consume dairy without exhibiting symptoms may be due to a different genetic mutation[40], or it may be due to the fact that they curdle their milk before they consume it, removing the lactose."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_tolerance#History_of_genetic_prevalence
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:11:34 PM
Viking, I agree.
My simple point is it is not insane to believe in something not yet evidenced. Indeed that is where a lot of good science comes from. Pursuing an idea that is not yet proven or evidenced.
A lot of science is simply the best theory at the moment - take for example the non out of Africa folks. They had some evidence but not prove one way or the other. They could have been right. But DNA proved them wrong.
I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:11:34 PM
A lot of science is simply the best theory at the moment
I would say that the body of knowledge that we consider to be "correct" in science is in fact whatever happesn to be the "best theory at the moment". Obviously, this is a process however, so what is the "best" theory is often up for debate.
But under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:11:04 PM
Science has nothing to do with beliefs that are not evidenced, and the very basis of science precludes it dealing with things for which there is no evidence. Data is its bread and butter.
Scientist says: I think there may be other planets out there and creates a crude telescope to prove it.
Christian says: Jesus is God and was resurrected and believes that on faith alone.
In both instances both started out not being able to prove their believe. The scientist has the tools to do so. The Christian never will.
But both at one point believed in something which had not yet been established by oberverable proof.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:15:57 PM
But under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.
Getting a bit tenous there because BB would say there is a least some evidence that God exists.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:15:10 PM
I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.
It may be unwise. But dont scientist devote whole careers to trying to prove their theories. Again the non out of Africa folks come to mind.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:18:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:15:57 PM
But under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.
Getting a bit tenous there because BB would say there is a least some evidence that God exists.
:yes:
There is lots of evidence that God exists. The problem is that it is far from conclusive proof.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:11:56 PM
Viking, your chart on religion isn't true. Or it is true for only a certain amount of religious persons.
Christianity once accepted as a matter of faith that the sun revolved around the earth, and the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for saying otherwise. Once science demonstrated that was false, religion came to accept and embrace that fact.
While some religious people may deny evolution based on pure faith, many do not.
I haven't come to the bit about evolution yet. I'm happy to stay with the bible claiming the sun moved across the sky (and stopping on gods command). That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. My chart is not untrue. That is the case because rather than taking the consequences of being found a lie they just pretend that they were never wrong and that the book never really meant what was written.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:15:10 PM
I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.
It may be unwise. But dont scientist devote whole careers to trying to prove their theories. Again the non out of Africa folks come to mind.
As I said, the Ideas don't mean anything and don't have any consequences for anybody until they are tested and proven either falsified or not yet falsified.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:23:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:11:56 PM
Viking, your chart on religion isn't true. Or it is true for only a certain amount of religious persons.
Christianity once accepted as a matter of faith that the sun revolved around the earth, and the Catholic Church persecuted Galileo for saying otherwise. Once science demonstrated that was false, religion came to accept and embrace that fact.
While some religious people may deny evolution based on pure faith, many do not.
I haven't come to the bit about evolution yet. I'm happy to stay with the bible claiming the sun moved across the sky (and stopping on gods command). That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. My chart is not untrue. That is the case because rather than taking the consequences of being found a lie they just pretend that they were never wrong and that the book never really meant what was written.
Let's stick with Galileo then. Christianity never claimed it was never wrong. I think the Pope even issued an apology recently saying they were indeed wrong.
You seem to be arguing against some crude stereotype of religion, and not religion as it actually is.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:17:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:11:04 PM
Science has nothing to do with beliefs that are not evidenced, and the very basis of science precludes it dealing with things for which there is no evidence. Data is its bread and butter.
Scientist says: I think there may be other planets out there and creates a crude telescope to prove it.
No - a scientist says "Hey, there are these funny lights in teh sky that looks like stars, yet move very differently - I wonder what they might be???"
Then he forms a hypothesis - maybe they are planets! Which are these things different from stars! If that is the case, then....
and off he goes.
At no point did he form a hypothesis based on "no evidence".
Quote
Christian says: Jesus is God and was resurrected and believes that on faith alone.
In both instances both started out not being able to prove their believe. The scientist has the tools to do so. The Christian never will.
It has nothing to do with being able to "prove their believe". The scientists did not start with the belief, and then set out to prove it - he starts with some data that the current theory does not explain well, and comes up with a new idea, then tries to test it.
Quote
But both at one point believed in something which had not yet been established by oberverable proof.
I don't think it is fair to say that a scientist "believes" in his hypothesis in the fashion that a religious person has faith in their dogma. And certainly the scientist is not driven by his beliefs (at least in theory), but by data and observable evidence.
And really, quit talking about "proofs" or "proving" things in science. The only application the words have is in math when it comes to science, and in that context it means something very different than how we are using it here.
Again, a scientist does not "believe" in their hypothesis in the same manner that a religious person believes in their dogma. It isn't at all the same.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:23:45 PM
I haven't come to the bit about evolution yet. I'm happy to stay with the bible claiming the sun moved across the sky (and stopping on gods command). That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. My chart is not untrue. That is the case because rather than taking the consequences of being found a lie they just pretend that they were never wrong and that the book never really meant what was written.
This is a bit misleading since only fundies would say that any religious book is literally true. Religion is about faith. The real problem is that too many religious folks miss the distinction. An error you appear to be making as well.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:26:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:15:10 PM
I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.
It may be unwise. But dont scientist devote whole careers to trying to prove their theories. Again the non out of Africa folks come to mind.
As I said, the Ideas don't mean anything and don't have any consequences for anybody until they are tested and proven either falsified or not yet falsified.
:huh:
Global warming is not proven. Evolution is not proven. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not proven. Those ideas however have had enormous consequences.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:22:56 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:18:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:15:57 PM
But under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.
Getting a bit tenous there because BB would say there is a least some evidence that God exists.
:yes:
There is lots of evidence that God exists. The problem is that it is far from conclusive proof.
Can you then deal with the issue that EVERY SINGLE RELIGION has equally large ammounts of highly tenuous evidence all of which contradicts the other religions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:18:48 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:15:57 PM
But under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.
Getting a bit tenous there because BB would say there is a least some evidence that God exists.
Of course he would, but he cannot test his claim, reproduce the "evidence", and it doesn't survive any kind of rigour. His "evidence" amounts to "lots of people believe he exists".
But that is a very separate discussion.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:15:10 PM
I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.
It may be unwise. But dont scientist devote whole careers to trying to prove their theories. Again the non out of Africa folks come to mind.
But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:26:47 PM
I don't think it is fair to say that a scientist "believes" in his hypothesis in the fashion that a religious person has faith in their dogma.
I presume that scientists believe strongly enough in their unproven theories so as to devote their lives to proving they are accurate. You are correct however that once a scientist is confronted with evidence that their theory is not accurate that scientist moves on. A religious person never does because there can never be absolute proof they are wrong. It has nothing to do with being sane or not (which you implied). It simply has to do with the fact that in matters of religion there is no proof one way or the other. Just faith.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:41:34 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 01:37:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:35:57 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 01:29:37 PM
Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.
I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false". I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).
That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing. Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.
Now discuss Scientology.
There appears to be a significant amount of actual evidence that L Ron Hubbard went out and created Scientology as a deliberate scam. :)
And yet, there are millions (3.5 million per the Church in 2007) who believe in Scientology, so how much respect is that worth?
Same for Mormonism (same scam problem, in fact)?
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:17:47 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:11:04 PM
Science has nothing to do with beliefs that are not evidenced, and the very basis of science precludes it dealing with things for which there is no evidence. Data is its bread and butter.
Scientist says: I think there may be other planets out there and creates a crude telescope to prove it.
Christian says: Jesus is God and was resurrected and believes that on faith alone.
In both instances both started out not being able to prove their believe. The scientist has the tools to do so. The Christian never will.
But both at one point believed in something which had not yet been established by oberverable proof.
I don't think that's right. Why do you think Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) have sponsored so many historical/archaeological digs and research over the years? People aren't simply saying "I believe - end of story".
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:29:46 PM
But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').
Neither is religion. An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:26:24 PM
Let's stick with Galileo then. Christianity never claimed it was never wrong. I think the Pope even issued an apology recently saying they were indeed wrong.
You seem to be arguing against some crude stereotype of religion, and not religion as it actually is.
Well, in the bible god stops the sun moving in the sky. Joshua 10:12-13 has the sun standing still in the sky. The bible does not say the earth stopped turning, god stopped the sun in the sky. This is why the Church had problems with Aristarchus and Copernicus.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:29:46 PM
But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').
the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
:huh:
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:31:10 PM
I don't think that's right. Why do you think Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) have sponsored so many historical/archaeological digs and research over the years? People aren't simply saying "I believe - end of story".
You are mixing up the concept of finding historical evidence of the events in a religious text with proving that the religious message is itself true.
Nobody doubts that Mohammed actually lived and yet you do not believe his teachings. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:30:30 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:26:47 PM
I don't think it is fair to say that a scientist "believes" in his hypothesis in the fashion that a religious person has faith in their dogma.
I presume that scientists believe strongly enough in their unproven theories so as to devote their lives to proving they are accurate.
Scientists are human beings, and of course suffer from human failings.
My point is that science is not about "belief", but about testing hypothesis. A scientist might spend his life trying to "prive" his theory is superior to other theories trying to explain some phenomenon, but he will do so by creating tests for it that try to prove it false, and have it pass those tests. That is the basis for science.
No religious person does this, because their "theories" are not falsifiable by definition.
QuoteYou are correct however that once a scientist is confronted with evidence that their theory is not accurate that scientist moves on. A religious person never does because there can never be absolute proof they are wrong. It has nothing to do with being sane or not (which you implied). It simply has to do with the fact that in matters of religion there is no proof one way or the other. Just faith.
Indeed. Which is why comapring the two is rather silly.
And why your claim that scientists "believe" in things for which they have no evidence is false - or rather, that such a belief is science. If in fact they do, they are no longer practicing science, by definition.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Neither is religion. An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
Or disproven. Religious faith can never really be disproven. You could go back in time with a camera and prove decisively that none of the stuff that the Bible claims actually happened and it would not make much of a difference for alot of people.
Quote from: The Brain on October 26, 2009, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:29:46 PM
But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').
the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
:huh:
You have heard of the scientific method I trust.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 02:34:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Neither is religion. An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
Or disproven. Religious faith can never really be disproven. You could go back in time with a camera and prove decisively that none of the stuff that the Bible claims actually happened and it would not make much of a difference for alot of people.
Yes, that is more to the point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:27:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:23:45 PM
I haven't come to the bit about evolution yet. I'm happy to stay with the bible claiming the sun moved across the sky (and stopping on gods command). That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. My chart is not untrue. That is the case because rather than taking the consequences of being found a lie they just pretend that they were never wrong and that the book never really meant what was written.
This is a bit misleading since only fundies would say that any religious book is literally true. Religion is about faith. The real problem is that too many religious folks miss the distinction. An error you appear to be making as well.
So tell me what evidence I could show you which disproved your religion?
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 02:34:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Neither is religion. An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
Or disproven. Religious faith can never really be disproven. You could go back in time with a camera and prove decisively that none of the stuff that the Bible claims actually happened and it would not make much of a difference for alot of people.
:huh:
I imagine that would make a huge difference to almost everyone.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Neither is religion. An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
:boggle:
All scientific theories are unproven - by definition, you cannot "prove" a theory, ever. You can only disprove it. This is called falsifiability.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:34:28 PM
Scientists are human beings, and of course suffer from human failings.
My point is that science is not about "belief", but about testing hypothesis. A scientist might spend his life trying to "prive" his theory is superior to other theories trying to explain some phenomenon, but he will do so by creating tests for it that try to prove it false, and have it pass those tests. That is the basis for science.
Actually that is my point. :P
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:36:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 02:34:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Neither is religion. An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
Or disproven. Religious faith can never really be disproven. You could go back in time with a camera and prove decisively that none of the stuff that the Bible claims actually happened and it would not make much of a difference for alot of people.
:huh:
I imagine that would make a huge difference to almost everyone.
:lmfao:
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:34:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 26, 2009, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:29:46 PM
But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').
the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
:huh:
You have heard of the scientific method I trust.
I bet he has - and his "huh" is based on your claim that said method apparently "proves" things. It does not, and cannot, ever.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:37:15 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:34:28 PM
Scientists are human beings, and of course suffer from human failings.
My point is that science is not about "belief", but about testing hypothesis. A scientist might spend his life trying to "prive" his theory is superior to other theories trying to explain some phenomenon, but he will do so by creating tests for it that try to prove it false, and have it pass those tests. That is the basis for science.
Actually that is my point. :P
Right.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:36:32 PM
All scientific theories are unproven - by definition, you cannot "prove" a theory, ever. You can only disprove it. This is called falsifiability.
Exactly. Valmy put it nicely.
You appear simply to want to argue.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:28:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:26:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:19:54 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:15:10 PM
I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.
It may be unwise. But dont scientist devote whole careers to trying to prove their theories. Again the non out of Africa folks come to mind.
As I said, the Ideas don't mean anything and don't have any consequences for anybody until they are tested and proven either falsified or not yet falsified.
:huh:
Global warming is not proven. Evolution is not proven. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is not proven. Those ideas however have had enormous consequences.
The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Relativity make predictions, lots of predictions. These have been tested from breeding fruit flies to flying clocks really really fast and every prediction has been found to be confirmed. As far as science is concerned they are proved, until somebody comes up with a better idea of course.
Global Warming is not as well documented, in the sense of being able to correctly predict precisely what effect humans have on future climate, as the other theories.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:38:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:34:48 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 26, 2009, 02:33:16 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:29:46 PM
But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').
the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
:huh:
You have heard of the scientific method I trust.
I bet he has - and his "huh" is based on your claim that said method apparently "proves" things. It does not, and cannot, ever.
Sure it does and can. "X theory is wrong for Y reason" can easily be proven.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:33:06 PM
Well, in the bible god stops the sun moving in the sky. Joshua 10:12-13 has the sun standing still in the sky. The bible does not say the earth stopped turning, god stopped the sun in the sky. This is why the Church had problems with Aristarchus and Copernicus.
Yeah and why did God do that? So the Israelites could slaughter more Amorites.
I always found that rather amusing. The Church was telling us that God stopped the Sun in the sky, not for some noble or holy purpose, just so the Israelites could see better while massacring.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:36:32 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Neither is religion. An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
:boggle:
All scientific theories are unproven - by definition, you cannot "prove" a theory, ever. You can only disprove it. This is called falsifiability.
Popper FTW!
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 01:29:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 12:39:05 PM
That is where you are mistaken. I consider heaven and the resurrection as non-falsified, then through faith accept them as true. I have never claimed that my faith is proven.
Please please please tell me that you don't do your work based on that standard of truth?
Please please please tell me that you simply don't understand the concept of faith, rather than that you
do understand it and chose to pretend not to in order to insult.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:36:25 PM
:huh:
I imagine that would make a huge difference to almost everyone.
Doubt it. Some people would be convinced but many would not. It is religious faith after all.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:35:16 PM
So tell me what evidence I could show you which disproved your religion?
None.
Since I have no religion. :P
I just find it odd that Berk et all get start ranting about how irrational it is to believe in something that is not proven when that happens in the scientific field as well.
As I keep saying the only real distinction is that scentists can prove or disprove their claims wheres priests cannot.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 02:39:36 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:33:06 PM
Well, in the bible god stops the sun moving in the sky. Joshua 10:12-13 has the sun standing still in the sky. The bible does not say the earth stopped turning, god stopped the sun in the sky. This is why the Church had problems with Aristarchus and Copernicus.
Yeah and why did God do that? So the Israelites could slaughter more Amorites.
I always found that rather amusing. The Church was telling us that God stopped the Sun in the sky, not for some noble or holy purpose, just so the Israelites could see better while massacring.
And that is why Aristarchus and Copernicus were wrong, because if the sun is stationary at the center, you can't stop the sun in the sky. And the bible got it wrong.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 02:41:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:36:25 PM
:huh:
I imagine that would make a huge difference to almost everyone.
Doubt it. Some people would be convinced but many would not. It is religious faith after all.
It might make some difference to the true fundamentalists, but most of the Christians I know happily accept scientific evidence, and don't disbelieve it just because "the Bible says so".
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:38:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:36:32 PM
All scientific theories are unproven - by definition, you cannot "prove" a theory, ever. You can only disprove it. This is called falsifiability.
Exactly. Valmy put it nicely.
You appear simply to want to argue.
WTF?
You just said the exact opposite of that - that scientists prove their theories, I point out that you are exactly wrong, and *I* am the one who just wants to argue?
*You* are the one who challenged me when I said science was NOT about believing in things that were not evidenced, proceeded to equate science with faith (claiming both believe in things they cannot "prove) and then went off and started babbling about scientists and their believing in things without evidence, which me and Valmy have both shown to be false. Don't start pretending like you were agreeing with me all along.
Religious stuff is at least in part about the moral lessons to be drawn from the mythology. Whether or not religious parables are literally true is sort of beside the point - you don't have to actually believe in the literal existance of talking foxes to think that Aesop's fables contain wisdom.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:41:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:35:16 PM
So tell me what evidence I could show you which disproved your religion?
None.
Since I have no religion. :P
I just find it odd that Berk et all get start ranting about how irrational it is to believe in something that is not proven when that happens in the scientific field as well.
As I keep saying the only real distinction is that scentists can prove or disprove their claims wheres priests cannot.
That distinction makes ALLTHE DIFFERENCE. Faith does not have a routine for error correction. Science does. That makes the two things fundamentally different.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:42:42 PM
And that is why Aristarchus and Copernicus were wrong, because if the sun is stationary at the center, you can't stop the sun in the sky. And the bible got it wrong.
The Bible only "got it wrong" if you think of it only as a literal and accurate recording of events.
Many Christians don't think of it in only in those terms.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:44:29 PM
That distinction makes ALLTHE DIFFERENCE. Faith does not have a routine for error correction. Science does. That makes the two things fundamentally different.
Repeating your statement doesn't make it true.
Religion continues to accept and adopt science, and many beliefs have been changed over the years.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:41:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:35:16 PM
So tell me what evidence I could show you which disproved your religion?
None.
Since I have no religion. :P
I just find it odd that Berk et all get start ranting about how irrational it is to believe in something that is not proven when that happens in the scientific field as well.
CC, find me a post where I make that claim. I never said any such thing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:41:21 PM
As I keep saying the only real distinction is that scentists can prove or disprove their claims wheres priests cannot.
Scientists cannot prove their claims. They can only disprove them.
You keep getting this wrong, and it is important, since it is the very fundamental distinction that makes all the difference.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:33:41 PM
I don't think there is any particular difference between "Heaven does not exist" and "I will presume heaven does not exist until shown otherwise".
In colloquial-speak, perhaps not, but if you don't understand the difference between a statement of fact about "reality" and a statement of fact about one's self, then you probably should not be engaged in this debate, as you don't share the common understanding of "truths."
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:42:42 PM
And that is why Aristarchus and Copernicus were wrong, because if the sun is stationary at the center, you can't stop the sun in the sky. And the bible got it wrong.
I just find it funny a church that based itself on mercy and forgiveness and all that clung so determinedly to a story where there God changes the rules of nature in support of mass slaughter.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 02:43:51 PM
Religious stuff is at least in part about the moral lessons to be drawn from the mythology. Whether or not religious parables are literally true is sort of beside the point - you don't have to actually believe in the literal existance of talking foxes to think that Aesop's fables contain wisdom.
Indeed - although I do not accept that the religions is necessary to illuminate the wisdom.
Useful sometimes - perhaps. But not necessary. Anymore than it is necessary to have a talking fox explain the wisdom of Awesops fables.
And religion has a lot more baggage than that talking fox...
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:44:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:42:42 PM
And that is why Aristarchus and Copernicus were wrong, because if the sun is stationary at the center, you can't stop the sun in the sky. And the bible got it wrong.
The Bible only "got it wrong" if you think of it only as a literal and accurate recording of events.
Many Christians don't think of it in only in those terms.
Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
Religion continues to accept and adopt science, and many beliefs have been changed over the years.
Well certainly my religion has done that but really it has nothing to do with religion. Religion is not about finding the correct facts and putting forth spiritual theories in response to them...well ok maybe it kinda is or should be. I was just trying to explain why religious faith and confidence in the correctness of a theory are not the same thing.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:33:41 PM
I don't think there is any particular difference between "Heaven does not exist" and "I will presume heaven does not exist until shown otherwise".
In colloquial-speak, perhaps not, but if you don't understand the difference between a statement of fact about "reality" and a statement of fact about one's self, then you probably should not be engaged in this debate, as you don't share the common understanding of "truths."
Why would you presume that I do not understand the difference? I don't think I have said anything that suggests that I do not understand the difference, only that I don't think it is all that applicable to what Marty said.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:45:30 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:44:29 PM
That distinction makes ALLTHE DIFFERENCE. Faith does not have a routine for error correction. Science does. That makes the two things fundamentally different.
Repeating your statement doesn't make it true.
Religion continues to accept and adopt science, and many beliefs have been changed over the years.
Berkut said it too.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
Scientists who posit hypothesis that do not explain anything are not very good scientists. Could you provide some examples of scientists who crated hypothesis to explain non-existent phenomenon, and how much success they had with that?
Which do you want? Hypotheses "that do not explain anything" or for "non-existant phenomena" (which I think are both contradictions in terms) or scientists who create hypotheses about things for which there is no evidence? Scientists do the latter all the time. There are degrees in xenobiology even though no evidence of life off this planet even exists.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:49:53 PM
Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?
You have faith in the spiritual lessons without clinging too much to the stories they came from. I would consider the Garden of Eden story to be about human self awareness and its consequences rather than a literal story from history for example.
General comment:
Like I told fagdiz when he first showed up all papally and shit: if you want to be taken seriously when defending religion limit yourself to possible positive health/psychological/societal effects of engaging in it. If you actually try to make a case for adults believing in the sky fairy beyond this you are difficult to take seriously.
And that's not disrespect. That's respect. Smiling and nodding and accepting your ridiculous fantasies as being worthy of any consideration would be treating you like a retarded kid, not an adult.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:47:52 PM
Scientists cannot prove their claims. They can only disprove them.
That's not quite true.
Some hypothesis are not unable to be proven, such as evolution. Other claims however can be positively proven. We have proof that certain drugs cause certain effects. We have proof that atomic weapons work.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:49:53 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:44:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:42:42 PM
And that is why Aristarchus and Copernicus were wrong, because if the sun is stationary at the center, you can't stop the sun in the sky. And the bible got it wrong.
The Bible only "got it wrong" if you think of it only as a literal and accurate recording of events.
Many Christians don't think of it in only in those terms.
Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?
Easy - you have faith in those things that reinforce or confirm what you wish to be true, and ignore the rest as "allegory".
This was, of course, a lot easier in times past, when 90% of the "facts" were not conclusively shown to be utter bollocks, and poor Gods home has certainly gotten a lot smaller in the last few hundred years. These days the smart religious have taken the BB stance of pre-emptively just ditching the bible as a source for anything factual altogether. It is the smart move, since the trend has been so negative.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:53:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:47:52 PM
Scientists cannot prove their claims. They can only disprove them.
That's not quite true.
Some hypothesis are not unable to be proven, such as evolution. Other claims however can be positively proven. We have proof that certain drugs cause certain effects. We have proof that atomic weapons work.
"Atomic weapons work" is not a theory though. It is an observation that tends to support some theories about the structure of nature. But it does not prove them.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:44:29 PM
That distinction makes ALLTHE DIFFERENCE. Faith does not have a routine for error correction. Science does. That makes the two things fundamentally different.
I agree. But that difference does not make one irrational for having faith.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 02:51:33 PMscientists who create hypotheses about things for which there is no evidence? Scientists do the latter all the time. There are degrees in xenobiology even though no evidence of life off this planet even exists.
Yes, but xenobiology has a fair amount of physics and chemistry built in, which can be tested locally.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 02:52:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:49:53 PM
Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?
You have faith in the spiritual lessons without clinging too much to the stories they came from. I would consider the Garden of Eden story to be about human self awareness and its consequences rather than a literal story from history for example.
The fundamental problem with that is that all of this was assumed to be literally true at some point. The silly stories are stop being literal and become symbolic when they are proven impossible or highly implausible. The fact that until disproven the bible stores are assumed to be literal and when disproven assumed to be symbolic. This is just like adding epicycles to ptolmaeic orbits.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:53:07 PM
We have proof that certain drugs cause certain effects. We have proof that atomic weapons work.
Well we know they work but somebody could find evidence that disproves our current theories as to why they work.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:49:53 PM
Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?
Well that's the challenging part then isn't it. :)
I don't have all the answers.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:47:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:41:21 PM
As I keep saying the only real distinction is that scentists can prove or disprove their claims wheres priests cannot.
Scientists cannot prove their claims. They can only disprove them.
You keep getting this wrong, and it is important, since it is the very fundamental distinction that makes all the difference.
Indeed, to the extent that religious types make claims subject to disproof, they tend to be disproved, god-of-the-gaps style.
However, many religious and moral precepts are not exactly subject to disproof - but this does not of necessity make them invalid.
For example, one cannot "disprove" the Golden Rule - one can either find it a useful summary of the ethics or reciprocity or not.
Again, that most rational-sounding of moral systems - utilitarianism - cannot be disproved; its validity is itself a value judgment.
Religion and morality properly exist in the realm of things that cannot be disproved. The problems start when people, wishing to support their religious or moral systems, attempt to venture into the realm of things that are subject to disproof: for example, insisting that evolution is false because the Biblical account of creation is literally true.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:15:57 PM
I would say that the body of knowledge that we consider to be "correct" in science is in fact whatever happesn to be the "best theory at the moment". Obviously, this is a process however, so what is the "best" theory is often up for debate.
All things "in the canon" in science are presumed to be at least potentially false, and this is the key difference between science and religion, where the opposite is true.
QuoteBut under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.
Incorrect, in the case of xenobiology.
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 02:37:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:36:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 02:34:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Neither is religion. An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
Or disproven. Religious faith can never really be disproven. You could go back in time with a camera and prove decisively that none of the stuff that the Bible claims actually happened and it would not make much of a difference for alot of people.
:huh:
I imagine that would make a huge difference to almost everyone.
:lmfao:
There is actually something very close to this going on with Islam. Most research on Islam in the west is funded by the gulf states so it has been very uncritical. But now we're starting to see independent research into the history of Islam, especially from Germany. Most of it has not been translated yet, but it is interesting to read interviews like this one:
Quote
Interview with Karl-Heinz Ohlig
Muhammad as a Christological Honorific Title
In his book "The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History," the theologian Karl-Heinz Ohlig has come to the conclusion that Islam was not originally conceived as an independent religion. Alfred Hackensberger has talked with the author
Your book bears the title "The Hidden Origins." What is hidden about the origins of Islam?
Karl-Heinz Ohlig: All the information we posses on the origins of Islam is taken from later texts – "biographies" that were written in the 9th and 10th centuries. One of these texts, the Annals of at-Tabari (10th century), is also the source of further histories. As such, we lack any corroborating contemporary texts for the first two centuries.
Can these later documents still be regarded as accurate? From a scholarly point of view, are they not something akin to falsifications?
Ohlig: To categorize these texts, or similarly the books of Moses or the Romulus and Remus tale, as falsifications would be entirely wrong, as one has to take into consideration this specific literary genre. Religious-political foundation myths are not history texts and nor were they meant to be.
You advocate the thesis that Islam was not conceived as an independent religion. What proof do you have for this claim?
Ohlig: According to the evidence of Christian literature under Arab rule from the 7th and 8th centuries, as well as from Arab coinage and inscriptions from this period, such as that on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the new rulers adhered to a Syrian-Persian form of Christianity that rejected the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. Instead, it regarded Jesus as the messenger, the prophet, the servant of God, but not the physical son of God, who is a strictly unitary being not "adjoined" to any person. The fathers of the Church, for instance, regarded John of Damascus (d. around 750) as a heretic, because his Greek understanding of Christianity did not correspond to their views. There is no mention of a new, independent religion of the Arabs before the 9th century.
Does this mean that Islam was only made into an independent religion at a later date?
Ohlig: This formulation sounds somewhat arbitrary or like a conscious decision. It is much more the case that religions often arise in that a new assessment is made of the inherited religious conceptions of a tradition. These are then interpreted differently, solidified, and systematized in a specific manner.
You have also engaged in historical-critical research with respect to the Prophet Mohammed. What can be said about his person?
Ohlig: It has been established that the earliest coinage with the motto MHMT appeared in eastern Mesopotamia around 660, made their way westward, and there bilingual coins were stamped with MHMT in the center and muhammad in Arabic script at the edge. These coins bear a Christian iconography, i.e. always with crosses, so that the name muhammad is clearly to be understood as a predicate of Jesus, as in the Sanctus of the mass ("praise be to he that comes...").
Here, muhammad means "revered" and "praiseworthy" or "He who is revered" and "He who is praised." This also corresponds to the inscribed text on the Dome of the Rock, where the title muhammad refers to the Messiah, Jesus, the Son of Mary, and the servant of God. It also fits in with the polemics of John of Damascus against statements he considered heretical.
Later, it seems as if this Christological predicate lost its reference, so that it appears in the Koran as a frequently mentioned, nameless prophet, which could then be historicized into the form of an Arab prophet. The earliest source of this historicization is to be found in writings of John of Damascus, who speaks of the pseudo-prophet Mamed. Only later could the wealth of stories of this Mohammed fill out the historical deficit.
So what you are saying is that the term muhammad could possibly be referring to Christ?
Ohlig: It is entirely possible – even when previously historically improvable – that an important preacher was present at the beginning or at another point in the history of the Koran movement. However, according to the evidence of Arab coins and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock, it must be assumed that the term muhammad, the revered or the praiseworthy, was originally a Christological honorific title.
Why is it that these links haven't previously been made?
Ohlig: Such inquiries are forbidden in Muslim theology, which hasn't yet passed through its Enlightenment. Western Islamic studies remains preoccupied with philology without employing the established methods of historical scholarship. Similarly, there is little religious-historical or Christian theological investigation into the extremely varied cultural traditions of the Middle East. As such, the roots and motives of these traditions are not recognized.
In your book "Early Islam," you write that you do not wish to harm this religion. Many Muslims will see the exact opposite in your work.
Ohlig: Since the 18th century, many Christians, even to this day, regard the Enlightenment as an attack and an attempt to destroy their religion. In reality, however, it has allowed Christianity to survive in the modern world and also be applicable to the lives of modern man. This is a phase that Islam still has to go through, but it is unavoidable if it doesn't want to exist in the future only in ghetto-like, closed communities.
Alfred Hackensberger
© Qantara.de 2008
Karl-Heinz Ohlig is professor of Religious Studies and the History of Christianity at the University of the Saarland, Germany.
http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-756/i.html
There are other researchers into the early history of Islam. The Richard Dawkins Foundation on Research and Science and Sam Harris' The Reason Project last year funded a conference into the early history of Islam: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/19589/sec_id/19589
This is interesting because the Koran is the foundation of Islamic faith. Much more than the Bible is the foundation of Christian faith. In Christian faith the foundation is the life of Jesus. What you find in the NT is just a gathering of testimonies on the life of Jesus. Not so with the Koran, which, according to muslims, is supposed to be the final word of God, recited to Mohammed through the arch-angel Gabriel.
If the early history of Islam can be falsified, then that does indeed remove all foundations for Islamic faith. But somehow I doubt that the Islamic world will look and the evidence and go "oh, okay, I'll suppose we'll stop belive it now".
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 02:51:33 PM
There are degrees in xenobiology even though no evidence of life off this planet even exists.
But there is evidence that life exists, and hence it is certainly an interesting scientific endeavor to try to understand how it might exist elsewhere, and to even create theories to explain why life exists here, and what that might mean for its existence elsewhere.
I would not agree that there is no evidence that life exists elsewhere - the fact that it exists here is evidence that it might exist elsewhere.
So they make hypothesis like "maybe life exists on Mars!' and then they test them. Lately by sending probes to Mars, and prior to that by studying meteorites that came from Mars. So there is plenty of evidence to be studied, even if a conclusion is still beyond us.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 02:52:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:49:53 PM
Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?
You have faith in the spiritual lessons without clinging too much to the stories they came from. I would consider the Garden of Eden story to be about human self awareness and its consequences rather than a literal story from history for example.
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:56:04 PM
The fundamental problem with that is that all of this was assumed to be literally true at some point. The silly stories are stop being literal and become symbolic when they are proven impossible or highly implausible. The fact that until disproven the bible stores are assumed to be literal and when disproven assumed to be symbolic. This is just like adding epicycles to ptolmaeic orbits.
Perhaps they were originally intended to be symbolic. The original Christians didn't seem too concerned all their gospels were very very different. They seem more concerned with the symbology of what they are discussing. Then later we began to pull our hair out over whether Jesus was really born in Bethlehem or Nazareth or whether a person named Joseph ever actually lived or whether they actually went to Egypt and so forth.
I also doubt the Jews in Babylon really knew or cared whether or not Joshua really did destroy Jericho or not.
But in any case the Bible is only useful to me taken symbolicly and only marginally useful taken as a source of historical events.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:53:07 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:47:52 PM
Scientists cannot prove their claims. They can only disprove them.
That's not quite true.
Some hypothesis are not unable to be proven, such as evolution. Other claims however can be positively proven. We have proof that certain drugs cause certain effects. We have proof that atomic weapons work.
No.
We do not know that drugs cause certain effects, we know that we have no other good reason to explain what happens after the drugs are taken.
We do not know that nuclear bombs explode, we just know of nothing which can cause the explosion that happens when we drop the bomb.
We do not know that evolution happens, we just don't have any other theory which explains all the observations of biology.
You are still getting science the wrong way round.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 02:57:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:15:57 PM
I would say that the body of knowledge that we consider to be "correct" in science is in fact whatever happesn to be the "best theory at the moment". Obviously, this is a process however, so what is the "best" theory is often up for debate.
All things "in the canon" in science are presumed to be at least potentially false, and this is the key difference between science and religion, where the opposite is true.
QuoteBut under no cases is the "best" theory one that is based on some scientist just making something up for which there was no evidence.
Incorrect, in the case of xenobiology.
I don't think so - first of all, I would dispute that there is currently an accepted "best" theory on xenobiology - although there are certainly lots of hypothesis out there.
Those hypothesis however, are not based on someone just making something up - they are based on data and evidence collected from a variety of sources.
There is no direct evidence of life existing on other planets*, but there is certainly plenty of evidence that it could - the fact that it exists on THIS planet is rather suggestive, for example. We study life at it exist in extermely hostile earth environments, as another example. Scientists run experiments trying to re-crate a variety of environments under which life could arise. That is all evidence.
*apparently there are some scientists who believe that the Mars tests were not nearly as conclusive about the lack of evidence for life there as was reported. I have no real idea how credible that is though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:55:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:44:29 PM
That distinction makes ALLTHE DIFFERENCE. Faith does not have a routine for error correction. Science does. That makes the two things fundamentally different.
I agree. But that difference does not make one irrational for having faith.
For God of the Gaps sake. Redefining the question is not a counter argument!
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:57:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:49:53 PM
Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?
Well that's the challenging part then isn't it. :)
I don't have all the answers.
OK, so much for you claiming that Religion has science and reason then?
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Ultimately, the truth or falsity of the claims of any moral or philosophical system comes down to intuition, not scientific disproof.
Indeed the very terms "true" and "false" are not really appropriate in this context. If I am not a utilitarian, is utilitarianism "false"?
Similarly, I am not a Buddhist. Can I "disprove" that life is, ultimately, full of suffering caused by desire?
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 03:02:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:56:04 PM
The fundamental problem with that is that all of this was assumed to be literally true at some point. The silly stories are stop being literal and become symbolic when they are proven impossible or highly implausible. The fact that until disproven the bible stores are assumed to be literal and when disproven assumed to be symbolic. This is just like adding epicycles to ptolmaeic orbits.
Perhaps they were originally intended to be symbolic. The original Christians didn't seem too concerned all their gospels were very very different. They seem more concerned with the symbology of what they are discussing. Then later we began to pull our hair out over whether Jesus was really born in Bethlehem or Nazareth or whether a person named Joseph ever actually lived or whether they actually went to Egypt and so forth.
I also doubt the Jews in Babylon really knew or cared whether or not Joshua really did destroy Jericho or not.
But in any case the Bible is only useful to me taken symbolicly and only marginally useful taken as a source of historical events.
That's what happens when you use Reason in Religion. It all gets very confusing and stupid.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:41:21 PM
I just find it odd that Berk et all get start ranting about how irrational it is to believe in something that is not proven when that happens in the scientific field as well.
I think the advantage that science has in this regard is predictability. Some scientific theories are ferociously strong, like gravity, evolution, the atomic theory and so on. You can use them to calculate the result of an action, and then verify it experimentally. Religious belief doesn't have that feature.
Quote
Interview with Karl-Heinz Ohlig
Muhammad as a Christological Honorific Title
This guy is gonna get himself killed
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:02:15 PM
We do not know that drugs cause certain effects, we know that we have no other good reason to explain what happens after the drugs are taken.
No, generally we have excellent explanations of the exact metabolic pathway that certain drugs effect.
QuoteWe do not know that nuclear bombs explode, we just know of nothing which can cause the explosion that happens when we drop the bomb.
No, we know exactly what happens in a nuclear bomb.
QuoteWe do not know that evolution happens, we just don't have any theory which explains all the observations of biology.
Evolution, due to the very long-time scale, is not able to be "proven" like some other areas of science, and thus is stuck with the label of "theory". But just because some areas are not able to be conclusively tested doesn't mean that all of science is that way.
I have a science degree. Mine is in geology. Certain areas of geology are proven, because they can be replicated in a lab. Other areas are not, given the enormous time scales involved.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Ultimately, the truth or falsity of the claims of any moral or philosophical system comes down to intuition, not scientific disproof.
Indeed the very terms "true" and "false" are not really appropriate in this context. If I am not a utilitarian, is utilitarianism "false"?
Similarly, I am not a Buddhist. Can I "disprove" that life is, ultimately, full of suffering caused by desire?
I have no problems with anything you wrote here above. So you agree that the truth or falsity of moral or philosophical claims is unrelated to the claims of religion about their truthiness?
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Ultimately, the truth or falsity of the claims of any moral or philosophical system comes down to intuition, not scientific disproof.
Indeed the very terms "true" and "false" are not really appropriate in this context. If I am not a utilitarian, is utilitarianism "false"?
Similarly, I am not a Buddhist. Can I "disprove" that life is, ultimately, full of suffering caused by desire?
I, nor anyone else on my side of the argument here I believe, have any quarrel with viewing religion as no more than moral philosophy. But I doubt the religious people would be content with that.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:04:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:57:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:49:53 PM
Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?
Well that's the challenging part then isn't it. :)
I don't have all the answers.
OK, so much for you claiming that Religion has science and reason then?
How so?
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:58:22 PM
But there is evidence that life exists, and hence it is certainly an interesting scientific endeavor to try to understand how it might exist elsewhere, and to even create theories to explain why life exists here, and what that might mean for its existence elsewhere.
And this is why there is theoretical science at all, even when there is no evidence; because it is possible to conduct science in the lack of evidence; it just cannot progress very far.
QuoteI would not agree that there is no evidence that life exists elsewhere - the fact that it exists here is evidence that it might exist elsewhere.
You may believe this, but yours is an unscientific assertion; more like religion than science. Life's existence anywhere isn't dependent on its existence "here" nor is life present "here" saying anything about its existence elsewhere.
In fact, probably the most fundamental question in science is "do the scientific conclusions we draw apply universally? Or does physics itself change over the universe?"
QuoteSo they make hypothesis like "maybe life exists on Mars!' and then they test them. Lately by sending probes to Mars, and prior to that by studying meteorites that came from Mars. So there is plenty of evidence to be studied, even if a conclusion is still beyond us.
There is no evidence of life off this planet, though there is evidence for lack of lack. Xenobiology isn't about testing for life on moon rocks, or whatever, though. It is a purely theoretical science right now.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:09:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Ultimately, the truth or falsity of the claims of any moral or philosophical system comes down to intuition, not scientific disproof.
Indeed the very terms "true" and "false" are not really appropriate in this context. If I am not a utilitarian, is utilitarianism "false"?
Similarly, I am not a Buddhist. Can I "disprove" that life is, ultimately, full of suffering caused by desire?
I have no problems with anything you wrote here above. So you agree that the truth or falsity of moral or philosophical claims is unrelated to the claims of religion about their truthiness?
I don't know what you mean by "truthiness".
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:08:45 PM
No, generally we have excellent explanations of the exact metabolic pathway that certain drugs effect.
No, we know exactly what happens in a nuclear bomb.
Evolution, due to the very long-time scale, is not able to be "proven" like some other areas of science, and thus is stuck with the label of "theory". But just because some areas are not able to be conclusively tested doesn't mean that all of science is that way.
I have a science degree. Mine is in geology. Certain areas of geology are proven, because they can be replicated in a lab. Other areas are not, given the enormous time scales involved.
All of these are Theory. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory and then come back.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:05:53 PM
That's what happens when you use Reason in Religion. It all gets very confusing and stupid.
I don't find it confusing or stupid at all. It is actually very coherent if you understand the objectives of the authors.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:05:53 PM
That's what happens when you use Reason in Religion. It all gets very confusing and stupid.
Confusing, absolutely. Why wouldn't it be though - it's all about asking some of the most absolute and fundamental questions. Nobody ever thought that trying to figure out the meaning of life would be easy.
But stupid? Far from it...
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:08:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:02:15 PM
We do not know that drugs cause certain effects, we know that we have no other good reason to explain what happens after the drugs are taken.
No, generally we have excellent explanations of the exact metabolic pathway that certain drugs effect.
QuoteWe do not know that nuclear bombs explode, we just know of nothing which can cause the explosion that happens when we drop the bomb.
No, we know exactly what happens in a nuclear bomb.
QuoteWe do not know that evolution happens, we just don't have any theory which explains all the observations of biology.
Evolution, due to the very long-time scale, is not able to be "proven" like some other areas of science, and thus is stuck with the label of "theory". But just because some areas are not able to be conclusively tested doesn't mean that all of science is that way.
I have a science degree. Mine is in geology. Certain areas of geology are proven, because they can be replicated in a lab. Other areas are not, given the enormous time scales involved.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:11:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:08:45 PM
No, generally we have excellent explanations of the exact metabolic pathway that certain drugs effect.
No, we know exactly what happens in a nuclear bomb.
Evolution, due to the very long-time scale, is not able to be "proven" like some other areas of science, and thus is stuck with the label of "theory". But just because some areas are not able to be conclusively tested doesn't mean that all of science is that way.
I have a science degree. Mine is in geology. Certain areas of geology are proven, because they can be replicated in a lab. Other areas are not, given the enormous time scales involved.
All of these are Theory. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory and then come back.
Done. Now you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 03:09:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Ultimately, the truth or falsity of the claims of any moral or philosophical system comes down to intuition, not scientific disproof.
Indeed the very terms "true" and "false" are not really appropriate in this context. If I am not a utilitarian, is utilitarianism "false"?
Similarly, I am not a Buddhist. Can I "disprove" that life is, ultimately, full of suffering caused by desire?
I, nor anyone else on my side of the argument here I believe, have any quarrel with viewing religion as no more than moral philosophy. But I doubt the religious people would be content with that.
I am not on a "side". What I disagree with is the notion that religion is all nonsense because it makes claims not subject to disproof, which at least some people appear to be saying.
To my mind at least, religion tends to veer into nonsense when it makes claims that *are* subject to disproof.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:08:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:02:15 PM
We do not know that drugs cause certain effects, we know that we have no other good reason to explain what happens after the drugs are taken.
No, generally we have excellent explanations of the exact metabolic pathway that certain drugs effect.
And those are theories. Testable theories, and they change all the time, because it turns out that some detail was not quite right. And sometimes, as a result of these changes, we even make new drugs!
But still just theories, and still almost always turn out to be wrong, or at least incomplete. Never proven.
Quote
QuoteWe do not know that nuclear bombs explode, we just know of nothing which can cause the explosion that happens when we drop the bomb.
No, we know exactly what happens in a nuclear bomb.
Incorrect. We ahve a theory about how the world works, and tehn we make a bomb that ought to work if our theory is right, and ought not to work if it is wrong. Turns out it does work, so our theory surivices.
But hey - something happened we did not quite expect! Our yield was less (or more) than we thought! Why, it turns out our theory was not correct after all, and we have to modify it to explain this difference!
holy crap, we just falsified our theory, and replaced it with a new one!
This is ongoing, right now. The only thing we have ever "proven" by detonating an atomic bomb is that the old theory was not quite right in some way. Falsifiability.
Quote
QuoteWe do not know that evolution happens, we just don't have any theory which explains all the observations of biology.
Evolution, due to the very long-time scale, is not able to be "proven" like some other areas of science, and thus is stuck with the label of "theory".
You cannot name me one single "theory" in science that has been "proven" to be complete and not subject to further revision. You are wrong Beeb - there anre no theories that are "proven". None.
Quote
But just because some areas are not able to be conclusively tested doesn't mean that all of science is that way.
I have a science degree. Mine is in geology. Certain areas of geology are proven, because they can be replicated in a lab. Other areas are not, given the enormous time scales involved.
No, certain theories have not been disproven, but that is not at all the same thing.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:05:53 PM
That's what happens when you use Reason in Religion. It all gets very confusing and stupid.
I don't find it confusing or stupid at all. It is actually very coherent if you understand the objectives of the authors.
:yes:
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Well IMO religion has nothing useful to say about anything outside of human existance and our relationship to the outside world and each other.
It won't tell you about the movement of the stars nor why birds migrate south for the winter.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:09:52 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:04:39 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:57:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:49:53 PM
Anything in the bible can be a non litteral and non accurate recording of events? How do you know what to believe then? Anything can be wrong or untrue. How do you know what to have faith in?
Well that's the challenging part then isn't it. :)
I don't have all the answers.
OK, so much for you claiming that Religion has science and reason then?
How so?
I thought you said Religion has reason? Defend that proposition. Use reason to deal with my contention that you can't trust anything in the bible because it might just be symbolic.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on October 26, 2009, 03:08:30 PM
Quote
Interview with Karl-Heinz Ohlig
Muhammad as a Christological Honorific Title
This guy is gonna get himself killed
He is a very brave man indeed.
He's not alone though. Professor of Islamic Theology, Mohammed Kalisch, a German convert into Islam, did indeed cause a fire-storm by declaring that the Prophet Mohammed likely never existed.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122669909279629451.html
QuoteProfessor Hired for Outreach to Muslims Delivers a Jolt
Islamic Theologian's Theory: It's Likely the Prophet Muhammad Never Existed
* Article
* Comments (14)
more in World »
* Email
* Printer
Friendly
* Share:
facebook ↓ More
o StumbleUpon
o Digg
o Twitter
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Fark
o Reddit
o LinkedIn
o del.icio.us
o MySpace
*
Save This ↓ More
* smaller Text larger
By ANDREW HIGGINS
MÜNSTER, Germany -- Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany's first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn't like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.
So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.
Theology Without Muhammad
Read a translated excerpt from "Islamic Theology Without the Historic Muhammad -- Comments on the Challenges of the Historical-Critical Method for Islamic Thinking" by Professor Kalisch.
Muslims, not surprisingly, are outraged. Even Danish cartoonists who triggered global protests a couple of years ago didn't portray the Prophet as fictional. German police, worried about a violent backlash, told the professor to move his religious-studies center to more-secure premises.
"We had no idea he would have ideas like this," says Thomas Bauer, a fellow academic at Münster University who sat on a committee that appointed Prof. Kalisch. "I'm a more orthodox Muslim than he is, and I'm not a Muslim."
When Prof. Kalisch took up his theology chair four years ago, he was seen as proof that modern Western scholarship and Islamic ways can mingle -- and counter the influence of radical preachers in Germany. He was put in charge of a new program at Münster, one of Germany's oldest and most respected universities, to train teachers in state schools to teach Muslim pupils about their faith.
Muslim leaders cheered and joined an advisory board at his Center for Religious Studies. Politicians hailed the appointment as a sign of Germany's readiness to absorb some three million Muslims into mainstream society. But, says Andreas Pinkwart, a minister responsible for higher education in this north German region, "the results are disappointing."
Prof. Kalisch, who insists he's still a Muslim, says he knew he would get in trouble but wanted to subject Islam to the same scrutiny as Christianity and Judaism. German scholars of the 19th century, he notes, were among the first to raise questions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Many scholars of Islam question the accuracy of ancient sources on Muhammad's life. The earliest biography, of which no copies survive, dated from roughly a century after the generally accepted year of his death, 632, and is known only by references to it in much later texts. But only a few scholars have doubted Muhammad's existence. Most say his life is better documented than that of Jesus.
[Sven Muhammad Kalish]
Muhammad Sven Kalish
"Of course Muhammad existed," says Tilman Nagel, a scholar in Göttingen and author of a new book, "Muhammad: Life and Legend." The Prophet differed from the flawless figure of Islamic tradition, Prof. Nagel says, but "it is quite astonishing to say that thousands and thousands of pages about him were all forged" and there was no such person.
All the same, Prof. Nagel has signed a petition in support of Prof. Kalisch, who has faced blistering criticism from Muslim groups and some secular German academics. "We are in Europe," Prof. Nagel says. "Education is about thinking, not just learning by heart."
Prof. Kalisch's religious studies center recently removed a sign and erased its address from its Web site. The professor, a burly 42-year-old, says he has received no specific threats but has been denounced as apostate, a capital offense in some readings of Islam.
"Maybe people are speculating that some idiot will come and cut off my head," he said during an interview in his study.
A few minutes later, an assistant arrived in a panic to say a suspicious-looking digital clock had been found lying in the hallway. Police, called to the scene, declared the clock harmless.
A convert to Islam at age 15, Prof. Kalisch says he was drawn to the faith because it seemed more rational than others. He embraced a branch of Shiite Islam noted for its skeptical bent. After working briefly as a lawyer, he began work in 2001 on a postdoctoral thesis in Islamic law in Hamburg, to go through the elaborate process required to become a professor in Germany.
The Sept. 11 attacks in the U.S. that year appalled Mr. Kalisch but didn't dent his devotion. Indeed, after he arrived at Münster University in 2004, he struck some as too conservative. Sami Alrabaa, a scholar at a nearby college, recalls attending a lecture by Prof. Kalisch and being upset by his doctrinaire defense of Islamic law, known as Sharia.
In private, he was moving in a different direction. He devoured works questioning the existence of Abraham, Moses and Jesus. Then "I said to myself: You've dealt with Christianity and Judaism but what about your own religion? Can you take it for granted that Muhammad existed?"
He had no doubts at first, but slowly they emerged. He was struck, he says, by the fact that the first coins bearing Muhammad's name did not appear until the late 7th century -- six decades after the religion did.
He traded ideas with some scholars in Saarbrücken who in recent years have been pushing the idea of Muhammad's nonexistence. They claim that "Muhammad" wasn't the name of a person but a title, and that Islam began as a Christian heresy.
Prof. Kalisch didn't buy all of this. Contributing last year to a book on Islam, he weighed the odds and called Muhammad's existence "more probable than not." By early this year, though, his thinking had shifted. "The more I read, the historical person at the root of the whole thing became more and more improbable," he says.
He has doubts, too, about the Quran. "God doesn't write books," Prof. Kalisch says.
Some of his students voiced alarm at the direction of his teaching. "I began to wonder if he would one day say he doesn't exist himself," says one. A few boycotted his lectures. Others sang his praises.
Prof. Kalisch says he "never told students 'just believe what Kalisch thinks' " but seeks to teach them to think independently. Religions, he says, are "crutches" that help believers get to "the spiritual truth behind them." To him, what matters isn't whether Muhammad actually lived but the philosophy presented in his name.
This summer, the dispute hit the headlines. A Turkish-language German newspaper reported on it with gusto. Media in the Muslim world picked up on it.
Germany's Muslim Coordinating Council withdrew from the advisory board of Prof. Kalisch's center. Some Council members refused to address him by his adopted Muslim name, Muhammad, saying that he should now be known as Sven.
German academics split. Michael Marx, a Quran scholar at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, warned that Prof. Kalisch's views would discredit German scholarship and make it difficult for German scholars to work in Muslim lands. But Ursula Spuler-Stegemann, an Islamic studies scholar at the University of Marburg, set up a Web site called solidaritymuhammadkalisch.com and started an online petition of support.
Alarmed that a pioneering effort at Muslim outreach was only stoking antagonism, Münster University decided to douse the flames. Prof. Kalisch was told he could keep his professorship but must stop teaching Islam to future school teachers.
The professor says he's more determined than ever to keep probing his faith. He is finishing a book to explain his thoughts. It's in English instead of German because he wants to make a bigger impact. "I'm convinced that what I'm doing is necessary. There must be a free discussion of Islam," he says.
—Almut Schoenfeld in Berlin contributed to this article.
Write to Andrew Higgins at [email protected]
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A1
Interestingly, he got support in his interpretation from the Alawites.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:11:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:09:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Ultimately, the truth or falsity of the claims of any moral or philosophical system comes down to intuition, not scientific disproof.
Indeed the very terms "true" and "false" are not really appropriate in this context. If I am not a utilitarian, is utilitarianism "false"?
Similarly, I am not a Buddhist. Can I "disprove" that life is, ultimately, full of suffering caused by desire?
I have no problems with anything you wrote here above. So you agree that the truth or falsity of moral or philosophical claims is unrelated to the claims of religion about their truthiness?
I don't know what you mean by "truthiness".
Truth
I was trying to be funny.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 03:16:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Well IMO religion has nothing useful to say about anything outside of human existance and our relationship to the outside world and each other.
It won't tell you about the movement of the stars nor why birds migrate south for the winter.
Yup.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 03:03:17 PM
I don't think so - first of all, I would dispute that there is currently an accepted "best" theory on xenobiology - although there are certainly lots of hypothesis out there.
You cannot move the goal posts. The "best theory" is the term here, and the best theory in Xenobiology is certainly based on no evidence whatever. It may not be "accepted," but that is a different standard. The "best theory"
always starts out not "accepted."
QuoteThere is no direct evidence of life existing on other planets*, but there is certainly plenty of evidence that it could - the fact that it exists on THIS planet is rather suggestive, for example.
This isn't evidence of anything but life on earth, though.
QuoteWe study life at it exist in extermely hostile earth environments, as another example. Scientists run experiments trying to re-crate a variety of environments under which life could arise. That is all evidence.
But not evidence of life off of earth (zenobiology*apparently there are some scientists who believe that the Mars tests were not nearly as conclusive about the lack of evidence for life there as was reported. I have no real idea how credible that is though. [/quote]
The point is that science doesn't need evidence to be science, it needs a mindset. The science cannot proceed very far without evidence (no one will be winning a Nobel prize for their work in xenobiology any time soon), but a dogmatic insistence that science is all about evidence is unwarranted.
Quotea Quran scholar at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences
lol
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:05:53 PM
That's what happens when you use Reason in Religion. It all gets very confusing and stupid.
I don't find it confusing or stupid at all. It is actually very coherent if you understand the objectives of the authors.
Well, I'm still dealing with BB's claim that religion has reason. So, if you test the claims of religions by the terms of theology then you find yourself facing contradictions constantly. I don't think religion stands the test of reason.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:12:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:05:53 PM
That's what happens when you use Reason in Religion. It all gets very confusing and stupid.
Confusing, absolutely. Why wouldn't it be though - it's all about asking some of the most absolute and fundamental questions. Nobody ever thought that trying to figure out the meaning of life would be easy.
But stupid? Far from it...
Why then should I use a book which you seem to agree is completely unreliable in terms of fact to help me with dealing with that question?
BTW, it is amusing to see the same people who insist that the Bible is hogwash turning around and citing Wikipedia as authoritative! :lol:
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:16:41 PM
I thought you said Religion has reason? Defend that proposition. Use reason to deal with my contention that you can't trust anything in the bible because it might just be symbolic.
I find your contention stupid because I challenge it's assumption that you can't trust something that is symbolic. You can (and perhaps should) trust things that are symbolic.
Whether or not Noah actually built an ark has little to do with the message of redemption of that story.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:17:44 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:11:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:09:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:05:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Ultimately, the truth or falsity of the claims of any moral or philosophical system comes down to intuition, not scientific disproof.
Indeed the very terms "true" and "false" are not really appropriate in this context. If I am not a utilitarian, is utilitarianism "false"?
Similarly, I am not a Buddhist. Can I "disprove" that life is, ultimately, full of suffering caused by desire?
I have no problems with anything you wrote here above. So you agree that the truth or falsity of moral or philosophical claims is unrelated to the claims of religion about their truthiness?
I don't know what you mean by "truthiness".
Truth
I was trying to be funny.
In my opinion there are different concepts embraced by the term "truth".
I believe for example that the Golden Rule is a "true" concept. It is not however "true" in the same way as a robust scientific theory not yet disproven.
Similarly I am of the opinion that many religions have elements to them that are "true", strictly in the former sense. I do not believe that any one of them is "true' in the latter sense.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 03:10:55 PM
There is no evidence of life off this planet, though there is evidence for lack of lack. Xenobiology isn't about testing for life on moon rocks, or whatever, though. It is a purely theoretical science right now.
This is definitely not true for the Penn State astrobiology degree:
QuoteAstrobiology is a field devoted to the exploration of life outside of Earth and to the investigation of the origin and early evolution of life on Earth.
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/graduates/degrees.php
Whose theoretical xenobiology degree are you thinking of?
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:14:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:11:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:08:45 PM
No, generally we have excellent explanations of the exact metabolic pathway that certain drugs effect.
No, we know exactly what happens in a nuclear bomb.
Evolution, due to the very long-time scale, is not able to be "proven" like some other areas of science, and thus is stuck with the label of "theory". But just because some areas are not able to be conclusively tested doesn't mean that all of science is that way.
I have a science degree. Mine is in geology. Certain areas of geology are proven, because they can be replicated in a lab. Other areas are not, given the enormous time scales involved.
All of these are Theory. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory and then come back.
Done. Now you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Show me the law of evolution, the law of nuclear fission and the law of phisiology or any scientific law within geology then I'll stop laughing.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:20:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:12:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:05:53 PM
That's what happens when you use Reason in Religion. It all gets very confusing and stupid.
Confusing, absolutely. Why wouldn't it be though - it's all about asking some of the most absolute and fundamental questions. Nobody ever thought that trying to figure out the meaning of life would be easy.
But stupid? Far from it...
Why then should I use a book which you seem to agree is completely unreliable in terms of fact to help me with dealing with that question?
You can use it or not, the choice is up to you.
But it is foolish to reject it because it's not "true" when it appears clear that it was never written in the first place as a piece of literal history. It's like picking up a novel and being frustrated that it isn't a textbook.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 03:16:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Well IMO religion has nothing useful to say about anything outside of human existance and our relationship to the outside world and each other.
It won't tell you about the movement of the stars nor why birds migrate south for the winter.
Well, the bible does say something about the movement of the stars. It claims the stars are fixed in the firmament. That is just plain wrong.
As for human existence and the relationship to the outside world. If you are going to use Religion to help you understand this then I expect you deal with the truth of the religion first. Until you do that then you don't pass the laugh test.
Don't have anal sex! Why? God sez so! WTF?
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 03:10:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 02:58:22 PM
But there is evidence that life exists, and hence it is certainly an interesting scientific endeavor to try to understand how it might exist elsewhere, and to even create theories to explain why life exists here, and what that might mean for its existence elsewhere.
And this is why there is theoretical science at all, even when there is no evidence; because it is possible to conduct science in the lack of evidence; it just cannot progress very far.
I don't think there is this lack of evidence you claim. There is all kinds of evidence, but there isn't much that is very telling, except in a larlgely negative way.
Quote
QuoteI would not agree that there is no evidence that life exists elsewhere - the fact that it exists here is evidence that it might exist elsewhere.
You may believe this, but yours is an unscientific assertion; more like religion than science.
Not in the least. Observing that life exists in some particular environment is in fact evidence that life might exist in some other environment that is similar, and is certainy testable of falsifiable. And in fact such tests have been done, with mixed results.
Quote
Life's existence anywhere isn't dependent on its existence "here" nor is life present "here" saying anything about its existence elsewhere.
I don't think I said there was any dependence, I simply noted that its existence here suggests that it might exist elsewhere in similar conditions, if such conditions in fact exist.
So yes, its existence here certainly DOES say something about the possibility of it existing elsewhere. The fact that life exists in the depths of the polar ocean suggests that it might exist in a possible Europan ocean, for example.
Quote
In fact, probably the most fundamental question in science is "do the scientific conclusions we draw apply universally? Or does physics itself change over the universe?"
QuoteSo they make hypothesis like "maybe life exists on Mars!' and then they test them. Lately by sending probes to Mars, and prior to that by studying meteorites that came from Mars. So there is plenty of evidence to be studied, even if a conclusion is still beyond us.
There is no evidence of life off this planet, though there is evidence for lack of lack.
There are Mars asteroids that some claim contain fossilized microbes that indicate there may have been life on Mars at some point. So there is in fact such evidence, although it may not be particualrly well accepted.
Quote
Xenobiology isn't about testing for life on moon rocks, or whatever, though. It is a purely theoretical science right now.
How does xenobiology differ from astrobiology, if it does at all?
I don't agree that theoretical science is unconcerned with evidence. I think it is very much concerned with evidence, and still make hypothesis and tests them.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 03:20:58 PM
BTW, it is amusing to see the same people who insist that the Bible is hogwash turning around and citing Wikipedia as authoritative! :lol:
I suppose you're referring to me :huh: There's footnotes on all the claims in the Wikipedia-article I linked. You said lactose tolerance/intolerance is "seldom genetic". I referred you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactose_tolerance#History_of_genetic_prevalence
If what it says is wrong, show it wrong. Go ahead.
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 03:20:58 PM
BTW, it is amusing to see the same people who insist that the Bible is hogwash turning around and citing Wikipedia as authoritative! :lol:
Wiki has a rather huge advantage over the bible. At least it can be updated.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 03:27:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 03:20:58 PM
BTW, it is amusing to see the same people who insist that the Bible is hogwash turning around and citing Wikipedia as authoritative! :lol:
Wiki has a rather huge advantage over the bible. At least it can be updated.
:lol:
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 03:18:28 PM
The point is that science doesn't need evidence to be science, it needs a mindset. The science cannot proceed very far without evidence (no one will be winning a Nobel prize for their work in xenobiology any time soon), but a dogmatic insistence that science is all about evidence is unwarranted.
I will keep that in mind if I run into someone who makes such a claim.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:16:41 PM
I thought you said Religion has reason? Defend that proposition. Use reason to deal with my contention that you can't trust anything in the bible because it might just be symbolic.
I find your contention stupid because I challenge it's assumption that you can't trust something that is symbolic. You can (and perhaps should) trust things that are symbolic.
Whether or not Noah actually built an ark has little to do with the message of redemption of that story.
The way I understand the Noah Story is that God promises never to murder almost all the humans again. I think the truth of the flood story is pretty much fundamental the morale of the story. If god didn't murder almost all humans then the promis not to do so again makes no sense.
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 02:58:12 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 02:37:23 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 02:36:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 02:34:34 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:32:03 PM
Neither is religion. An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.
Or disproven. Religious faith can never really be disproven. You could go back in time with a camera and prove decisively that none of the stuff that the Bible claims actually happened and it would not make much of a difference for alot of people.
:huh:
I imagine that would make a huge difference to almost everyone.
:lmfao:
There is actually something very close to this going on with Islam. Most research on Islam in the west is funded by the gulf states so it has been very uncritical. But now we're starting to see independent research into the history of Islam, especially from Germany. Most of it has not been translated yet, but it is interesting to read interviews like this one:
Quote
Interview with Karl-Heinz Ohlig
Muhammad as a Christological Honorific Title
In his book "The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research into Its Early History," the theologian Karl-Heinz Ohlig has come to the conclusion that Islam was not originally conceived as an independent religion. Alfred Hackensberger has talked with the author
Your book bears the title "The Hidden Origins." What is hidden about the origins of Islam?
Karl-Heinz Ohlig: All the information we posses on the origins of Islam is taken from later texts – "biographies" that were written in the 9th and 10th centuries. One of these texts, the Annals of at-Tabari (10th century), is also the source of further histories. As such, we lack any corroborating contemporary texts for the first two centuries.
Can these later documents still be regarded as accurate? From a scholarly point of view, are they not something akin to falsifications?
Ohlig: To categorize these texts, or similarly the books of Moses or the Romulus and Remus tale, as falsifications would be entirely wrong, as one has to take into consideration this specific literary genre. Religious-political foundation myths are not history texts and nor were they meant to be.
You advocate the thesis that Islam was not conceived as an independent religion. What proof do you have for this claim?
Ohlig: According to the evidence of Christian literature under Arab rule from the 7th and 8th centuries, as well as from Arab coinage and inscriptions from this period, such as that on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the new rulers adhered to a Syrian-Persian form of Christianity that rejected the decisions of the Council of Nicaea. Instead, it regarded Jesus as the messenger, the prophet, the servant of God, but not the physical son of God, who is a strictly unitary being not "adjoined" to any person. The fathers of the Church, for instance, regarded John of Damascus (d. around 750) as a heretic, because his Greek understanding of Christianity did not correspond to their views. There is no mention of a new, independent religion of the Arabs before the 9th century.
Does this mean that Islam was only made into an independent religion at a later date?
Ohlig: This formulation sounds somewhat arbitrary or like a conscious decision. It is much more the case that religions often arise in that a new assessment is made of the inherited religious conceptions of a tradition. These are then interpreted differently, solidified, and systematized in a specific manner.
You have also engaged in historical-critical research with respect to the Prophet Mohammed. What can be said about his person?
Ohlig: It has been established that the earliest coinage with the motto MHMT appeared in eastern Mesopotamia around 660, made their way westward, and there bilingual coins were stamped with MHMT in the center and muhammad in Arabic script at the edge. These coins bear a Christian iconography, i.e. always with crosses, so that the name muhammad is clearly to be understood as a predicate of Jesus, as in the Sanctus of the mass ("praise be to he that comes...").
Here, muhammad means "revered" and "praiseworthy" or "He who is revered" and "He who is praised." This also corresponds to the inscribed text on the Dome of the Rock, where the title muhammad refers to the Messiah, Jesus, the Son of Mary, and the servant of God. It also fits in with the polemics of John of Damascus against statements he considered heretical.
Later, it seems as if this Christological predicate lost its reference, so that it appears in the Koran as a frequently mentioned, nameless prophet, which could then be historicized into the form of an Arab prophet. The earliest source of this historicization is to be found in writings of John of Damascus, who speaks of the pseudo-prophet Mamed. Only later could the wealth of stories of this Mohammed fill out the historical deficit.
So what you are saying is that the term muhammad could possibly be referring to Christ?
Ohlig: It is entirely possible – even when previously historically improvable – that an important preacher was present at the beginning or at another point in the history of the Koran movement. However, according to the evidence of Arab coins and the inscription in the Dome of the Rock, it must be assumed that the term muhammad, the revered or the praiseworthy, was originally a Christological honorific title.
Why is it that these links haven't previously been made?
Ohlig: Such inquiries are forbidden in Muslim theology, which hasn't yet passed through its Enlightenment. Western Islamic studies remains preoccupied with philology without employing the established methods of historical scholarship. Similarly, there is little religious-historical or Christian theological investigation into the extremely varied cultural traditions of the Middle East. As such, the roots and motives of these traditions are not recognized.
In your book "Early Islam," you write that you do not wish to harm this religion. Many Muslims will see the exact opposite in your work.
Ohlig: Since the 18th century, many Christians, even to this day, regard the Enlightenment as an attack and an attempt to destroy their religion. In reality, however, it has allowed Christianity to survive in the modern world and also be applicable to the lives of modern man. This is a phase that Islam still has to go through, but it is unavoidable if it doesn't want to exist in the future only in ghetto-like, closed communities.
Alfred Hackensberger
© Qantara.de 2008
Karl-Heinz Ohlig is professor of Religious Studies and the History of Christianity at the University of the Saarland, Germany.
http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-756/i.html
There are other researchers into the early history of Islam. The Richard Dawkins Foundation on Research and Science and Sam Harris' The Reason Project last year funded a conference into the early history of Islam: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/19589/sec_id/19589
This is interesting because the Koran is the foundation of Islamic faith. Much more than the Bible is the foundation of Christian faith. In Christian faith the foundation is the life of Jesus. What you find in the NT is just a gathering of testimonies on the life of Jesus. Not so with the Koran, which, according to muslims, is supposed to be the final word of God, recited to Mohammed through the arch-angel Gabriel.
If the early history of Islam can be falsified, then that does indeed remove all foundations for Islamic faith. But somehow I doubt that the Islamic world will look and the evidence and go "oh, okay, I'll suppose we'll stop belive it now".
that's something that would significantly change the way we should view history of that timeperiod I guess.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:22:21 PM
In my opinion there are different concepts embraced by the term "truth".
I believe for example that the Golden Rule is a "true" concept. It is not however "true" in the same way as a robust scientific theory not yet disproven.
Similarly I am of the opinion that many religions have elements to them that are "true", strictly in the former sense. I do not believe that any one of them is "true' in the latter sense.
I'll agree with you that we need more words to define the discrete kinds of truth.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:26:47 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 03:16:27 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:58:30 PM
But they say nothing about the truth or falsity of the religion claims.
Well IMO religion has nothing useful to say about anything outside of human existance and our relationship to the outside world and each other.
It won't tell you about the movement of the stars nor why birds migrate south for the winter.
Well, the bible does say something about the movement of the stars. It claims the stars are fixed in the firmament. That is just plain wrong.
As for human existence and the relationship to the outside world. If you are going to use Religion to help you understand this then I expect you deal with the truth of the religion first. Until you do that then you don't pass the laugh test.
Don't have anal sex! Why? God sez so! WTF?
It is possible to use intuition and comparative knowledge from other sources to weed out the positive commandments from religion that are "true" in the sense I described ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") from those that are "false" ("thou shalt not ... eat lobster").
Even the most Orthodox Jew does not uncritically accept every commandment from the OT.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:29:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:16:41 PM
I thought you said Religion has reason? Defend that proposition. Use reason to deal with my contention that you can't trust anything in the bible because it might just be symbolic.
I find your contention stupid because I challenge it's assumption that you can't trust something that is symbolic. You can (and perhaps should) trust things that are symbolic.
Whether or not Noah actually built an ark has little to do with the message of redemption of that story.
The way I understand the Noah Story is that God promises never to murder almost all the humans again. I think the truth of the flood story is pretty much fundamental the morale of the story. If god didn't murder almost all humans then the promis not to do so again makes no sense.
I am kind of amazed at people ability to find a positive message in a story like Noah and the ark.
Redemption? Are you kidding me?
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:24:52 PM
You can use it or not, the choice is up to you.
But it is foolish to reject it because it's not "true" when it appears clear that it was never written in the first place as a piece of literal history. It's like picking up a novel and being frustrated that it isn't a textbook.
No, it's like picking up a book about moral and philosophical truth and the nature of the cosmos and it's creator and being frustrated that you don't know which bits are factual and which bits are allegorical.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:31:46 PM
It is possible to use intuition and comparative knowledge from other sources to weed out the positive commandments from religion that are "true" in the sense I described ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") from those that are "false" ("thou shalt not ... eat lobster").
Even the most Orthodox Jew does not uncritically accept every commandment from the OT.
Well both Rabbi Hillel og Babylon and Konfucius got the golden rule about 500 years before Christ. Now, since you seem to expect me to find it obvious which are "true" or "false" how is that different from me making my own mind up without the help of the bible or any other book? Why do I need the bible? Or God?
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:23:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:14:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:11:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:08:45 PM
No, generally we have excellent explanations of the exact metabolic pathway that certain drugs effect.
No, we know exactly what happens in a nuclear bomb.
Evolution, due to the very long-time scale, is not able to be "proven" like some other areas of science, and thus is stuck with the label of "theory". But just because some areas are not able to be conclusively tested doesn't mean that all of science is that way.
I have a science degree. Mine is in geology. Certain areas of geology are proven, because they can be replicated in a lab. Other areas are not, given the enormous time scales involved.
All of these are Theory. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory and then come back.
Done. Now you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
Show me the law of evolution, the law of nuclear fission and the law of phisiology or any scientific law within geology then I'll stop laughing.
Obviously I'm not going to show you the "law of evolution". But I think I made my point: some things in science can in fact be proven, others cannot. It was only a minor quibble to someone who claimed "science can never be proven, only disproven".
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:29:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:21:49 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:16:41 PM
I thought you said Religion has reason? Defend that proposition. Use reason to deal with my contention that you can't trust anything in the bible because it might just be symbolic.
I find your contention stupid because I challenge it's assumption that you can't trust something that is symbolic. You can (and perhaps should) trust things that are symbolic.
Whether or not Noah actually built an ark has little to do with the message of redemption of that story.
The way I understand the Noah Story is that God promises never to murder almost all the humans again. I think the truth of the flood story is pretty much fundamental the morale of the story. If god didn't murder almost all humans then the promis not to do so again makes no sense.
A lot of the mythology in the OT is a way of making sense current conditions. The flood story probably pre-dates Judaism, but its "message" probably has more to do with the notion that everyone is related to a single ancestor. This message has been used both negatively and positively - negatively, in that some have based racism on the fact that the descendants of one of Noah's sons was cursed; positively, in that Jews in particular base the fact that all humans are equal (and can be equally "righteous" (see: 'Noahide').
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:38:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:23:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:14:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:11:45 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:08:45 PM
No, generally we have excellent explanations of the exact metabolic pathway that certain drugs effect.
No, we know exactly what happens in a nuclear bomb.
Evolution, due to the very long-time scale, is not able to be "proven" like some other areas of science, and thus is stuck with the label of "theory". But just because some areas are not able to be conclusively tested doesn't mean that all of science is that way.
I have a science degree. Mine is in geology. Certain areas of geology are proven, because they can be replicated in a lab. Other areas are not, given the enormous time scales involved.
All of these are Theory. Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) and then come back.
Done. Now you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law)
Show me the law of evolution, the law of nuclear fission and the law of phisiology or any scientific law within geology then I'll stop laughing.
Obviously I'm not going to show you the "law of evolution". But I think I made my point: some things in science can in fact be proven, others cannot. It was only a minor quibble to someone who claimed "science can never be proven, only disproven".
I take it you didn't actually read the Wiki article you cited, did you?
Like this part:
QuoteA law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to constant currents, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc.
The term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain scientific laws.[2] Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.
Not only is a Scientific Law in the manner you are speking of NOT a "proven theory", it isn't a "proven" anything, since in fact they can, and almost always do, turn out to be wrong and incomplete anyway!
Sorry, my contention stands - scientific theory can never be proven, only disproven.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:38:15 PM
Obviously I'm not going to show you the "law of evolution". But I think I made my point: some things in science can in fact be proven, others cannot. It was only a minor quibble to someone who claimed "science can never be proven, only disproven".
From your wikilink
QuoteThe term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain scientific laws.[2] Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.
Ultimately Proof only exists in mathematics.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:26:47 PM
Well, the bible does say something about the movement of the stars. It claims the stars are fixed in the firmament. That is just plain wrong.
As for human existence and the relationship to the outside world. If you are going to use Religion to help you understand this then I expect you deal with the truth of the religion first. Until you do that then you don't pass the laugh test.
Don't have anal sex! Why? God sez so! WTF?
I said something useful to say. I didn't say they had nothing to say, but usually the things they do have to say are only in service to their other objective and are not really about the birds flying or the stars moving.
No where does God say anything about anal sex btw. Many rather fundy Christians use this as a way to not have sex before marriage.
In my opinion the part of Leviticus supposedly condemning male same sex relations actually is talking about the temple prostitutes that used to be common...but I could be wrong but it doesn't really bother me since what God tells you what to do is not really the point of Leviticus IMO. But I don't want to get too far into this.
The hypothesis that Muhammad didn't exist seems very unlikely: too many known historical personages claim to have known and met him - it would have to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. the fact that there is material related to Muhammad that also contains Christian-style iconography is in no way suggestive of Muhmammad's non-existence; it is not unusual for a new monotheistic movement that claimed descent in part from the christian tradition to appropriate their iconography or symbols. Note also that even if Muhammad was a title and not a proper name; that is hardly evidence that the individual in question did not exist.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:41:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:38:15 PM
Obviously I'm not going to show you the "law of evolution". But I think I made my point: some things in science can in fact be proven, others cannot. It was only a minor quibble to someone who claimed "science can never be proven, only disproven".
From your wikilink
QuoteThe term "scientific law" is traditionally associated with the natural sciences, though the social sciences also contain scientific laws.[2] Laws can become obsolete if they are found in contradiction with new data, as with Bode's law or the biogenetic law.
Ultimately Proof only exists in mathematics.
The word "proof" is rather poorly defined when it comes to these kinds of discussions.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:36:09 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:31:46 PM
It is possible to use intuition and comparative knowledge from other sources to weed out the positive commandments from religion that are "true" in the sense I described ("do unto others as you would have them do unto you") from those that are "false" ("thou shalt not ... eat lobster").
Even the most Orthodox Jew does not uncritically accept every commandment from the OT.
Well both Rabbi Hillel og Babylon and Konfucius got the golden rule about 500 years before Christ. Now, since you seem to expect me to find it obvious which are "true" or "false" how is that different from me making my own mind up without the help of the bible or any other book? Why do I need the bible? Or God?
I certainly do not expect you or anyone to find any truth "obvious". Nor do I think that the Bible is necessary for finding truth.
What is necessary is to have as many inputs as posible - by all means read the Bible, read the Analects, read philosophers both modern and ancient. Then make up you own mind.
What one should not do, is assume that the ancients were all morons and their works all nonsense, and that we know so much better about the human condition that we can afford to ignore them. That doesn't mean that one's work is not cut out for one, seperating the useful from the useless in their writings.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:36:09 PM
Why do I need the bible? Or God?
You don't. You can generally get the same sorts of things out of most religions. They all sorta point towards similar idea and that is not coincidental.
You don't need the Bible or the idea of God but they can be useful spiritually.
Quote
Insert Quote
The hypothesis that Muhammad didn't exist seems very unlikely: too many known historical personages claim to have known and met him - it would have to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. the fact that there is material related to Muhammad that also contains Christian-style iconography is in no way suggestive of Muhmammad's non-existence; it is not unusual for a new monotheistic movement that claimed descent in part from the christian tradition to appropriate their iconography or symbols. Note also that even if Muhammad was a title and not a proper name; that is hardly evidence that the individual in question did not exist.
Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 03:43:04 PM
In my opinion the part of Leviticus supposedly condemning male same sex relations actually is talking about the temple prostitutes that used to be common...but I could be wrong but it doesn't really bother me since what God tells you what to do is not really the point of Leviticus IMO. But I don't want to get too far into this.
:lol:
"God telling you what to do" was precisely the point of Leviticus. It contained all the Jewish laws of purity and what not.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:47:14 PM
"God telling you what to do" was precisely the point of Leviticus. It contained all the Jewish laws of purity and what not.
Well then it is demonstably false. Plenty of Jews have not done the laws and none of the bad things promised happened to them. Ergo you must accept this chapter has been proven false.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:39:53 PM
A lot of the mythology in the OT is a way of making sense current conditions. The flood story probably pre-dates Judaism, but its "message" probably has more to do with the notion that everyone is related to a single ancestor. This message has been used both negatively and positively - negatively, in that some have based racism on the fact that the descendants of one of Noah's sons was cursed; positively, in that Jews in particular base the fact that all humans are equal (and can be equally "righteous" (see: 'Noahide').
It predates judaism. It's in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The P source probably added the Noah story from Babylonian mythology during the babylonian exile.
I thought the garden of eden story confirmed the decent from one man and the cursed son parts of the story. The end of the Noah story ( and the Utnapishtim story from Gilgamesh) god/gods promise never to do this again (and in the babylonian story allow humans to die).
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 03:48:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:47:14 PM
"God telling you what to do" was precisely the point of Leviticus. It contained all the Jewish laws of purity and what not.
Well then it is demonstably false. Plenty of Jews have not done the laws and none of the bad things promised happened to them. Ergo you must accept this chapter has been proven false.
I took Leviticus to be of much more historical importance, since it contains a number of the 'rules' that were subsequently superceded in the New Testament.
It's important, and I don't know how you can call it false. But it clearly is about God telling the Jews what to do.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 03:43:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:26:47 PM
Well, the bible does say something about the movement of the stars. It claims the stars are fixed in the firmament. That is just plain wrong.
As for human existence and the relationship to the outside world. If you are going to use Religion to help you understand this then I expect you deal with the truth of the religion first. Until you do that then you don't pass the laugh test.
Don't have anal sex! Why? God sez so! WTF?
I said something useful to say. I didn't say they had nothing to say, but usually the things they do have to say are only in service to their other objective and are not really about the birds flying or the stars moving.
No where does God say anything about anal sex btw. Many rather fundy Christians use this as a way to not have sex before marriage.
In my opinion the part of Leviticus supposedly condemning male same sex relations actually is talking about the temple prostitutes that used to be common...but I could be wrong but it doesn't really bother me since what God tells you what to do is not really the point of Leviticus IMO. But I don't want to get too far into this.
If you are an astronomer then saying something about how the stars move or not is pretty useful.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:03:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 26, 2009, 02:55:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 02:44:29 PM
That distinction makes ALLTHE DIFFERENCE. Faith does not have a routine for error correction. Science does. That makes the two things fundamentally different.
I agree. But that difference does not make one irrational for having faith.
For God of the Gaps sake. Redefining the question is not a counter argument!
I am not. this is the one pont I entered the conversation on.
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 03:46:22 PM
Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?
All the "rightly-guided" Caliphs, and Muhammad's own family (Aisha, Fatimah, Ali, etc)
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 03:46:22 PM
Quote
Insert Quote
The hypothesis that Muhammad didn't exist seems very unlikely: too many known historical personages claim to have known and met him - it would have to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. the fact that there is material related to Muhammad that also contains Christian-style iconography is in no way suggestive of Muhmammad's non-existence; it is not unusual for a new monotheistic movement that claimed descent in part from the christian tradition to appropriate their iconography or symbols. Note also that even if Muhammad was a title and not a proper name; that is hardly evidence that the individual in question did not exist.
Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?
For a start the next three or four leaders of the faith. :P
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 03:45:14 PM
I certainly do not expect you or anyone to find any truth "obvious". Nor do I think that the Bible is necessary for finding truth.
What is necessary is to have as many inputs as posible - by all means read the Bible, read the Analects, read philosophers both modern and ancient. Then make up you own mind.
What one should not do, is assume that the ancients were all morons and their works all nonsense, and that we know so much better about the human condition that we can afford to ignore them. That doesn't mean that one's work is not cut out for one, seperating the useful from the useless in their writings.
obvious /= easy. Being able to determine that stoning an adulturess despite it being mandated in the bible is obvious from all our other inputs and our own internal morale sense.
As we adressed earlier then we know that I have no reason to be sure that any part of the bibler is fact as opposed to allegory. I'm making judgements about how to use the bible, what to include and what to exclude. My moral sense is present before reading the bible, or your argument makes no sense; it follows that the bible doesn't add anything to my reasoning and morality, it just provides me with rich material to justify my previously arrived at moral conclusions.
The ancients were not stupid, by no means. They just didn't know anything about bacteria, atoms, physics, chemistry, astronomy etc.etc. They knew desert survival, sheep herding, farming and jewish theology.
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 03:46:22 PM
Quote
Insert Quote
The hypothesis that Muhammad didn't exist seems very unlikely: too many known historical personages claim to have known and met him - it would have to be one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated. the fact that there is material related to Muhammad that also contains Christian-style iconography is in no way suggestive of Muhmammad's non-existence; it is not unusual for a new monotheistic movement that claimed descent in part from the christian tradition to appropriate their iconography or symbols. Note also that even if Muhammad was a title and not a proper name; that is hardly evidence that the individual in question did not exist.
Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?
Blücher.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:59:06 PM
My moral sense is present before reading the bible,
Oh I suspect whether you knew it or not, or whether it was explicit or not, your own moral sense was very much shaped by what is in the Bible.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 04:07:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:59:06 PM
My moral sense is present before reading the bible,
Oh I suspect whether you knew it or not, or whether it was explicit or not, your own moral sense was very much shaped by what is in the Bible.
Hard to be a part of western civilization without that being true.
For better AND worse.
Anyone want to buy a slave?
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 04:08:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 04:07:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:59:06 PM
My moral sense is present before reading the bible,
Oh I suspect whether you knew it or not, or whether it was explicit or not, your own moral sense was very much shaped by what is in the Bible.
Hard to be a part of western civilization without that being true.
For better AND worse.
Anyone want to buy a slave?
Can't argue with you there.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:49:09 PM
It predates judaism. It's in the Epic of Gilgamesh. The P source probably added the Noah story from Babylonian mythology during the babylonian exile.
I thought the garden of eden story confirmed the decent from one man and the cursed son parts of the story. The end of the Noah story ( and the Utnapishtim story from Gilgamesh) god/gods promise never to do this again (and in the babylonian story allow humans to die).
No, the end of the story is about Noah's relations with his sons.
The descent from Noah is more significant than the descent from Adam, as Noah was universally considered to be a good guy. The earlier Adam story is more confused - Adam wasn't himself particularly a good guy - he disobeys God and gets cursed, and his "good" son gets killed by his "evil" son. Adam fathers another afterwards (Seth), and presumably everyone around at the time of the flood was descended from Seth or Cain.
Noah is described as being descended from Seth (see Genesis 5).
The fact that God showed favour to a 'righteous man' who was not a Jew (Noah) is extremely significant in Judaism. It is if you will the positive good that can be found in the story.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 04:07:06 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:59:06 PM
My moral sense is present before reading the bible,
Oh I suspect whether you knew it or not, or whether it was explicit or not, your own moral sense was very much shaped by what is in the Bible.
Well, no shit sherlock. Individualism and the Individuals ultimate responsability for his/her own salvation are uniquely western Ideas. But here the question does remain, are we christian because we are individualists, or are we individualists because we are christians.
Don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, be a good member of your community etc.etc. these are found in all religions. Any religion which didn't have this would in all likelyhood go under pretty damn quickly.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2009, 03:56:31 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 03:46:22 PM
Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?
All the "rightly-guided" Caliphs, and Muhammad's own family (Aisha, Fatimah, Ali, etc)
In which sources do we find these claims? And when are they written down?
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 03:23:11 PM
This is definitely not true for the Penn State astrobiology degree:
QuoteAstrobiology is a field devoted to the exploration of life outside of Earth and to the investigation of the origin and early evolution of life on Earth.
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/graduates/degrees.php
Whose theoretical xenobiology degree are you thinking of?
It is true that Penn State's Astrobiology program isn't the one I was thinking of. The one I am thinking of is relatively recently established, and had its head appear on NPR maybe a year ago. He made the distinction between the search for earthlike life on other planets (called by Penn State astrobiology) and the formulation of more basic concepts of life that could be tested in more environments, which he referred to as xenobiology.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 03:36:09 PM
Well both Rabbi Hillel og Babylon and Konfucius got the golden rule about 500 years before Christ. Now, since you seem to expect me to find it obvious which are "true" or "false" how is that different from me making my own mind up without the help of the bible or any other book? Why do I need the bible? Or God?
Hillel was roughly contemporaneous with Jesus, interestingly enough.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 04:14:09 PM
No, the end of the story is about Noah's relations with his sons.
The descent from Noah is more significant than the descent from Adam, as Noah was universally considered to be a good guy. The earlier Adam story is more confused - Adam wasn't himself particularly a good guy - he disobeys God and gets cursed, and his "good" son gets killed by his "evil" son. Adam fathers another afterwards (Seth), and presumably everyone around at the time of the flood was descended from Seth or Cain.
Noah is described as being descended from Seth (see Genesis 5).
The fact that God showed favour to a 'righteous man' who was not a Jew (Noah) is extremely significant in Judaism. It is if you will the positive good that can be found in the story.
I'm sure all the jews in the world will applaud the public service announcement that comes from killing millions and millions of people.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 03:27:40 PM
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 03:20:58 PM
BTW, it is amusing to see the same people who insist that the Bible is hogwash turning around and citing Wikipedia as authoritative! :lol:
Wiki has a rather huge advantage over the bible. At least it can be updated.
The
problem is that it can be updated! :lol:
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 04:16:11 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 03:23:11 PM
This is definitely not true for the Penn State astrobiology degree:
QuoteAstrobiology is a field devoted to the exploration of life outside of Earth and to the investigation of the origin and early evolution of life on Earth.
http://www.geosc.psu.edu/graduates/degrees.php
Whose theoretical xenobiology degree are you thinking of?
It is true that Penn State's Astrobiology program isn't the one I was thinking of. The one I am thinking of is relatively recently established, and had its head appear on NPR maybe a year ago. He made the distinction between the search for earthlike life on other planets (called by Penn State astrobiology) and the formulation of more basic concepts of life that could be tested in more environments, which he referred to as xenobiology.
I asked earlier about this distinction, because while I thought there was a difference(albeit I will admit to being blurry on what exactly the difference was), I did not see what the difference could be that would make it impossible to run experiments (and hence generate data) on xenobiology.
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 04:16:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2009, 03:56:31 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 03:46:22 PM
Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?
All the "rightly-guided" Caliphs, and Muhammad's own family (Aisha, Fatimah, Ali, etc)
In which sources do we find these claims? And when are they written down?
Fragments of a police report from the time concerning a pedophile ring have survived.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:17:35 PM
I'm sure all the jews in the world will applaud the public service announcement that comes from killing millions and millions of people.
Except I think very very few of all the jews in the world actually think that the flood literally happened. :lol:
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 03:29:26 PM
I will keep that in mind if I run into someone who makes such a claim.
Good. Unlike you, I allow people to pretend that they agreed with me all along.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 03:51:04 PM
It's important, and I don't know how you can call it false. But it clearly is about God telling the Jews what to do.
Because on the surface its claims are incorrect.
I think the context is more important than simply saying 'this is what you are to do'.
Anyway since those rules were never meant to apply to Ukrainians I fail to see how anything got superceded for you. 'Wow so the rules that do not apply to me now do not apply to me?! Thanks Jesus!'
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 04:22:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:17:35 PM
I'm sure all the jews in the world will applaud the public service announcement that comes from killing millions and millions of people.
Except I think very very few of all the jews in the world actually think that the flood literally happened. :lol:
Without the flood the covenant to never agains flood the world makes no sense since god doesn't murder almost all of humanity. Without the flood the redemption of a single good non-jew by god makes no sense because god hasn't saved a single man since he didn't kill everybody else.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 04:08:03 PM
Hard to be a part of western civilization without that being true.
For better AND worse.
Anyone want to buy a slave?
Certainly the Bible contains detailed laws and regulations respecting slavery. What is instructive is to compare that code to how slavery was treated in other cultures in the area. In that respect, the Bible offers quite an advance in terms of ethics - slaves had certain rights under the Biblical rules; for example, the right of sanctuary.
Deuteronomy 23:
Quote15 If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. 16 Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.
Slaves must be given rest:
Exodus 23:12 (New International Version)
12 "Six days do your work, but on the seventh day do not work, so that your ox and your donkey may rest and the slave born in your household, and the alien as well, may be refreshed.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:25:02 PM
Without the flood the covenant to never agains flood the world makes no sense since god doesn't murder almost all of humanity. Without the flood the redemption of a single good non-jew by god makes no sense because god hasn't saved a single man since he didn't kill everybody else.
I thought we had established that murder was a legal term.
Or were you just being emotive?
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:17:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 04:14:09 PM
No, the end of the story is about Noah's relations with his sons.
The descent from Noah is more significant than the descent from Adam, as Noah was universally considered to be a good guy. The earlier Adam story is more confused - Adam wasn't himself particularly a good guy - he disobeys God and gets cursed, and his "good" son gets killed by his "evil" son. Adam fathers another afterwards (Seth), and presumably everyone around at the time of the flood was descended from Seth or Cain.
Noah is described as being descended from Seth (see Genesis 5).
The fact that God showed favour to a 'righteous man' who was not a Jew (Noah) is extremely significant in Judaism. It is if you will the positive good that can be found in the story.
I'm sure all the jews in the world will applaud the public service announcement that comes from killing millions and millions of people.
Most Jews in the world do not believe that the flood literally happened.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:25:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 04:22:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:17:35 PM
I'm sure all the jews in the world will applaud the public service announcement that comes from killing millions and millions of people.
Except I think very very few of all the jews in the world actually think that the flood literally happened. :lol:
Without the flood the covenant to never agains flood the world makes no sense since god doesn't murder almost all of humanity. Without the flood the redemption of a single good non-jew by god makes no sense because god hasn't saved a single man since he didn't kill everybody else.
God (pbuh) can eat the cake and have it.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:25:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 04:22:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:17:35 PM
I'm sure all the jews in the world will applaud the public service announcement that comes from killing millions and millions of people.
Except I think very very few of all the jews in the world actually think that the flood literally happened. :lol:
Without the flood the covenant to never agains flood the world makes no sense since god doesn't murder almost all of humanity. Without the flood the redemption of a single good non-jew by god makes no sense because god hasn't saved a single man since he didn't kill everybody else.
I think I'm done discussing this with you.
You keep wanting to argue against this strawman who accepts the Bible as literal truth. Nobody here is arguing that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sea_deluge_theory
Science has much better flooding myths anyway
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 04:14:09 PM
The descent from Noah is more significant than the descent from Adam, as Noah was universally considered to be a good guy. The earlier Adam story is more confused - Adam wasn't himself particularly a good guy - he disobeys God and gets cursed, and his "good" son gets killed by his "evil" son. Adam fathers another afterwards (Seth), and presumably everyone around at the time of the flood was descended from Seth or Cain.
Uh, no shit! :lol: Who was the wife of Seth? Of Cain? Were their wives their sisters, or their mother?
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 04:33:40 PM
Science has much better flooding myths anyway
Our whole universe was in a hot dense state,
Then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started. Wait...
The Earth began to cool,
The autotrophs began to drool,
Neanderthals developed tools,
We built a wall (we built the pyramids),
Math, science, history, unravelling the mystery,
That all started with the big bang! BANG!
God is such a great guy. You know when he gave everyone a million dollars? Well he never did it but it shows just what a generous person he is.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 04:33:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:25:02 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 04:22:55 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:17:35 PM
I'm sure all the jews in the world will applaud the public service announcement that comes from killing millions and millions of people.
Except I think very very few of all the jews in the world actually think that the flood literally happened. :lol:
Without the flood the covenant to never agains flood the world makes no sense since god doesn't murder almost all of humanity. Without the flood the redemption of a single good non-jew by god makes no sense because god hasn't saved a single man since he didn't kill everybody else.
I think I'm done discussing this with you.
You keep wanting to argue against this strawman who accepts the Bible as literal truth. Nobody here is arguing that.
I dont' agree I'm arguing against a literalist strawman. I'm saying
1) The Bible has no moral value if I'm the person deciding which bits are relevant to morality.
2) The Bible has no truth value if I'm the person deciding which bits are true and which bits are allegorical.
3) The morale and redemptive value of allegorical bible stories are dependent on their truth.
4) If the Bible is to have any moral or factual value I should be able to find the morale and fact without picking and choosing which bits I like and can prove.
Quote1) The Bible has no moral value if I'm the person deciding which bits are relevant to morality.
2) The Bible has no truth value if I'm the person deciding which bits are true and which bits are allegorical.
3) The morale and redemptive value of allegorical bible stories are dependent on their truth.
4) If the Bible is to have any moral or factual value I should be able to find the morale and fact without picking and choosing which bits I like and can prove.
Especially since religious people are so fond of the old Brothers Karamazov argument that if there is no objective morality, then everything is permissible. And then they say you can interpret the bible any way you like. So much for "objective" morality.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:38:21 PM
I dont' agree I'm arguing against a literalist strawman. I'm saying
1) The Bible has no moral value if I'm the person deciding which bits are relevant to morality.
2) The Bible has no truth value if I'm the person deciding which bits are true and which bits are allegorical.
3) The morale and redemptive value of allegorical bible stories are dependent on their truth.
4) If the Bible is to have any moral or factual value I should be able to find the morale and fact without picking and choosing which bits I like and can prove.
Well I think this is a cop out. It is not a question of picking out which parts you like so much as which parts speak to you and have value for you. Also why would the lessons of an allegory be dependent on the allegory's truth? Doesn't that sorta mean it is not an allegory at all?
Quote from: grumbler on October 26, 2009, 04:34:31 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 04:14:09 PM
The descent from Noah is more significant than the descent from Adam, as Noah was universally considered to be a good guy. The earlier Adam story is more confused - Adam wasn't himself particularly a good guy - he disobeys God and gets cursed, and his "good" son gets killed by his "evil" son. Adam fathers another afterwards (Seth), and presumably everyone around at the time of the flood was descended from Seth or Cain.
Uh, no shit! :lol: Who was the wife of Seth? Of Cain? Were their wives their sisters, or their mother?
Not to mention the "sons of God" who were also, as it were, added into the genetic mix:
QuoteWhen men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
:D
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 04:41:42 PM
Especially since religious people are so fond of the old Brothers Karamazov argument that if there is no objective morality, then everything is permissible. And then they say you can interpret the bible any way you like. So much for "objective" morality.
I have a feeling the people claiming #1 and the people claiming #2 are not the same people.
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 04:16:10 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2009, 03:56:31 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 03:46:22 PM
Which historial personages claim to have known and met him?
All the "rightly-guided" Caliphs, and Muhammad's own family (Aisha, Fatimah, Ali, etc)
In which sources do we find these claims? And when are they written down?
Writings on the lives of Muhammad and the Rashidun emerge in the early 8th century. (although there are early Christian sources which mention his name). Which is to say, they were written easily within the lifetimes of many people who also would have lived during the Caliphate of Muwawiyah, who in turn lived contemporaneously with Muhammad in his youth. If Muawiyah invented a fictitious person "Muhammad" his own contemporaries would know this to be utterly false, which makes it hard to believe. But if he did not connive with such an invention, then those alive during his reign would have been easily been able to put the lie to any later effort to invent such a personage. It strains credulity to imagine such an extraordinary hoax being perpetrated. And to what end - if (hypothetically) no Muhammad existed - why not ascribe the tenets of Islam to the widely respected (and powerful) Rashidun Caliphs? Why invent from whole cloth a character of an illiterate merchant of no particularly distiguished lineage? Why not ascribe the role of prophet to the rich and presitgious Abu Bakr or the literate and athletic Umar?
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 04:41:42 PM
Especially since religious people are so fond of the old Brothers Karamazov argument that if there is no objective morality, then everything is permissible. And then they say you can interpret the bible any way you like. So much for "objective" morality.
My own opinion is that there is an "objective" morality - based on the ethics of reciprocity - but the exact ambit of this in any particular situation can never be known with absolute certainty; you can get pretty close however.
It seems to me that it is you & Viking who are making the "all or nothing' type argument: you seem to want religious types to be literalists, or find their opinions incoherent.
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 04:41:42 PM
Especially since religious people are so fond of the old Brothers Karamazov argument that if there is no objective morality, then everything is permissible. And then they say you can interpret the bible any way you like. So much for "objective" morality.
Just because the Bible can be difficult to interpret at times it doesn't follow that there is no such thing as objective morality.
And really the moral lessons of the Bible are pretty damn easy to pick out 98% of the time. Honour God, turn the other cheek, treat others as you would treat yourself, give to poor...
Quote from: The Brain on October 26, 2009, 04:28:43 PM
God (pbuh) can eat the cake and have it.
That's why they call him omniscient. :contract:
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 04:48:52 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 04:41:42 PM
Especially since religious people are so fond of the old Brothers Karamazov argument that if there is no objective morality, then everything is permissible. And then they say you can interpret the bible any way you like. So much for "objective" morality.
My own opinion is that there is an "objective" morality - based on the ethics of reciprocity - but the exact ambit of this in any particular situation can never be known with absolute certainty; you can get pretty close however.
It seems to me that it is you & Viking who are making the "all or nothing' type argument: you seem to want religious types to be literalists, or find their opinions incoherent.
No.
1) How can you (the non literalist) reconcile the brutal and immoral bits of the bible with your view of the bible as a source or morality or as a guide/tool for morality.
2) How can you (the non literalist) decide which bits are "true" and which bits are "false". And if you use outside sources, why can't I use Tom Sawyer or Don Quijote just like the bible when cherrypicking?
3) If you can't give me a definitive way of differentiating truth from allegory in the bible how can I determine the allegorical value or the truth value of any passage. (e.g. concluding that samaritans are decent chaps rather than concluding that morality rather than status/reputation ultimately decide a mans goodness)
4) And if you decend into Deism, why are any of these books worth any more than their value as either kindling or litterature?
I'm not trying to impose a literalist view on anybody and argue against that strawman. I'm trying to figure out how non-literalists can reconcile the text to their own morality?
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 04:41:42 PM
Especially since religious people are so fond of the old Brothers Karamazov argument that if there is no objective morality, then everything is permissible. And then they say you can interpret the bible any way you like. So much for "objective" morality.
Just because the Bible can be difficult to interpret at times it doesn't follow that there is no such thing as objective morality.
And really the moral lessons of the Bible are pretty damn easy to pick out 98% of the time. Honour God, turn the other cheek, treat others as you would treat yourself, give to poor...
You are a lawyer, you should not be making a basic mistake like this... Unless of course you are not going to argue your implicite point in that statement and agree with me that objective morality is not found in or through god/the bible.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 04:38:21 PM
I dont' agree I'm arguing against a literalist strawman. I'm saying
1) The Bible has no moral value if I'm the person deciding which bits are relevant to morality.
2) The Bible has no truth value if I'm the person deciding which bits are true and which bits are allegorical.
3) The morale and redemptive value of allegorical bible stories are dependent on their truth.
4) If the Bible is to have any moral or factual value I should be able to find the morale and fact without picking and choosing which bits I like and can prove.
The Bible is collection of historical texts; those texts have played a historical role regardless of what your individual opinion of them may be. The fact is that the texts that comprise the Bible have influenced the way people in the "Western" world thought about moral problems for centuries, and that the content of the Western philosophical tradition as it exists today is a product of that historical process.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:00:12 PM
2) How can you (the non literalist) decide which bits are "true" and which bits are "false". And if you use outside sources, why can't I use Tom Sawyer or Don Quijote just like the bible when cherrypicking?
I doubt that many thoughtful people would deny that there exist texts outside the Bible that can inform or do inform moral and ethical judgments or action. Certainly works of fiction can serve this purpose in addition to works of non-fiction.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2009, 04:47:44 PM
Writings on the lives of Muhammad and the Rashidun emerge in the early 8th century. (although there are early Christian sources which mention his name). Which is to say, they were written easily within the lifetimes of many people who also would have lived during the Caliphate of Muwawiyah, who in turn lived contemporaneously with Muhammad in his youth. If Muawiyah invented a fictitious person "Muhammad" his own contemporaries would know this to be utterly false, which makes it hard to believe. But if he did not connive with such an invention, then those alive during his reign would have been easily been able to put the lie to any later effort to invent such a personage. It strains credulity to imagine such an extraordinary hoax being perpetrated.
This contradicts what is said by Ohlig.
QuoteKarl-Heinz Ohlig: All the information we posses on the origins of Islam is taken from later texts – "biographies" that were written in the 9th and 10th centuries. One of these texts, the Annals of at-Tabari (10th century), is also the source of further histories. As such, we lack any corroborating contemporary texts for the first two centuries.
Which are these early documents that are unknown to Ohlig?
Quote
And to what end - if (hypothetically) no Muhammad existed - why not ascribe the tenets of Islam to the widely respected (and powerful) Rashidun Caliphs? Why invent from whole cloth a character of an illiterate merchant of no particularly distiguished lineage? Why not ascribe the role of prophet to the rich and presitgious Abu Bakr or the literate and athletic Umar?
QuoteWhere Dr. Markus Gross discussed the Buddhist influence on Islam, Professor Kropp explained the Ethiopian elements in the Koran. Independent scholar, traveller, and numismatist Volker Popp argued that Islamic history as recounted by Islamic historians has a Biblical structure –the first four caliphs are clearly modelled on Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses. The Muslim historians transformed historical facts to fit a Biblical pattern. Popp also developed a fascinating thesis that Islamic historians had a propensity to turn nomen (gentile) (name of the gens or clan) into patronyms; a patronym being a component of a personal name based on the name of one's father. Thus Islamic historians had a tendency to take, for instance, Iranian names on inscriptions and turn them into Arabic-sounding names. Having turned Iranians into Arabs, the next step was to turn historical events connected with the original Iranians which had nothing to do with Islamic history into Islamic history. For example, Islamic history knows various so called Civil Wars. One of them was between Abd-al-Malik, his governor al-Hajjaj and the rival caliph in Mecca by the name of Abdallah Zubair. The evidence of inscriptions tells us that the name Zubayr is a misreading. The correct reading is ZNBYL. This was made into ZUBYL by the Arab historians. From ZUBYL they derived the name Zubair, which has no Semitic root. The real story is a fight between Abd al-Malik at Merv and the King of Kabulistan, who held the title ZNBYL. This took place between 60 and 75 Arab era in the East of the former Sassanian domains. The historians transferred this feud to Mecca and Jerusalem and then embedded the whole into the structure of a well known story from the Old Testament, the secession of Omri and his building the Temple of Samaria.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/19589/sec_id/19589
The humble background of Mohammed (a merchant) would also mirror the humble background of Jesus (a carpenter).
If you want to learn morality great litterature and philosophers are great places to start. The Bible is probably better than a randomly chosen text for that purpose as well. Leave out god and "truth" then I'm happy to include the bible.
My problem is with God and the belief that the bibles is either written by or inspired by or written by men inspired by god.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:25:12 PM
If you want to learn morality great litterature and philosophers are great places to start. The Bible is probably better than a randomly chosen text for that purpose as well. Leave out god and "truth" then I'm happy to include the bible.
My problem is with God and the belief that the bibles is either written by or inspired by or written by men inspired by god.
Well that's just fine for you then. Many other people feel that way.
Others however do not.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:25:12 PM
If you want to learn morality great litterature and philosophers are great places to start.
Incorrect. If one wants to learn morality, one needs a teacher. And only I am morally absolute.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:00:12 PM
No.
1) How can you (the non literalist) reconcile the brutal and immoral bits of the bible with your view of the bible as a source or morality or as a guide/tool for morality.
The Bible is not a single work with a single author but rather a collection of texts written over a very long period if time.
Some parts (particularly the Book of Joshua) were evidently written from the POV of a rather primitive and bloodthirsty type; others (See; Ecclesiastes) were evidently written by a poet-philosopher.
I have no problems finding Ecclesiasties more helpful and interesting than the Book of Joshua as a moral and ethical guide.
"All is vanity and a chasing after wind". He could have been writing about Languish. :D
Quote2) How can you (the non literalist) decide which bits are "true" and which bits are "false". And if you use outside sources, why can't I use Tom Sawyer or Don Quijote just like the bible when cherrypicking?
Who said you can't?
Quote3) If you can't give me a definitive way of differentiating truth from allegory in the bible how can I determine the allegorical value or the truth value of any passage. (e.g. concluding that samaritans are decent chaps rather than concluding that morality rather than status/reputation ultimately decide a mans goodness)
No one can "give" you a definitive guide. Basically, that's your task - akin to attempting to become wise.
Quote4) And if you decend into Deism, why are any of these books worth any more than their value as either kindling or litterature?
I generally do not equate "literature" and "kindling".
QuoteI'm not trying to impose a literalist view on anybody and argue against that strawman. I'm trying to figure out how non-literalists can reconcile the text to their own morality?
The same way one reconciles anything to one's own morality. Judge the text against your morals, and judge your morals against the text.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2009, 04:59:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 26, 2009, 04:28:43 PM
God (pbuh) can eat the cake and have it.
That's why they call him omniscient. :contract:
Uh, no, that's why they call him omnipotent. They call him omniscient 'cause he knows where the cake is. All of the cake.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 04:53:01 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 04:41:42 PM
Especially since religious people are so fond of the old Brothers Karamazov argument that if there is no objective morality, then everything is permissible. And then they say you can interpret the bible any way you like. So much for "objective" morality.
Just because the Bible can be difficult to interpret at times it doesn't follow that there is no such thing as objective morality.
And really the moral lessons of the Bible are pretty damn easy to pick out 98% of the time. Honour God, turn the other cheek, treat others as you would treat yourself, give to poor...
I'm not saying there is no objective morality, either. But I'd say what objective morality does exist is that which is innate in man. The same innate morality that makes it so damn easy for you to pick out the meaningful moral lessons from the bible, and would make it similarly easy for you to pick out meaningful moral lessons from any similar text.
EDIT: Indeed, anyone who says morality is not innate, and one needs the rules of the Bible, must also explain how the Jews, before Moses received the 10 commandments from God, managed to wander in the desert for 40 years without all killing each other in conflict after they stole from each other and slept with each other's wives (etc). I mean, if they previously had no way of knowing that these things were bad.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 05:33:29 PM
No one can "give" you a definitive guide. Basically, that's your task - akin to attempting to become wise.
viking seems to equate great meaning with being easy to understand. The Bible is many things, but straight forward it is not.
But just because it is hard to figure out it doesn't follow that there's no value to it. From what I understand James Joyce is extremely dense and hard to understand - but that doesn't make his writings worthless either.
Quote from: dps on October 26, 2009, 05:35:07 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2009, 04:59:04 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 26, 2009, 04:28:43 PM
God (pbuh) can eat the cake and have it.
That's why they call him omniscient. :contract:
Uh, no, that's why they call him omnipotent. They call him omniscient 'cause he knows where the cake is. All of the cake.
The question is: can he make a cake so big, he can't eat it? :D
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 05:33:29 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:00:12 PM
No.
1) How can you (the non literalist) reconcile the brutal and immoral bits of the bible with your view of the bible as a source or morality or as a guide/tool for morality.
The Bible is not a single work with a single author but rather a collection of texts written over a very long period if time.
Some parts (particularly the Book of Joshua) were evidently written from the POV of a rather primitive and bloodthirsty type; others (See; Ecclesiastes) were evidently written by a poet-philosopher.
I have no problems finding Ecclesiasties more helpful and interesting than the Book of Joshua as a moral and ethical guide.
"All is vanity and a chasing after wind". He could have been writing about Languish. :D
So you don't reconcile, you pick and choose.
Quote
Quote2) How can you (the non literalist) decide which bits are "true" and which bits are "false". And if you use outside sources, why can't I use Tom Sawyer or Don Quijote just like the bible when cherrypicking?
Who said you can't?
I didn't say you couldn't, I asked HOW.
Quote
Quote3) If you can't give me a definitive way of differentiating truth from allegory in the bible how can I determine the allegorical value or the truth value of any passage. (e.g. concluding that samaritans are decent chaps rather than concluding that morality rather than status/reputation ultimately decide a mans goodness)
No one can "give" you a definitive guide. Basically, that's your task - akin to attempting to become wise.
So you can't give me a definitve way to separate fact from allegory.
Quote
Quote4) And if you decend into Deism, why are any of these books worth any more than their value as either kindling or litterature?
I generally do not equate "literature" and "kindling".
I'm slightly baffled how you went from my "
either kindling
or litterature" to equating litterature to kindling?
Quote
QuoteI'm not trying to impose a literalist view on anybody and argue against that strawman. I'm trying to figure out how non-literalists can reconcile the text to their own morality?
The same way one reconciles anything to one's own morality. Judge the text against your morals, and judge your morals against the text.
Fair enough. But which text to judge your morales against? Well, with a text which presents a supernatually inspired morale foundation I'll insist on the truth of that supernatural source before even considering it a moral foundation. I'm sorry but a text which is based on an appeal to supernatural authority is not my first choice as a text to judge my own morals against.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 05:42:14 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 05:33:29 PM
No one can "give" you a definitive guide. Basically, that's your task - akin to attempting to become wise.
viking seems to equate great meaning with being easy to understand. The Bible is many things, but straight forward it is not.
But just because it is hard to figure out it doesn't follow that there's no value to it. From what I understand James Joyce is extremely dense and hard to understand - but that doesn't make his writings worthless either.
So, I'm not quite sure, are you claiming that James Joyce was inspired by God to write a guide to human morality or are you claiming that the Bible is merely litterature?
And, as for intellegability. If it is impossible to understand what possible meaning can it impart? And if it is difficult to understand how can you be sure you understood it correctly?
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:50:18 PM
And, as for intellegability. If it is impossible to understand what possible meaning can it impart? And if it is difficult to understand how can you be sure you understood it correctly?
Difficult doesn't mean impossible.
I can't be sure. I'm only human, I get lots of stuff wrong. I'm flawed and a sinner, after all. I do the best I can however to live my life as I believe God wants me to live it. :)
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:46:40 PM
So you don't reconcile, you pick and choose.
Yep.
QuoteSo you can't give me a definitve way to separate fact from allegory.
Nope.
QuoteI'm slightly baffled how you went from my "either kindling or litterature" to equating litterature to kindling?
You are implying both have the same (low) value: "worth
any more than their value as either kindling or litterature".
In contrast, I find literature quite valuable.
QuoteFair enough. But which text to judge your morales against? Well, with a text which presents a supernatually inspired morale foundation I'll insist on the truth of that supernatural source before even considering it a moral foundation. I'm sorry but a text which is based on an appeal to supernatural authority is not my first choice as a text to judge my own morals against.
That's your opinion. In mine, I'd be reluctant to disregard thousands of years of human effort on the grounds that they mention supernatural stuff - your criteria would in effect discard most human experience, since most texts were written by people who believed in some sort of supernatural origin of moral authority.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 05:53:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:50:18 PM
And, as for intellegability. If it is impossible to understand what possible meaning can it impart? And if it is difficult to understand how can you be sure you understood it correctly?
Difficult doesn't mean impossible.
I can't be sure. I'm only human, I get lots of stuff wrong. I'm flawed and a sinner, after all. I do the best I can however to live my life as I believe God wants me to live it. :)
How do you know? How can you be sure you are not self deluded, how can you be sure the devil didn't whisper in your ear?, how can you be sure the priest isn't tricking you to make some money? etc.etc. I can't help but get the impression that the source for absolute morality is up for interpretation.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:41:34 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 01:37:00 PM
Now discuss Scientology.
There appears to be a significant amount of actual evidence that L Ron Hubbard went out and created Scientology as a deliberate scam. :)
As for this, from a while back: You only call it a deliberate scam because it was invented recently enough for there to be evidence it was invented. Had it been invented a long time ago you'd be talking about how we need to respect scientology because a lot of people believe in it.
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 05:23:18 PM
Which are these early documents that are unknown to Ohlig?
al-Zuhri wrote in the first half of the 8th century; ibn Ishaq in the middle of that century.
I don't know why Ohlig ignores these works; but note that even the article you cite indicates that his position is not accepted by most scholars in the field.
QuoteWhere Dr. Markus Gross discussed the Buddhist influence on Islam, Professor Kropp explained the Ethiopian elements in the Koran. Independent scholar, traveller, and numismatist Volker Popp argued that Islamic history as recounted by Islamic historians has a Biblical structure –the first four caliphs are clearly modelled on Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses.
"Independent scholar, traveller, and numismatist Volker Popp". Translation - crank.
This passage makes no sense - the characters "Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses" do not constitute some kind of "Biblical structure" nor do they correspond in any sensible way with the Rashidun caliphs.
QuotePopp also developed a fascinating thesis that Islamic historians had a propensity to turn nomen (gentile) (name of the gens or clan) into patronyms; a patronym being a component of a personal name based on the name of one's father. Thus Islamic historians had a tendency to take, for instance, Iranian names on inscriptions and turn them into Arabic-sounding names. Having turned Iranians into Arabs, the next step was to turn historical events connected with the original Iranians which had nothing to do with Islamic history into Islamic history. For example, Islamic history knows various so called Civil Wars. One of them was between Abd-al-Malik, his governor al-Hajjaj and the rival caliph in Mecca by the name of Abdallah Zubair. The evidence of inscriptions tells us that the name Zubayr is a misreading. The correct reading is ZNBYL. This was made into ZUBYL by the Arab historians. From ZUBYL they derived the name Zubair, which has no Semitic root. The real story is a fight between Abd al-Malik at Merv and the King of Kabulistan, who held the title ZNBYL. This took place between 60 and 75 Arab era in the East of the former Sassanian domains. The historians transferred this feud to Mecca and Jerusalem and then embedded the whole into the structure of a well known story from the Old Testament, the secession of Omri and his building the Temple of Samaria.
If this kind of wild speculation is typical of the historiographical methods used by the "independent numismatist", it doesn't raise confidence.
QuoteThe humble background of Mohammed (a merchant) would also mirror the humble background of Jesus (a carpenter).
Again - to what end? Muhammad is not delivering a similar message - he asserts and obtains political leadership over a people and directs them into war.
Recall - Ohlig's thesis appears to be the Muhammad is an invention of the Abbasids. But the Abassids came up with the ideological framework of distinguishing the Rashidun caliphs from the Ummayads. The natural step would to ascribe Islam to the first of these Caliphs to established a direct connection to the new regime.
Quote from: Malthus on October 26, 2009, 05:56:45 PM
That's your opinion. In mine, I'd be reluctant to disregard thousands of years of human effort on the grounds that they mention supernatural stuff - your criteria would in effect discard most human experience, since most texts were written by people who believed in some sort of supernatural origin of moral authority.
You read too much into my either or comment. Some books are more worth as kindling than they are as litterature.
While I don't automatically disregard thousands of years of human experience and efforts just because they mention supernatural stuff. Supernatural stuff like hallucenogenic compounts, magnetism, human psychology, volcanos, weather and life itself should not be ignored if mentioned by the ancients. It's just that I don't give more validity to a source JUST BECAUSE OF ITS AGE.
As for the Galileo/Newton/Kepler were young earth creationsts therefore young earth creationism is more valid argument, that is just silly. Sources should be controlled for bias, but their claims should be treated on their own merits. Kepler and Newton had some really fucked up ideas about alchemy and perfect solids. I don't disregard Newton's ideas on Gravity just because he believed in pixies and angels and wanted to make the philosophers stone, just like I don't believe Einsteins view on quantum theory is valid because of his erstwhile genius.
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 06:01:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 01:41:34 PM
Quote from: ulmont on October 26, 2009, 01:37:00 PM
Now discuss Scientology.
There appears to be a significant amount of actual evidence that L Ron Hubbard went out and created Scientology as a deliberate scam. :)
As for this, from a while back: You only call it a deliberate scam because it was invented recently enough for there to be evidence it was invented. Had it been invented a long time ago you'd be talking about how we need to respect scientology because a lot of people believe in it.
Mormonism is 150 years old and started out as deliberate scam. Now it's just an unintended scam.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:25:12 PM
If you want to learn morality great litterature and philosophers are great places to start. The Bible is probably better than a randomly chosen text for that purpose as well. Leave out god and "truth" then I'm happy to include the bible.
I don't think a person can begin to understand the Western philosophical tradition without first understanding the classical philosophical tradition and the response to that tradition posed by the Jewish and Christian canon. Our present day ethical ideas happen to derive more from the latter than the former.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:57:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 05:53:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:50:18 PM
And, as for intellegability. If it is impossible to understand what possible meaning can it impart? And if it is difficult to understand how can you be sure you understood it correctly?
Difficult doesn't mean impossible.
I can't be sure. I'm only human, I get lots of stuff wrong. I'm flawed and a sinner, after all. I do the best I can however to live my life as I believe God wants me to live it. :)
How do you know? How can you be sure you are not self deluded, how can you be sure the devil didn't whisper in your ear?, how can you be sure the priest isn't tricking you to make some money? etc.etc. I can't help but get the impression that the source for absolute morality is up for interpretation.
Go back and read the section you quoted. I believe it answers your question. In particular:
Quote from: BarristerI can't be sure.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2009, 06:10:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:25:12 PM
If you want to learn morality great litterature and philosophers are great places to start. The Bible is probably better than a randomly chosen text for that purpose as well. Leave out god and "truth" then I'm happy to include the bible.
I don't think a person can begin to understand the Western philosophical tradition without first understanding the classical philosophical tradition and the response to that tradition posed by the Jewish and Christian canon. Our present day ethical ideas happen to derive more from the latter than the former.
I wouldn't go and ascribe value to the various sources of western thought. Levantine Religion, Greek Philosophy and Roman Law are all fundamental contributors to western thought. We don't get our philosophy without all three.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 06:11:53 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:57:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 05:53:08 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:50:18 PM
And, as for intellegability. If it is impossible to understand what possible meaning can it impart? And if it is difficult to understand how can you be sure you understood it correctly?
Difficult doesn't mean impossible.
I can't be sure. I'm only human, I get lots of stuff wrong. I'm flawed and a sinner, after all. I do the best I can however to live my life as I believe God wants me to live it. :)
How do you know? How can you be sure you are not self deluded, how can you be sure the devil didn't whisper in your ear?, how can you be sure the priest isn't tricking you to make some money? etc.etc. I can't help but get the impression that the source for absolute morality is up for interpretation.
Go back and read the section you quoted. I believe it answers your question. In particular:
Quote from: BarristerI can't be sure.
If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 26, 2009, 06:04:12 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 05:23:18 PM
Which are these early documents that are unknown to Ohlig?
al-Zuhri wrote in the first half of the 8th century; ibn Ishaq in the middle of that century.
I don't know why Ohlig ignores these works; but note that even the article you cite indicates that his position is not accepted by most scholars in the field.
QuoteWhere Dr. Markus Gross discussed the Buddhist influence on Islam, Professor Kropp explained the Ethiopian elements in the Koran. Independent scholar, traveller, and numismatist Volker Popp argued that Islamic history as recounted by Islamic historians has a Biblical structure –the first four caliphs are clearly modelled on Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses.
"Independent scholar, traveller, and numismatist Volker Popp". Translation - crank.
This passage makes no sense - the characters "Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses" do not constitute some kind of "Biblical structure" nor do they correspond in any sensible way with the Rashidun caliphs.
QuotePopp also developed a fascinating thesis that Islamic historians had a propensity to turn nomen (gentile) (name of the gens or clan) into patronyms; a patronym being a component of a personal name based on the name of one's father. Thus Islamic historians had a tendency to take, for instance, Iranian names on inscriptions and turn them into Arabic-sounding names. Having turned Iranians into Arabs, the next step was to turn historical events connected with the original Iranians which had nothing to do with Islamic history into Islamic history. For example, Islamic history knows various so called Civil Wars. One of them was between Abd-al-Malik, his governor al-Hajjaj and the rival caliph in Mecca by the name of Abdallah Zubair. The evidence of inscriptions tells us that the name Zubayr is a misreading. The correct reading is ZNBYL. This was made into ZUBYL by the Arab historians. From ZUBYL they derived the name Zubair, which has no Semitic root. The real story is a fight between Abd al-Malik at Merv and the King of Kabulistan, who held the title ZNBYL. This took place between 60 and 75 Arab era in the East of the former Sassanian domains. The historians transferred this feud to Mecca and Jerusalem and then embedded the whole into the structure of a well known story from the Old Testament, the secession of Omri and his building the Temple of Samaria.
If this kind of wild speculation is typical of the historiographical methods used by the "independent numismatist", it doesn't raise confidence.
QuoteThe humble background of Mohammed (a merchant) would also mirror the humble background of Jesus (a carpenter).
Again - to what end? Muhammad is not delivering a similar message - he asserts and obtains political leadership over a people and directs them into war.
Recall - Ohlig's thesis appears to be the Muhammad is an invention of the Abbasids. But the Abassids came up with the ideological framework of distinguishing the Rashidun caliphs from the Ummayads. The natural step would to ascribe Islam to the first of these Caliphs to established a direct connection to the new regime.
Interesting. Maybe you're right. It is true that this is a minority viewpoint, but it is also true that a majority of Islam research in the west receives funding from the arab world. There are also many other reasons of human psychology one can imagine would, for an Islamic scholar, discourage critical inquiry into the history of early Islam.
I'll suspend judgement until I have done some more reading on the subject.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 06:15:24 PM
If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.
The only positive claim I have made is about what I believe.
Edit: And since when is uncertainty and doubt the same as ignorance? I'm pretty much of the view that anyone who doesn't acknowledge some level of either when discussing religion is somebody whose opinion isn't all that important.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 06:34:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 06:15:24 PM
If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.
The only positive claim I have made is about what I believe.
Do you not care whether what you believe to be true corresponds with that which is true?
Quote from: Neil on October 25, 2009, 08:45:35 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 25, 2009, 08:42:34 PM
What if we simulataneously make a rule against making replies as you read the thread, ending up with 5 or 6 consecutive posts saying almost exactly the same thing?
How would Martinus feel about that?
I would find such a rule outrageous and I would spew vitriol at it until I puke.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 06:34:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 06:15:24 PM
If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.
The only positive claim I have made is about what I believe.
Well, you claim there is objective morality, presumably gotten from God and you claim that you can understand this morality through the bible (and presumably prayer).
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 08:02:46 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 03:54:52 AM
So a country with an overwhelmingly muslim populace, where the democratically elected representatives of the people pass laws that penalize apostasy, adultery and homosexuality with death, and forbid drinking wine and eating pork, would be "secular" to you? :lol:
Seriously, you are the best example of the GIGO principle. You are a smart and decent guy, who has right ideas on most of things, but because your reasoning process is contaminated with religious falsehoods, you end up saying things like that.
Well I consider freedom of religion a basis for a secular state so I would probably nix the apostasy part...but how can you reasonably propose that a society is secular because it has no laws based on religion?
How is outlawing eating pork different from outlawing anything else if done via a legal and democratic process? The motivations of the voters is not what makes a secular state. If the voters voted for things based on Astrology or the belief that the world is going to end in 2012 that would be just as 'secular'.
Because in a secular state, rules are based on reason, not on revelation. Again, you are confusing democratic with secular. You can have a theocratic democracy. Democracy is a form. Theocracy (or secularism) is the content.
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 08:04:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:41:40 PM
I am not saying you have to ban religious thinking but yes, you have to ban religious politics. This is how the separation of church and state is perceived in many European countries, for example France.
Religion is a private thing. It should be kept to homes and churches. It has no place in the public sphere.
Yet France is not a secular state by your definition because there is nothing preventing people from voting for or against things based on their religious convictions. In fact many people in France do just that. Ergo according to you: not secular.
And religion is a private thing in the United States. I am free to believe in and worship however I want. There is no government agent around telling me what the acceptable dogma is.
I don't think secularism is a binary state. It's more of a continuum.
France is more secular than the US. The US are more secular than Saudi Arabia.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 06:34:33 PM
Edit: And since when is uncertainty and doubt the same as ignorance? I'm pretty much of the view that anyone who doesn't acknowledge some level of either when discussing religion is somebody whose opinion isn't all that important.
Uncertainty is the core of science and the antethisis of faith. The only certainty that has been expressed so far in this thread by us non-theists is that of mathematical proofs. You were the one expressing certainty in the efficacy of drugs and nuclear bombs. I presume you are sure of gods existence as well.
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 06:43:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 26, 2009, 08:04:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on October 24, 2009, 04:41:40 PM
I am not saying you have to ban religious thinking but yes, you have to ban religious politics. This is how the separation of church and state is perceived in many European countries, for example France.
Religion is a private thing. It should be kept to homes and churches. It has no place in the public sphere.
Yet France is not a secular state by your definition because there is nothing preventing people from voting for or against things based on their religious convictions. In fact many people in France do just that. Ergo according to you: not secular.
And religion is a private thing in the United States. I am free to believe in and worship however I want. There is no government agent around telling me what the acceptable dogma is.
I don't think secularism is a binary state. It's more of a continuum.
France is more secular than the US. The US are more secular than Saudi Arabia.
"Is", after the Civil War :smarty:
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 06:39:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 06:34:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 06:15:24 PM
If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.
The only positive claim I have made is about what I believe.
Do you not care whether what you believe to be true corresponds with that which is true?
Of course I do. :huh:
I just don't claim to have absolute proof. What I am left with is faith.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 06:45:15 PM
Uncertainty is the core of science and the antethisis of faith.
:lmfao:
Since when?
Uncertainty gnaws at the very core of faith. You'll be hard-pressed to find any person of any faith that doesn't admit to some doubt at one time or another.
Again, you're argueing a caricature of religion, not religion as it is.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 12:39:05 PM
Quote from: Martinus on October 25, 2009, 07:41:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 25, 2009, 11:47:45 AM
While there's quite a bit of evidence showing that the earth is not 6000 years old, I would challenge you to show any evidence that proves Jesus was not resurrected, or that we do not go to heaven.
Most atheists would only argue there's no proof either way on those points. But you went the extra difference to say that things like heaven and the resurrections aren't just unknown, but false. Which must means you think you have some evidence on those points...
You have a funny idea of proof for a trial lawyer. :lol:
Anyway, since you consider these ideas non-falsified, and from this derive that they have to be allowed as true (i.e. you lead your life as if resurrection happened and if people were going to heaven), I cannot but marvel at your selectiveness.
When was the last time you sacrificed a young male goat to Zeus? Or made auguries to Janus before embarking on a new venture? I will not even suggest going to your neighbouring village and kidnapping their young men to tear their hearts out on the altar of Huitzilopochtli.
Of the countless thousands of gods, goddesses, half-gods and heroes, you ignore and consider false all but one. At least I am consequent in what I do - I extend the same treatment to all of them.
That is where you are mistaken. I consider heaven and the resurrection as non-falsified, then through faith accept them as true. I have never claimed that my faith is proven.
But you didn't actually answer my question - instead you just turned around and attacked me. What basis do you have for saying that heaven is proven to be false? Or did you (as I think you did) over-reach in your statement?
My point is that there is a countless number of non-falsified statements about reality, on which nonetheless there is no proof that they are true. While of course we could adopt an agnostic stance on each and every one of them, a reasonable and practical solution is to consider them untrue until some evidence presents itself.
This reasoning - I freely admit - is fallible, but nonetheless we consider it necessary. There
might be an invisible alien fleet waiting on the dark side of the moon for a moment to invade us. There
might be invisible faearies living under your bed and waiting for a moment to suck the living energy out of you. There
might be a bearded, thunderbolt-throwing god residing in the cloud over the Mount Olympus, who will eventually throw a thunder at you if you don't sacrifice a goat in his name. This reality
might be a lie, while we are in fact trapped inside virtual reality shells, while our bodily fluids are harvested by a race of malicious robots. And there
might be a resurrected Jesus waiting to judge you after you die.
Each of these statements is equally non-falsified and each is equally presented with no proof whatsoever offered. Why do you choose to believe in one but not in the others? Clearly this is an unreasonable approach.
Sure, I may be wrong - perhaps I should stock up water and bread for the upcoming alien invasion - yet I consider this statement as if it was untrue, just like all the others.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 06:49:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 06:45:15 PM
Uncertainty is the core of science and the antethisis of faith.
:lmfao:
Since when?
Uncertainty gnaws at the very core of faith. You'll be hard-pressed to find any person of any faith that doesn't admit to some doubt at one time or another.
Again, you're argueing a caricature of religion, not religion as it is.
Since you accept a proposition without evidence. The only way such a proposition survives in the face of evidence is absolute certainty. And to make my point.
Is there any evidence I can show you which proves to you that God, in fact, does not exist?
Whew, I am glad I missed out all this.
Were there any shots of tits?
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 06:50:59 PM
Each of these statements is equally non-falsified and each is equally presented with no proof whatsoever offered. Why do you choose to believe in one but not in the others? Clearly this is an unreasonable approach.
I keep repeating myself on this, but...
There is no "proof" of God and the afterlife, but there is evidence. The Bible, prayer, various reported miracles, etc.
Contrast that with yout invisible alien fleet. There is absolutely zero evidence of it.
This is why such "flying spaghetti monster" arguments are uncompelling.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 06:52:25 PM
Since you accept a proposition without evidence. The only way such a proposition survives in the face of evidence is absolute certainty. And to make my point.
Is there any evidence I can show you which proves to you that God, in fact, does not exist?
As I have pointed out, there is evidence. Your argument that "The only way such a proposition survives in the face of evidence is absolute certainty" flies in the face of all available evidence, which is that most religious people do not claim to have absolute certainty.
Is there any evidence you could show me? I dunno - what do you have? I'll certainly consider it. :)
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 07:06:17 PM
Is there any evidence you could show me? I dunno - what do you have? I'll certainly consider it. :)
That isn't answering the question.
I really think that having Marty on a side invalidates that side.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 07:06:17 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 06:52:25 PM
Since you accept a proposition without evidence. The only way such a proposition survives in the face of evidence is absolute certainty. And to make my point.
Is there any evidence I can show you which proves to you that God, in fact, does not exist?
As I have pointed out, there is evidence. Your argument that "The only way such a proposition survives in the face of evidence is absolute certainty" flies in the face of all available evidence, which is that most religious people do not claim to have absolute certainty.
Is there any evidence you could show me? I dunno - what do you have? I'll certainly consider it. :)
Regarding the evidence for god. You say there is evidence, yet you don't present any of it as proof of your faith. You just claim faith. No "this is why I believe". You don't even have a nice non-falsifiable personal experience.
Evidence for the non existence of god, just off the top of my head.
The Bible - it's contradictions, falsehoods, banalities and plagarisms
The claims of the faiths - the lack of effect of prayer, lack of punishment of the jews for the transgressions of the covenants, plus the broken promises of the new testament (vis the wandering jew)
Theodesy - why bad things happen to good people
The Universe - how it works without any intervention from god and how reality is inconsistent with both a perfect creator and genesis
Quote from: PDH on October 26, 2009, 07:15:26 PM
I really think that having Marty on a side invalidates that side.
Troll. :D
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 07:04:16 PM
There is no "proof" of God and the afterlife, but there is evidence. The Bible, prayer, various reported miracles, etc.
Neither the Bible nor prayer are actually evidence, although the miracles certainly would be.
Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2009, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 07:04:16 PM
There is no "proof" of God and the afterlife, but there is evidence. The Bible, prayer, various reported miracles, etc.
Neither the Bible nor prayer are actually evidence, although the miracles certainly would be.
Yup. Bible and prayer are assertions. It's as much of "evidence" as Matrix is an evidence of my statement about malicious robots.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 06:47:01 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 06:39:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 06:34:33 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 06:15:24 PM
If you argue from ignorance don't make any positive claims.
The only positive claim I have made is about what I believe.
Do you not care whether what you believe to be true corresponds with that which is true?
Of course I do. :huh:
But if that is important to you, why then believe things to be true when nothing points to them being true? I can understand "God did it" when we knew nothing about the world, and looked for answers, but now that we have scientific explanations for (almost) all the wondrous things we encounter in the world, and we have great secular literature infinitely wiser and more relevant to our lives today than these texts written so long ago, what is the reason? When the world works as we'd expect it to work without a god? I can understand a starving peasant asking himself the meaning of his life and be comforted by knowing that he will go to heaven after death, but nowadays most of us in the western world, at least those participating in this discussion, have pretty good lives that aren't just meaningless suffering. We can waste our time doing stuff we like, such as play games and debate stuff on the internet. And we have the freedom to believe whatever we want to believe in, instead of having to trust and believe an authority (which hasn't always been the case throughout human history). Why anyone would have this freedom and choose to give it away I don't understand.
Among my friends I only have a few religious people (and I'm not sure if they go to church on a regular basis), all the other people I know get by just fine without believing in him. And they're not hyper-rational people in any way, they're just normal people who just so happens hasn't been brought up believing in god.
I just don't share the incredibly misanthropic view of human nature presented by some people in this thread, which more or less amounts to that people can't be trusted to think for themselves. We have heard arguments such as: Without God there is only nihilism. We have also heard arguments of utility: That it is good that the people believe in God.
Well, I disagree. I don't think human beings are bad creatures that have to be made good by religion, who would live meaningless lives if there is no religion to give them meaning.
Indeed, if you believe this, and therefore lie to people, so that people are good for reasons that are not true, and do receive their meaning from things that are not true, then it becomes very easy for them to say "these things are not true, therefore everything is indeed permissible" or "these things are not true, therefore my life does indeed not have meaning". Whereas if you just told them the truth from the beginning they'd do just fine without having to believe these things. (And, as always, if no one point out that the coloured water is placebo, no real cure will ever be found.)
It is true that human history has been full of evil deeds and terrible suffering. Can one not say, then, that the human existance is indeed by nature evil and pointless? But this is where my earlier malthusian argument comes into place. Even if you do not agree with my malthusian explanation, you will have noticed the world around you is no longer as it were, and that there is a big difference between the world you read about in your books and what the world is now.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 07:17:25 PM
lack of punishment of the jews for the transgressions of the covenants
I'd say that the Jews have been punished plenty.
Quote from: dps on October 26, 2009, 08:23:09 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 07:17:25 PM
lack of punishment of the jews for the transgressions of the covenants
I'd say that the Jews have been punished plenty.
The Sodom of Tel Aviv hasn't been destroyed.
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 07:13:01 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 07:06:17 PM
Is there any evidence you could show me? I dunno - what do you have? I'll certainly consider it. :)
That isn't answering the question.
I don't know how to answer such a hypothetical. Is there any evidence that could convince me there is no God? I don't know - is there? All I can say is that I'll consider any and all evidence.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 07:17:25 PM
Regarding the evidence for god. You say there is evidence, yet you don't present any of it as proof of your faith. You just claim faith. No "this is why I believe". You don't even have a nice non-falsifiable personal experience.
Because, quite frankly, I don't feel like you taking a big wet shit over whatever I might say about a deeply held conviction.
Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2009, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 07:04:16 PM
There is no "proof" of God and the afterlife, but there is evidence. The Bible, prayer, various reported miracles, etc.
Neither the Bible nor prayer are actually evidence, although the miracles certainly would be.
Of course it's evidence. It's a book written a short time after the events it describes. It's better evidence than a lot of other ancient writing, such as, oh, Herodotus, yet we rarely question those ancient histories.
Whether you find it compelling evidence or not is up to you, but the Bible is clearly some of the most important evidence of Jesus that we have,
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 10:04:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on October 26, 2009, 07:20:51 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 07:04:16 PM
There is no "proof" of God and the afterlife, but there is evidence. The Bible, prayer, various reported miracles, etc.
Neither the Bible nor prayer are actually evidence, although the miracles certainly would be.
Of course it's evidence. It's a book written a short time after the events it describes. It's better evidence than a lot of other ancient writing, such as, oh, Herodotus, yet we rarely question those ancient histories.
Whether you find it compelling evidence or not is up to you, but the Bible is clearly some of the most important evidence of Jesus that we have,
Evidence of Jesus and evidence of gods or afterlives are entirely different things.
Herodotus makes less reference to the supernatural, and is thus superior.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 10:01:58 PM
Because, quite frankly, I don't feel like you taking a big wet shit over whatever I might say about a deeply held conviction.
Welcome to languish ;)
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 06:33:44 PM
Interesting. Maybe you're right. It is true that this is a minority viewpoint, but it is also true that a majority of Islam research in the west receives funding from the arab world. There are also many other reasons of human psychology one can imagine would, for an Islamic scholar, discourage critical inquiry into the history of early Islam.
I'll suspend judgement until I have done some more reading on the subject.
What would be a more fruitful area of inquiry is looking into the authenticity of individual traditions about Muhammad.
The likelihood that he was entirely a ficticious person is slim; but the likelihood that his true life and deeds are not exactly as tradition claims is far greater. Indeed, the very reason scholars started writing down hadith in the first place was from a recognition that questionable material had found its way into the oral accounts.
Quote from: Barrister on October 26, 2009, 10:04:24 PM
It's better evidence than a lot of other ancient writing, such as, oh, Herodotus, yet we rarely question those ancient histories.
....we don't?
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 06:01:27 PM
As for this, from a while back: You only call it a deliberate scam because it was invented recently enough for there to be evidence it was invented. Had it been invented a long time ago you'd be talking about how we need to respect scientology because a lot of people believe in it.
Scientology is bunk but L. Ron Hubbard was a real person. Similarly Joseph Smith and Brigham Young actually existed.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 06:13:45 PM
I wouldn't go and ascribe value to the various sources of western thought. Levantine Religion, Greek Philosophy and Roman Law are all fundamental contributors to western thought. We don't get our philosophy without all three.
Hence I would ascribe value to all three.
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 06:43:39 PM
I don't think secularism is a binary state. It's more of a continuum.
France is more secular than the US. The US are more secular than Saudi Arabia.
Well I guess I disagree. I do not think secularism of a state is determined by how many religious people live there but rather in their laws and style of government.
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 06:42:43 PM
Because in a secular state, rules are based on reason, . . .
If only.
Quote from: Martinus on October 26, 2009, 06:42:43 PM
Because in a secular state, rules are based on reason, not on revelation. Again, you are confusing democratic with secular. You can have a theocratic democracy. Democracy is a form. Theocracy (or secularism) is the content.
Bullshit. Theocracy has no room for Democracy, how can divine truth be dictated by the will of the people? I would consider certain protections for religions important even for a Democracy though. Freedom of religion and most of the time a lack of publicly funded religion would be among them.
One doesn't need to be a Democracy to be secular but I find it hard to picture a state where the laws are made by elected representatives without clerical interference that could be called a Theocracy.
What if a state has religious and non-religious political parties? Does it change from secular to a theocracy depending on who won the last election? That is absurd.
The issue, as always, is effective and enforced constitutional protection (written or by judge-made law) for minority views.
Have that, and you can have your population be as religious as you like. Lack that, and as history as shown, secularism will not ensure a good outcome.
Quote from: Viking on October 26, 2009, 05:50:18 PM
So, I'm not quite sure, are you claiming that James Joyce was inspired by God to write a guide to human morality or are you claiming that the Bible is merely litterature?
And, as for intellegability. If it is impossible to understand what possible meaning can it impart? And if it is difficult to understand how can you be sure you understood it correctly?
I am only claiming it is a spiritual text written by ancient people who were experts, if you will, about spirituality and have some useful and profound things to say if you read it carefully. Of course that is a mammoth task. While I do sometimes get a kick out of reading it, religion is a social process and so I usually get more discussing it with other people or reading commentaries. As for how can I be sure I am interpreting it correctly...it is a spiritual book written by many people over a span of centuries how could there possibly be only one correct way to read it? Frankly I am not even sure I understand the question, this is a religious book not a physics book. It is trying to communicate things that language has a hard time really getting across on its own.
One of the things I point out is how it expands from an individual sort of...conciousness...if you will to a tribal one to a universalist one. It is very interesting how the way the writers feel about God and what it means to be religious as that perspective changes.
But it just happens to be the book we work with here in the West, you could probably get similar ideas with other works in other cultures. The actual content is just a tool of communicating the basic messages.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 09:19:23 AM
The issue, as always, is effective and enforced constitutional protection (written or by judge-made law) for minority views.
Have that, and you can have your population be as religious as you like. Lack that, and as history as shown, secularism will not ensure a good outcome.
I agree - I think effective and enforced protection for minority views is a necessary prerequisite for democracy - irrespective of whether it is about religion or other aspects.
Without that, democracy quickly become the tyranny of majority.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 09:27:01 AM
I am only claiming it is a spiritual text written by ancient people who were experts,
I'm perfectly happy to treat the bible on it's own merits. Approaching it as I would any other books.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on October 27, 2009, 09:01:52 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 26, 2009, 06:33:44 PM
Interesting. Maybe you're right. It is true that this is a minority viewpoint, but it is also true that a majority of Islam research in the west receives funding from the arab world. There are also many other reasons of human psychology one can imagine would, for an Islamic scholar, discourage critical inquiry into the history of early Islam.
I'll suspend judgement until I have done some more reading on the subject.
What would be a more fruitful area of inquiry is looking into the authenticity of individual traditions about Muhammad.
The likelihood that he was entirely a ficticious person is slim; but the likelihood that his true life and deeds are not exactly as tradition claims is far greater. Indeed, the very reason scholars started writing down hadith in the first place was from a recognition that questionable material had found its way into the oral accounts.
This, too, was discussed at the conference:
QuoteThe paper delivered by Rainer Nabielek of Berlin provided evidence of a successful application of Luxenberg's method not only to the Koran but to non-religious texts as well. This was convincingly shown by means of a hitherto unsolved medical term. This medical term can be traced back to Syriac in the same way as many Koranic expressions as demonstrated by Luxenberg. In addition to this Nabielek pointed in his paper to the hitherto overlooked phenomenon of the existence of loan syntax in classical Arabic. His contribution confirms the validity of Luxenberg's method in general.
Keith Small compared the textual variants in the New Testament manuscripts and Koranic manuscripts. Dr. Elisabeth Puin gave a lucid, and highly original analysis of an early Koran manuscript from Sana, Yemen, [DAM 01-27.1] in part written over a palimpsest Koranic text. Dr. Elisabeth Puin summarized her findings and their implications,
"As for the scriptio superior, the comparison with the Standard text [Cairo 1924/25 Koran] shows that it still contains many differences in orthography and verse counting; there are even minor textual variants, like, for example, singular instead of plural, wa- instead of fa-, and so on. Some - but by far not all - of those differences were at a later stage corrected by erasure and /or amendments. We cannot suppose that all the differences are only due to the calligrapher's inattention, being simply spelling mistakes; there are too many of them on every page, and some of them are found repeatedly, not only in this manuscript but in others too. So we must conclude that at the stage when and in the region where the manuscript was written those variants were not felt to be mistakes but conformed to a specific writing tradition."
Professor Van Reeth, already much impressed by Luxenberg's thesis and methodology, gave two talks at the conference. The shorter one compared the image of the pearl in four passages in the Koran that refer to a eucharistic prayer, and a parallel image found in the Eucharist of the Manichaeans. The longer talk discussed the similarities of the Islamic vision of the union of Muhammad with his God, and the commentary of Ephrem the Syrian on the union of the believer with God.
There's also a book called "Which Koran?" by Ibn Warraq which I believe deals exclusively with comparing different early versions of the Koran (though I haven't had time to read it yet).
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
Religion is pretty interesting, but only insofar as it is rather fascinating that human are so susceptible to belief in imaginary things.
I don't want to wade too much into the argument, but "imaginary" things effect human life as much/more so than "real things". Language, for instance, is no less imagined than your non-existent God, nor are Art, Politics, or almost everything we do as a social species.
My primary objection to you and, if I may be overly general, your type of positivist Atheism is that it appears remarkably inconsistent. The United States government exists only in the heads of 300,000,000 Americans, as does the grammar of the English language. I don't see why Religion is
specially wrong.
QuoteI don't see why Religion is specially wrong.
Because religion makes claims about all kinds of stuff, which the grammar of the english language, in itself, does not.
edit: But you're correct it is a part of human psychology in the same way as language is. That doesn't mean we are, by nature, inclined to organized religion. I adressed exactly this earlier in the thread.
So do all Liberal Democracies. All believe in the value of individual human life, separation of powers, "inalienable" human rights. Capitalism is based on half-truths as well (as our current economic collapse indicates). The primary difference is that most Organized Religions have 'myths' (in the Greek sense) rooted in a different epoch.
We are not, by nature, inclined to speak English specifically either. That doesn't mean that learning and loving the language isn't worth it.
EDIT: For the record, I'm not *really* advocating some manner of absolute relativism. I think that religion adds something to the human experience and shouldn't be discarded simply because Diderot found out that we have chemicals in our brain. Its more complex than that.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 27, 2009, 03:20:39 PM
Capitalism is based on half-truths as well (as our current economic collapse indicates).
Since Capitalism assumes a boom-bust cycle how would a bust indicate is is based on half-truths?
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 03:23:32 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on October 27, 2009, 03:20:39 PM
Capitalism is based on half-truths as well (as our current economic collapse indicates).
Since Capitalism assumes a boom-bust cycle how would a bust indicate is is based on half-truths?
Hmm.
That's a valid criticism.
Capitalism is not a good example; Libertarianism or Communism would be. So would most political ideologies.
Okay. Right. As I've said earlier in the thread, I would be just fine to see religion as no more than moral philosophy. I doubt, however, that the religious would be content with that.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 27, 2009, 03:07:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
Religion is pretty interesting, but only insofar as it is rather fascinating that human are so susceptible to belief in imaginary things.
I don't want to wade too much into the argument, but "imaginary" things effect human life as much/more so than "real things". Language, for instance, is no less imagined than your non-existent God, nor are Art, Politics, or almost everything we do as a social species.
My primary objection to you and, if I may be overly general, your type of positivist Atheism is that it appears remarkably inconsistent. The United States government exists only in the heads of 300,000,000 Americans, as does the grammar of the English language. I don't see why Religion is specially wrong.
You are confusing intangible with imaginary. Government, Art, Politics and Social Interactions are Intangible, they are not Imaginary.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 03:28:00 PM
Okay. Right. As I've said earlier in the thread, I would be just fine to see religion as no more than moral philosophy. I doubt, however, that the religious would be content with that.
Philosophy attempts to deal with ideas and principals of right and wrong, good and evil, whereas religion is primarily about the spiritual experience. While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.
Certain religious people claim that it is impossible to really be a moral person without a spiritual experience but that is not the same as claiming it is a moral philosophy or should be.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 03:41:27 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 03:28:00 PM
Okay. Right. As I've said earlier in the thread, I would be just fine to see religion as no more than moral philosophy. I doubt, however, that the religious would be content with that.
Philosophy attempts to deal with ideas and principals of right and wrong, good and evil, whereas religion is primarily about the spiritual experience. While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.
Certain religious people claim that it is impossible to really be a moral person without a spiritual experience but that is not the same as claiming it is a moral philosophy or should be.
Why couldn't philosophy tap into the exact same parts of the brain as religion does for the religious and produce the exact same experiences? In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what it does.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 03:41:27 PM
While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.
I have to call BS on that one. Moral principals are indeed the "primary focus of religion".
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 03:44:00 PM
Why couldn't philosophy tap into the exact same parts of the brain as religion does for the religious and produce the exact same experiences? In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what it does.
Or perhaps some philosophies tap into both parts.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on October 27, 2009, 03:45:59 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 03:44:00 PM
Why couldn't philosophy tap into the exact same parts of the brain as religion does for the religious and produce the exact same experiences? In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what it does.
Or perhaps some philosophies tap into both parts.
I'm talking about religion and philosophy (or art, or literature, or anything similar) being capable of stimulating this (these) part (parts) of the brain in the same manner. I.e. religion is not the only thing that can produce spiritual or, for lack of a better word, "religious", experiences.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 03:44:00 PM
Why couldn't philosophy tap into the exact same parts of the brain as religion does for the religious and produce the exact same experiences? In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what it does.
They are perhaps closely related but not the same thing. But it might be necessary to reach a similar state of...I don't know...elevated conciousness?...to get the insight necessary to have new philosophical insights that one might need to reach to have a spiritual insight or experience.
I guess it could also be argued that as religion really requires a social setting to be realized, philosophy might also require a group of people discussing a topic to get them to think of things in a new light? Eh I don't know.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 03:50:00 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 03:44:00 PM
Why couldn't philosophy tap into the exact same parts of the brain as religion does for the religious and produce the exact same experiences? In fact, I'm sure that's exactly what it does.
They are perhaps closely related but not the same thing. But it might be necessary to reach a similar state of...I don't know...elevated conciousness?...to get the insight necessary to have new philosophical insights that one might need to reach to have a spiritual insight or experience.
I guess it could also be argued that as religion really requires a social setting to be realized, philosophy might also require a group of people discussing a topic to get them to think of things in a new light? Eh I don't know.
When I read a book that is, for me, a form of communication and a sort of social setting in a way (i.e. I am having another human being communicating it's thoughts to me).
But you're right it doesn't provide the same group coherence and group mentality. I get that from supporting a football-team.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 27, 2009, 03:07:56 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 26, 2009, 01:44:47 PM
Religion is pretty interesting, but only insofar as it is rather fascinating that human are so susceptible to belief in imaginary things.
I don't want to wade too much into the argument, but "imaginary" things effect human life as much/more so than "real things". Language, for instance, is no less imagined than your non-existent God, nor are Art, Politics, or almost everything we do as a social species.
My primary objection to you and, if I may be overly general, your type of positivist Atheism is that it appears remarkably inconsistent. The United States government exists only in the heads of 300,000,000 Americans, as does the grammar of the English language. I don't see why Religion is specially wrong.
You think the US Government is imaginary?
There really isn't any basis for argument with someone holding that position.
Quote from: Viking on October 27, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
You are confusing intangible with imaginary. Government, Art, Politics and Social Interactions are Intangible, they are not Imaginary.
:huh:
I fail to see the meaningful distinction here. People do not have inalienable rights. Letters do not have meanings. From the point of view of a true positivist both are untrue. You make exceptions there, and not here. I think the only argument to be made is the Utility of religion.
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2009, 03:45:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 03:41:27 PM
While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.
I have to call BS on that one. Moral principals are indeed the "primary focus of religion".
I have to call BS on that one. Moral principles are the primary focus of
some religions, and some particular person's perception of their religion.
Moral principles is often the
stated focus of many religions, while other things are the actual focus.
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2009, 03:45:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 03:41:27 PM
While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.
I have to call BS on that one. Moral principals are indeed the "primary focus of religion".
Not necessarily. Religion serves many purposes.
One is certainly that of social control and thus morality.
Another is social cohesion - religion as identity. This includes much in the way of social structure and ritual.
Yet another is to give form to mysticism; the intuitive sense of universalism.
Last is to provide an explaination for observed phenomina - and this is where religion is often a problem.
What the anti-religious types in this debate are doing, in my opinion, is giving far too much weight to the last, which is not IMO strictly speaking a necessity for a functioning religion. Many do not place emphasis on creation myths and the like. Different religions emphasize different aspects, even when relying on many of the same texts (Judaism for example is much more focused on morality and social cohesion/ritual - famously so on the latter point - than some forms of Christianity; some types of Buddhism like Theravada are not much concerned with observed phenomina and the supernatural at all - gods may or may not exist, they don't much care ...).
Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2009, 03:58:53 PM
You think the US Government is imaginary?
There really isn't any basis for argument with someone holding that position.
:huh:
You would argue that the US Government, the thing-in-itself has some kind of ability or force independent of the people and materials that believe in it?
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 04:01:11 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2009, 03:45:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 03:41:27 PM
While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.
I have to call BS on that one. Moral principals are indeed the "primary focus of religion".
Not necessarily. Religion serves many purposes.
One is certainly that of social control and thus morality.
Another is social cohesion - religion as identity. This includes much in the way of social structure and ritual.
Yet another is to give form to mysticism; the intuitive sense of universalism.
Last is to provide an explaination for observed phenomina - and this is where religion is often a problem.
What the anti-religious types in this debate are doing, in my opinion, is giving far too much weight to the last, which is not IMO strictly speaking a necessity for a functioning religion. Many do not place emphasis on creation myths and the like. Different religions emphasize different aspects, even when relying on many of the same texts (Judaism for example is much more focused on morality and social cohesion/ritual - famously so on the latter point - than some forms of Christianity; some types of Buddhism like Theravada are not much concerned with observed phenomina and the supernatural at all - gods may or may not exist, they don't much care ...).
Right, and with such essentially secular "religions", which are really little more than philosophies, I have no quarrel.
edit: I think this is the third or fourth time I say this now.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 04:01:11 PM
What the anti-religious types in this debate are doing, in my opinion, is giving far too much weight to the last, which is not IMO strictly speaking a necessity for a functioning religion. Many do not place emphasis on creation myths and the like. Different religions emphasize different aspects, even when relying on many of the same texts (Judaism for example is much more focused on morality and social cohesion/ritual - famously so on the latter point - than some forms of Christianity; some types of Buddhism like Theravada are not much concerned with observed phenomina and the supernatural at all - gods may or may not exist, they don't much care ...).
Great post. Completely agree.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 03:55:59 PM
But you're right it doesn't provide the same group coherence and group mentality. I get that from supporting a football-team.
Yeah that is exactly what I said :rolleyes:
Malthus, the problem is one of credibility and power.
Religion that does not attempt to add in some kind of supernatural explanation for things tend to not be very powerful or compelling. What is more, I would argue that religion stripped of its supernatural jsutification isn't really religion anymore - it is just philosophy of a particular type.
If your religion is just about morality, without any of the "explanation"/goddidit/ claims, then why is it religion, as opposed to just some guy writing about how it would be cool if we weren't such dicks to one another?
If you stirp the bible of all the supernatural stuff, and are just left with the moral message (whether the good parts or the bad), then it isn't "special" anymore, it just becomes a book with some recommendations about how people should act. There are lots of those out there.
The problem with religion is that its proponents want there to be more force behind it - so it isn't just "Hey, lets act this way because that would be good for society and here is why..." it is "Hey, you better act this way or Yahweh is gonna be pissed and will send a flood/throw you in the lake of fire/kill your firstborn/burn your city...".
The anti-religious types focus on this because this is the problem of religion. Absent this, religion isn't really religion, and much of its danger has gone away.
While I agree that religion runs into problems when it tries to explain natural phenomenon, the real problem of religion is when it tries to tell people how they should treat one another, and often that message is horrific.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 04:08:37 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 03:55:59 PM
But you're right it doesn't provide the same group coherence and group mentality. I get that from supporting a football-team.
Yeah that is exactly what I said :rolleyes:
Okay, sorry. Malthus did say something of that kind shortly afterwards though, so it's still a valid point.
Quote from: Queequeg on October 27, 2009, 04:04:01 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2009, 03:58:53 PM
You think the US Government is imaginary?
There really isn't any basis for argument with someone holding that position.
:huh:
You would argue that the US Government, the thing-in-itself has some kind of ability or force independent of the people and materials that believe in it?
I think the US Government is not imaginary in any sense of the word as I understand it.
Beyond that, playing the "lets twist meanings of words around so we can equate things that aren't really similar" is not all that interesting.
Tell you what - you quit believing in the US Government, and decide to stop paying your taxes, and we will see if it has any "force".
Quote from: Queequeg on October 27, 2009, 04:00:21 PM
Quote from: Viking on October 27, 2009, 03:32:02 PM
You are confusing intangible with imaginary. Government, Art, Politics and Social Interactions are Intangible, they are not Imaginary.
:huh:
I fail to see the meaningful distinction here. People do not have inalienable rights. Letters do not have meanings. From the point of view of a true positivist both are untrue. You make exceptions there, and not here. I think the only argument to be made is the Utility of religion.
I tried to read the fountainhead :bleeding:
Yes, people do not have inalienable rights, unless enough people agree to agree what they are and enforce them. Once enough people agree what they are and to enforce them then they are real, but intangible. Naturally people can sit down and agree to some other (or none) rights. You can't touch positivism and you can't measure it. But it is real non the less. Positivism is an intagible, but real still.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 04:04:16 PM
Right, and with such essentially secular "religions", which are really little more than philosophies, I have no quarrel.
edit: I think this is the third or fourth time I say this now.
I have no problem with any religion or philosophy that contains within its structure the possibility of questioning beliefs and modifying rituals.
I am wary of any philosophy that tends to the opposite - whether termed a "religion" or not.
Reformed Judaism is "better" than most forms of Marxism, even though the former is a "religion" and the latter is a "secular philosophy".
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2009, 03:45:05 PM
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 03:41:27 PM
While spiritual experiences do often lead to realizations of certain moral principals that is not the primary focus of religion.
I have to call BS on that one. Moral principals are indeed the "primary focus of religion".
Oh yes? Please explain the moral principal behind: There is no God but God and Mohammed is his Prophet.
I see no moral prinicipal there.
or:
"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the maker of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the begotten of God the Father, the Only-begotten, that is of the essence of the Father. God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same nature of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. Who for us humanity and for our salvation came down from heaven, was incarnate, was made human, was born perfectly of the holy virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit. By whom He took body, soul, and mind, and everything that is in man, truly and not in semblance. He suffered, was crucified, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven with the same body, [and] sat at the right hand of the Father. He is to come with the same body and with the glory of the Father, to judge the living and the dead; of His kingdom there is no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, in the uncreated and the perfect; Who spoke through the Law, prophets, and Gospels; Who came down upon the Jordan, preached through the apostles, and lived in the saints.
We believe also in only One, Universal, Apostolic, and [Holy] Church; in one baptism in repentance, for the remission, and forgiveness of sins; and in the resurrection of the dead, in the everlasting judgement of souls and bodies, and the Kingdom of Heaven and in the everlasting life."
Now by embracing those ideas we may come to moral principals but to say it is primarily concerned with moral philosophy is untrue.
Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2009, 04:09:24 PM
Malthus, the problem is one of credibility and power.
Religion that does not attempt to add in some kind of supernatural explanation for things tend to not be very powerful or compelling. What is more, I would argue that religion stripped of its supernatural jsutification isn't really religion anymore - it is just philosophy of a particular type.
If your religion is just about morality, without any of the "explanation"/goddidit/ claims, then why is it religion, as opposed to just some guy writing about how it would be cool if we weren't such dicks to one another?
If you stirp the bible of all the supernatural stuff, and are just left with the moral message (whether the good parts or the bad), then it isn't "special" anymore, it just becomes a book with some recommendations about how people should act. There are lots of those out there.
The problem with religion is that its proponents want there to be more force behind it - so it isn't just "Hey, lets act this way because that would be good for society and here is why..." it is "Hey, you better act this way or Yahweh is gonna be pissed and will send a flood/throw you in the lake of fire/kill your firstborn/burn your city...".
The anti-religious types focus on this because this is the problem of religion. Absent this, religion isn't really religion, and much of its danger has gone away.
While I agree that religion runs into problems when it tries to explain natural phenomenon, the real problem of religion is when it tries to tell people how they should treat one another, and often that message is horrific.
I don't agree at all. Take Marxism for example. No god-claims at all, but plenty of social compulsion to conform: its "credibility and power" come precisely because of its claim to "science-y" status. Disagree and you are not angering God, you are standing in the way of human progress, which is evidently just as likely to lead to pogroms.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 04:16:42 PM
I don't agree at all. Take Marxism for example. No god-claims at all, but plenty of social compulsion to conform: its "credibility and power" come precisely because of its claim to "science-y" status. Disagree and you are not angering God, you are standing in the way of human progress, which is evidently just as likely to lead to pogroms.
I don't think I claimed that religion had a unique ability to force societal compulsion. Saying that it happens in non-religious contexts as well doesn't really excuse religion.
And I would argue that Marxism, to the extent that it becomes dangerous, does so for exactly the same reason religions become dangerous - the drive to create us-vs-them dynamics based on some enforced ideology.
Humans are suckers, for the most part. They buy into all kinds of idiotic things and then go kill each other over it. Religion hardly has a monopoly on that.
I would say that using religion to talk people into sending their money to some shyster religious figure is a bad thing, and one of the negatives that the power of religion allows. You can respond and say that Madoff does that as well, and you would be right - but that doesn't make it ok, or make my issue with the ability to religion to enable that kind of thing any less applicable.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 04:10:07 PM
Okay, sorry. Malthus did say something of that kind shortly afterwards though, so it's still a valid point.
Religion is about reaching a state of transcending your self centered conciousness...meh these things are hard to put into words...for various reasons this happens most easily in a group setting. That sort of combined emotional energy is something you do experience a bit of at sporting events, heck that is the main reason I attend them, but it is not for that purpose you attend those events nor does reaching that state necessarily provide you with a system similar to a philosopher.
Though, as I said, those sorts of things usually come out of it because you see things a bit differently.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 04:13:25 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 04:04:16 PM
Right, and with such essentially secular "religions", which are really little more than philosophies, I have no quarrel.
edit: I think this is the third or fourth time I say this now.
I have no problem with any religion or philosophy that contains within its structure the possibility of questioning beliefs and modifying rituals.
I am wary of any philosophy that tends to the opposite - whether termed a "religion" or not.
Reformed Judaism is "better" than most forms of Marxism, even though the former is a "religion" and the latter is a "secular philosophy".
Of course you can do bad things without being religious. Of course there can be secular authoritarianism of the mind as well as celestial authoritarianism of the mind. I don't see the relevance at all.
edit: changed dictatorship of the mind to authoritarianism of the mind, which is more what I was getting at
Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2009, 04:09:24 PM
the real problem of religion is when it tries to tell people how they should treat one another, and often that message is horrific.
Yeah that whole do unto others thing and all men are brothers and equal in the eyes of God stuff was pretty horrific.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 04:01:11 PM
Yet another is to give form to mysticism; the intuitive sense of universalism.
In my experience this is whole source from which the rest of the stuff, good and bad, arises. The attempt to form language and symbols and such around this rather intuitive and hard to explain experience is where we get all rest of stuff.
Quote from: Valmy on October 27, 2009, 04:14:41 PM
Now by embracing those ideas we may come to moral principals but to say it is primarily concerned with moral philosophy is untrue.
You linked to the "statements of faith", which are the explicit attempts to divide between Christianty and Islam, or whatever.
If you read the Bible (or the Koran), much of it does outline various rules, guidelines, and parables for how to live our lives. That is the very definition of "moral philosophy".
All of you attempting to draw aa bright line between philosophy and religion - what do you classify confucianism as?
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2009, 04:31:47 PM
If you read the Bible (or the Koran), much of it does outline various rules, guidelines, and parables for how to live our lives. That is the very definition of "moral philosophy".
Yes it does. Nowhere did I ever say or claim it has nothing to do with moral philosophy dude. That comes out of the religion not the primary source of it. Once you accept the faith, faith being the primary element, then the moral philosophy should naturally follow that being a secondary element.
It does not follow once you start following a moral philosophy faith in Christianity or Islam naturally follows. Hence it is not the primary element of those religions.
Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2009, 04:20:00 PM
I don't think I claimed that religion had a unique ability to force societal compulsion. Saying that it happens in non-religious contexts as well doesn't really excuse religion.
And I would argue that Marxism, to the extent that it becomes dangerous, does so for exactly the same reason religions become dangerous - the drive to create us-vs-them dynamics based on some enforced ideology.
Humans are suckers, for the most part. They buy into all kinds of idiotic things and then go kill each other over it. Religion hardly has a monopoly on that.
I agree. Thus, the issue is whether the philosophy or movement or whatever has a reasonable ability to accept dissent and questioning.
That's why I disagree with this:
QuoteThe problem with religion is that its proponents want there to be more force behind it - so it isn't just "Hey, lets act this way because that would be good for society and here is why..." it is "Hey, you better act this way or Yahweh is gonna be pissed and will send a flood/throw you in the lake of fire/kill your firstborn/burn your city...".
The anti-religious types focus on this because this is the problem of religion. Absent this, religion isn't really religion, and much of its danger has gone away.
There is no proof that, absent supernatural sanction, philosophies or movements become
less dangerous. On the contrary, one could equally well propose that the more modern movements are, the less reticent they are to accept limitations; and most modern movements of the last century (thinking particularly about Communism here) that gained acceptance among first world types did not rely on supernatural sanctions. Some religions have as it were mellowed with much history; their adherents no longer have the burning conviction to establish a utopia on top of a big pile of human corpses.
To my mind, there is a spectrum of movements. At one end are as it were relatively harmless ones whose adherents go about their business, conduct their rituals, regulate their morality, find inspiration from the world without forcing their views on anyone; at the other are truly dangerous movements, ones in which the adherents are certain that they know the capital-T Truth, are driven to expand, seek domination over others in the name of a higher ideal, are uncaring of human life in the pursuit of that ideal, and brook no dissent.
Certainly some religions fall towards the latter end of the spectrum. Many fall towards the former end. Purely secular philosophies are equally split. The 'higher ideal" may be a god, or an infallible political philosophy, or a national group. This does not mean that having gods, political philosophies, or nations are of necessity bad.
Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2009, 04:09:24 PM
Malthus, the problem is one of credibility and power.
Religion that does not attempt to add in some kind of supernatural explanation for things tend to not be very powerful or compelling. What is more, I would argue that religion stripped of its supernatural jsutification isn't really religion anymore - it is just philosophy of a particular type.
If your religion is just about morality, without any of the "explanation"/goddidit/ claims, then why is it religion, as opposed to just some guy writing about how it would be cool if we weren't such dicks to one another?
If you stirp the bible of all the supernatural stuff, and are just left with the moral message (whether the good parts or the bad), then it isn't "special" anymore, it just becomes a book with some recommendations about how people should act. There are lots of those out there.
The problem with religion is that its proponents want there to be more force behind it - so it isn't just "Hey, lets act this way because that would be good for society and here is why..." it is "Hey, you better act this way or Yahweh is gonna be pissed and will send a flood/throw you in the lake of fire/kill your firstborn/burn your city...".
The anti-religious types focus on this because this is the problem of religion. Absent this, religion isn't really religion, and much of its danger has gone away.
While I agree that religion runs into problems when it tries to explain natural phenomenon, the real problem of religion is when it tries to tell people how they should treat one another, and often that message is horrific.
So if we redefine religion to mean something bad then it's a bad thing? Hard to argue with that.
Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2009, 04:09:24 PM
Religion that does not attempt to add in some kind of supernatural explanation for things tend to not be very powerful or compelling. What is more, I would argue that religion stripped of its supernatural jsutification isn't really religion anymore - it is just philosophy of a particular type.
:huh: Plenty of religions don't put a whole lot of focus on supernatural elements. Confucianism, as mentioned. Judaism however from what I understand tends to put very little emphasis on any supernatural elements. Various sects of buddhism don't spend a lot of time on miracles and the supernatural. And all of those religions seem to be pretty compelling.
QuoteWhile I agree that religion runs into problems when it tries to explain natural phenomenon, the real problem of religion is when it tries to tell people how they should treat one another, and often that message is horrific.
I see you're interested in having a balanced, and nuanced discussion on the topic.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 04:25:36 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 04:13:25 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 04:04:16 PM
Right, and with such essentially secular "religions", which are really little more than philosophies, I have no quarrel.
edit: I think this is the third or fourth time I say this now.
I have no problem with any religion or philosophy that contains within its structure the possibility of questioning beliefs and modifying rituals.
I am wary of any philosophy that tends to the opposite - whether termed a "religion" or not.
Reformed Judaism is "better" than most forms of Marxism, even though the former is a "religion" and the latter is a "secular philosophy".
Of course you can do bad things without being religious. Of course there can be secular authoritarianism of the mind as well as celestial authoritarianism of the mind. I don't see the relevance at all.
edit: changed dictatorship of the mind to authoritarianism of the mind, which is more what I was getting at
The issue is this: asserting that the possiblity of "celestial authoritarianism of the mind" makes religion bad makes exactly as much sense as asserting that the possibility of "secular authoritarianism of the mind" makes secular philosophy bad.
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2009, 04:32:38 PM
All of you attempting to draw aa bright line between philosophy and religion - what do you classify confucianism as?
I thought I was doing the opposite - that they're essentially the same thing. Except religion feels the need to add a lot of bells andd whistles to their philosophy. I'd be fine with removing the bells and whistles, and call religions philosophies, but, as I've said many times before in this thread, I don't think the religious would be fine with that. Would you?
QuoteThe issue is this: asserting that the possiblity of "celestial authoritarianism of the mind" makes religion bad makes exactly as much sense as asserting that the possibility of "secular authoritarianism of the mind" makes secular philosophy bad.
But celestial authoritarianism of the mind is inherent in religion, as long as god tells you what to believe. God is the authority that tells you what to think and and spies on you all the time like a giant camera in the sky, not so different from the thought-police in some of the places you talk about.
Quote from: Barrister on October 27, 2009, 04:32:38 PM
All of you attempting to draw aa bright line between philosophy and religion - what do you classify confucianism as?
I think it is similar to Humanism in the west. It can take a similar role in society that used to be filled by religion but it is not a religion itself. They are often confused because of their similar social roles.
Confucianism holds harmony as an over-riding principal and strives to build a system of practices and values around that.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 04:46:34 PM
But celestial authoritarianism of the mind is inherent in religion, as long as god tells you what to believe. God is the authority that tells you what to think and and spies on you all the time like a giant camera in the sky, not so different from the thought-police in some of the places you talk about.
Yeah...that is more inherent in your views of religion than religion itself.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 04:46:34 PM
QuoteThe issue is this: asserting that the possiblity of "celestial authoritarianism of the mind" makes religion bad makes exactly as much sense as asserting that the possibility of "secular authoritarianism of the mind" makes secular philosophy bad.
But celestial authoritarianism of the mind is inherent in religion, as long as god tells you what to believe. God is the authority that tells you what to think and and spies on you all the time like a giant camera in the sky, not so different from the thought-police in some of the places you talk about.
Heh I'd be very surprised if most religious people viewed their relationship with their god in that light. :lol:
I by no means agree that "authoritarianism of the mind" is inherent in religion.
You'll see I qualified it with "...if god tells you what to believe". If god tells you what to believe, and does indeed spy on you to know if you do as he says, and will punish you if you don't, then that is celestial authoritarianism.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 04:52:06 PM
You'll see I qualified it with "...if god tells you what to believe". If god tells you what to believe, and does indeed spy on you to know if you do as he says, and will punish you if you don't, then that is celestial authoritarianism.
If God tells you what to believe, you are either a saint or a schizophrenic. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 04:51:06 PM
Heh I'd be very surprised if most religious people viewed their relationship with their god in that light. :lol:
I find that a lot of the agnostic/atheistic attacks on religion are attacks very clearly based on the attacker's own perception of religion, and tend to have little to do with how religious people perceive religion.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 04:51:06 PM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 04:46:34 PM
QuoteThe issue is this: asserting that the possiblity of "celestial authoritarianism of the mind" makes religion bad makes exactly as much sense as asserting that the possibility of "secular authoritarianism of the mind" makes secular philosophy bad.
But celestial authoritarianism of the mind is inherent in religion, as long as god tells you what to believe. God is the authority that tells you what to think and and spies on you all the time like a giant camera in the sky, not so different from the thought-police in some of the places you talk about.
Heh I'd be very surprised if most religious people viewed their relationship with their god in that light. :lol:
I by no means agree that "authoritarianism of the mind" is inherent in religion.
I know there is no hell in Judaism, but isn't this an accurate description of christian theology, for example? Maybe christianity has had to change it's message to still be relevant to people in the western world (though you still find fire-and-brimstone-churches attracting people in America) but I think you're wrong and that the concept of divine punishment is still very much alive in the minds of people in the third world, for example, who make up a majority of the world's worshippers.
And if there is no punishment for disobeying god, that means everything is indeed permissible, as per the Karamazov argument. So then I really don't see why religion would have any advantages.
QuoteIf God tells you what to believe, you are either a saint or a schizophrenic.
Doesn't holy scripture tell you what to believe? If not, what is their purpose?
And of course you wouldn't "see it that way", just as convinced communists in the Soviet union wouldn't "see it that way" either - they'd be convinced their thralldom was voluntary and honorable.
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 04:53:33 PM
If God tells you what to believe, you are either a saint or a schizophrenic. ;)
I think you need to keep in mind, Mal, that there are people who view certain books as "the word of God" and, while such people may be schizophrenics to your mind, that is a misuse of the medical term. Certainly they don't see themselves as schizophrenics. They just believe, for whatever reason, that their god is attempting to communicate with them.
I would note that I am gonna head you off at the pass on prayer as well. It may look like the act of the mentally disturbed, but perfectly sane people can engage in it, so don't jump to conclusions there, either.
Anyway, I've been thinking more on why America is the great exception in the modern world on account of it's religiosity. Perhaps it is the back-side of the American ideal of freedom, which in itself is applaudable, but, of course, all societies require at least some authoritarianism for reasons of societal cohesion. Since Americans for reasons of culture and history do not want this authority to be the state, even if it is democratic, they make products of imagination their authorities, which leads to all different (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyJI9xDUYV8&feature=PlayList&p=6669DFDE142F8A7C&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=1) kinds (http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm) of (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NMiIuwEk5o&feature=related) maladies (http://languish.org/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=135) of (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnZs4Aguvho&feature=related) the (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence) mind (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8KxXHibv6A), that you see little of elsewhere in the modern world.
QuoteI find that a lot of the agnostic/atheistic attacks on religion are attacks very clearly based on the attacker's own perception of religion, and tend to have little to do with how religious people perceive religion.
That is a load of bullshit Beebs.
*Your* view of religion is not the only one out there, so pretending like you dismiss the criticism of religion in general by presuming that all such criticism is based on not understanding *your* view of religion is rather intellectully dishonest.
"Religious" people view religion in about as many different ways as there are religious people.
And in relation to my earlier post, one would do well to bear in mind the words of Sigmund Freud on the matter:
Quote"The commandment, 'Love thy neighbour as thyself', is the strongest defence against human aggressiveness and an excellent example of the unpsychological [expectations] of the cultural super-ego. The commandment is impossible to fulfil; such an enormous inflation of love can only lower its value, not get rid of the difficulty. Civilization pays no attention to all this; it merely admonishes us that the harder it is to obey the precept the more meritorious it is to do so. But anyone who follows such a precept in present-day civilization only puts himself at a disadvantage vis-a-vis the person who disregards it. What a potent obstacle to civilization aggressiveness must be, if the defence against it can cause as much unhappiness as aggressiveness itself! 'Natural' ethics, as it is called, has nothing to offer here except the narcissistic satisfaction of being able to think oneself better than others. At this point the ethics based on religion introduces its promises of a better after-life. But so long as virtue is not rewarded here on earth, ethics will, I fancy, preach in vain. I too think it quite certain that a real change in the relations of human beings to possessions would be of more help in this direction than any ethical commands; but the recognition of this fact among socialists has been obscured and made useless for practical purposes by a fresh idealistic misconception of human nature."
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 07:42:55 PM
And in relation to my earlier post, one would do well to bear in mind the words of Sigmund Freud on the matter:
Quote"At this point the ethics based on religion introduces its promises of a better after-life. But so long as virtue is not rewarded here on earth, ethics will, I fancy, preach in vain."
What about karma?
Freud never, as far as I'm aware, mentioned karma. But still not a reward in this life. Not very different.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 07:42:55 PM
And in relation to my earlier post, one would do well to bear in mind the words of Sigmund Freud on the matter:
Ah, the classic "Appeal to Authority" fallacy rears its ugly head! :lol:
One would do well to ignore Freud on this matter, as he has no especial expertise in, nor skills with, philosophical analysis. The fact that he is famous doesn't make him more worthy of heed (except in the field of his expertise, and then with the understanding that he was mostly wrong) than if he were Jaron.
:huh:
I'm not saying "this is right because Freud says so" - I'm saying "this is what I think but Freud puts it into words better than me".
Chrissake grumbler.
Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2009, 07:38:31 PM
QuoteI find that a lot of the agnostic/atheistic attacks on religion are attacks very clearly based on the attacker's own perception of religion, and tend to have little to do with how religious people perceive religion.
That is a load of bullshit Beebs.
*Your* view of religion is not the only one out there, so pretending like you dismiss the criticism of religion in general by presuming that all such criticism is based on not understanding *your* view of religion is rather intellectully dishonest.
"Religious" people view religion in about as many different ways as there are religious people.
I was discussing this conversation. Several people have defended the religious viewpoint, and none of them have been of the 'fundamentalist' perspective. Yet the attacks on religion all seem to be attacks on fundamentalists.
It's only an observation though, it can't be objectively proven...
QuoteYet the attacks on religion all seem to be attacks on fundamentalists.
Not really :huh:
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 08:33:55 PM
Freud never, as far as I'm aware, mentioned karma. But still not a reward in this life. Not very different.
According to Buddhist philosophy, karma embraces both past and present deeds.
Quote from: citizen k on October 28, 2009, 12:28:30 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 08:33:55 PM
Freud never, as far as I'm aware, mentioned karma. But still not a reward in this life. Not very different.
According to Buddhist philosophy, karma embraces both past and present deeds.
What claims are made here, exactly? If karma does work, and it does give reward here on earth, in this life, then Buddhism would only have to give proof of this and it'd convert a lot of people, I'm sure.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2009, 12:06:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on October 27, 2009, 07:38:31 PM
QuoteI find that a lot of the agnostic/atheistic attacks on religion are attacks very clearly based on the attacker's own perception of religion, and tend to have little to do with how religious people perceive religion.
That is a load of bullshit Beebs.
*Your* view of religion is not the only one out there, so pretending like you dismiss the criticism of religion in general by presuming that all such criticism is based on not understanding *your* view of religion is rather intellectully dishonest.
"Religious" people view religion in about as many different ways as there are religious people.
I was discussing this conversation. Several people have defended the religious viewpoint, and none of them have been of the 'fundamentalist' perspective. Yet the attacks on religion all seem to be attacks on fundamentalists.
It's only an observation though, it can't be objectively proven...
I honestly don't know why you try Beeb. Most of the attacks on religion are attacks on a fundamentalist perspective because alot of the attackers have shown a dismal knowledge of theology.
That is simply not true.
I think I have given some rather reasoned criticisms of religion in this thread, such as this (http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2626.msg132631#msg132631) post, for example, as well as many more like it, that no one replied to. I have tried to argue against the arguments that religious people themselves tend to use to defend religion. More specifically, I have argued against what I consider to be the best arguments for religion, even those not brought up by the religious in this thread but are usually favoured by prominent defenders of religion, like the Brothers Karamazov argument. I have also argued against religion entirely from a perspective of utility, even though I assume religious people actually do believe what they believe to be true, and do not hold their beliefs merely for reasons of utility.
It is true that I have polemicised against fundamentalist religion as well as religion in general, but to say all my argumentation has been against some caricature of religion is simply not true. No one who has read what I have posted can say that with a straight face.
Why we would have to have a good knowledge of theology to criticise religion I don't understand - if the religions aren't true, then the theology isn't true either. And you can always enlighten us on these particularities of theology if you think they'd make a difference.
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 12:40:46 AM
What claims are made here, exactly? If karma does work, and it does give reward here on earth, in this life, then Buddhism would only have to give proof of this and it'd convert a lot of people, I'm sure.
How would you devise a test to see if karma worked or not?
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2009, 12:06:48 AM
I was discussing this conversation. Several people have defended the religious viewpoint, and none of them have been of the 'fundamentalist' perspective. Yet the attacks on religion all seem to be attacks on fundamentalists.
It's only an observation though, it can't be objectively proven...
Well, you don't seem to be willing to define what you believe in or why you believe. All you claim is that your believe and religion helps you be moral. So as long as you keep declining to say why you believe and how it makes you morale we HAVE TO GUESS!!! Well, not guess, I don't usually guess. I try to work out a plausible explanation and work from there. I can deduce from your previous posts here that me and you have very similar moral compasses. We agree on what is right and wrong (for the most part). So you can't be talking about the morals of the Hebrew Bible. You seem to be picking and choosing. I want to know how you pick which bit is moral and which bit is not. I haven't been attacking the fundamentalist perspective, I don't want you to justify why Jepteh murdered his daughter when he came home from genociding some caananite people, I want you to tell me why you should this story to help you be moral. If you tell me to use my own moral compass I want you to explain what I need the bible for.
To me the who question of morality from the bible is just so nonsensical and stupid. Yet this is what you consider the major part of your religion. Either you are deluded, or I am.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Icelander is the deluded one.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:50:16 PM
:huh:
I'm not saying "this is right because Freud says so" - I'm saying "this is what I think but Freud puts it into words better than me".
Chrissake grumbler.
:lol: Sure. Your gambit fails, and now you claim it was just an accident that you were telling everyone to heed the words of Freud on the subject.
Chrissake miglia, have the balls to own up to your mistakes when caught out, rather than blatantly weaseling like this. No one believes a naked weasel.
Quote from: Viking on October 28, 2009, 04:37:51 AM
To me the who question of morality from the bible is just so nonsensical and stupid. Yet this is what you consider the major part of your religion. Either you are deluded, or I am.
The mistake is to believe that this is a zero-sum game, and that Beeb has to be wrong for you to be right (and vice-versa). The fact of the matter is that we will never know who is right... and that lack of knowledge will harm no one, unless someone chooses to get worked up over someone else's beliefs.
I have no more respect for the people who say "heaven doesn't exist because no one can prove it exists" than I do for "my god exists because no one can prove that she doesn't exist." Though no less, I suppose.
No one needs to be deluded to believe that religion has had both a beneficial and a detrimental impact on human history. One does have to be deluded to think that only one or the other effect is true, but Marti is the only one arguing that and he doesn't believe it himself.
So, I think we can dismiss the delusion concept and, if anyone cares to argue the abstract concept of the level of evidence necessary for each of us to "have faith" in un-evidenced things, that is a more interesting conversation than trying to decide who is deluded.
Quote from: grumbler on October 27, 2009, 07:13:38 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 27, 2009, 04:53:33 PM
If God tells you what to believe, you are either a saint or a schizophrenic. ;)
I think you need to keep in mind, Mal, that there are people who view certain books as "the word of God" and, while such people may be schizophrenics to your mind, that is a misuse of the medical term. Certainly they don't see themselves as schizophrenics. They just believe, for whatever reason, that their god is attempting to communicate with them.
I would note that I am gonna head you off at the pass on prayer as well. It may look like the act of the mentally disturbed, but perfectly sane people can engage in it, so don't jump to conclusions there, either.
In prayer, the person praying talks to god; if he answers, he rarely answers directly. It isn't a
conversation, and God doesn't, generally, speak directly to the person praying.
Similarly, there are certainly holy texts that claim the status of the Word of God. Some fundamentalists take this quite literally, but in truth they are all things written down by humans; God is not talking
directly. Thus a certain amount of human interpretation is necessary to understand what God is attempting to say, even for those who do believe that the texts were inspired directly by the deity. At the very least, there are arguments over the translation
Those to whom God speaks
directly and literally "tells what to believe", as to Moses out of the burning bush, are few. I do not think that they are all insane - some may in fact be prophets or saints. ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2009, 04:46:49 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Icelander is the deluded one.
I don't see why they both can't be.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2009, 09:15:43 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2009, 04:46:49 AM
I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Icelander is the deluded one.
I don't see why they both can't be.
He said either.
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2009, 09:14:43 AM
In prayer, the person praying talks to god; if he answers, he rarely answers directly. It isn't a conversation, and God doesn't, generally, speak directly to the person praying.
How do you know this?
QuoteSimilarly, there are certainly holy texts that claim the status of the Word of God. Some fundamentalists take this quite literally, but in truth they are all things written down by humans; God is not talking directly.
How do you know this for sure, when so many others debate this?
QuoteThus a certain amount of human interpretation is necessary to understand what God is attempting to say, even for those who do believe that the texts were inspired directly by the deity. At the very least, there are arguments over the translation
The fact that some argue over the meaning doesn't mean that
everyone must accept that the meaning is uncertain. I give no credence to the idea that the Bible is the inspired direct word of God, but I don't think those who believe this (and are not saints) are insane.
QuoteThose to whom God speaks directly and literally "tells what to believe", as to Moses out of the burning bush, are few. I do not think that they are all insane - some may in fact be prophets or saints. ;)
You will, again, forgive me if I don't accept your word on this as authoritative. I don't believe those who claim to be neither saints nor prophets, who nonetheless insist that they have received a message from their god any more than I believe you saying that they are insane, but I don't believe them less, either. My sneaking suspicion is that both of you are talking for effect rather than from conviction, but I don't care enough to investigate those suspicions.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 28, 2009, 09:22:34 AM
He said either.
Sure, and I took that as an exclusive rather than inclusive or just like you did. But as he is deluded, he's in no position to say what isn't deluded. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2009, 09:33:02 AM
How do you know this?
The claim that god speaks directly to people who pray isn't commonly made.
QuoteHow do you know this for sure, when so many others debate this?
It isn't debated. Whether the writings are the authentic word of god is, but no-one contests that they are
writings.
A person taking directly is not the same as someone's written message.
QuoteThe fact that some argue over the meaning doesn't mean that everyone must accept that the meaning is uncertain. I give no credence to the idea that the Bible is the inspired direct word of God, but I don't think those who believe this (and are not saints) are insane.
You are arguing a different point. I agree that many claim that the writings are certain. What they are not, is
direct. Moses heard God
directly - came face to face with him, in fact. I may believe that the
account of Moses hearing god directly is certain and inspired by God - but it is not the same thing as
being Moses, and
actually haering god personally telling me what to believe.
QuoteYou will, again, forgive me if I don't accept your word on this as authoritative. I don't believe those who claim to be neither saints nor prophets, who nonetheless insist that they have received a message from their god any more than I believe you saying that they are insane, but I don't believe them less, either. My sneaking suspicion is that both of you are talking for effect rather than from conviction, but I don't care enough to investigate those suspicions.
Speaking seriously, to my mind there are (rarely) people who claim to have received messages directly from God. These tend, from what I can see, to be mystic-type experiences, understood through the lens of that person's culture; the realm of saints & other notable mystics. Or the seriously delusional.
What they are not, is common. To most very religious people, the existence of God is a matter of
faith, not personal experience. They have not heard the voice from the burning bush themselves, but believe that others have.
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2009, 10:04:31 AM
The claim that god speaks directly to people who pray isn't commonly made.
Maybe the god involved doesn't want the conversations discussed.
QuoteA person taking directly is not the same as someone's written message.
Certainly people dispute that these are merely men's interpretations of the "word of God" and claim that they represent the voice of god directly.
QuoteYou are arguing a different point. I agree that many claim that the writings are certain. What they are not, is direct. Moses heard God directly - came face to face with him, in fact. I may believe that the account of Moses hearing god directly is certain and inspired by God - but it is not the same thing as being Moses, and actually haering god personally telling me what to believe.
That isn't the same thing for you, I agree. I wouldn't make any claims about what others believe, or what the nature of religious works 'really is," though. To some, the bible is literally god's voice telling them what to do. Weird as that my sound (to you
and me), such people are not (necessarily) insane.
QuoteSpeaking seriously, to my mind there are (rarely) people who claim to have received messages directly from God.
Don't start taking this conversation seriously, now! :(
Oh, well, all good things come to an end. I'll be serious as well,for a moment.
I have no idea how common or otherwise it is to claim direct messages from God. Joan of Arc claimed that, I know, but that is only because she is a historical figure. The subject, frankly, does not interest me and, like you, I suspect I would have a hard time taking such talk seriously if I heard it.
OMG, languish is dying.
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 07:21:35 PM
Anyway, I've been thinking more on why America is the great exception in the modern world on account of it's religiosity.
I really do not think our religiosity is that exceptional.
QuoteAt this point the ethics based on religion introduces its promises of a better after-life.
See when you get into issues like this I really have nothing to say. I generally consider heaven and hell to merely be religious images for A. living a life of principal or B. living a life where you just go along being pulled this way or that by your apetites and impulses and the sort of life you will lead. The idea that there is in fact a reward like 72 virgins is simply the old fallacy where people mistake the symbol for the thing itself that comes from the inability of language to properly convey spiritual relevation.
Besides if you really do good only because you think you are going to get a cosmic goodie at the end you are acting out of fear or greed or some other impulse and that kind of ruins the whole point of the symbol :P
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 02:00:53 AM
I have also argued against religion entirely from a perspective of utility, even though I assume religious people actually do believe what they believe to be true, and do not hold their beliefs merely for reasons of utility.
You have essentially come out saying you do not need religion for communal feeling or moral philosophy which is true. Religion is there to explore the spiritual part of your brain there in the frontal lobe. To me, again I only speak for myself, if you are exploring that part of yourself and being in the sort of place that stimulating that part of yourself takes you then what you are doing is 'spiritual' or 'religious' and the insights you get from that experience are then what we can get some moral philosophy and communal feeling. But that is just a result and not even necessarily a result.
Of course because it is almost impossible to speak about the experiences in everyday language people use a highly symbolic language to discuss it and thus we get things like the Bible. One might question how exactly we might get insights from slaughtering Amorites or raining frogs on Egyptians and from my perspective the Bible very clearly describes an elevation of human conciousness from a tribal perspective, which views the nation as a holy thing, to a universalist one which is most clearly evident in the Book of Isaiah but runs throughout. But that is only one small element. The characters in the Bible are surprisingly un-idealized even the ones that are supposed to be highly righteous and elevated precisely because they address certain elements of human behavior to attempt to discuss spiritual lessons.
Now if that is not useful to you feel free to get your spiritual messages from another book or another system.
The problem with religion I think is that we have symbols and rituals and stories to tie us to that elevated state and we get so damn attached to the symbols we forget their purpose. It gets quite hilarious because this is the effect that Islam, for example, explicitly condemns in its attacks on idolatry and why it takes great pains to underline that Mohammed himself is just a highly spiritual dude and not a God to be worshipped...yet some Muslims do precisely this all the time considering the person of Mohammed to be like an idol to be worshipped which gets you to do all sorts of silly things and why Christians fought wars over whether or not transubstantiation is true.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2009, 10:55:39 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 02:00:53 AM
I have also argued against religion entirely from a perspective of utility, even though I assume religious people actually do believe what they believe to be true, and do not hold their beliefs merely for reasons of utility.
You have essentially come out saying you do not need religion for communal feeling or moral philosophy which is true. Religion is there to explore the spiritual part of your brain there in the frontal lobe. To me, again I only speak for myself, if you are exploring that part of yourself and being in the sort of place that stimulating that part of yourself takes you then what you are doing is 'spiritual' or 'religious' and the insights you get from that experience are then what we can get some moral philosophy and communal feeling. But that is just a result and not even necessarily a result.
Of course because it is almost impossible to speak about the experiences in everyday language people use a highly symbolic language to discuss it and thus we get things like the Bible. One might question how exactly we might get insights from slaughtering Amorites or raining frogs on Egyptians and from my perspective the Bible very clearly describes an elevation of human conciousness from a tribal perspective, which views the nation as a holy thing, to a universalist one which is most clearly evident in the Book of Isaiah but runs throughout. But that is only one small element. The characters in the Bible are surprisingly un-idealized even the ones that are supposed to be highly righteous and elevated precisely because they address certain elements of human behavior to attempt to discuss spiritual lessons.
Now if that is not useful to you feel free to get your spiritual messages from another book or another system.
The problem with religion I think is that we have symbols and rituals and stories to tie us to that elevated state and we get so damn attached to the symbols we forget their purpose. It gets quite hilarious because this is the effect that Islam, for example, explicitly condemns in its attacks on idolatry and why it takes great pains to underline that Mohammed himself is just a highly spiritual dude and not a God to be worshipped...yet some Muslims do precisely this all the time considering the person of Mohammed to be like an idol to be worshipped which gets you to do all sorts of silly things and why Christians fought wars over whether or not transubstantiation is true.
Heh, something I have always thought: one of the most
harmful of all sins is "idolitary" - not the literal worship of idols, but the mistaking of what is symbolic for what is real. Most religious conflict is caused by this - the clash of symbols, where the reality behind those symbols (if only their follows would realize it) is not particularly different.
Quote from: Viking on October 28, 2009, 04:37:51 AM
To me the who question of morality from the bible is just so nonsensical and stupid. Yet this is what you consider the major part of your religion. Either you are deluded, or I am.
I don't think either of us are deluded.
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2009, 11:02:52 AM
Heh, something I have always thought: one of the most harmful of all sins is "idolitary" - not the literal worship of idols, but the mistaking of what is symbolic for what is real. Most religious conflict is caused by this - the clash of symbols, where the reality behind those symbols (if only their follows would realize it) is not particularly different.
It is kinda ironic to be reading and participating i this discussion while teaching the AP Euro unit on the Reformation and Wars of Religion, and noting the exact same thing about the "religious disputes" back then; they were over symbols far more than over reality.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2009, 12:59:02 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2009, 11:02:52 AM
Heh, something I have always thought: one of the most harmful of all sins is "idolitary" - not the literal worship of idols, but the mistaking of what is symbolic for what is real. Most religious conflict is caused by this - the clash of symbols, where the reality behind those symbols (if only their follows would realize it) is not particularly different.
It is kinda ironic to be reading and participating i this discussion while teaching the AP Euro unit on the Reformation and Wars of Religion, and noting the exact same thing about the "religious disputes" back then; they were over symbols far more than over reality.
Not to totally hijack the thread or anything, but I just picked up this book (just published this summer):
http://www.amazon.com/Europes-Tragedy-History-Thirty-Years/dp/0713995920/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256752284&sr=8-2
Haven't had time to crack it open yet. It claims to be the first comprehensive history of the 30 Years War in a generation, in English. Have you checked it out? Heard anything?
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2009, 01:06:23 PM
Not to totally hijack the thread or anything, but I just picked up this book (just published this summer):
http://www.amazon.com/Europes-Tragedy-History-Thirty-Years/dp/0713995920/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256752284&sr=8-2
Haven't had time to crack it open yet. It claims to be the first comprehensive history of the 30 Years War in a generation, in English. Have you checked it out? Heard anything?
Check the book thread and ask Syt: http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=124.msg79546#msg79546
Quote from: ulmont on October 28, 2009, 01:15:59 PM
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2009, 01:06:23 PM
Not to totally hijack the thread or anything, but I just picked up this book (just published this summer):
http://www.amazon.com/Europes-Tragedy-History-Thirty-Years/dp/0713995920/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256752284&sr=8-2
Haven't had time to crack it open yet. It claims to be the first comprehensive history of the 30 Years War in a generation, in English. Have you checked it out? Heard anything?
Check the book thread and ask Syt: http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=124.msg79546#msg79546
Woah, I'm impressed with your memory. :D I'll do just that.
Quote from: Malthus on October 28, 2009, 01:06:23 PM
Not to totally hijack the thread or anything, but I just picked up this book (just published this summer):
http://www.amazon.com/Europes-Tragedy-History-Thirty-Years/dp/0713995920/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256752284&sr=8-2
Haven't had time to crack it open yet. It claims to be the first comprehensive history of the 30 Years War in a generation, in English. Have you checked it out? Heard anything?
Haven't checked it out yet, but will. Parker was the last such history I got, and I see that was '84, so it is time! :lol:
As an aside, all of my students (even those in my World History courses) know what "defenestration" means.
Did you defenestrate them?
Also, defenestration is one of those cool words that kids like to use to show how smart they are.
It's an interesting comment on the politics of the time that it inspired an actual word for that. :D
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2009, 07:31:14 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 27, 2009, 09:50:16 PM
:huh:
I'm not saying "this is right because Freud says so" - I'm saying "this is what I think but Freud puts it into words better than me".
Chrissake grumbler.
:lol: Sure. Your gambit fails, and now you claim it was just an accident that you were telling everyone to heed the words of Freud on the subject.
Chrissake miglia, have the balls to own up to your mistakes when caught out, rather than blatantly weaseling like this. No one believes a naked weasel.
:huh: I could just have said "anyway I don't believe ethics based on religion work very well to keep people from doing bad things, since they are so easy to reject" (which is a variation of what I did write earlier, and hence why I referred to "my earlier post"). But that's a nicely written passage, which is why I included it. What's wrong with that? :huh: I don't think anyone here is buying that I should "own up to my mistakes".
If anyone, that would be you, since I could go back in this thread and find mistake after mistake of yours you haven't owned up to.
Valmy, I'll answer you in a sec
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2009, 02:12:45 PM
Did you defenestrate them?
Also, defenestration is one of those cool words that kids like to use to show how smart they are.
It is also a word that kids who love words love to love. Not only does it siound great, the meaning is both precise and peculiar.
Merkin is the word cool kids like to use to show how smart they are.
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2009, 02:30:31 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2009, 02:12:45 PM
Did you defenestrate them?
Also, defenestration is one of those cool words that kids like to use to show how smart they are.
It is also a word that kids who love words love to love. Not only does it siound great, the meaning is both precise and peculiar.
Merkin is the word cool kids like to use to show how smart they are.
Only slightly harder to work into one's essay on the 30 Years War. ;)
Quote from: grumbler on October 28, 2009, 07:42:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on October 28, 2009, 04:37:51 AM
To me the who question of morality from the bible is just so nonsensical and stupid. Yet this is what you consider the major part of your religion. Either you are deluded, or I am.
The mistake is to believe that this is a zero-sum game, and that Beeb has to be wrong for you to be right (and vice-versa). The fact of the matter is that we will never know who is right... and that lack of knowledge will harm no one, unless someone chooses to get worked up over someone else's beliefs.
I have no more respect for the people who say "heaven doesn't exist because no one can prove it exists" than I do for "my god exists because no one can prove that she doesn't exist." Though no less, I suppose.
No one needs to be deluded to believe that religion has had both a beneficial and a detrimental impact on human history. One does have to be deluded to think that only one or the other effect is true, but Marti is the only one arguing that and he doesn't believe it himself.
So, I think we can dismiss the delusion concept and, if anyone cares to argue the abstract concept of the level of evidence necessary for each of us to "have faith" in un-evidenced things, that is a more interesting conversation than trying to decide who is deluded.
Well put!
I find my discussions with BB about why he has faith and why I do not much more enjoyable and intellectually satisfying then arguments over whether one or both of us are deluded because we believe as we do.
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2009, 02:12:45 PM
Also, defenestration is one of those cool words that kids like to use to show how smart they are.
My favorite is "crepuscular."
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2009, 03:21:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on October 28, 2009, 02:12:45 PM
Also, defenestration is one of those cool words that kids like to use to show how smart they are.
My favorite is "crepuscular."
The crepescular whore defenestrated the john at sunset for making fun of her ratty-looking merkin? ;)
Well done Malthus. You get to go to the head of the class. :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2009, 02:52:16 PM
Well put!
I find my discussions with BB about why he has faith and why I do not much more enjoyable and intellectually satisfying then arguments over whether one or both of us are deluded because we believe as we do.
The delusion thing is just silly. Way to many people share BBs faith (and by that I mean in the general sense of believing ins some form of deity) to simply dismiss it as "delusion".
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2009, 03:59:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2009, 02:52:16 PM
Well put!
I find my discussions with BB about why he has faith and why I do not much more enjoyable and intellectually satisfying then arguments over whether one or both of us are deluded because we believe as we do.
The delusion thing is just silly. Way to many people share BBs faith (and by that I mean in the general sense of believing ins some form of deity) to simply dismiss it as "delusion".
And way too many people share your lack of faith to likewise call it a delusion.
You can actually discuss these topics without resorting to name-calling or personal attacks. We don't often do it on Languish, but it can be done. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 28, 2009, 03:41:38 PM
Well done Malthus. You get to go to the head of the class. :D
But ... why are you pushing me towards the
window? :(
I am not a kid and I still like the word defenestrate. One of the thrills of my trip to Prague was to see the actual window people where the defenestration happened.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2009, 04:02:02 PM
You can actually discuss these topics without resorting to name-calling or personal attacks. We don't often do it on Languish, but it can be done. :)
Sure it can you pompous windbag of a barrister.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2009, 04:16:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2009, 04:02:02 PM
You can actually discuss these topics without resorting to name-calling or personal attacks. We don't often do it on Languish, but it can be done. :)
Sure it can you pompous windbag of a barrister.
I want to call you names back but you're just so god damn good looking I can't bring myself to do it.
Defenestration is a lot less impressive of a word if you've been educated in French.
Learning French takes the joy out of everything.
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2009, 03:59:28 PM
The delusion thing is just silly. Way to many people share BBs faith (and by that I mean in the general sense of believing ins some form of deity) to simply dismiss it as "delusion".
:huh:
A lot of people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth - that didn't make it so. I don't quite get the popularity argument.
Quote from: Iormlund on October 28, 2009, 06:07:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2009, 03:59:28 PM
The delusion thing is just silly. Way to many people share BBs faith (and by that I mean in the general sense of believing ins some form of deity) to simply dismiss it as "delusion".
:huh:
A lot of people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth - that didn't make it so. I don't quite get the popularity argument.
It goes something like this:
-A lot of people believe in something. A lot of those people are even very smart and thoughtful. While those people might be mistaken on a topic, it doesn't make them idiots or suffering from a delusion.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2009, 06:30:20 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on October 28, 2009, 06:07:35 PM
Quote from: Berkut on October 28, 2009, 03:59:28 PM
The delusion thing is just silly. Way to many people share BBs faith (and by that I mean in the general sense of believing ins some form of deity) to simply dismiss it as "delusion".
:huh:
A lot of people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth - that didn't make it so. I don't quite get the popularity argument.
It goes something like this:
-A lot of people believe in something. A lot of those people are even very smart and thoughtful. While those people might be mistaken on a topic, it doesn't make them idiots or suffering from a delusion.
This I agree with. To be wrong isn't the same thing as to be delusional.
It's a good point that many very bright people believe in the magic sky fairy. They are so fucking bright.
Quote from: Valmy on October 28, 2009, 10:55:39 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 02:00:53 AM
I have also argued against religion entirely from a perspective of utility, even though I assume religious people actually do believe what they believe to be true, and do not hold their beliefs merely for reasons of utility.
You have essentially come out saying you do not need religion for communal feeling or moral philosophy which is true. Religion is there to explore the spiritual part of your brain there in the frontal lobe. To me, again I only speak for myself, if you are exploring that part of yourself and being in the sort of place that stimulating that part of yourself takes you then what you are doing is 'spiritual' or 'religious' and the insights you get from that experience are then what we can get some moral philosophy and communal feeling. But that is just a result and not even necessarily a result.
Of course because it is almost impossible to speak about the experiences in everyday language people use a highly symbolic language to discuss it and thus we get things like the Bible. One might question how exactly we might get insights from slaughtering Amorites or raining frogs on Egyptians and from my perspective the Bible very clearly describes an elevation of human conciousness from a tribal perspective, which views the nation as a holy thing, to a universalist one which is most clearly evident in the Book of Isaiah but runs throughout. But that is only one small element. The characters in the Bible are surprisingly un-idealized even the ones that are supposed to be highly righteous and elevated precisely because they address certain elements of human behavior to attempt to discuss spiritual lessons.
Now if that is not useful to you feel free to get your spiritual messages from another book or another system.
The problem with religion I think is that we have symbols and rituals and stories to tie us to that elevated state and we get so damn attached to the symbols we forget their purpose. It gets quite hilarious because this is the effect that Islam, for example, explicitly condemns in its attacks on idolatry and why it takes great pains to underline that Mohammed himself is just a highly spiritual dude and not a God to be worshipped...yet some Muslims do precisely this all the time considering the person of Mohammed to be like an idol to be worshipped which gets you to do all sorts of silly things and why Christians fought wars over whether or not transubstantiation is true.
I agree with you almost entirely, although you seem to view these spiritual experiences as an end in themselves. I do not. If they were, one could just as well get them by taking LSD every sunday, for example. If you go back to my example with the Manchurian nomads, their spirituality served a purpose, as has spirituality done for most of human history, I believe, and there is no reason we can not put our spiritualities to use today to improve our lives in tangible ways by experiencing ideas and learning useful things about the world.
Lord Acton, I believe, once said that "history is not a burden on the mind, it is an illumination of the soul" and I'd think a lot of people here feel the same way about history. (And before anyone say anything, yes, I do know Acton was religious) History is just one example, though, this spirituality can be put to many different uses. To employ religion simply as a way to satiate our need for spirituality is to shackle the mind and deprive it of a powerful force of self-improvement.
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 06:40:51 PM
It's a good point that many very bright people believe in the magic sky fairy. They are so fucking bright.
No matter what origin story you buy into, the fact that we're here is pretty ludicrous.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2009, 07:12:09 PM
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 06:40:51 PM
It's a good point that many very bright people believe in the magic sky fairy. They are so fucking bright.
No matter what origin story you buy into, the fact that we're here is pretty ludicrous.
So? That a God complex enough to create all this complexity would exist would be even more ludicrous.
Perhaps. I don't think our minds are capable of grasping that issue sufficiently to make comparisons of the sort. Life makes no sense with or without God, it's kind of like you're dividing by zero.
There's only one poster here with a God complex.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 28, 2009, 07:38:54 PM
Perhaps. I don't think our minds are capable of grasping that issue sufficiently to make comparisons of the sort.
I feel very capable of making a comparison of that sort.
Everything came from itself = Unlikely
A god came from itself, then created everything = Even more unlikely
QuoteLife makes no sense with or without God, it's kind of like you're dividing by zero.
Okay, sure. Some answers we can not have.
i just came from myself
:lmfao:
Quote from: The Brain on October 28, 2009, 07:39:08 PM
There's only one poster here with a God complex.
That's only because grumbler's almost as old as He is.
zing
Btw, did anyone else see the irony of me being accused of the appeal to authority-fallacy just for quoting Freud against religion when religion is the single biggest appeal to authority there is?
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 06:53:00 PM
To employ religion simply as a way to satiate our need for spirituality is to shackle the mind and deprive it of a powerful force of self-improvement.
I guess I missed where I claimed it should be used to satiate a need. In fact I believe it is a powerful tool to rise above needs and fears and gain insight into what it is you really want to do in your life.
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2009, 06:30:20 PM
-A lot of people believe in something. A lot of those people are even very smart and thoughtful. While those people might be mistaken on a topic, it doesn't make them idiots or suffering from a delusion.
I beg to differ. It's not an either/or situation. To put forward an example I'm familiar with: I'm a fairly bright person. I have a job that requires significant mental skills and I'm good at it. Yet I behave like an idiot on a regular basis, especially around beautiful women.
You can be deluded or stupid about something even if you are the most intelligent person in the world, just as you can be reasonable or unreasonable at the same time. That's just how our brains work.
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 09:59:14 PM
Btw, did anyone else see the irony of me being accused of the appeal to authority-fallacy just for quoting Freud against religion when religion is the single biggest appeal to authority there is?
No. You griping about it when Grumbler is also an atheist is a bit ironic though.
Quote from: Neil on October 28, 2009, 04:29:09 PM
Defenestration is a lot less impressive of a word if you've been educated in French.
:yes:
Quote from: Neil on October 28, 2009, 04:29:09 PM
Defenestration is a lot less impressive of a word if you've been educated in French.
"Impressive of a word"??? Must be that French education! :P
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 09:59:14 PM
Btw, did anyone else see the irony of me being accused of the appeal to authority-fallacy just for quoting Freud against religion when religion is the single biggest appeal to authority there is?
Ah, the fallacy of the red herring! :P Or is it an Appeal to Pity?
If someone else is fallaciously appealing to authority when you do so, that does not make your fallacious appeal to authority valid.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2009, 06:26:27 AM
Quote from: Neil on October 28, 2009, 04:29:09 PM
Defenestration is a lot less impressive of a word if you've been educated in French.
"Impressive of a word"??? Must be that French education! :P
Indeed. My entire knowledge of English grammar comes from reading and listening to people talk. But I'm still better with English than Grey Fox is with French.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 29, 2009, 03:38:17 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 09:59:14 PM
Btw, did anyone else see the irony of me being accused of the appeal to authority-fallacy just for quoting Freud against religion when religion is the single biggest appeal to authority there is?
No. You griping about it when Grumbler is also an atheist is a bit ironic though.
You know, actually I don't know what Grumbler is. He doesn't talk about it much. I think he mentioned he came from a family of Jehovah's Witnesses or something.
I thought it was chimpanzees?
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2009, 09:37:15 AM
You know, actually I don't know what Grumbler is. He doesn't talk about it much. I think he mentioned he came from a family of Jehovah's Witnesses or something.
You weren't around in the first year when most of the great atheism debates occurred.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2009, 09:37:15 AM
You know, actually I don't know what Grumbler is. He doesn't talk about it much. I think he mentioned he came from a family of Jehovah's Witnesses or something.
He gave some pretty strong hints in this thread. ;)
Quote from: Iormlund on October 29, 2009, 02:29:28 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 28, 2009, 06:30:20 PM
-A lot of people believe in something. A lot of those people are even very smart and thoughtful. While those people might be mistaken on a topic, it doesn't make them idiots or suffering from a delusion.
I beg to differ. It's not an either/or situation. To put forward an example I'm familiar with: I'm a fairly bright person. I have a job that requires significant mental skills and I'm good at it. Yet I behave like an idiot on a regular basis, especially around beautiful women.
You can be deluded or stupid about something even if you are the most intelligent person in the world, just as you can be reasonable or unreasonable at the same time. That's just how our brains work.
Fine.
But I'm still not willing to say that otherwise smart atheists are deluded about their atheism. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are merely mistaken. :P
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 29, 2009, 10:21:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2009, 09:37:15 AM
You know, actually I don't know what Grumbler is. He doesn't talk about it much. I think he mentioned he came from a family of Jehovah's Witnesses or something.
You weren't around in the first year when most of the great atheism debates occurred.
I can only judge on the parts I know.
Quote from: Razgovory on October 29, 2009, 09:37:15 AM
You know, actually I don't know what Grumbler is. He doesn't talk about it much. I think he mentioned he came from a family of Jehovah's Witnesses or something.
You are correct that I don't talk about it much, because there isn't a lot to talk about. I have no religious beliefs. My parents did become JW's, but long after I let home.
I have seen both positive and negative things come from religion and the religious, so I support neither its promotion nor its abolition. I do think, though, that it is a personal thing and I should no more be imposed upon by someone's beliefs as they should be imposed upon by my lack of them. Secular laws based on religious principals or precepts
per se are abhorrent to me.
But it isn't just about religion that I feel this way. I consider the "Pledge of Allegiance" to be as silly as anything I read about even the silliest religion.
grumbler hates the flag!
"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the Unites States of America."
I sure am glad it never actually ordered me to do anything.
Once upon a time the Pledge of Allegiance was cool, but then they dropped the Bellamy Salute from it and it all went down the shitter. :(
Indeed
WTF? :lol:
Okay - some googling made sense of that. What an unfortunate coincidence. :D
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2009, 12:43:58 PM
Indeed
People can take pictures in an alternative universe and transmit them to this reality. Cool.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2009, 06:36:59 AMAh, the fallacy of the red herring! :P Or is it an Appeal to Pity?
If someone else is fallaciously appealing to authority when you do so, that does not make your fallacious appeal to authority valid.
Isn't it a classic
tu quoque?
At any rate, appeal to authority isn't a fallacy, appeal to unqualified authority is.
Quote from: grumbler on October 29, 2009, 06:36:59 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 28, 2009, 09:59:14 PM
Btw, did anyone else see the irony of me being accused of the appeal to authority-fallacy just for quoting Freud against religion when religion is the single biggest appeal to authority there is?
Ah, the fallacy of the red herring! :P Or is it an Appeal to Pity?
If someone else is fallaciously appealing to authority when you do so, that does not make your fallacious appeal to authority valid.
Just pointing out the irony of the situation; that *I'm* the one you're accusing of appeal to authority. Grumbler, please, you're just grasping at straws because you've been made to look rediculous time after time in this thread. I'll continue to use quotes to make my points if I want to. Nothing wrong with that.
Quote from: miglia on October 29, 2009, 06:25:59 PM
Just pointing out the irony of the situation;
Who are you again? Someone' suckpuppet or your own man? Though you are to be commended for putting up with grumbler's usual obfuscations for so long.
G.
Mostly lurked on the old forum, occasionally posted, though under another name, patmaster (which dates to the first time I registred at a paradox board, back in 2000)
Quote from: Maximus on October 29, 2009, 05:23:25 PM
Isn't it a classic tu quoque?
No, tu quoque is the "you, too" argument, a variant of the
ad hom. It has to be aimed at an individual.
QuoteAt any rate, appeal to authority isn't a fallacy, appeal to unqualified authority is.
Not sure what you are saying here. The fallacy is appealing to an authority that isn't authoritative (like Freud on ethics).
If you are arguing that a non-fallacious appeal to authority is not an example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy, that seems fairly tautological.
Quote from: miglia on October 29, 2009, 06:25:59 PM
Just pointing out the irony of the situation; that *I'm* the one you're accusing of appeal to authority.
No irony here - you
are fallaciously appealing to authority.
QuoteGrumbler, please, you're just grasping at straws because you've been made to look rediculous time after time in this thread. I'll continue to use quotes to make my points if I want to. Nothing wrong with that.
:lol: I think everyone knows what it means when one side in a debate starts desperately claiming that they have scored all the points. I don't see anything here that makes me look "rediculous" (whatever that is - I assume it has to do with colors).
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2009, 06:27:57 AM
:lol: I think everyone knows what it means when one side in a debate starts desperately claiming that they have scored all the points.
Well, if it's an internet debate, that means the other side is showing an uncommon amount of restraint. :D
Quote from: Malthus on October 29, 2009, 01:14:54 PM
WTF? :lol:
Okay - some googling made sense of that. What an unfortunate coincidence. :D
The Germans made sure we couldn't have nice things. Had to change 45th infantry division as well.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on October 30, 2009, 06:33:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on October 30, 2009, 06:27:57 AM
:lol: I think everyone knows what it means when one side in a debate starts desperately claiming that they have scored all the points.
Well, if it's an internet debate, that means the other side is showing an uncommon amount of restraint. :D
I actuallly think I have showed quite a lot of restraint, seeing as I've been trying to argue constructively in earnest while grumbler doesn't add anything to to the arguments but only relies on an entirely destructive and obfuscatory style of debate in the form of nitpicking, misconstruing, pretending not to understand, accusing one of breaking his rules (as if he's the only one to decide how an argument between him and someone else is to be conducted), or, why not, r
idiculing me for typos when he knows english is my second language. I don't know why I waste my time on him. In the strange machinations of his mind he was the "winner" of this debate, I'm sure, but I can at least be content I never sunk to his level (edit: or I suppose you could say I did so now :P but not as the debate was going on, anyway).
Quote from: miglia on October 29, 2009, 06:49:12 PM
Mostly lurked on the old forum, occasionally posted, though under another name, patmaster (which dates to the first time I registred at a paradox board, back in 2000)
:wooT:
Oh, and what's the executive summary of this thread so far? :D
Hey Lucidor :)
You'll have to go back and read it :lol:
edit: And the year 2000 reg. date is from the old Svea Rike forum, at the Europa Univeralis board that became Paradox it's the more noobish april 2001. :(
Quote from: miglia on October 30, 2009, 12:04:17 PM
I actuallly think I have showed quite a lot of restraint, seeing as I've been trying to argue constructively in earnest while grumbler doesn't add anything to to the arguments but only relies on an entirely destructive and obfuscatory style of debate in the form of nitpicking, misconstruing, pretending not to understand, accusing one of breaking his rules (as if he's the only one to decide how an argument between him and someone else is to be conducted), or, why not, ridiculing me for typos when he knows english is my second language. I don't know why I waste my time on him. In the strange machinations of his mind he was the "winner" of this debate, I'm sure, but I can at least be content I never sunk to his level (edit: or I suppose you could say I did so now :P but not as the debate was going on, anyway).
When a person decides to shift from the topic of the debate to the topic of their opponent's personality, debating style, what they are currently
really thinking, etc, it is because they are getting their ass handed to them on substantive issues and they either have to admit defeat or resort to
ad homs.
Pray continue. This is the "lashing out" portion of the debate where I become a spectator and the only things left duking it out in the ring are you and your bitterness.
And, yes, I will ridicule your spelling if you are committing those errors in the midst of an insult, because the sight of a poster getting all "I am winning this debate!" while making spelling blunders is just too funny to resist. And I am sorry, but the world does not revolve around you; you are far too much the n00b here for me to know or care what your first language is or is not.
Well, grumbler, now you're feigning ignorance again, since you remarked upon english not being my first language not long ago in this very thread. But nevermind, it's not important. Please let me know on what substantive issue you believe I got my ass handed to me, because on this matter I would be interested in your opinion.
The substantial argument was over pages ago. Who do you think you're fooling? :huh: If there's anything you have to say, say it. I'll gladly make a fool of you once more.
Quote from: miglia on October 30, 2009, 04:21:35 PM
Well, grumbler, now you're feigning ignorance again, since you remarked upon english not being my first language not long ago in this very thread.
I don't think so, and a quick search using me as poster and "first language' as the search term for the last 12 days gives just the post above. Maybe you are fixated on me and it was really someone else?
QuoteBut nevermind, it's not important. Please let me know on what substantive issue you believe I got my ass handed to me, because on this matter I would be interested in your opinion.
Dunno what issue you think you got your ass handed to you on. All I know is that when posters go to the a
d homs, it is generally because they are whipped on the substance. The only other reason is that they are nasty fucks who enjoy
ad homs, and i wouldn't accuse you of that - you have been generally very polite in this thread. Maybe my notation that you were guilty of a logical fallacy is what stung.
QuoteThe substantial argument was over pages ago. Who do you think you're fooling? :huh:
I don't think anyone is fooled by the attempted appeal to authority, nor was anyone "fooled" when I pointed it out. Insofar as I know, that has been the substance of our exchange. Who did you think you could fool with the Freud thing?
QuoteIf there's anything you have to say, say it. I'll gladly make a fool of you once more.
This fixation on me, and the insistence that you have made a fool of me, or made me look "rediculous," puzzles me. It entertains me (and, I suspect, the board in general) as well of course, so I am not calling for you to stop; I am just pointing out that it is bizarre.
But carry on*, if you please.
*pun intended
WTF
Miglia is patmaster?
I believe you used the words "native language", but you did admit to constantly forgetting "english is not [my] native language", so I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one; maybe you weren't dishonest, but merely forgetful.
And I wasn't trying to fool anyone with my Freud citation by using him as some kind of "authority on ethics" (who is an authority on etics anyway? how does one become an authority on ethics?). As I explained, Freud's argument was a variation of my own argument, an argument I had been perfectly capable of making myself. Then citizen k asked "What about Karma?" in reference to the Freud quote, which can be understood as either "What does Freud say about Karma?" or "What do you say about Karma?" which is why I answered with "I don't think Freud says anything about Karma..." and then went on to give my own opinion on the matter.
And thank you for acknowledging my politness throughout this thread; now that the discussion was over I felt free to reciprocate some of your rudeness. One hardly needs to be fixated on you to draw general conclusions from your behaviour and style of debate.
Anyway it doesn't matter. This discussion is over as far as I'm concerned (you can have the last word if you want).
@ Jaron, yes.
Quote from: miglia on October 31, 2009, 04:59:41 AM
now that the discussion was over
That's rather optimistic of you. :lol:
Quote from: miglia on October 31, 2009, 04:59:41 AM
I believe you used the words "native language", but you did admit to constantly forgetting "english is not [my] native language", so I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one; maybe you weren't dishonest, but merely forgetful.
Nope, didn't use either of those phrases earlier. I really think you are so fixated on me that you are lumping every poster who has disagreed with you into "grumbler." I have mno idea what your nationality or native language is, and no desire to know.
QuoteAnd I wasn't trying to fool anyone with my Freud citation by using him as some kind of "authority on ethics" (who is an authority on etics anyway? how does one become an authority on ethics?). As I explained, Freud's argument was a variation of my own argument, an argument I had been perfectly capable of making myself. Then citizen k asked "What about Karma?" in reference to the Freud quote, which can be understood as either "What does Freud say about Karma?" or "What do you say about Karma?" which is why I answered with "I don't think Freud says anything about Karma..." and then went on to give my own opinion on the matter.
You stated that "one would do well to bear in mind the words of Sigmund Freud on the matter." That is an appeal to authority. As the topic that you are asking us to bear his words in mind on is ethics, and Freud is not an authority on ethics, this is a logical fallacy. As you note, you could have said this very thing yourself, but chose to bring in Freud.
QuoteAnd thank you for acknowledging my politness throughout this thread; now that the discussion was over I felt free to reciprocate some of your rudeness. One hardly needs to be fixated on you to draw general conclusions from your behaviour and style of debate.
The reason I can acknowledge your politeness is that I have a fairly thick skin, and find your ad homs amusing rather than "impolite." I am sorry that you are so sensitive that you saw my criticism of your arguments as "rudeness," but that is your issue, not mine. The fixation on me that causes you to go on and on about me when all I did was mention that using Freud as an expert on ethics is also really your issue and not mine. I know that I am "supposed" to get all upset at these
ad homs about my behavior and whatnot, but I just cannot do it. They are too funny.
Quoteyou are lumping every poster who has disagreed with you into "grumbler."
grumbler is legion.
This thread has run its course. How do I lock it? <_<
Quote from: citizen k on October 31, 2009, 03:47:40 PM
This thread has run its course. How do I lock it? <_<
Want me to hijack it?
Quote from: citizen k on October 31, 2009, 03:47:40 PM
This thread has run its course. How do I lock it? <_<
Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Quote from: citizen k on October 31, 2009, 03:47:40 PM
This thread has run its course. How do I lock it? <_<
You never look at it again. It is then, as far as you can tell, "locked." <_<
Just this post to set the record straight.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2626.msg131751#msg131751
Reply #139 on: October 25, 2009, 05:11:26 pm
"You are using "the meaning of life" in an entirely different way than I am. In English, at least, that phrase has a specific meaning, and I keep forgetting that you are not a native speaker of the language."
*bows out*
Quote from: miglia on November 01, 2009, 12:55:41 AM
Just this post to set the record straight.
http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=2626.msg131751#msg131751
Reply #139 on: October 25, 2009, 05:11:26 pm
"You are using "the meaning of life" in an entirely different way than I am. In English, at least, that phrase has a specific meaning, and I keep forgetting that you are not a native speaker of the language."
*bows out*
GET OFF MY FORUM
Jaron, what's this? Get online on MSN. We'll discuss this elsewhere.
After our msn chat, I've learned miglia is high on sleeping pills and thought he was being deep and philosphical. :rolleyes:
Quote from: citizen k on October 31, 2009, 04:08:46 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 31, 2009, 03:50:37 PM
Quote from: citizen k on October 31, 2009, 03:47:40 PM
This thread has run its course. How do I lock it? <_<
Want me to hijack it?
Get in line. :contract:
Ok.
The ACW wasn't really about slavery but tariffs.
The CSA could have won the war by outlasting the Union. They just needed Vicksburg to resist longer and Lee to defeat the AotP at Gettysburg and they could have dictated peace terms to Linconln.
Barbarossa could have been successful if the Germans had concentrated on taking Moscow in '41.
;)
We never have Napoleonic hijacks. :(
Quote from: grumbler on October 31, 2009, 10:31:40 AM
Quote from: miglia on October 31, 2009, 04:59:41 AM
I believe you used the words "native language", but you did admit to constantly forgetting "english is not [my] native language", so I suppose I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one; maybe you weren't dishonest, but merely forgetful.
Nope, didn't use either of those phrases earlier. I really think you are so fixated on me that you are lumping every poster who has disagreed with you into "grumbler." I have mno idea what your nationality or native language is, and no desire to know.
I dunno. It sounds like something you would do.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2009, 05:39:25 AM
We never have Napoleonic hijacks. :(
Nappy shouldn't have sent Davout to Hamburg in 1813.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2009, 08:04:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2009, 05:39:25 AM
We never have Napoleonic hijacks. :(
Nappy shouldn't have sent Davout to Hamburg in 1813.
Fucking A right.
Whole 1813 would have been different if Davout there - imagine him flanking at Bautzen, it would have been all over.
Quote from: PDH on November 01, 2009, 11:02:01 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2009, 08:04:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2009, 05:39:25 AM
We never have Napoleonic hijacks. :(
Nappy shouldn't have sent Davout to Hamburg in 1813.
Fucking A right.
Whole 1813 would have been different if Davout there - imagine him flanking at Bautzen, it would have been all over.
If all I do is imagine him doing it nothing would change in reality.
Quote from: PDH on November 01, 2009, 11:02:01 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 01, 2009, 08:04:38 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 01, 2009, 05:39:25 AM
We never have Napoleonic hijacks. :(
Nappy shouldn't have sent Davout to Hamburg in 1813.
Fucking A right.
Whole 1813 would have been different if Davout there - imagine him flanking at Bautzen, it would have been all over.
I'd like to have seen Davout vs Bernadotte. A pissed off bald guy versus a Fake Swede with no military talent.
A few comments:
- Hamburg and several nearby strong places, like Stade and Gluckstadt, were vital because they allowed the French to close the Elbe to navigation. During the Napoleonic Wars navigable rivers were equivalent of railroads after the Industrial Revolution, allowing much faster and economic transport (unlike horses, barges don't eat). In 1813 Napoleon dedicated very strong efforts to deny the use of those rivers to the Allies, sending strong garrisons and good generals to Hamburg on the Elbe, Stettin on the Oder, Danzig on the Vistula...
- Don't sell Bernadotte so cheap. He has had precious few friends and an awful lot of enemies that have poured endless abuse on him, from Napoleonic nostalgics to Bourbon Legitimists and Prussian nationalists, but for starters Napoleon saw something special in him, otherwise he wouldn't have allowed Bernadotte to join the 'family'... details are scarce and a bit shady, but it was Napoleon who invited him into the Bonaparte-Clary circle and very probably introduced Bernadotte to Desirée.
At the very least he seems to have excelled at administration & diplomacy, the troops he commanded always liked him, and certainly he knew how to be likeable and gain the most improbable friends, as the lasting impression he made on the Swedish in 1807 shows. Besides, his record is significantly lacking in defeats, and his conduct in 1813-14 was actually quite good. True, his opponents were Oudinot, Macdonald and Ney... but let's remember the great Davout didn't exactly smash his opponents up North, the French raw recruits of 1813 simply were too green to be of much use, and Napoleon was siphoning the best of them for his own army.
- Which brings us to Davout. There is no doubt he was one of the best generals Napoleon had, and probably the most faithful and loyal to him, but still Napoleon didn't send him to Spain and didn't listen to his advice in Borodino; clearly . In addition, the man had his weak points too: for all the good he did Davout could have disappeared during the Retreat from Moscow; when the army disintegrated and Ney became a giant, Davout, according to our sources, almost became a non entity. Regarding his character, he was cold, distant and a stern disciplinarian, his troops respected him but didn't like him, and between his peers he was so good at making enemies as Bernadotte was at making friends (only half jokingly he has been called the model after which German generals were made after 1815).
Quote from: Alatriste on November 02, 2009, 04:10:46 AM
A few comments:
- Hamburg and several nearby strong places, like Stade and Gluckstadt, were vital because they allowed the French to close the Elbe to navigation. During the Napoleonic Wars navigable rivers were equivalent of railroads after the Industrial Revolution, allowing much faster and economic transport (unlike horses, barges don't eat). In 1813 Napoleon dedicated very strong efforts to deny the use of those rivers to the Allies, sending strong garrisons and good generals to Hamburg on the Elbe, Stettin on the Oder, Danzig on the Vistula...
- Don't sell Bernadotte so cheap. He has had precious few friends and an awful lot of enemies that have poured endless abuse on him, from Napoleonic nostalgics to Bourbon Legitimists and Prussian nationalists, but for starters Napoleon saw something special in him, otherwise he wouldn't have allowed Bernadotte to join the 'family'... details are scarce and a bit shady, but it was Napoleon who invited him into the Bonaparte-Clary circle and very probably introduced Bernadotte to Desirée.
At the very least he seems to have excelled at administration & diplomacy, the troops he commanded always liked him, and certainly he knew how to be likeable and gain the most improbable friends, as the lasting impression he made on the Swedish in 1807 shows. Besides, his record is significantly lacking in defeats, and his conduct in 1813-14 was actually quite good. True, his opponents were Oudinot, Macdonald and Ney... but let's remember the great Davout didn't exactly smash his opponents up North, the French raw recruits of 1813 simply were too green to be of much use, and Napoleon was siphoning the best of them for his own army.
- Which brings us to Davout. There is no doubt he was one of the best generals Napoleon had, and probably the most faithful and loyal to him, but still Napoleon didn't send him to Spain and didn't listen to his advice in Borodino; clearly . In addition, the man had his weak points too: for all the good he did Davout could have disappeared during the Retreat from Moscow; when the army disintegrated and Ney became a giant, Davout, according to our sources, almost became a non entity. Regarding his character, he was cold, distant and a stern disciplinarian, his troops respected him but didn't like him, and between his peers he was so good at making enemies as Bernadotte was at making friends (only half jokingly he has been called the model after which German generals were made after 1815).
Bernadotte's record is spotted with defeats. :huh: The rout of his troops at Wagram is just one example. He was very charasmatic, but not very good as a general. He did represent the Jacobin wing of French politics, though, and was the best token Jacobin napoleon could find, so he "recruited" him into the family and the Marshalate (sp) - but didn't give himmany military responsibilities. Barnadotte was an excellent ambassador, though treacherous when his personal goals and those of his master diverged. Napoleon was almost constantly on the verge of sacking him, but the need to keep a prominent Jacobin close to him deterred him until the Wagram debacle made it clear that Bernadotte would ruin any troops under his command.
Davout is, as you noted, a different kettle of fish. He was uncharismatic to an extreme, but brilliant at everything he turned his hand to. Napoelon's problem with Davout was that Davout threatened to be too good and steal the master's thunder. Davout couldn't be counted on to be personally friendly like Lannes and depreciate his own work in favor of Napoleon.
The argument that the retreat from Moscow says something negative about Davout because he wasn't Ney amuses me; who did come out of that campaign smelling like a rose, other than Ney? If the standard of adequacy is "as good a Ney during the retreat from Moscow' then Napoleon was inadequate.
And yes, Davout
was smashing his enemies in the North in 1813-1814. It took him some time to train up his troops, but he won every battle. Just like he won every other battle in which he commanded - and remember that the French last lost a battle when Davout was present in 1797.
Since I often find myself contemplating whether or not Davout was a divine figure this hijack makes perfect sense.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2009, 10:16:20 AM
Since I often find myself contemplating whether or not Davout was a divine figure this hijack makes perfect sense.
Davout was both good and lucky. For a general, that is close to "divine." :D
Would that make you a devout devotee of Davout?
Davout was on the losing side that makes him both unlucky (for being on the wrong side) and not very good (at either getting his side to win or picking the winning side).
At the end of the game
Bernadotte - King of Sweden and Norway
Davoust - Mayor of a Paris Suburb and his name misspelled on the Arc-du-Triomphe
I suspect Bernadotte has more VP.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 11:55:32 AM
Bernadotte - King of Sweden and Norway
Davoust - Mayor of a Paris Suburb and his name misspelled on the Arc-du-Triomphe
Mayor of a Paris Suburb > King of Sweden and Norway.
Winner = Davout
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 11:55:32 AM
Davout was on the losing side that makes him both unlucky (for being on the wrong side) and not very good (at either getting his side to win or picking the winning side).
At the end of the game
Bernadotte - King of Sweden and Norway
Davoust - Mayor of a Paris Suburb and his name misspelled on the Arc-du-Triomphe
I suspect Bernadotte has more VP.
Nope. In what matters, the results are a tie:
Davout: dead
Bernie: dead
All VP are lost with death.
If VPs were posthumously granted for hotness of great-whatever-daughters, Bernie would win, though.
If they had met post war Davout would have had to bow before Kung Karl XIV Johan av Sverige och Karl III Johan av Norge.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 12:16:12 PM
If they had met post war Davout would have had to bow before Kung Karl XIV Johan av Sverige och Karl III Johan av Norge.
Yeah well he would have had to bow before Prince Sefer Ali-Bey Shervashidze of Abkhazia also...but I still think Davout was cooler.
Quote from: Valmy on November 02, 2009, 10:16:20 AM
Since I often find myself contemplating whether or not Davout was a divine figure this hijack makes perfect sense.
he is the new Sol Invictus.
And when playing a Napoleonic wargame, I'm annoyed if Davout's ratings aren't among the highest.
Quote from: Viking on November 02, 2009, 11:55:32 AM
Davout was on the losing side that makes him both unlucky (for being on the wrong side) and not very good (at either getting his side to win or picking the winning side).
At the end of the game
Bernadotte - King of Sweden and Norway
Davoust - Mayor of a Paris Suburb and his name misspelled on the Arc-du-Triomphe
I suspect Bernadotte has more VP.
About the misspellings or alternate spellings, they are awfully common in Napoleonic generals, specially Russian ones, but Davout has more than most... for starters apparently his family name was originally d'Abot or d'Abbot but he changed it because the D' looked aristocratic, and it was wiser to look plebeian in 1793. Further, it seems 'Davoust' was used at least as frequently as 'Davout', even by Napoleon himself.
@Grumbler
Ah, yes, Wagram... well. Wagram was certainly not his best moment, but 'spotted with defeats' is quite excessive, I'd say. Actually, out of my mind I can't remember any other, and a few minutes spent googling don't offer any example, either. Slow? Perhaps he was in some occasions, but not in others... certainly not in 1805, or in the pursuit after Jena. On the other hand, he performed reasonably well at Austerlitz, Mohrungen, Spanden... and at Walcheren too, in 1809, one can hardly say he did badly.
No, he's considered bad because of two things: he didn't support Davout at Auerstadt in 1806, and his troops performed badly at Wagram.
About Auerstadt, we could spend 10 pages debating that famous affair. Let's just say that everyone had a part of guilt: Napoleon, that was mistaken about the location and intentions of the Prussians, Berthier, whose orders for Davout and Bernadotte were too ambiguous, Davout, that was both insubordinate and rash (Bernadotte outranked him, as he was 'général de division' since 1794) and Bernadotte himself... but he was obeying very specific orders from the Emperor.
About Wagram, well, few people would say Saxon infantry was an elite force... but anyway getting fired on by the enemy from the front and by friendly fire from the rear would test the mettle of any infantry.
Davout was in another league, that's evident, but in my humble opinion he has received excessive praise. In 1812 he didn't shine (granted, circumstances were exceptional) and in 1813 he was somewhat passive against a hodge podge of second class enemy forces (but numerically stronger, and much, much stronger in cavalry... I'm not saying it's evident he should have risked everything in a field battle)
Alariste,
The things held against Bernadotte by modern historians and his contemporaries are/were:
(1) he was a "political general" who owed his position due to hios political skills rather than his very meager ones as a leader and general;
(2) he was ambitious beyond all reason, desiring for instance the French Crown after Napoleon's abdication, and doing his best to blackguard his rivals; and
(3) he was a very poor comrade, seeing all the other marshals as competition and therefor doing what he could to make sure they did not shine. As an Ally, he did much the same thing, being willing to see the deaths of infinite numbers of Russians before the death of a single one of his own soldiers.
"Toad" is the word that springs to mind.
Davout's reputation has certainly been overblown by some, but the fact remains that he was almost certainly Napoleon's best subordinate, and a better leader and general than any Allied leader bar Wellington. His efforts in 1812 were also exceptional, and I don't know how you can argue otherwise; had Jerome obeyed orders, Davout would almost certainly have brought Bagration to battle under extremely favorable French terms, with incalculable consequences for future operations. At Borodino, his corps performed a diificult mission well, despite losing 40% of their strength on the eve of battle because they were such good troops that they were needed by those commanders In 1813, Davout waged a vigorous (and mostly successful) war of the outposts until about December, when Allied numbers became so great he had to retreat into the city. I am not sure how a general commanding a fortress can not be "somewhat passive," so that can hardly be an indictment of Davout!
If you want to ding Davout, it wouldn't be on military grounds. He was excessively sycophantic in matters other than military, and openly contemptuous of those among the marshalate who failed to maintain tight discipline for themselves and their troops.
Grumbler, did you read this theard at the 'Napoleon Series' forum?
http://www.napoleon-series.org/cgi-bin/forum/archive2006_config.pl?md=read;id=70881
I happen to agree almost 100% with the things Robert Goetz and John Cook posted... Bernadotte was certainly a general far inferior to Davout, but his reputation has been savaged quite unfairly since 1813.
Not that all of them are false, just to mention one obvious fault one can hardly doubt that his Swedish corps in 1813-14 was shamelessly preserved intact while the other corps of the Army of the North did all the fighting (losses at Leipzig: 22,000 Russians, 16,000 Prussians, 15,000 Austrians... two hundred Swedes) but reading some accounts (Marbot and Savary, for example) Bernadotte is presented as a coward, a blusterer, a traitor, an incompetent and a clown, all at the same time!
About Davout (or Davoust) he was a superb general, and I freely admit a certain degree of... "je ne sais quoi" that makes me remark he's too often overrated. Perhaps it's just that others, like Masséna, Suchet and Soult, receive far less attention and praises than him, perhaps it's just that knowing how well he performed in 1806-7 and 1809, I would have expected even more of him in 1812-14.
Isn't this more fun than religion?
Much more.
Davout is great, because he was balding with glasses and he kicked butt. Enough said.
Now, Alatriste, I agree that Suchet gets the short end of the stick too often, just because he wasn't on the right at great battles.
Ed's ranking of French Marshals, based on general coolness and being a bad ass
(with bad spelling and all)
1) Davout
2) Lannes
3) Bessières
4) Massena (without mistress)
5) Suchet
6) Soult
7) Ney
8) Mortier
9) Massena (with mistress)
And so on, as there are too many of these fucks to rate. Bernadotte doesn't even show up.
Quote from: Alatriste on November 03, 2009, 08:28:11 AM
Not that all of them are false, just to mention one obvious fault one can hardly doubt that his Swedish corps in 1813-14 was shamelessly preserved intact while the other corps of the Army of the North did all the fighting (losses at Leipzig: 22,000 Russians, 16,000 Prussians, 15,000 Austrians... two hundred Swedes) but reading some accounts (Marbot and Savary, for example) Bernadotte is presented as a coward, a blusterer, a traitor, an incompetent and a clown, all at the same time!
Coward is probably unfair (though he did have a weird habit of showing up late or completely missing battles), but blusterer and traitor are on the mark. Incompetent probably isn't fair either though he does pale in comparison to other Marshals of France. His treacherous self serving nature served him well in the end but you can't expect it make him popular with historians (or anyone who is French).
This is easily figured out, just check your local game, and see how they are rated.
According to Nappy Wars, it is:
1. Napoleon (4-8)
2-3. Davout, Soult (3-6)
4-5. Lannes, Massena (2-6)
6. Bernadotte (2-4)
Everyone else (1-4)
Numbers are tactical rating-troops they command.
Glad to be of help.
BTW, we need another player for the next Languish Nappy Wars game, going with a 4 player version this time. Sign up in the thread in the gaming forum, and you to can betray Napoleon for the Swedish crown!
Empires in Arms (Strategic.Tactical.Command.Rank and * for cavalry leader)
Nappy 5.5.6.A
Davoudt 4.5.2.B
Massena 4.4.3.C
Ney 2.4.1.C
Soult 3.3.3.C
Murat 2.3.3.B*
Bernadotte 2.2.2.B
Jerome 2.2.1.D
Wellington 5.5.3.B
Charles 4.4.6.B
Blücher 3.4.5.B*
Kutuzov 3.4.4.B
Barclay 3.3.5.C
Bagration 2.4.4.B
Schwartzenberg 2.3.3.B
Bernadotte's is the only Napoleonic marshal's baton I have seen in the flesh so he gets my vote as the greatest ever marshal.
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2009, 12:37:12 PM
Bernadotte's is the only Napoleonic marshal's baton I have seen in the flesh so he gets my vote as the greatest ever marshal.
We've got his (and Nappy's) sword in trondheim.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 03, 2009, 09:09:47 AM
Isn't this more fun than religion?
Trying to divert this back on topic are you? :mad:
Which of Napoleon's generals were closet atheists?
Why did God, if he exists, allow this to happen in the first place?
Quote from: Alatriste on November 03, 2009, 08:28:11 AM
Grumbler, did you read this theard at the 'Napoleon Series' forum?
http://www.napoleon-series.org/cgi-bin/forum/archive2006_config.pl?md=read;id=70881
haven't in years. It used to be a great site, but then turned to diatribes and phony "history." there is no site like the old Napoleon Series, alas.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2009, 02:36:36 PM
Why did God, if he exists, allow this to happen in the first place?
God is a Grognardtard.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 03, 2009, 02:36:36 PM
Why did God, if he exists, allow this to happen in the first place?
Well in all fairness He just gave Al Gore free will.
Why did God create Al Gore? What was she thinking?
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2009, 12:37:12 PM
Bernadotte's is the only Napoleonic marshal's baton I have seen in the flesh so he gets my vote as the greatest ever marshal.
They made them out of Flesh? Ewww.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 03, 2009, 03:08:10 PM
Quote from: The Brain on November 03, 2009, 12:37:12 PM
Bernadotte's is the only Napoleonic marshal's baton I have seen in the flesh so he gets my vote as the greatest ever marshal.
They made them out of Flesh? Ewww.
The fact that Nappy only had a tiny baton made him more aggressive.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 03, 2009, 09:09:47 AM
Isn't this more fun than religion?
It certainly beats the shit out of ACW threads. I mean, how many ACW hijacks bashing McClellan, praising The Hammer and The Anvil, and goofing on Stonewall's pickets can you have?
I always have room for laughing at the deaths of Stonewall and Stuart.
Quote from: grumbler on November 03, 2009, 02:37:22 PM
Quote from: Alatriste on November 03, 2009, 08:28:11 AM
Grumbler, did you read this theard at the 'Napoleon Series' forum?
http://www.napoleon-series.org/cgi-bin/forum/archive2006_config.pl?md=read;id=70881
haven't in years. It used to be a great site, but then turned to diatribes and phony "history." there is no site like the old Napoleon Series, alas.
You tell me. The 'bricole' war, for example, was unbelievably pathetic.