A New Scientist opinion piece:
QuoteStamp out anti-science in US politics
It is time to reject political movements that turn their backs on science, says Nobel prizewinner and Royal Society president Paul Nurse
IF YOU respect science you will probably be disturbed by the following opinions.
On evolution: intelligent design is "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science class". And don't believe in "a theory that human beings - thinking, loving beings - originated from fish that sprouted legs and crawled out of the sea or from monkeys who eventually swung down from the trees."
On the use of embryonic stem cell research to cure diseases: it should be shut down because it involves "the wholesale destruction of human life".
On climate change: variations are "natural, cyclical environmental trends". That "we can't say with assurance that human activities cause weather changes" and that climate problems in Texas are best solved through "days of prayer for rain".
You would probably be even more disturbed to be told that these are the opinions expressed by potential Republican candidates for the US presidential nomination (see "Science rears its head in Republican debates"). It's alarming that a country which leads the world in science - the home of Benjamin Franklin, Richard Feynman and Jim Watson - might be turning its back on science. How can this be happening? What can be done?
One problem is treating scientific discussion as if it were political debate. When some politicians try to sway public opinion, they employ the tricks of the debating chamber: cherry-picking data, ignoring the consensus opinions of experts, adept use of a sneer or a misplaced comparison, reliance on the power of rhetoric rather than argument. They can often get away with this because the media rely too much on confrontational debate in place of reasoned discussion.
It is essential, in public issues, to separate science from politics and ideology. Get the science right first, then discuss the political implications. We scientists also need to work harder at discussing the issues better and more fully in the public arena, clearly identifying what we know and admitting what we don't know.
Another concern is science teaching in schools. Is it good enough to produce citizens able to cope with public discussions about science? We have to ensure that science is being taught in schools - not pseudoscience. With the rise of free and faith schools and the academies in the UK, measures need to be put in place to safeguard science classes. This has been difficult to maintain particularly in the US.
We need to emphasise why the scientific process is such a reliable generator of knowledge - with its respect for evidence, for scepticism, for consistency of approach, for the constant testing of ideas. Everyone should know and understand why the processes that lead to astronomy are more reliable than those that lead to astrology.
Finally, scientific leaders have a responsibility to expose the bunkum. We scientists have not always been proactive about this. We need to be vigilant about what is being said in the public arena. We need to be vigilant about what politicians are publicising about science and take them on when necessary. At elections, scientists should ensure that science is on the agenda and nonsense is exposed. If that nonsense is extreme enough then the response should be very public.
If those who are anti-science in the US are allowed to carry the day it will ultimately hurt the American economy. The best scientists will head for the established leaders of science, such as the UK and emerging powerhouses such as China and India. But beyond that it will damage the US's standing in the world. Who will be able to take its leaders seriously? They may not care, but they should.
Science is worth fighting for. It helps us understand the world and ourselves better and will benefit all humanity.
We have to hope that the people of the US will see through some of the nonsense being foisted on them by vocal minorities. It is time to reject political movements that reject science and take us back into the dark rather than forward into a more enlightened future.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128302.900-stamp-out-antiscience-in-us-politics.html (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128302.900-stamp-out-antiscience-in-us-politics.html)
Sorry, Brazen. No can do. The US body politic equates anti-elitism with anti-intellectualism.
I find it sorta interesting that so much of the Republican Party is anti-intellectual to the point of combative contempt. Usually that's a trait reserved for communists.
Ugh. I wish. Those asshats don't even understand the definitions of terms like "scientific theory." Put a blurb about creationism in a history class and problem solved- then the only debate to be had is whether the Bible counts as a primary or secondary source. I'm pretty sure the religious whackos want it in science class solely to thumb their nose at other religions and effectively say "our creation myth is better than yours."
Stamp out Foreigners!
It is time to stop listening to foreigners says renowned crank Professor Monc E. Butt, even if the damn foreigner is right.
"Foreigners should mind their own business!" exclaimed Prof. Butt, before yelling at a cloud. Then the interview ended as Professor Butt started firing on the cloud.
Nurse does not demonstrate a very good understanding of his ostensible target audience.
I liked what Huntsman said about science in the Reagan debate. But, it is worrying that only one Republican candidate seems to think that science matters or is useful.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 15, 2011, 06:44:46 AM
Stamp out Foreigners!
It is time to stop listening to foreigners says renowned crank Professor Monc E. Butt, even if the damn foreigner is right.
"Foreigners should mind their own business!" exclaimed Prof. Butt, before yelling at a cloud. Then the interview ended as Professor Butt started firing on the cloud.
We should tax all foreigners living abroad.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 15, 2011, 06:44:46 AM
Stamp out Foreigners!
It is time to stop listening to foreigners says renowned crank Professor Monc E. Butt, even if the damn foreigner is right.
"Foreigners should mind their own business!" exclaimed Prof. Butt, before yelling at a cloud. Then the interview ended as Professor Butt started firing on the cloud.
That's not what your bosses meant when they told you to make rain, Ed. :P
Quote from: Viking on September 15, 2011, 07:24:45 AM
I liked what Huntsman said about science in the Reagan debate. But, it is worrying that only one Republican candidate seems to think that science matters or is useful.
Perry's big university reform idea was to turn the Texas and Texas A&M systems into degree factories and slash their research. Seriously. I am pretty sure that is not something most Republican Governors would support. Or most people actually.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 15, 2011, 04:31:22 AM
Sorry, Brazen. No can do. The US body politic equates anti-elitism with anti-intellectualism.
I find it sorta interesting that so much of the Republican Party is anti-intellectual to the point of combative contempt. Usually that's a trait reserved for communists.
I don't get why the US body politic is anti-elitist in the first place. Sure, you may hold a view that the "elite is not what it's used to be" or that wrong people are considered the elite, but a genuine anti-elitism has always baffled me. Surely, there are people who are wiser, more intelligent, or otherwise better than the rest. How can you function without agreeing that basic fact?
Incidentally, I can think of only one political system in which the body politic was so virulently and ideologically anti-elitist - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The basic proverb "a petty noble in his household is equal to a king" was the fundament of this view, and uneducated, barely literate petty nobles looked down on internationally educated rich ones, who studies in Bologna, Paris or Cologne.
They would spend their time opposing every attempt at a reform or modernization as an assault on their god-given liberties, and despite being themselves poor and uneducated, they would virulently oppose any attempt to give any political rights to peasants who formed the backbone of the workforce.
We all know how it ended.
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
I don't get why the US body politic is anti-elitist in the first place. Sure, you may hold a view that the "elite is not what it's used to be" or that wrong people are considered the elite, but a genuine anti-elitism has always baffled me. Surely, there are people who are wiser, more intelligent, or otherwise better than the rest. How can you function without agreeing that basic fact?
Good honest salt of the earth rugged individualists have no need for the soft city folks who have never worked a day in their lives and do not understand the real world.
It is part of our national myth.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 08:35:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
I don't get why the US body politic is anti-elitist in the first place. Sure, you may hold a view that the "elite is not what it's used to be" or that wrong people are considered the elite, but a genuine anti-elitism has always baffled me. Surely, there are people who are wiser, more intelligent, or otherwise better than the rest. How can you function without agreeing that basic fact?
Good honest salt of the earth rugged individualists have no need for the soft city folks who have never worked a day in their lives and do not understand the real world.
It is part of our national myth.
It's extremely destructive (and as I said above it is almost to a letter what the Polish nobility thought of itself in the 18th century).
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:33:47 AM
Incidentally, I can think of only one political system in which the body politic was so virulently and ideologically anti-elitist - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The basic proverb "a petty noble in his household is equal to a king" was the fundament of this view, and uneducated, barely literate petty nobles looked down on internationally educated rich ones, who studies in Bologna, Paris or Cologne. We all know how it ended.
Saving the western world at Vienna?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pinakoteka.zascianek.pl%2FBatowski%2FImages%2FAtak_husarii.jpg&hash=0b593c9862817df516f19a71827355da0ef34bc2)
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:37:08 AM
It's extremely destructive (and as I said above it is almost to a letter what the Polish nobility thought of itself in the 18th century).
Probably. But people just tend to prefer John Wayne to George Will. I doubt it is really that unique to the US.
It's a bit later than that. At the time, the rot has only began to settle in.
I was rather thinking about:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rozbiory-polski.yoyo.pl%2F4.jpg&hash=5883397271c7039a9e7dfed633daf6381580b45a)
Incidentally, the victory of Vienna aside, the rule of Sobieski was pretty catastrophic for Poland. He won wars, but lost the peace with Russia and Turkey, depleted the treasury, failed to secure a dynasty and overall was a puppet of the Habsburg and the Bourbon parties. Not to mention, saving Austria so that Poland can be partitioned by it later was not exactly the best move in the long run.
He should have allied with France and Turkey instead.
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:40:07 AM
Incidentally, the victory of Vienna aside, the rule of Sobieski was pretty catastrophic for Poland. He won wars, but lost the peace with Russia and Turkey, depleted the treasury, failed to secure a dynasty and overall was a puppet of the Habsburg and the Bourbon parties. Not to mention, saving Austria so that Poland can be partitioned by it later was not exactly the best move in the long run.
He should have allied with France and Turkey instead.
But that Cavalry charge was the baddest ass moment in history. Or maybe it just is in my imagination.
But yeah whenever some American whines about Euros not being grateful for WWII or whatever I always bring up Austria partitioning Poland less than 100 years later as an example of what sort of gratitude one can expect in international politics.
Incidentally, I think the P-L Commonwealth analogy works quite well for the US.
Like the US, it was at its height a rather badass country, with substantial military prowess. Like the US, it had a rather advanced political system compared to its rivals during its golden age. Like the US, it was a relatively good place to live for ordinary people and had more checks and balances on its power than its rivals. Like the US, it was more often a "good guy" (or at least saw itself as such) compared to its rivals, and had a "manifest destiny" type of narrative to its myth.
What ruined it was: (i) fetish-like devotion of its body politic to "ancient privileges", making it eventually ungovernable, (ii) opposition of its body politic to taxation, making it unable to maintain its dominance, (iii) its political system, while being more "free" than that of its key rivals, was also much less efficient and effective, (iv) its antielitism, and (v) numerous wars.
I wonder when China will start influencing your presidential elections. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:55:05 AM
I wonder when China will start influencing your presidential elections. ;)
According to the GOP, '92 or '96. :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:33:47 AM
Incidentally, I can think of only one political system in which the body politic was so virulently and ideologically anti-elitist - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The basic proverb "a petty noble in his household is equal to a king" was the fundament of this view, and uneducated, barely literate petty nobles looked down on internationally educated rich ones, who studies in Bologna, Paris or Cologne.
I don't think you understand that proverb correctly.
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:55:05 AM
I wonder when China will start influencing your presidential elections. ;)
John Huntsman 2012? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Manchurian_Candidate)
I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.
There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:32:32 AM
I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.
There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.
What was accepted as scientific fact a century ago that we laugh at today? I mean we understand they are wrong but I generally do not mock people who came to conclusions based on the data available. 'Haha those Ancient Greeks were sure stupid to get the circumference of the earth off by a few miles'.
Presuming we are not talking about Social Sciences and pseudo-science stuff like Nazi racial theory.
But yeah all science should be questioned and considered because just because that is what we understand from current data does not mean we will not find something in the future that changes that. But I do not think Creationism is embraced because the data supporting it is more compelling.
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:32:32 AM
I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.
There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.
This isn't just innocent skepticism. They aren't asking questions about Evolution because of unsolved questions concerning it. They are rejecting it out of hand because it conflicts with their view of religion. The skepticism about Climate change is not genuine scientific concern, but because their donors stand to lose billions of dollars if regulations are passed as a result of such research. Would they question Climate change if the consensus said we need to put more greenhouse gases in the air? The only times when science is being attacked is because someone is feeling threatened by it. That's not rational, and it's anti-science.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2011, 10:54:22 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:32:32 AM
I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.
There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.
This isn't just innocent skepticism. They aren't asking questions about Evolution because of unsolved questions concerning it. They are rejecting it out of hand because it conflicts with their view of religion. The skepticism about Climate change is not genuine scientific concern, but because their donors stand to lose billions of dollars if regulations are passed as a result of such research. Would they question Climate change if the consensus said we need to put more greenhouse gases in the air? The only times when science is being attacked is because someone is feeling threatened by it. That's not rational, and it's anti-science.
Defending your interests isn't rational? OK.
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:32:32 AM
I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.
There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.
There's nothing wrong with occasional questioning. Scientific advancement is built on probing questions that get to the heart of what is wrong with current knowledge. It's quite another matter to outright ignore the answers you get and keep on repeating the same moronic questions again and again.
Quote from: The Brain on September 15, 2011, 10:55:21 AM
Defending your interests isn't rational? OK.
Well it is perfectly rational politically :P
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:32:32 AM
I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.
There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.
You say that like there is an opening for us returning to earth centric astronomy or special creation. The thing is the "occasionally" you are referring to ignore substantial and as of yet unrefutable work done by millions of scientists over the past 150 years (evolution) or 500 years (heliocentrism). The "group" of scientists you are talking about is defined to include "almost all of them". This is the case for both evolution and global climate change.
The sciences of Biology and Meteorology are well researched and well grounded in reality with theories with a robust ability to make predictions and a conclusive ability to explain all observations (facts in layman's speech). Calling it Evolution or Global Warming to try and obfuscate that is silly.
We know that anti-Biologyism and anti-Meteorolgyism are conspiracy theories since the proponents are not experts in the field, they quote-mine, they claim secret cabals exist and most importantly they insist on us taking severe action despite them not making any plausible attempt to explain the observed facts and make testable predictions.
Yes, science changes over time and yesterday's "holy" truth may be replaced by a new and better model for the world. The fundamental difference between Science and Religion is that Science will change it's position if the facts change, Religion will not. What we do know about Science is that it does not return to disproved orthodoxies. Hoyle's Steady State Universe will never return. Even if we come to some sort of static universe theory which replaces the big bang, it will be nothing like Hoyle's Steady State apart from only colloquially.
While I disagree with Viking that religion is unchanging, it is not a useful metric for most practical purposes. You can't build a bridge based on knowledge of Psalms and the book of Genesis is a poor substitute for real biology. Populating an area beyond it's carrying capacity and praying for rain when you expend the water table is not good policy. Moses may have been able to divide the waters but if the ice caps continue to melt and the sea level rises I wouldn't rely on miracles to hold back the tide.
Once upon a time the US were at the forefront of human progress and science... Now Creationism, Climate Change denial, Voodoo Economics, Religious invocations left right and center - hold sway among large segments of your population...
With nukes on top of it all.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 15, 2011, 11:53:57 AM
Once upon a time the US were at the forefront of human progress and science... Now Creationism, Climate Change denial, Voodoo Economics, Religious invocations left right and center - hold sway among large segments of your population...
With nukes on top of it all.
G.
It's not like US didn't have retarded people before the last few decades.
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 12:00:18 PM
It's not like US didn't have retarded people before the last few decades.
What has changed then for these idiosyncratic beliefs to gather such support/momentum? Is the rot settling in?
G.
The crazy was much, much stronger in the US in all previous eras.
Quote from: Grallon on September 15, 2011, 12:04:26 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 15, 2011, 12:00:18 PM
It's not like US didn't have retarded people before the last few decades.
What has changed then for these idiosyncratic beliefs to gather such support/momentum? Is the rot settling in?
G.
Every three generations or so a religious revival sweeps the USA leading to some sort of conflict. Previously Prohibition, Abolition and The Great Revival have all started with religious fervor leading to a culmination (The Civil War or The Revolutionary War (the great depression pre-empted any violent prohibition conflict)). The violence usually exhausts or discredits the religious fervor. The question is now, what will burn out Dominionist Fervor?
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:55:05 AM
Incidentally, I think the P-L Commonwealth analogy works quite well for the US.
Like the US, it was at its height a rather badass country, with substantial military prowess. Like the US, it had a rather advanced political system compared to its rivals during its golden age. Like the US, it was a relatively good place to live for ordinary people and had more checks and balances on its power than its rivals. Like the US, it was more often a "good guy" (or at least saw itself as such) compared to its rivals, and had a "manifest destiny" type of narrative to its myth.
What ruined it was: (i) fetish-like devotion of its body politic to "ancient privileges", making it eventually ungovernable, (ii) opposition of its body politic to taxation, making it unable to maintain its dominance, (iii) its political system, while being more "free" than that of its key rivals, was also much less efficient and effective, (iv) its antielitism, and (v) numerous wars.
I wonder when China will start influencing your presidential elections. ;)
Numerous wars? Really? The modern US doesn't really get involved in numerous wars, but I'll give you the other four points.
Quote from: Neil on September 15, 2011, 12:17:57 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:55:05 AM
Incidentally, I think the P-L Commonwealth analogy works quite well for the US.
Like the US, it was at its height a rather badass country, with substantial military prowess. Like the US, it had a rather advanced political system compared to its rivals during its golden age. Like the US, it was a relatively good place to live for ordinary people and had more checks and balances on its power than its rivals. Like the US, it was more often a "good guy" (or at least saw itself as such) compared to its rivals, and had a "manifest destiny" type of narrative to its myth.
What ruined it was: (i) fetish-like devotion of its body politic to "ancient privileges", making it eventually ungovernable, (ii) opposition of its body politic to taxation, making it unable to maintain its dominance, (iii) its political system, while being more "free" than that of its key rivals, was also much less efficient and effective, (iv) its antielitism, and (v) numerous wars.
I wonder when China will start influencing your presidential elections. ;)
Numerous wars? Really? The modern US doesn't really get involved in numerous wars, but I'll give you the other four points.
I didn't necessarily say that these five points that killed P-L are all present in the US, just that this is what they should watch out for.
The main difference is that the US has a much better geopolitical position - although in the age of globalization, it's a question how long it can be "unreachable" to, say, China.
Forever. China can never pose an existential threat to the US the way that the Emperors and the King of Prussia did Poland.
What about economic or cybernetic threat?
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 01:43:27 PM
What about economic or cybernetic threat?
There's no such thing as a 'cybernetic threat', but they already are an economic threat, and that's not a big deal. There are dozens of economic threats to the US, and always have been. Economic threats aren't all that serious to the US, because their fundamentals are still strong. What's the worst that could happen? The bubble that has inflated over the last few decades could burst and living standards could fall to pre-Reagan levels. That's not really so bad.
Quote from: The Brain on September 15, 2011, 10:55:21 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 15, 2011, 10:54:22 AM
Quote from: derspiess on September 15, 2011, 10:32:32 AM
I don't think it's anti-science to occasionally question something a group of scientists say.
There are be a number of things currently accepted as scientific fact that will be laughed at a century from now.
This isn't just innocent skepticism. They aren't asking questions about Evolution because of unsolved questions concerning it. They are rejecting it out of hand because it conflicts with their view of religion. The skepticism about Climate change is not genuine scientific concern, but because their donors stand to lose billions of dollars if regulations are passed as a result of such research. Would they question Climate change if the consensus said we need to put more greenhouse gases in the air? The only times when science is being attacked is because someone is feeling threatened by it. That's not rational, and it's anti-science.
Defending your interests isn't rational? OK.
Not if you don't have a clear conception of what your interests actually are. No one, or very few, stand to benefit in the long-term from climate change.
Quote from: Viking on September 15, 2011, 12:10:08 PM
Every three generations or so a religious revival sweeps the USA leading to some sort of conflict. Previously Prohibition, Abolition and The Great Revival have all started with religious fervor leading to a culmination (The Civil War or The Revolutionary War (the great depression pre-empted any violent prohibition conflict)). The violence usually exhausts or discredits the religious fervor. The question is now, what will burn out Dominionist Fervor?
Yeah, the Civil War sure discredited abolitionism. Damn good thing, to; if abolitionism had ever really caught on I wouldn't be able to have slave girls to draw my bath.
:P
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 02:47:27 PM
Not if you don't have a clear conception of what your interests actually are. No one, or very few, stand to benefit in the long-term from climate change.
More importantly ignoring reality because it's in your self interest is just not rational. I may wish I can fly, and if being chased by lions to the edge of a cliff it would be in my self interest to be able to fly. But me jumping off the cliff believing I can fly because I want too is not really rational.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 15, 2011, 02:47:27 PM
Not if you don't have a clear conception of what your interests actually are. No one, or very few, stand to benefit in the long-term from climate change.
:shifty:
Only way to separate A from B is to also separate B from A. As long as science has interests in politics, politics will keep fucking with science.
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2011, 02:50:51 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 15, 2011, 12:10:08 PM
Every three generations or so a religious revival sweeps the USA leading to some sort of conflict. Previously Prohibition, Abolition and The Great Revival have all started with religious fervor leading to a culmination (The Civil War or The Revolutionary War (the great depression pre-empted any violent prohibition conflict)). The violence usually exhausts or discredits the religious fervor. The question is now, what will burn out Dominionist Fervor?
Yeah, the Civil War sure discredited abolitionism. Damn good thing, to; if abolitionism had ever really caught on I wouldn't be able to have slave girls to draw my bath.
:P
He did'nt say it discredited abolitionism, he saids it discredited religious fervor. It's in the text you quoted.
Quote from: besuchov on September 15, 2011, 03:23:36 PM
Quote from: dps on September 15, 2011, 02:50:51 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 15, 2011, 12:10:08 PM
Every three generations or so a religious revival sweeps the USA leading to some sort of conflict. Previously Prohibition, Abolition and The Great Revival have all started with religious fervor leading to a culmination (The Civil War or The Revolutionary War (the great depression pre-empted any violent prohibition conflict)). The violence usually exhausts or discredits the religious fervor. The question is now, what will burn out Dominionist Fervor?
Yeah, the Civil War sure discredited abolitionism. Damn good thing, to; if abolitionism had ever really caught on I wouldn't be able to have slave girls to draw my bath.
:P
He did'nt say it discredited abolitionism, he saids it discredited religious fervor. It's in the text you quoted.
Not to mention I added the option of exhausting the religious fervor. It's amazing how much effect you can get from quote mining even a short text.
I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools, afterall its a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions.
The only problem is when it gets into creationism and starts saying evolution is wrong, there it`s just outright wrong and anyone who supports that needs shooting.
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools, afterall its a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions.
The only problem is when it gets into creationism and starts saying evolution is wrong, there it`s just outright wrong and anyone who supports that needs shooting.
:bleeding:
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools, afterall its a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions.
The only problem is when it gets into creationism and starts saying evolution is wrong, there it`s just outright wrong and anyone who supports that needs shooting.
eh? I'm sorry, but getting into high school biology textbooks is going to require a higher standard than being "a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions", even in countries that don't have a separation of church and state. You should look up Kitzmiller vs. Dover, ID is Creationism.
Quote from: Valmy on September 15, 2011, 08:35:20 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 15, 2011, 08:30:28 AM
I don't get why the US body politic is anti-elitist in the first place. Sure, you may hold a view that the "elite is not what it's used to be" or that wrong people are considered the elite, but a genuine anti-elitism has always baffled me. Surely, there are people who are wiser, more intelligent, or otherwise better than the rest. How can you function without agreeing that basic fact?
Good honest salt of the earth rugged individualists have no need for the soft city folks who have never worked a day in their lives and do not understand the real world.
It is part of our national myth.
Nobody likes the smartest kid in the class.
Quote from: Viking on September 15, 2011, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools, afterall its a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions.
The only problem is when it gets into creationism and starts saying evolution is wrong, there it`s just outright wrong and anyone who supports that needs shooting.
eh? I'm sorry, but getting into high school biology textbooks is going to require a higher standard than being "a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions", even in countries that don't have a separation of church and state. You should look up Kitzmiller vs. Dover, ID is Creationism.
This is simply not true. It's like arguing that Lamarckian evolution is the same as Darwinian Evolution. I agree that it's not appropriate in a public school, but it's not the same as arguing that God created the Earth over the course of a week.
I don't really have a problem with the weak form of intelligent design. When it gets any stronger than unproveable assertions, and it gets there really fast, it becomes intolerable.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2011, 12:14:33 AM
I don't really have a problem with the weak form of intelligent design. When it gets any stronger than unproveable assertions, and it gets there really fast, it becomes intolerable.
It's a philosophic concept, not a scientific one. I suspect that the majority of people who are religious or at least spiritual who don't believe in a literal creation story believe in ID at some level.
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools,
:hmm:
Quote from: Neil on September 15, 2011, 01:41:43 PM
Forever. China can never pose an existential threat to the US the way that the Emperors and the King of Prussia did Poland.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg860.imageshack.us%2Fimg860%2F6246%2Fsnookikiss.gif&hash=602f6c445143d4723a890a98bae68912585c5553)
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 12:19:31 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2011, 12:14:33 AM
I don't really have a problem with the weak form of intelligent design. When it gets any stronger than unproveable assertions, and it gets there really fast, it becomes intolerable.
It's a philosophic concept, not a scientific one. I suspect that the majority of people who are religious or at least spiritual who don't believe in a literal creation story believe in ID at some level.
Yeah, but the stronger ID gets, the closer it gets to Creationism. The idea that God played a role in shaping the development of the human eye (which really isn't so fucking fantastic, and I don't know where they get their superlatives) is even more damaging than saying the world was created 6000 years ago, because people are probably more willing to ignore the finer points like how sight developed than they are slightly more obvious retardation like cavemen riding dinosaurs.
Quote from: Viking on September 15, 2011, 10:03:57 PM
h? I'm sorry, but getting into high school biology textbooks is going to require a higher standard than being "a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions", even in countries that don't have a separation of church and state. You should look up Kitzmiller vs. Dover, ID is Creationism.
I never said anything about it being in biology text books. Nothing of this nature belongs in science class.
In RE class however?
Intelligent design is a pretty broad spanning term. On one extreme then yes, it is creationism, god created the earth 6000 years ago and pulled humanity, fully developed, out of his arse. On the other though it is a pretty valid viewpoint; evolution is obviously right, the universe quite clearly is a few billion years old, etc... but...what caused the big bang? Maybe there was something divine there. Perhaps something had a role in guiding human evolution?
I don`t agree with this stuff but it isn`t outright wrong, wrong, wrong, in the way creationism is, we haven`t totally disproven god in those gaps yet. Its not such a retarded viewpoint it needs utterly stamping out and in a social studies context is certainly worth teaching.
If we are talking about religious education class, then the "intelligent design" has as much place there as creationism or a belief that the earth is flat and rests on a bunch of turtles (since religious education is a factographic science about stuff people believe in - it does not purport to make any value judgement about individual beliefs or how true or untrue they are). You are either an extremely confused person who does not understand the scientific method or are now backpedalling from your ridiculous statement about ID being appropriate to be taught as a "more likely true than creationism" theory in class.
I think Tyr is arguing that Intelligent Design can be as weak as saying that God initiated the Big Bang and then sat back and watched it all unfold. It is the viewpoint to which most of my Christian friends would subscribe, though I don't think that they would call it Intelligent Design.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2011, 12:14:33 AM
I don't really have a problem with the weak form of intelligent design.
What do you mean by "not having a problem" in this context? Could a religious person believe in it without being totally ridiculous? Perhaps. Should it be referred to or otherwise mentioned in a biology class? No, because it does not fulfill the criteria of a scientific theory.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 16, 2011, 01:44:09 AM
I think Tyr is arguing that Intelligent Design can be as weak as saying that God initiated the Big Bang and then sat back and watched it all unfold. It is the viewpoint to which most of my Christian friends would subscribe, though I don't think that they would call it Intelligent Design.
I understand that. But he is arguing that it could be "taught in a class". When called on it (it has no place in a biology or geography or geology class, because it has no scientific background whatsoever, any more than the polyana belief should have in, say, history of diplomacy class), he backpedals into saying it should be taught about in a religious education class - which is a clearly banal and obvious statement (which means he is either weak in the head or it is a poor attempt to muddle the waters), because any religious belief, no matter how ridiculous, could be taught
about (as opposed to just taught, in the same way the theory of evolution is taught) in a religious education class.
Quote from: Habsburg on September 16, 2011, 12:38:50 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 15, 2011, 01:41:43 PM
Forever. China can never pose an existential threat to the US the way that the Emperors and the King of Prussia did Poland.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg860.imageshack.us%2Fimg860%2F6246%2Fsnookikiss.gif&hash=602f6c445143d4723a890a98bae68912585c5553)
Enough with the gifs.
Anyway, there is nothing "plausible" about the Intelligent Design theory - it's just a classic example of "God of gaps" in action. Creationism was equally plausible until science found evidence that it is patently untrue, and there is no reason to believe the same fate does not await ID.
The only intelligent thing about the ID theory is that some of the people who run the massive scam of religion are more intelligent than others, so they realized that holding to a patently untrue idea of creationism damages the credibility of their scam.
:yawn:
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2011, 01:45:01 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on September 16, 2011, 12:14:33 AM
I don't really have a problem with the weak form of intelligent design.
What do you mean by "not having a problem" in this context? Could a religious person believe in it without being totally ridiculous? Perhaps. Should it be referred to or otherwise mentioned in a biology class? No, because it does not fulfill the criteria of a scientific theory.
The weak form of intelligent design isn't even a pseudoscientific concept. It's simply acknowledging/inventing a divine plan for life, which is untestable. It shouldn't be referred to in biology class obviously, in the same vein that the Thirty Years War or the remedy of replevin are not routinely taught in biology class.
I suppose I do still have "a problem" with it, really, but only the very broad sense of having a problem with religion in general.
If Marty has such a problem with Religion he should protest the government for declaring Christmas a holiday and the like.
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2011, 01:48:16 AM
I understand that. But he is arguing that it could be "taught in a class". When called on it (it has no place in a biology or geography or geology class, because it has no scientific background whatsoever, any more than the polyana belief should have in, say, history of diplomacy class), he backpedals into saying it should be taught about in a religious education class - which is a clearly banal and obvious statement (which means he is either weak in the head or it is a poor attempt to muddle the waters), because any religious belief, no matter how ridiculous, could be taught about (as opposed to just taught, in the same way the theory of evolution is taught) in a religious education class.
Msc here Mr Lawyer man.
I'm not backpedalling at all. I'm just saying what I believe.
Does ID belong in science class? Of course not, its philosophy.
But why then do many people go on about keeping it out of schools all together. RE is a valid subject for an hour a week at least.
Creationism, even as taught in RE, deserves to be laughed at along with the world being on the back of a giant turtle, its a stupid outdated theory. ID though is valid philosophy.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 12:12:13 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 15, 2011, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools, afterall its a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions.
The only problem is when it gets into creationism and starts saying evolution is wrong, there it`s just outright wrong and anyone who supports that needs shooting.
eh? I'm sorry, but getting into high school biology textbooks is going to require a higher standard than being "a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions", even in countries that don't have a separation of church and state. You should look up Kitzmiller vs. Dover, ID is Creationism.
This is simply not true. It's like arguing that Lamarckian evolution is the same as Darwinian Evolution. I agree that it's not appropriate in a public school, but it's not the same as arguing that God created the Earth over the course of a week.
Creation, ID and Lamarckian Evolution are all just as untrue. They are all contradicted by the evidence. Quibbling about the degrees of wrongness is pointless outside of nerd-debates.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 16, 2011, 01:44:09 AM
I think Tyr is arguing that Intelligent Design can be as weak as saying that God initiated the Big Bang and then sat back and watched it all unfold. It is the viewpoint to which most of my Christian friends would subscribe, though I don't think that they would call it Intelligent Design.
I think it's always funny how religious people try to argue for the existence of God with Deist arguments when none of them are Deists.
Quote from: Tyr on September 16, 2011, 02:55:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2011, 01:48:16 AM
I understand that. But he is arguing that it could be "taught in a class". When called on it (it has no place in a biology or geography or geology class, because it has no scientific background whatsoever, any more than the polyana belief should have in, say, history of diplomacy class), he backpedals into saying it should be taught about in a religious education class - which is a clearly banal and obvious statement (which means he is either weak in the head or it is a poor attempt to muddle the waters), because any religious belief, no matter how ridiculous, could be taught about (as opposed to just taught, in the same way the theory of evolution is taught) in a religious education class.
Msc here Mr Lawyer man.
I'm not backpedalling at all. I'm just saying what I believe.
Does ID belong in science class? Of course not, its philosophy.
But why then do many people go on about keeping it out of schools all together. RE is a valid subject for an hour a week at least.
Creationism, even as taught in RE, deserves to be laughed at along with the world being on the back of a giant turtle, its a stupid outdated theory. ID though is valid philosophy.
There problem with ID is that it is unfalsifiable and and they require one positive proof. No such proof exists. ID is philosophically unsound and scientifically unsupported.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 08:57:41 AM
Creation, ID and Lamarckian Evolution are all just as untrue. They are all contradicted by the evidence. Quibbling about the degrees of wrongness is pointless outside of nerd-debates.
ID makes no predictions right? So how can something that makes no predictions be contradicted by evidence? It can neither be proved nor contradicted to the best of my knowledge.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:01:05 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 16, 2011, 01:44:09 AM
I think Tyr is arguing that Intelligent Design can be as weak as saying that God initiated the Big Bang and then sat back and watched it all unfold. It is the viewpoint to which most of my Christian friends would subscribe, though I don't think that they would call it Intelligent Design.
I think it's always funny how religious people try to argue for the existence of God with Deist arguments when none of them are Deists.
Are religious people some sort of borg hive mind? Pretty sure some of them have beliefs that are in some ways consistent with Deism.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:04:43 AM
There problem with ID is that it is unfalsifiable and and they require one positive proof. No such proof exists. ID is philosophically unsound and scientifically unsupported.
Well right it is pretty worthless as anything other than a political compromise sorta thing. It makes no appreciable difference and even if the proof existed...I mean if God poofed before you and said 'Yo I did this'...how would that even effect how we do science? Except maybe we might rename it 'finding out the stuff God did'.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 09:09:47 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:01:05 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 16, 2011, 01:44:09 AM
I think Tyr is arguing that Intelligent Design can be as weak as saying that God initiated the Big Bang and then sat back and watched it all unfold. It is the viewpoint to which most of my Christian friends would subscribe, though I don't think that they would call it Intelligent Design.
I think it's always funny how religious people try to argue for the existence of God with Deist arguments when none of them are Deists.
Are religious people some sort of borg hive mind? Pretty sure some of them have beliefs that are in some ways consistent with Deism.
No, religious people are not one some sort of borg hive mind. The only philosophically sound arguments permitting a god are Deist. A Christian or a Jew or a Muslim arguing for the existence of god by arguing for Deist cosmology is just as silly as any of the three using each other in their own support. None of the Abrahamic Religions claim God started the world and then just watched from afar as the Deists claim, they claim that God interferes.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 09:14:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:04:43 AM
There problem with ID is that it is unfalsifiable and and they require one positive proof. No such proof exists. ID is philosophically unsound and scientifically unsupported.
Well right it is pretty worthless as anything other than a political compromise sorta thing. It makes no appreciable difference and even if the proof existed...I mean if God poofed before you and said 'Yo I did this'...how would that even effect how we do science? Except maybe we might rename it 'finding out the stuff God did'.
I've used precisely that argument against ID when "in my cups". Even if ID was true it would be better to pretend that it wasn't since if ID is true cause and effect in biology is gone and any science cannot produce results.
Ultimately ID is an attempt to disprove philosophical naturalism by falsifying methodological naturalism.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 09:14:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:04:43 AM
There problem with ID is that it is unfalsifiable and and they require one positive proof. No such proof exists. ID is philosophically unsound and scientifically unsupported.
Well right it is pretty worthless as anything other than a political compromise sorta thing. It makes no appreciable difference and even if the proof existed...I mean if God poofed before you and said 'Yo I did this'...how would that even effect how we do science? Except maybe we might rename it 'finding out the stuff God did'.
As I said, it's the God of Gaps. Essentially, the shtick of the religious has always been to find whatever it is that the science cannot explain (right now it's the Big Bang and origins of the universe) and claim it's the evidence (or at least a possibility) of God's involvement. If you consider however that they have been doing this act for centuries and every single time so far they have been proven wrong (they claimed God created life, God created man, God created earth, God causes a lightning to strike, God causes diseases, etc.), I see little reason to even consider that this time they may actually be right.
It's as if you had a friend who claimed he saw a ghost at a specific location. But every time you went there, there would be no sign of the ghost, but your friend would always point to another place as the one where you would surely find the ghost instead. And each time he would be proven wrong. Over and over again. Eventually, you would stop listening to him and would consider your friend a liar or a nutcase, even if, at any particular time, he would point to a place you cannot get to and check just yet - it would take a very naive person to falll for that shtick all the time.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:14:48 AM
No, religious people are not one some sort of borg hive mind. The only philosophically sound arguments permitting a god are Deist. A Christian or a Jew or a Muslim arguing for the existence of god by arguing for Deist cosmology is just as silly as any of the three using each other in their own support. None of the Abrahamic Religions claim God started the world and then just watched from afar as the Deists claim, they claim that God interferes.
Wait you just claimed a theist view of nature is philosophically unsound then you turn it around and claim that the only relgious people who take the the fundy view of God are philosophically sound?
Quote from: Martinus on September 16, 2011, 09:19:55 AM
As I said, it's the God of Gaps.
Well Fundies, at least Christian fundies, do that even inside their own scriptures so it is their favorite weapon. Mostly because you can never disprove it and then they can use that to claim anything and everything they want is absolute truth. Which would be hilarious if it did not have such frustrating consequences.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:18:06 AM
I've used precisely that argument against ID when "in my cups". Even if ID was true it would be better to pretend that it wasn't since if ID is true cause and effect in biology is gone and any science cannot produce results.
Ultimately ID is an attempt to disprove philosophical naturalism by falsifying methodological naturalism.
Hmmmm I had not thought about that. ID as a way to remove the legitimacy of cause and effect relationships. Perhaps this is the old canard about how natural selection is evil and cannot be true (because, it seems, that means the Nazis were right or something).
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 09:22:24 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:14:48 AM
No, religious people are not one some sort of borg hive mind. The only philosophically sound arguments permitting a god are Deist. A Christian or a Jew or a Muslim arguing for the existence of god by arguing for Deist cosmology is just as silly as any of the three using each other in their own support. None of the Abrahamic Religions claim God started the world and then just watched from afar as the Deists claim, they claim that God interferes.
Wait you just claimed a theist view of nature is philosophically unsound then you turn it around and claim that the only relgious people who take the the fundy view of God are philosophically sound?
The only way your reply here makes any sense to me is if you don't know what Deism is.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 08:57:41 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 12:12:13 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 15, 2011, 10:03:57 PM
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools, afterall its a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions.
The only problem is when it gets into creationism and starts saying evolution is wrong, there it`s just outright wrong and anyone who supports that needs shooting.
eh? I'm sorry, but getting into high school biology textbooks is going to require a higher standard than being "a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions", even in countries that don't have a separation of church and state. You should look up Kitzmiller vs. Dover, ID is Creationism.
This is simply not true. It's like arguing that Lamarckian evolution is the same as Darwinian Evolution. I agree that it's not appropriate in a public school, but it's not the same as arguing that God created the Earth over the course of a week.
Creation, ID and Lamarckian Evolution are all just as untrue. They are all contradicted by the evidence. Quibbling about the degrees of wrongness is pointless outside of nerd-debates.
You can't falsify the soft version of ID, so for you to say it's untrue is overreaching on your part. ID of any kind isn't scientific though, but rather religious.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 09:30:20 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:18:06 AM
I've used precisely that argument against ID when "in my cups". Even if ID was true it would be better to pretend that it wasn't since if ID is true cause and effect in biology is gone and any science cannot produce results.
Ultimately ID is an attempt to disprove philosophical naturalism by falsifying methodological naturalism.
Hmmmm I had not thought about that. ID as a way to remove the legitimacy of cause and effect relationships. Perhaps this is the old canard about how natural selection is evil and cannot be true (because, it seems, that means the Nazis were right or something).
I'm a bit unclear about what you are saying. But imagine that you are writing your thesis in biology and you are studying a bacteria which can break down pollutants into benign products and you are writing up your results. How can you prove that in your experiment the Intelligent Designer did not intervene to skew your results? There is no way for you to tell if your results are because the ID is altering your experiments or if this is the nature of the universe. Ultimately nothing can be known since everything that happens, remember not interfering is a choice for the ID, happens at the whim of the ID. We do not know anything about the ID so we don't know anything about the ID's limitations.
So, even if ID were true, we would be better off pretending it were not true, if only to be able to figure out why stuff happens.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:32:31 AM
You can't falsify the soft version of ID, so for you to say it's untrue is overreaching on your part. ID of any kind isn't scientific though, but rather religious.
Fair enough... What has been falsified has been every single claim of ID proponents about it.
I'd like to get rid of the use of "soft" and "strong" when referring to ideas and philosophical systems. The only meaning those words confer seem to me to be the importance the holder of the idea or system puts on convincing others to agree with him. Or, alternately, the willingness of the holder to take offense when his ideas are challenged.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 11:37:51 AM
I'd like to get rid of the use of "soft" and "strong" when referring to ideas and philosophical systems. The only meaning those words confer seem to me to be the importance the holder of the idea or system puts on convincing others to agree with him. Or, alternately, the willingness of the holder to take offense when his ideas are challenged.
They seem to have caught on as a useful shorthand for discussion purposes. How else do you differentiate the ID of the Wedge Institute from 'prime mover' ID with a single word? The meaning is, as always, dependent on the context.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:49:42 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 11:37:51 AM
I'd like to get rid of the use of "soft" and "strong" when referring to ideas and philosophical systems. The only meaning those words confer seem to me to be the importance the holder of the idea or system puts on convincing others to agree with him. Or, alternately, the willingness of the holder to take offense when his ideas are challenged.
They seem to have caught on as a useful shorthand for discussion purposes. How else do you differentiate the ID of the Wedge Institute from 'prime mover' ID with a single word? The meaning is, as always, dependent on the context.
The Discovery Institute ID is ID.
You'll have to define the other thing for me before I can tell you if it has a word or not.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 11:25:12 AM
The only way your reply here makes any sense to me is if you don't know what Deism is.
Deism: the belief in a clockmaker God who created the universe but does not interfere.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 11:33:02 AM
I'm a bit unclear about what you are saying. But imagine that you are writing your thesis in biology and you are studying a bacteria which can break down pollutants into benign products and you are writing up your results. How can you prove that in your experiment the Intelligent Designer did not intervene to skew your results? There is no way for you to tell if your results are because the ID is altering your experiments or if this is the nature of the universe. Ultimately nothing can be known since everything that happens, remember not interfering is a choice for the ID, happens at the whim of the ID. We do not know anything about the ID so we don't know anything about the ID's limitations.
So, even if ID were true, we would be better off pretending it were not true, if only to be able to figure out why stuff happens.
Yes that was exactly what I was saying.
The Canard part was that alot of the reason some religious people oppose evolution so strongly is because they are fed the line that evolution says that killing off the weakest makes things better. So they claim evolution is about Nazism and Racism and evil and blah blah.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 11:56:04 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 11:25:12 AM
The only way your reply here makes any sense to me is if you don't know what Deism is.
Deism: the belief in a clockmaker God who created the universe but does not interfere.
Yes, and you realize that the clockmaker God doesn't inhabit burning bushes, 1st century rabbi's or write books for epileptic 7th century arab traders/warlords. You can get Deism at a UU church, nowhere else. Deism is the only religion that has a theology with a leg to stand on, primarily because the God of Deism is the God of Spinoza.
Now a sound argument does not mean a convincing or compelling argument. You can make a sound argument on bad premises (garbage in garbage out). Deism is the only theology which argues for a cosmology which cannot be immediately disproved by logic or observation.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 12:12:56 PM
Yes, and you realize that the clockmaker God doesn't inhabit burning bushes, 1st century rabbi's or write books for epileptic 7th century arab traders/warlords.
Yes of course. Only those who take spiritual concepts as literal facts get in that trouble: as in fundamentalists.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 12:17:30 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 12:12:56 PM
Yes, and you realize that the clockmaker God doesn't inhabit burning bushes, 1st century rabbi's or write books for epileptic 7th century arab traders/warlords.
Yes of course. Only those who take spiritual concepts as literal facts get in that trouble: as in fundamentalists.
If Yahwe didn't talk to the Hebrew Prophets why be a Jew?
If Jesus didn't suffer and die for our sins why be a Christian?
If Gabriel didn't reveal the Koran to Muhammed why be a Muslim?
If these spiritual concepts are not facts then why be spiritual at all?
I hate people who are 'spiritual'. Choose a dogma!
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 12:22:05 PM
If Yahwe didn't talk to the Hebrew Prophets why be a Jew?
If Jesus didn't suffer and die for our sins why be a Christian?
If Gabriel didn't reveal the Koran to Muhammed why be a Muslim?
If these spiritual concepts are not facts then why be spiritual at all?
Because absent their spiritual context they are meaningless. And even in that context they are symbols. Why be a Christian just because some dude died centuries before for sins that you had not even committed yet? The concepts and values here are what are important. Views on life and death and what it means to be human.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2011, 12:28:57 PM
I hate people who are 'spiritual'. Choose a dogma!
Sure. But they are all made up so choose a good one.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 12:30:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 12:22:05 PM
If Yahwe didn't talk to the Hebrew Prophets why be a Jew?
If Jesus didn't suffer and die for our sins why be a Christian?
If Gabriel didn't reveal the Koran to Muhammed why be a Muslim?
If these spiritual concepts are not facts then why be spiritual at all?
Because absent their spiritual context they are meaningless. And even in that context they are symbols. Why be a Christian just because some dude died centuries before for sins that you had not even committed yet? The concepts and values here are what are important. Views on life and death and what it means to be human.
To quote Leanard Mlodinow's reply to Deepak Chopra. "I know what all the words you used mean but I don't understand what you said."
The thing is that there is no spiritual context if there is no spiritual world. Jesus' death on the cross has no spiritual context if the "fact" that he was god come to earth to suffer and die innocent for our sins is not true. If god isn't intervening then there is no spiritual context.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:01:05 AM
I think it's always funny how religious people try to argue for the existence of God with Deist arguments when none of them are Deists.
It's an attempt to find a lowest common denominator that an atheist could buy off on, since a Deist conception of God is *functionally*, if not literally, equivalent to an atheist one. It's a method to find not necessarily a common premise but rather a premise which makes no functional difference to the argument. *Then* the religious person can begin to take the argument incrementally forward towards a more traditionally religious place.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 12:38:35 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 12:30:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 12:22:05 PM
If Yahwe didn't talk to the Hebrew Prophets why be a Jew?
If Jesus didn't suffer and die for our sins why be a Christian?
If Gabriel didn't reveal the Koran to Muhammed why be a Muslim?
If these spiritual concepts are not facts then why be spiritual at all?
Because absent their spiritual context they are meaningless. And even in that context they are symbols. Why be a Christian just because some dude died centuries before for sins that you had not even committed yet? The concepts and values here are what are important. Views on life and death and what it means to be human.
To quote Leanard Mlodinow's reply to Deepak Chopra. "I know what all the words you used mean but I don't understand what you said."
The thing is that there is no spiritual context if there is no spiritual world. Jesus' death on the cross has no spiritual context if the "fact" that he was god come to earth to suffer and die innocent for our sins is not true. If god isn't intervening then there is no spiritual context.
:rolleyes:
I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't. Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 11:54:22 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 11:49:42 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 11:37:51 AM
I'd like to get rid of the use of "soft" and "strong" when referring to ideas and philosophical systems. The only meaning those words confer seem to me to be the importance the holder of the idea or system puts on convincing others to agree with him. Or, alternately, the willingness of the holder to take offense when his ideas are challenged.
They seem to have caught on as a useful shorthand for discussion purposes. How else do you differentiate the ID of the Wedge Institute from 'prime mover' ID with a single word? The meaning is, as always, dependent on the context.
The Discovery Institute ID is ID.
You'll have to define the other thing for me before I can tell you if it has a word or not.
The other is that the universe was designed by a god who set its processes in such a way so that they would result in us. It's also ID, and thus the need to differentiate.
Quote from: fahdiz on September 16, 2011, 12:47:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 09:01:05 AM
I think it's always funny how religious people try to argue for the existence of God with Deist arguments when none of them are Deists.
It's an attempt to find a lowest common denominator that an atheist could buy off on, since a Deist conception of God is *functionally*, if not literally, equivalent to an atheist one. It's a method to find not necessarily a common premise but rather a premise which makes no functional difference to the argument. *Then* the religious person can begin to take the argument incrementally forward towards a more traditionally religious place.
Tell, me, how you get from God doing the big bang to Jesus dying on the cross? I'd like to see the logical chain that goes from the Big Bang to a more traditionally religious place.
From my experience going Deist on the existence of God for any religion is a cop-out. It is a defense mechanism where the believer uses deism to get the atheist to accept that he can't prove that the Deist god doesn't exists thus any god could exist.
No Christian I have met has gone from Deism to religion. The Pentacostal side of the Family all had a personal experience and the Lutheran Church of Iceland side of the Family learned from mother.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
:rolleyes:
I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't. Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?
Since nobody who claims there is a spiritual dimension has defined what spiritual is then I do so myself. Derrida's defense does not apply, If you can't define what you believe then I am under no obligation to take you seriously.
* Derrida's defense (to any challenge) was to assert that the critic didn't understand what he was criticizing and refusing to explain what the critic supposedly got wrong.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 12:51:55 PM
The other is that the universe was designed by a god who set its processes in such a way so that they would result in us. It's also ID, and thus the need to differentiate.
I don't think anybody in the public sphere has ever defined ID in such a way. I'd call that Deistic Creationism.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:17:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
:rolleyes:
I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't. Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?
Since nobody who claims there is a spiritual dimension has defined what spiritual is then I do so myself. Derrida's defense does not apply, If you can't define what you believe then I am under no obligation to take you seriously.
* Derrida's defense (to any challenge) was to assert that the critic didn't understand what he was criticizing and refusing to explain what the critic supposedly got wrong.
So why do you bother to "debate" the topic of religion since you won't take what any religious person says seriously?
Do you just enjoy the sight of your own words?
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 01:25:07 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:17:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
:rolleyes:
I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't. Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?
Since nobody who claims there is a spiritual dimension has defined what spiritual is then I do so myself. Derrida's defense does not apply, If you can't define what you believe then I am under no obligation to take you seriously.
* Derrida's defense (to any challenge) was to assert that the critic didn't understand what he was criticizing and refusing to explain what the critic supposedly got wrong.
So why do you bother to "debate" the topic of religion since you won't take what any religious person says seriously?
Do you just enjoy the sight of your own words?
No, did you even try to understand me? My complaint is that there is no definition of spirituality by the spritual and the spiritual complain when anybody tries to define spiritual.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 01:25:07 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:17:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
:rolleyes:
I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't. Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?
Since nobody who claims there is a spiritual dimension has defined what spiritual is then I do so myself. Derrida's defense does not apply, If you can't define what you believe then I am under no obligation to take you seriously.
* Derrida's defense (to any challenge) was to assert that the critic didn't understand what he was criticizing and refusing to explain what the critic supposedly got wrong.
So why do you bother to "debate" the topic of religion since you won't take what any religious person says seriously?
Do you just enjoy the sight of your own words?
No, did you even try to understand me? My complaint is that there is no definition of spirituality by the spritual and the spiritual complain when anybody tries to define spiritual.
And your solution to that complaint is that you are going to ignore what you are told and make up your own definition.
That doesn't sound like a discussion or debate to me.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 01:41:57 PM
And your solution to that complaint is that you are going to ignore what you are told and make up your own definition.
That doesn't sound like a discussion or debate to me.
Fucking Lawyers...
I said that I was only going to take you seriously if you made a case for your position and defended it. Merely sniping at others calling them dogmatic strident etc. is not a discussion or debate either. If you can't define what you believe and argue why you believe it then you are nothing more than a troll in any discussion or debate. When Valmy says "spiritual" what does he mean by that? I don't know. He doesn't want to define it either. He makes no, the christian term is testimony iirc, statement of his belief; he just stands up for point of view claiming that I don't understand without the will to enlighten me.
If you are not serious I don't have to take you seriously. If you want me to take you seriously I expect you to tell me what you believe and why.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 12:51:55 PM
The other is that the universe was designed by a god who set its processes in such a way so that they would result in us. It's also ID, and thus the need to differentiate.
I don't think anybody in the public sphere has ever defined ID in such a way. I'd call that Deistic Creationism.
I am in the public sphere, and I define it as soft ID.
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 02:17:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 12:51:55 PM
The other is that the universe was designed by a god who set its processes in such a way so that they would result in us. It's also ID, and thus the need to differentiate.
I don't think anybody in the public sphere has ever defined ID in such a way. I'd call that Deistic Creationism.
I am in the public sphere, and I define it as soft ID.
I saw a boat with a 14 inch gun and 18 inches of armour, I call it a bomb catcher.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 02:21:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 02:17:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:19:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 16, 2011, 12:51:55 PM
The other is that the universe was designed by a god who set its processes in such a way so that they would result in us. It's also ID, and thus the need to differentiate.
I don't think anybody in the public sphere has ever defined ID in such a way. I'd call that Deistic Creationism.
I am in the public sphere, and I define it as soft ID.
I saw a boat with a 14 inch gun and 18 inches of armour, I call it a bomb catcher.
You're not an authority.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 12:38:35 PM
To quote Leanard Mlodinow's reply to Deepak Chopra. "I know what all the words you used mean but I don't understand what you said."
The thing is that there is no spiritual context if there is no spiritual world. Jesus' death on the cross has no spiritual context if the "fact" that he was god come to earth to suffer and die innocent for our sins is not true. If god isn't intervening then there is no spiritual context.
There is a spiritual world but it has nothing to do with the material world. So God intervening in the material world or Jesus physically existing or not just does not matter in the spiritual context.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:38:00 PM
No, did you even try to understand me? My complaint is that there is no definition of spirituality by the spritual and the spiritual complain when anybody tries to define spiritual.
Because it is not easy to talk about and that is why we use so much symbology to talk about it. I could certainly go on about it for awhile. But why? I thought we were discussing anti-science here.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:09:05 PM
Tell, me, how you get from God doing the big bang to Jesus dying on the cross?
Probably something like 'Let there be light' *BOOM*
Which I find sorta ridiculous but it doesn't take that much to see it.
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
:rolleyes:
I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't. Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?
Really? So if you found absolute proof Jesus never actually physically lived you would just dump all the lessons and so forth of Christianity as worthless and false?
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 03:33:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
:rolleyes:
I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't. Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?
Really? So if you found absolute proof Jesus never actually physically lived you would just dump all the lessons and so forth of Christianity as worthless and false?
How could he not?
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 03:25:15 PM
There is a spiritual world but it has nothing to do with the material world. So God intervening in the material world or Jesus physically existing or not just does not matter in the spiritual context.
There is a spiritual world? Prove it.
We can get to the substantial problem of Jesus' non-existence for Christianity later.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 03:29:03 PM
Because it is not easy to talk about and that is why we use so much symbology to talk about it. I could certainly go on about it for awhile. But why? I thought we were discussing anti-science here.
This is why being analytical is important. If you use a word you must make sure it is understood and if you make an assertion you must be able to back it up. Challenging somebody to define their words and to back up their statements is not an insult, it is an opportunity to make your point. If we are going to talk about spirituality at all it needs to be defined and we must agree on what it means before we can even start the discussion.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
There is a spiritual world? Prove it.
Since it is a concept that only exists inside human brains that would be pretty difficult. But it would be pretty easy to point out its almost universal presence in human cultures.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 03:30:53 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:09:05 PM
Tell, me, how you get from God doing the big bang to Jesus dying on the cross?
Probably something like 'Let there be light' *BOOM*
Which I find sorta ridiculous but it doesn't take that much to see it.
Yes, but why Jesus and not Muhammad or Buddah or Odin or Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
There is a spiritual world? Prove it.
Only after you prove the existence of love, hatred, friendship, envy...
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:53:51 PM
This is why being analytical is important. If you use a word you must make sure it is understood and if you make an assertion you must be able to back it up. Challenging somebody to define their words and to back up their statements is not an insult, it is an opportunity to make your point. If we are going to talk about spirituality at all it needs to be defined and we must agree on what it means before we can even start the discussion.
Simply put: Spirituality is exploration of the internal life of people. It has no power at all on material external stuff....I mean beyond the brain's ability to effect stuff.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:55:17 PM
Yes, but why Jesus and not Muhammad or Buddah or Odin or Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
At some arbitrary point in the Bible you would have to presume the writers went from talking about stuff in symbolic or broad terms (by six days it really meant 14 billion years blah blah) and started writing about real events. Like at Abraham or something.
And I guess it is sorta true that at certain points real events are described in the Bible. I mean there was such a thing as the Assyrian Empire and Kingdom of Egypt.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 03:33:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 16, 2011, 12:50:40 PM
:rolleyes:
I mean, I personally agree with you, but lots of other people don't. Who are you to say whether something has a "spiritual context" or not?
Really? So if you found absolute proof Jesus never actually physically lived you would just dump all the lessons and so forth of Christianity as worthless and false?
Well, yes, if I found absolute proof Jesus never existed the lessons and so fort of Christianity would, like all secular ethics and morality, would have to stand and fall on it's own merits.
I personally had seen no evidence which would cause me to even consider Jesus' divine nature as plausible, so I already grant the lessons and so fort of Christianity the merit they deserve on their own merits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma
Euthyphro's dilemma deals with this issue. If the lessons of Christianity are good then they are good regardless of Jesus' divinity. If they are bad then they are bad regardless of Jesus' divinity.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 03:54:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
There is a spiritual world? Prove it.
Since it is a concept that only exists inside human brains that would be pretty difficult. But it would be pretty easy to point out its almost universal presence in human cultures.
Well, since the spiritual world has an effect on the material world you can measure it's effect. FMRI studies into the function of the human brain is rapidly converting all neuroscientists to atheism (most famously Sam Harris) since supposedly real spirituality affects the brain identically to constructed false spirituality.
What about human cultures signifies the presence of a real spiritual world as opposed to a fictional spiritual world?
At what point did animal apes become spiritual humans? Which primate had access to the spirit world that his/her mother did not? What was the difference between them?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 16, 2011, 03:55:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
There is a spiritual world? Prove it.
Only after you prove the existence of love, hatred, friendship, envy...
Why?
To be honest Love, Hatred, Friendship and Envy are merely words we use to describe a set of behaviors which each person subjectively considers similar and classifies as such. So, I don't think there is anything that is Love, Hatred, Friendship or Envy. So I don't think I actually need to prove the existence of something that I don't think exists to get Valmy to prove something he asserts that exists.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:07:43 PM
Well, since the spiritual world has an effect on the material world you can measure it's effect. FMRI studies into the function of the human brain is rapidly converting all neuroscientists to atheism (most famously Sam Harris) since supposedly real spirituality affects the brain identically to constructed false spirituality.
What about human cultures signifies the presence of a real spiritual world as opposed to a fictional spiritual world?
At what point did animal apes become spiritual humans? Which primate had access to the spirit world that his/her mother did not? What was the difference between them?
I do not get the distinction between real spirituality and false spirituality. I do not get the distinction between real or fictional spiritual world. All human cultures deal with spirituality to a ridiculous degree. Obviously it is an important part of the human experience.
As for the last part I am sure there might be something physical about it but I get the impression it is abstract thinking and language.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 03:57:40 PM
Simply put: Spirituality is exploration of the internal life of people. It has no power at all on material external stuff....I mean beyond the brain's ability to effect stuff.
Eh, so spirituality has nothing to do with the non-material world of things like gods, ghosts, demons etc. etc. It is the functioning of the material brain?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:12:17 PM
Eh, so spirituality has nothing to do with the non-material world of things like gods, ghosts, demons etc. etc. It is the functioning of the material brain?
Um of course it does. Those things are spiritual symbols.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 04:01:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:55:17 PM
Yes, but why Jesus and not Muhammad or Buddah or Odin or Zeus or The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
At some arbitrary point in the Bible you would have to presume the writers went from talking about stuff in symbolic or broad terms (by six days it really meant 14 billion years blah blah) and started writing about real events. Like at Abraham or something.
And I guess it is sorta true that at certain points real events are described in the Bible. I mean there was such a thing as the Assyrian Empire and Kingdom of Egypt.
Yes, but the Bible does assert the factualness of the great flood, the 7 day creation and the existence of Pi-Ramses and The Assyrian Empire. The only reason you know which is "spiritual" and factual is that historians and scientists have demonstrated much of the BS in the bible was untrue.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 04:11:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:07:43 PM
Well, since the spiritual world has an effect on the material world you can measure it's effect. FMRI studies into the function of the human brain is rapidly converting all neuroscientists to atheism (most famously Sam Harris) since supposedly real spirituality affects the brain identically to constructed false spirituality.
What about human cultures signifies the presence of a real spiritual world as opposed to a fictional spiritual world?
At what point did animal apes become spiritual humans? Which primate had access to the spirit world that his/her mother did not? What was the difference between them?
I do not get the distinction between real spirituality and false spirituality. I do not get the distinction between real or fictional spiritual world. All human cultures deal with spirituality to a ridiculous degree. Obviously it is an important part of the human experience.
As for the last part I am sure there might be something physical about it but I get the impression it is abstract thinking and language.
False spirituality is invented to work as a control. To see if the effects of supposedly true spirituality is any different from false spirituality. Basically, if the fake stuff gives the same result as the real stuff then the supposedly real stuff is fake as well. e.g. the god helmet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 04:13:46 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:12:17 PM
Eh, so spirituality has nothing to do with the non-material world of things like gods, ghosts, demons etc. etc. It is the functioning of the material brain?
Um of course it does. Those things are spiritual symbols.
OK, but are gods, ghosts and demons anything more than the symbolic creations of the mind?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:14:09 PM
Yes, but the Bible does assert the factualness of the great flood, the 7 day creation and the existence of Pi-Ramses and The Assyrian Empire. The only reason you know which is "spiritual" and factual is that historians and scientists have demonstrated much of the BS in the bible was untrue.
Yeah the Bible was never intended as a factual document like say, the Greek Historians were trying to write factual histories. Heck even the Roman era gospels were not intended to be that...the writers would take on the identity of the one of the apostles in order to put their spin on the story. I mean I seriously doubt whoever wrote Matthew really had evidence of Herod massacring babies so he wrote it down to preserve a fact...he was trying to link Jesus to Moses.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:19:42 PM
OK, but are gods, ghosts and demons anything more than the symbolic creations of the mind?
Nope.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:18:39 PM
False spirituality is invented to work as a control. To see if the effects of supposedly true spirituality is any different from false spirituality. Basically, if the fake stuff gives the same result as the real stuff then the supposedly real stuff is fake as well. e.g. the god helmet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
Hey that is pretty awesome. Thanks.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 04:21:28 PM
Yeah the Bible was never intended as a factual document like say, the Greek Historians were trying to write factual histories. Heck even the Roman era gospels were not intended to be that...the writers would take on the identity of the one of the apostles in order to put their spin on the story. I mean I seriously doubt whoever wrote Matthew really had evidence of Herod massacring babies so he wrote it down to preserve a fact...he was trying to link Jesus to Moses.
How do you know that and how can you tell the factual from the spiritual bits other than by putting the different bits to the test of truth? (rendering the untrue bits spiritual).
The bible can't lose. The old Hebrews and Greeks could have written anything they wanted and if they got it right then it was prophetic, if it was untrue it was spiritual. How is that different from the oracle of delphi or the sybyll?
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 04:23:16 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:19:42 PM
OK, but are gods, ghosts and demons anything more than the symbolic creations of the mind?
Nope.
So, if all humans died tomorrow and no more functioning human brains existed would the spiritual world cease to exist?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:27:01 PM
How do you know that and how can you tell the factual from the spiritual bits other than by putting the different bits to the test of truth? (rendering the untrue bits spiritual).
Because, IMO, the factual bits are only factual by coincidence. Even when they are used, like Herod, they are spiritual symbols.
QuoteThe bible can't lose. The old Hebrews and Greeks could have written anything they wanted and if they got it right then it was prophetic, if it was untrue it was spiritual. How is that different from the oracle of delphi or the sybyll?
What are you thinking of here? When did the Old Hebrews predict anything and get it right?
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 04:21:28 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:14:09 PM
Yes, but the Bible does assert the factualness of the great flood, the 7 day creation and the existence of Pi-Ramses and The Assyrian Empire. The only reason you know which is "spiritual" and factual is that historians and scientists have demonstrated much of the BS in the bible was untrue.
Yeah the Bible was never intended as a factual document like say, the Greek Historians were trying to write factual histories. Heck even the Roman era gospels were not intended to be that...the writers would take on the identity of the one of the apostles in order to put their spin on the story. I mean I seriously doubt whoever wrote Matthew really had evidence of Herod massacring babies so he wrote it down to preserve a fact...he was trying to link Jesus to Moses.
There are some claims by the gospel writers that have been shown to be provably false. The two most obvious are the fact that Nazareth was not settled at the time of Jesus birth and there was no massacre of the babes by herod.
Jesus' supposed diciples were inventing stories about his life to link him to prophecy, it's good you admit that. I find that to be evidence of a post fact forgery.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:28:01 PM
So, if all humans died tomorrow and no more functioning human brains existed would the spiritual world cease to exist?
Haven't I made that clear? Yes.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 04:34:16 PM
What are you thinking of here? When did the Old Hebrews predict anything and get it right?
To my knowledge, nothing.
I was talking about the old hebrews getting their own history right, which they managed to fail magnificently.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:18:39 PM
I do not get the distinction between real spirituality and false spirituality. I do not get the distinction between real or fictional spiritual world. All human cultures deal with spirituality to a ridiculous degree. Obviously it is an important part of the human experience.
As for the last part I am sure there might be something physical about it but I get the impression it is abstract thinking and language.
False spirituality is invented to work as a control. To see if the effects of supposedly true spirituality is any different from false spirituality. Basically, if the fake stuff gives the same result as the real stuff then the supposedly real stuff is fake as well. e.g. the god helmet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
[/quote]
So if I develop a helmet that stimulates the brain to give readings identical to being hungry there is no such thing as hunger since the the false brain scans and the real brain scans are identical?
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 04:35:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:28:01 PM
So, if all humans died tomorrow and no more functioning human brains existed would the spiritual world cease to exist?
Haven't I made that clear? Yes.
Good, we agree. There is no non-material dimension to what we call spirituality.
Now, what relevance do the delusions and halucinations about the life of an otherwise irrellvant rabbi of the 1st and 2nd century proto-christians have for us? Surely my own spiritual experience is infinitely more relevant to myself than the spiritual experience of matthew, mark, luke or john?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:14:09 PM
Yes, but the Bible does assert the factualness of the great flood, the 7 day creation and the existence of Pi-Ramses and The Assyrian Empire. The only reason you know which is "spiritual" and factual is that historians and scientists have demonstrated much of the BS in the bible was untrue.
You need to work on your theology. St. Augustine of Hippo argued that not all of the Bible should be taken literally and that was in the fifth century.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 04:39:08 PM
So if I develop a helmet that stimulates the brain to give readings identical to being hungry there is no such thing as hunger since the the false brain scans and the real brain scans are identical?
No, you would have proved that the effect that provokes hunger is material, just like the god helmet suggests that the effect that provokes spiritual experience is material.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:14:09 PM
Yes, but the Bible does assert the factualness of the great flood, the 7 day creation and the existence of Pi-Ramses and The Assyrian Empire. The only reason you know which is "spiritual" and factual is that historians and scientists have demonstrated much of the BS in the bible was untrue.
You need to work on your theology. St. Augustine of Hippo argued that not all of the Bible should be taken literally and that was in the fifth century.
The Bishop of Hippo was a smart guy who realized that much of the bible was BS as you said. He would have been one of the first people to realize this and suggest that it was not meant to be literal. Had he suggested that the BS bits were untrue, he would have been executed. What effect of this threat had on his motivation will never be known.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 16, 2011, 03:55:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
There is a spiritual world? Prove it.
Only after you prove the existence of love, hatred, friendship, envy...
Mammilary nuclei, antherior thalamic nuclei, cingulate gyrus, enterorhinal cortex, amygdala, hippocampus....
Now where's the spiritual world?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:10:40 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 16, 2011, 03:55:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
There is a spiritual world? Prove it.
Only after you prove the existence of love, hatred, friendship, envy...
Why?
Because it is supposed to function as an analogy - which is a pretty fundamental, and powerful, way the human mind understands, and treats information. And the pretty amazing things is that these analogies, and the ways by which we think about things, has pretty important physiological effects. You treat these words as if they were "simply" labels to independant physiological effects, whereas it doesn't seem so outrageous to think the labelling itself, and the actual idea that we might share these feelings and experiences, would necessarily effect the material world. To think them "merely" words is, I think it is a pretty limited way to think about the human experience.
And so I guess my pretty limited point is simply that one can safely assume that there is such a thing as a State, a feeling, a sentiment, and that, therefore, "asking to prove" the existence of the spiritual might not be the most fruitful question to get to the heart of spirituality.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:42:05 PM
Now, what relevance do the delusions and halucinations about the life of an otherwise irrellvant rabbi of the 1st and 2nd century proto-christians have for us? Surely my own spiritual experience is infinitely more relevant to myself than the spiritual experience of matthew, mark, luke or john?
That is up to you to decide. Their messages stand on their own merits.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 16, 2011, 04:48:31 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:10:40 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 16, 2011, 03:55:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
There is a spiritual world? Prove it.
Only after you prove the existence of love, hatred, friendship, envy...
Why?
Because it is supposed to function as an analogy - which is a pretty fundamental, and powerful, way the human mind understands, and treats information. And the pretty amazing things is that these analogies, and the ways by which we think about things, has pretty important physiological effects. You treat these words as if they were "simply" labels to independant physiological effects, whereas it doesn't seem so outrageous to think the labelling itself, and the actual idea that we might share these feelings and experiences, would necessarily effect the material world. To think them "merely" words is, I think it is a pretty limited way to think about the human experience.
And so I guess my pretty limited point is simply that one can safely assume that there is such a thing as a State, a feeling, a sentiment, and that, therefore, "asking to prove" the existence of the spiritual might not be the most fruitful question to get to the heart of spirituality.
You are obfuscating. You did not ready my reply nor have you attempted to deal with it in any way. Experiences we have of the material world cannot be analogous to experiences of the spiritual world when the issue up for discussion is the existence of a non-material spiritual world.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:46:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 04:42:59 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:14:09 PM
Yes, but the Bible does assert the factualness of the great flood, the 7 day creation and the existence of Pi-Ramses and The Assyrian Empire. The only reason you know which is "spiritual" and factual is that historians and scientists have demonstrated much of the BS in the bible was untrue.
You need to work on your theology. St. Augustine of Hippo argued that not all of the Bible should be taken literally and that was in the fifth century.
The Bishop of Hippo was a smart guy who realized that much of the bible was BS as you said. He would have been one of the first people to realize this and suggest that it was not meant to be literal. Had he suggested that the BS bits were untrue, he would have been executed. What effect of this threat had on his motivation will never be known.
Who would have executed him? Your statement is absurd, if he didn't believe in Christianity he wouldn't have become a bishop or live the life of an aesthetic. It's not like that was the only field for an educated young man. It's like saying that Dawkins could very well be a secret Jew but is an Athiest in public because of the risk of socially disgracing himself or risked losing book sales. The threat of this on his motivation can never be known.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 04:53:26 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:42:05 PM
Now, what relevance do the delusions and halucinations about the life of an otherwise irrellvant rabbi of the 1st and 2nd century proto-christians have for us? Surely my own spiritual experience is infinitely more relevant to myself than the spiritual experience of matthew, mark, luke or john?
That is up to you to decide. Their messages stand on their own merits.
Ahhh.. and that is where I started this discussion... :hug:
Good, now I can go get my morales from a person who thinks that stoning adulturesses is wrong in and of itself rather than stoning is ok as long as the men doing the stoning are not hypocrites.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:43:33 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 04:39:08 PM
So if I develop a helmet that stimulates the brain to give readings identical to being hungry there is no such thing as hunger since the the false brain scans and the real brain scans are identical?
No, you would have proved that the effect that provokes hunger is material, just like the god helmet suggests that the effect that provokes spiritual experience is material.
I fail to see your point here. The idea that someone can have spiritual experience might have some material effect on the brain disproves that someone can have a spiritual experience?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:58:32 PM
Good, now I can go get my morales from a person who thinks that stoning adulturesses is wrong in and of itself rather than stoning is ok as long as the men doing the stoning are not hypocrites.
I never recall insisting you do. Are you seriously this concrete?
Quote from: Fate on September 16, 2011, 04:47:01 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 16, 2011, 03:55:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
There is a spiritual world? Prove it.
Only after you prove the existence of love, hatred, friendship, envy...
Mammilary nuclei, antherior thalamic nuclei, cingulate gyrus, enterorhinal cortex, amygdala, hippocampus....
Now where's the spiritual world?
The Hippopotamus proves the existence of Envy? Does the eyeball prove the existence of Bigfoot?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
You are obfuscating. You did not ready my reply nor have you attempted to deal with it in any way. Experiences we have of the material world cannot be analogous to experiences of the spiritual world when the issue up for discussion is the existence of a non-material spiritual world.
I have not addressed the rest of your question because I think it is fruitless to address it in such manner. I don't think the distinction between "material" and "non-material" becomes useful in such debates, because so many things we value, and should value, are not "material", yet are neither untrue nor impotent.
Let's twist it in a different thing, just to push you further: do you think free will exists? What about consciousness? Or are they just "words" we put on material things?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:01:34 PM
Quote from: Fate on September 16, 2011, 04:47:01 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 16, 2011, 03:55:58 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 03:51:24 PM
There is a spiritual world? Prove it.
Only after you prove the existence of love, hatred, friendship, envy...
Mammilary nuclei, antherior thalamic nuclei, cingulate gyrus, enterorhinal cortex, amygdala, hippocampus....
Now where's the spiritual world?
The Hippopotamus proves the existence of Envy? Does the eyeball prove the existence of Bigfoot?
A fMRI study of those areas as the subject experiences said emotion, perhaps...
That's not a complete thought.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 05:01:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:58:32 PM
Good, now I can go get my morales from a person who thinks that stoning adulturesses is wrong in and of itself rather than stoning is ok as long as the men doing the stoning are not hypocrites.
I never recall insisting you do. Are you seriously this concrete?
I was using it as an example of Jesus' obvious immorality. Jesus didn't oppose the stoning of the woman, he argued that the men who had visited whores themselves could not morally take part in the execution (presumably under the threat of exposing some of the mob in public as adulterers).
I am this concrete. Reality is real and reality has consequences.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:05:39 PM
That's not a complete thought.
I don't think you can find bigfoot in an eyeball. You can find emotion within the limbic system. fMRI can demonstrate this existence.
Quote from: Fate on September 16, 2011, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:05:39 PM
That's not a complete thought.
I don't think you can find bigfoot in an eyeball. You can find emotion within the limbic system.
You found envy in a limbic system? What did it look like? Was it really green?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 05:06:25 PM
I was using it as an example of Jesus' obvious immorality. Jesus didn't oppose the stoning of the woman, he argued that the men who had visited whores themselves could not morally take part in the execution (presumably under the threat of exposing some of the mob in public as adulterers).
I am this concrete. Reality is real and reality has consequences.
Well then I guess that explains why you seem to have no idea what I am talking about when it seems obvious to me.
But in any case all sorts of things that do not exist in a phyiscal or material sense have consequences and are considered 'real'. That is what is so amazing about humans how we just create shit out of our words and thoughts and eventually it seems as real as any material object. Or at least I think that is pretty amazing.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 16, 2011, 05:02:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:53:33 PM
You are obfuscating. You did not ready my reply nor have you attempted to deal with it in any way. Experiences we have of the material world cannot be analogous to experiences of the spiritual world when the issue up for discussion is the existence of a non-material spiritual world.
I have not addressed the rest of your question because I think it is fruitless to address it in such manner. I don't think the distinction between "material" and "non-material" becomes useful in such debates, because so many things we value, and should value, are not "material", yet are neither untrue nor impotent.
Let's twist it in a different thing, just to push you further: do you think free will exists? What about consciousness? Or are they just "words" we put on material things?
I'd suggest it would be fruitless for you because you can't. I think the distinction is important because THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING. Claiming some moral justification for action or behavior based on spiritual reasons depends on the existence of the spiritual world at all and it's nature.
Now you are confusing moral and spiritual issues with ethical issues. Ethics and morality exist and can exist in the purely material world. You don't need a god to have morals. Divine Command Morality is immoral from my point of view.
But, to your questions. Are we fully determined. I don't know. I seem to have free will and will operate under that assumption. As long as there is no prospect of "psycho history" being a science it doesn't matter having free will and not knowing what you are determined to do seem to be indistinguishable.
What is consciousness. It's an evolved artifact of our brain which permits our body to do things that we could not do without it. Though, this is just an opinion of mine, science is still ongoing.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: Fate on September 16, 2011, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:05:39 PM
That's not a complete thought.
I don't think you can find bigfoot in an eyeball. You can find emotion within the limbic system.
You found envy in a limbic system? What did it look like? Was it really green?
The neuronal cell bodies tend to be shades of off-white while the axonal tracts are white. On fMRI metabolically active areas tend to be red.
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 05:11:43 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 05:06:25 PM
I was using it as an example of Jesus' obvious immorality. Jesus didn't oppose the stoning of the woman, he argued that the men who had visited whores themselves could not morally take part in the execution (presumably under the threat of exposing some of the mob in public as adulterers).
I am this concrete. Reality is real and reality has consequences.
Well then I guess that explains why you seem to have no idea what I am talking about when it seems obvious to me.
But in any case all sorts of things that do not exist in a phyiscal or material sense have consequences and are considered 'real'. That is what is so amazing about humans how we just create shit out of our words and thoughts and eventually it seems as real as any material object. Or at least I think that is pretty amazing.
Our thoughts and emotions are material. They exist in the electric currents of our brains. If I rewire your brain your personality changes and you thoughts change. What is not material is ghosts, gods and devils, heaven and hell etc. etc. No information (or books) has come from a non-material source to give us morality or truth or goodness or whatever. We invented that stuff ourselves.
You seem to include ethics, morality, emotion and sentiment in the spiritual world. We know these "things" (artifacts of the mind to be technical) are material. We can look at the brain and see what is happening in the brain and we have a 1-1 relationship between brain activity and the above mentioned emotions. God or Saints or Ghosts or Devils or whatever are not mediating these emotions.
Quote from: Fate on September 16, 2011, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: Fate on September 16, 2011, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:05:39 PM
That's not a complete thought.
I don't think you can find bigfoot in an eyeball. You can find emotion within the limbic system.
You found envy in a limbic system? What did it look like? Was it really green?
The neuronal cell bodies tend to be shades of off-white while the axonal tracts are white. On fMRI metabolically active areas tend to be red.
I want to point out that in fMRI images colours are chosen by the operators of the equipment, not colour intrinsic to the nature of the activity.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 05:24:06 PM
Our thoughts and emotions are material. They exist in the electric currents of our brains. If I rewire your brain your personality changes and you thoughts change. What is not material is ghosts, gods and devils, heaven and hell etc. etc. No information (or books) has come from a non-material source to give us morality or truth or goodness or whatever. We invented that stuff ourselves.
You seem to include ethics, morality, emotion and sentiment in the spiritual world. We know these "things" (artifacts of the mind to be technical) are material. We can look at the brain and see what is happening in the brain and we have a 1-1 relationship between brain activity and the above mentioned emotions. God or Saints or Ghosts or Devils or whatever are not mediating these emotions.
I am not exactly sure how anything you say contradicts or disproves what I am saying.
Except I find the concept that because certain emotions have brain waves associated with them, that is what they materially are. As in if somebody asked me 'what is envy' I could just whip out some brain scans and have them go 'ah gotcha' like I could if they asked me what a rock is and I showed them a picture of a rock. Besides if that is the case why wouldn't thinking about a devil produce those brain waves and that therefore be a devil and therefore devils materially exist?
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 05:37:44 PM
I am not exactly sure how anything you say contradicts or disproves what I am saying.
Except I find the concept that because certain emotions have brain waves associated with them, that is what they materially are. As in if somebody asked me 'what is envy' I could just whip out some brain scans and have them go 'ah gotcha' like I could if they asked me what a rock is and I showed them a picture of a rock.
Envy is not a printout of a brain scan. The brain scan shows the activity in a brain of a person who is behaving in a manner which most people would consider to be typical of envy. It's not the same thing.
Quote from: Fate on September 16, 2011, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: Fate on September 16, 2011, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:05:39 PM
That's not a complete thought.
I don't think you can find bigfoot in an eyeball. You can find emotion within the limbic system.
You found envy in a limbic system? What did it look like? Was it really green?
The neuronal cell bodies tend to be shades of off-white while the axonal tracts are white. On fMRI metabolically active areas tend to be red.
So you found the parts that felt envy, not actual envy? Just as my eyeball sees what what I think is a bigfoot, as opposed to bigfoot actually being in my eye.
Silly me, I shouldn't have gotten in argument with Viking over this. It's like arguing with Slargos. Bigots are always the same.
Do countries exist? Nations? I would think that genetic prove families, but what of kinship? What about nuances, or are they merely shadows to obfuscate our clear reason? The world not only has all sorts of grey areas, it also has socially created realities that are real because they have an obvious effect even though they can't be pinned down any more than love, hope, or wishing for a fudgesicle can.
Me, after reading this thread:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache2.artprintimages.com%2Fp%2FLRG%2F27%2F2758%2FO54TD00Z%2Fart-print%2Fbody-of-a-general-of-the-volkssturm-with-torn-picture-of-hitler-after-he-committed-suicide.jpg&hash=08f872c4050bf100ad9573f2ce8ccb414445698f)
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:55:42 PM
Silly me, I shouldn't have gotten in argument with Viking over this. It's like arguing with Slargos. Bigots are always the same.
To paraphrase Freddy der Grosse when commenting the war with sweden. I didn't know I was in a debate with you.
Quote from: Ed Anger on September 16, 2011, 05:57:58 PM
Me, after reading this thread:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache2.artprintimages.com%2Fp%2FLRG%2F27%2F2758%2FO54TD00Z%2Fart-print%2Fbody-of-a-general-of-the-volkssturm-with-torn-picture-of-hitler-after-he-committed-suicide.jpg&hash=08f872c4050bf100ad9573f2ce8ccb414445698f)
I like to angry up Viking's blood.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:54:18 PM
Quote from: Fate on September 16, 2011, 05:18:28 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:10:13 PM
Quote from: Fate on September 16, 2011, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:05:39 PM
That's not a complete thought.
I don't think you can find bigfoot in an eyeball. You can find emotion within the limbic system.
You found envy in a limbic system? What did it look like? Was it really green?
The neuronal cell bodies tend to be shades of off-white while the axonal tracts are white. On fMRI metabolically active areas tend to be red.
So you found the parts that felt envy, not actual envy?
Individual neuronal cell bodies and axons experience depolarization and hyperpolarization. They do not feel envy. A specific activity pattern of neuronal interactions within the limbic system is actual envy.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 05:58:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 16, 2011, 05:55:42 PM
Silly me, I shouldn't have gotten in argument with Viking over this. It's like arguing with Slargos. Bigots are always the same.
To paraphrase Freddy der Grosse when commenting the war with sweden. I didn't know I was in a debate with you.
Do you believe there are two Razgovorys? One you have been responding to and another you haven't?
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 01:09:05 PM
From my experience going Deist on the existence of God for any religion is a cop-out. It is a defense mechanism where the believer uses deism to get the atheist to accept that he can't prove that the Deist god doesn't exists thus any god could exist.
That's what I said.
People who give credence to intelligent design theory are proof that the concept is bunk.
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 05:06:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 05:01:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:58:32 PM
Good, now I can go get my morales from a person who thinks that stoning adulturesses is wrong in and of itself rather than stoning is ok as long as the men doing the stoning are not hypocrites.
I never recall insisting you do. Are you seriously this concrete?
I was using it as an example of Jesus' obvious immorality. Jesus didn't oppose the stoning of the woman, he argued that the men who had visited whores themselves could not morally take part in the execution (presumably under the threat of exposing some of the mob in public as adulterers).
I am this concrete. Reality is real and reality has consequences.
You really, really missed the mark on that one.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:17:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 05:06:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 05:01:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:58:32 PM
Good, now I can go get my morales from a person who thinks that stoning adulturesses is wrong in and of itself rather than stoning is ok as long as the men doing the stoning are not hypocrites.
I never recall insisting you do. Are you seriously this concrete?
I was using it as an example of Jesus' obvious immorality. Jesus didn't oppose the stoning of the woman, he argued that the men who had visited whores themselves could not morally take part in the execution (presumably under the threat of exposing some of the mob in public as adulterers).
I am this concrete. Reality is real and reality has consequences.
You really, really missed the mark on that one.
Pray tell me, is the stoning of adulturesses moral? Jesus seems to think so, his objection is to "those without sin" participating. He is nice to the lady after telling her to "go and sin no more", but presumably this also means "eat no more".
How can he be morale when he advocates the death penalty for prostitution, but only by the sin-less and how can he be morale when he takes no action to help the woman get out of prostitution? I'm pretty sure the canadian legal system is infinitely more morale since it doesn't kill women for being prostitutes and the canadian social state helps these women get out of prostitution.
This is just me analysing one of the bible stories on it's own merits. Merely being in the bible does not confer any relevance or merit.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 09:26:35 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:17:53 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 05:06:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 16, 2011, 05:01:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 16, 2011, 04:58:32 PM
Good, now I can go get my morales from a person who thinks that stoning adulturesses is wrong in and of itself rather than stoning is ok as long as the men doing the stoning are not hypocrites.
I never recall insisting you do. Are you seriously this concrete?
I was using it as an example of Jesus' obvious immorality. Jesus didn't oppose the stoning of the woman, he argued that the men who had visited whores themselves could not morally take part in the execution (presumably under the threat of exposing some of the mob in public as adulterers).
I am this concrete. Reality is real and reality has consequences.
You really, really missed the mark on that one.
Pray tell me, is the stoning of adulturesses moral? Jesus seems to think so, his objection is to "those without sin" participating. He is nice to the lady after telling her to "go and sin no more", but presumably this also means "eat no more".
How can he be morale when he advocates the death penalty for prostitution, but only by the sin-less and how can he be morale when he takes no action to help the woman get out of prostitution? I'm pretty sure the canadian legal system is infinitely more morale since it doesn't kill women for being prostitutes and the canadian social state helps these women get out of prostitution.
This is just me analysing one of the bible stories on it's own merits. Merely being in the bible does not confer any relevance or merit.
Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?
Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:30:15 AM
Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?
Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?
But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:30:15 AM
Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?
Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?
He's froma protty country. they like their stories literal. easier that way.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 09:46:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:30:15 AM
Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?
Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?
But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.
Um this is a story told about Jesus. It is like somehow you cannot get your head around the Bible not being literal facts even though you keep saying it isn't.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 09:46:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:30:15 AM
Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?
Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?
But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.
Where do you get Prostitutes out of this? If you are going to arguing about this stuff, you really should brush up on your theology.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 09:46:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:30:15 AM
Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?
Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?
But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.
No, Jesus is saying that everyone is a sinner, and therefore nobody should be throwing stones at anyone.
Yes, Jesus was presented with two unpleasant options (much like you are trying to do), and he selected the third option.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 09:46:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:30:15 AM
Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?
Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?
But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.
No, Jesus is saying that everyone is a sinner, and therefore nobody should be throwing stones at anyone.
Yes, Jesus was presented with two unpleasant options (much like you are trying to do), and he selected the third option.
I am not sure Viking has yet got his mind around the fact this is a parable rather than a literal story from which no deeper meaning may be found.
If he gets to that point he will understand the point you are now making.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2011, 09:55:43 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 09:46:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:30:15 AM
Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?
Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?
But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.
Um this is a story told about Jesus. It is like somehow you cannot get your head around the Bible not being literal facts even though you keep saying it isn't.
This is not an actual reply to my post. I have no problem with parts of the Bible not being considered literal. The problem I have is the Bible is presented as consisting of literal facts which are untrue. I have a problem with the ONLY means of separating the literal from the symbolic parts of the bible is the proof by external agents (scientists and historians) that certain parts are not literal. What I want to hear from the Bibilical Figurativists what criteria you can use to segregate the symbolic from the literal? If you can't point to any cause that is not scientists and historians proving bits of the bible to be wrong then I feel I can safely assert that the symbolic view of the bible is bunk. If you can't make a internally consistent argument for your own religion then it is BS.
The phrase Literal facts is a self contradictory phrase. Any facts that are not literal are not facts. Things cannot be sort of true or sort of exist.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 10:51:36 AM
Where do you get Prostitutes out of this? If you are going to arguing about this stuff, you really should brush up on your theology.
I have sound reason to considering the Adulteress to be equivalent to a modern Prostitute, you should really brush up on your theology.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:46:19 PM
This is not an actual reply to my post. I have no problem with parts of the Bible not being considered literal. The problem I have is the Bible is presented as consisting of literal facts which are untrue. I have a problem with the ONLY means of separating the literal from the symbolic parts of the bible is the proof by external agents (scientists and historians) that certain parts are not literal. What I want to hear from the Bibilical Figurativists what criteria you can use to segregate the symbolic from the literal? If you can't point to any cause that is not scientists and historians proving bits of the bible to be wrong then I feel I can safely assert that the symbolic view of the bible is bunk. If you can't make a internally consistent argument for your own religion then it is BS.
The phrase Literal facts is a self contradictory phrase. Any facts that are not literal are not facts. Things cannot be sort of true or sort of exist.
Viking, you want 100% perfect and consistent worldview. Well, nohing works like that - not even science. We have competing scientific views. Historians argue constantly.
In my own opinion, some parts of the Bible are 100% true. That Christ was the son of God, died on a cross, and rose from the dead, actually happened (IMHO). The rest of the stuff? I dunno. I'm willing to think and discuss it.
You want perfection and consistency about what is almost by definition the unknowable. I don't think it works that way.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 09:46:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:30:15 AM
Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?
Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?
But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.
No, Jesus is saying that everyone is a sinner, and therefore nobody should be throwing stones at anyone.
Yes, Jesus was presented with two unpleasant options (much like you are trying to do), and he selected the third option.
Please try responding to my argument. You said it was a parable. I say it is not.
Now, what I want to hear from you is an explanation of how we, with obviously completely different understandings of this part of the bible, can reach any form of truth or harmony given this obvious opposed understanding of this? How is morality supposed to come from lessons that are understood completely differently and how is morality supposed to come from a book that fails the euthyphro test?
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:54:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 11:08:35 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 09:46:54 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 09:30:15 AM
Are you familiar with the concept of a "parable"?
Can perhaps a story have some greater meaning upon reflection?
But this isn't a parable. The Parables are stories told by Jesus as pedagogical tools. This is an act of Jesus, not a story told by Jesus. This is a case of Jesus being confronted with a dilemma of being a dick or denying the law of GOd, he solves it by choosing a third option, accusing his challengers of frequenting prostitutes. Either Jesus lacks moral courage or he agrees with the principle of Divine Command Ethics.
No, Jesus is saying that everyone is a sinner, and therefore nobody should be throwing stones at anyone.
Yes, Jesus was presented with two unpleasant options (much like you are trying to do), and he selected the third option.
Please try responding to my argument. You said it was a parable. I say it is not.
Now, what I want to hear from you is an explanation of how we, with obviously completely different understandings of this part of the bible, can reach any form of truth or harmony given this obvious opposed understanding of this? How is morality supposed to come from lessons that are understood completely differently and how is morality supposed to come from a book that fails the euthyphro test?
I would respond with saying "please try and listen to my argument", but I know the effort would be wasted.
Have a nice evening Viking. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 02:09:49 PM
I am not sure Viking has yet got his mind around the fact this is a parable rather than a literal story from which no deeper meaning may be found.
If he gets to that point he will understand the point you are now making.
It is not a parable. It's a story about Jesus. The parables are stories told BY Jesus to his followers as analogies to explain theology to them. This is a story about Jesus being challenged by the Priests. I have no problem with the Parables as they can and do stand on their own merits, you can deal with them outside the divinity of Jesus and outside the political situation of 1st century Palestine.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:54:43 PM
Now, what I want to hear from you is an explanation of how we, with obviously completely different understandings of this part of the bible, can reach any form of truth or harmony given this obvious opposed understanding of this? How is morality supposed to come from lessons that are understood completely differently and how is morality supposed to come from a book that fails the euthyphro test?
You believe that if all people do not have exactly the same understand of a piece of text the text can have no ability to teach a lesson?
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:57:02 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 02:09:49 PM
I am not sure Viking has yet got his mind around the fact this is a parable rather than a literal story from which no deeper meaning may be found.
If he gets to that point he will understand the point you are now making.
It is not a parable. It's a story about Jesus. The parables are stories told BY Jesus to his followers as analogies to explain theology to them. This is a story about Jesus being challenged by the Priests. I have no problem with the Parables as they can and do stand on their own merits, you can deal with them outside the divinity of Jesus and outside the political situation of 1st century Palestine.
Aw, Jesus, I can't stand it any more.
IT *IS* A PARABLE BECAUSE JESUS WASN'T LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT WHO WOULD THROW AN ACTUAL STONE AT THE WOMAN IN FRONT OF HIM!!!111
I have now lost this thread, because I responded moments after I said I wouldn't. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 02:56:22 PM
Have a nice evening Viking. :)
Jesus would have known this was the proper answer posts ago :D
Quote from: HVC on September 19, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 02:56:22 PM
Have a nice evening Viking. :)
Jesus would have known this was the proper answer posts ago :D
Unlike the Beatles, I do not pretend to be better than Jesus. :blush:
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 03:00:25 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 19, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 02:56:22 PM
Have a nice evening Viking. :)
Jesus would have known this was the proper answer posts ago :D
Unlike the Beatles, I do not pretend to be better than Jesus. :blush:
it's ok. If it makes you feel any better about your relapse into the thread there's a a small but not insignificant possiblilty that jesus, upon reading this thread, would have gotten pissed and knock over some tables. Even Jesus ain't perfect ;) :P
Quote from: HVC on September 19, 2011, 02:59:21 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 02:56:22 PM
Have a nice evening Viking. :)
Jesus would have known this was the proper answer posts ago :D
BB was taking the Viking approach and literally was turning his cheek. Problem is BB can type and turn his cheek at the same time.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 02:53:48 PM
Viking, you want 100% perfect and consistent worldview. Well, nohing works like that - not even science. We have competing scientific views. Historians argue constantly.
In my own opinion, some parts of the Bible are 100% true. That Christ was the son of God, died on a cross, and rose from the dead, actually happened (IMHO). The rest of the stuff? I dunno. I'm willing to think and discuss it.
You want perfection and consistency about what is almost by definition the unknowable. I don't think it works that way.
Each of those world views are contending that they are presenting the best view possible and that the struggle is to gain a still better view. The difference between science and religion is that religion claims to have the 100% answer and that no seeking is needed, just surrender of acceptance of an already existing dogma or theology.
I don't demand perfection and consistency. I demand that we strive for perfection and consistency. Religion claims to have the answer (e.g. Jesus died for your sins), that is a claim of perfection and consistency which does not stand up to even the mildest examination of those claims.
I'm actually glad that you finally have admitted that you are a theist. You have refused to do so up until now. I'd like to chide you for declining to testify your faith when given the opportunity; not very Christ-like. The Sagan view on de-conversion is that you can't reason somebody out of a position that he didn't reason himself into; so I'd like to ask you how did you reach your faith position? The reason I ask this is because I'd like to know what discussions can be fruitful.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:46:19 PM
What I want to hear from the Bibilical Figurativists what criteria you can use to segregate the symbolic from the literal? If you can't point to any cause that is not scientists and historians proving bits of the bible to be wrong then I feel I can safely assert that the symbolic view of the bible is bunk. If you can't make a internally consistent argument for your own religion then it is BS.
The phrase Literal facts is a self contradictory phrase. Any facts that are not literal are not facts. Things cannot be sort of true or sort of exist.
It is entirely symbolic. The parts that either did happen or resemble something that happened is entirely coincidental because that was not the intention of the book. Because that is the way people taught lessons and passed on learning and so forth. Frankly I have a real hard time trying to figure out what you are trying to convince me of besides the fact you do not find the Bible personally useful. And, you know, so what?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 02:57:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:54:43 PM
Now, what I want to hear from you is an explanation of how we, with obviously completely different understandings of this part of the bible, can reach any form of truth or harmony given this obvious opposed understanding of this? How is morality supposed to come from lessons that are understood completely differently and how is morality supposed to come from a book that fails the euthyphro test?
You believe that if all people do not have exactly the same understand of a piece of text the text can have no ability to teach a lesson?
No, I believe that this text (the bible) is much more badly suited to teach moral lessons than say Huck Finn, Oliver Twist or James and the Giant Peach. If Bible stories can result in opposite conclusions then it doesn't lead to the truth. If the Bible doesn't lead to truth then what is the point of the bible?
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 10:51:36 AM
Where do you get Prostitutes out of this? If you are going to arguing about this stuff, you really should brush up on your theology.
I have sound reason to considering the Adulteress to be equivalent to a modern Prostitute, you should really brush up on your theology.
What is that sound reason?
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 02:59:04 PM
Aw, Jesus, I can't stand it any more.
IT *IS* A PARABLE BECAUSE JESUS WASN'T LITERALLY TALKING ABOUT WHO WOULD THROW AN ACTUAL STONE AT THE WOMAN IN FRONT OF HIM!!!111
I have now lost this thread, because I responded moments after I said I wouldn't. :Embarrass:
Read John Chapter 8:1-11. The scribes and Pharasees bring a woman before him and ask him, trying to entrap him, what should be done.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 03:00:25 PM
Unlike the Beatles, I do not pretend to be better than Jesus. :blush:
You are better than Jesus, you don't think that prostitutes should be killed (by sinless executioners).
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:10:21 PM
No, I believe that this text (the bible) is much more badly suited to teach moral lessons than say Huck Finn, Oliver Twist or James and the Giant Peach. If Bible stories can result in opposite conclusions then it doesn't lead to the truth. If the Bible doesn't lead to truth then what is the point of the bible?
Bit of a tautology dont you think? - you dont understand the parable the way the rest of us do and so you think there is no value in it? I must say you are the only person I have ever met that does not understand this particular parable. Perhaps there should be a Viking exception?
Also, are you seriously contending that Huck Finn does not also have different possible interpretations? -you may not be aware it has been banned in some US schools because of the use of the word Nigger. Literature is all about interpretation and people can debate endlessly about its meaning. That does not mean it is devoid of any useful meaning but rather that the meanings are so rich as to be amenable to debate.
What the hell do we know about the intention of the Bible?
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:10:21 PM
No, I believe that this text (the bible) is much more badly suited to teach moral lessons than say Huck Finn, Oliver Twist or James and the Giant Peach. If Bible stories can result in opposite conclusions then it doesn't lead to the truth. If the Bible doesn't lead to truth then what is the point of the bible?
Well it might not. But everybody is familiar with it and it is referenced constantly in popular culture and people are used to considering it sacred. Teaching moral lessons using the Bible is generally more impactful than citing Oliver Twist as very few Americans will be familiar with it outside of the musical and British Lit students.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2011, 03:06:48 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:46:19 PM
What I want to hear from the Bibilical Figurativists what criteria you can use to segregate the symbolic from the literal? If you can't point to any cause that is not scientists and historians proving bits of the bible to be wrong then I feel I can safely assert that the symbolic view of the bible is bunk. If you can't make a internally consistent argument for your own religion then it is BS.
The phrase Literal facts is a self contradictory phrase. Any facts that are not literal are not facts. Things cannot be sort of true or sort of exist.
It is entirely symbolic. The parts that either did happen or resemble something that happened is entirely coincidental because that was not the intention of the book. Because that is the way people taught lessons and passed on learning and so forth. Frankly I have a real hard time trying to figure out what you are trying to convince me of besides the fact you do not find the Bible personally useful. And, you know, so what?
If you think that the Bible is nothing more than literature then I have no problem with that. You'd do much better getting your morality from Huck Finn though.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 03:12:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 10:51:36 AM
Where do you get Prostitutes out of this? If you are going to arguing about this stuff, you really should brush up on your theology.
I have sound reason to considering the Adulteress to be equivalent to a modern Prostitute, you should really brush up on your theology.
What is that sound reason?
Read some theology books and get back to me...
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:23:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 03:12:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 10:51:36 AM
Where do you get Prostitutes out of this? If you are going to arguing about this stuff, you really should brush up on your theology.
I have sound reason to considering the Adulteress to be equivalent to a modern Prostitute, you should really brush up on your theology.
What is that sound reason?
Read some theology books and get back to me...
Wait a minute, I thought you didnt do that sort of thing Viking. I though you learned your morality from Huck Finn.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:22:35 PM
If you think that the Bible is nothing more than literature then I have no problem with that. You'd do much better getting your morality from Huck Finn though.
I guess I disagree. A book written over hundreds of years by many different authors has alot more to say about things than one book written by one dude. But I guess less damage would come out of people thinking Huck Finn was literally true :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 03:17:13 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:10:21 PM
No, I believe that this text (the bible) is much more badly suited to teach moral lessons than say Huck Finn, Oliver Twist or James and the Giant Peach. If Bible stories can result in opposite conclusions then it doesn't lead to the truth. If the Bible doesn't lead to truth then what is the point of the bible?
Bit of a tautology dont you think? - you dont understand the parable the way the rest of us do and so you think there is no value in it? I must say you are the only person I have ever met that does not understand this particular parable. Perhaps there should be a Viking exception?
Also, are you seriously contending that Huck Finn does not also have different possible interpretations? -you may not be aware it has been banned in some US schools because of the use of the word Nigger. Literature is all about interpretation and people can debate endlessly about its meaning. That does not mean it is devoid of any useful meaning but rather that the meanings are so rich as to be amenable to debate.
Yes, religious morality from a book is necessarily tautologous given the non-existence of god; Socrates sort of makes that clear about 300 years before Jesus. I keep having to repeat this, John 8:1-11 is not a parable. I understand the parable and I understand it's interpretations. I'm possibly the only person here who has taken a comparative religion course of any sort so I know the interpretations that the pastor is not telling you.
The reason I picked this story is because it is Euthyphro's dilemma in the bible. It is religion attempting to deal with a 300 year old philosophical problem that the Gospel writers were almost certainly aware of (given that many of them were greek). Jesus is confronted with an obviously unjust situation. This woman is about to be killed because she could only feed herself by relying on the favor of men she was not married to. This was obviously morally wrong to kill her for trying to feed herself and not die, it was also GOds law that she must die for this crime. Stoning her is obviously wrong, but GOd already said it was right. Euthyphro's dilemma is solved by Jesus threatening to out the Johns among those who are about to stone her.
This is an exceptionally unsatisfactory morality tale because at the end what is right and just is still obviously impious and criminal and the only salvation for this woman was the grace of Jesus (Calvin FTW). It is a story where the moral content is completely reliant on the divinity of Jesus and the inherent sinful nature of man (again Calvin FTW).
Now the point I was trying to make to Valmy that got this discussion started was that this story is completely immoral unless it presumes Jesus as God. It does not stand on it's own merits without the divinity of Jesus. I had gotten Valmy to the point where he agreed that there was not spiritual realm outside of the material world and I had gotten him to agree that happiness, love, envy etc. were artifacts of the material brain. He did argue at that point that the Bible was still a good source for morality, I disagree with that.
As for Huck Finn, the book depicts immoral and bad characters using the word Nigger. Banning Huck Finn is like insisting that Mississippi Burning gets remade, only with the Klansmen referring to African-Americans. Jim is shown to be a decent and good man and a moral paragon, at least compared to the characters that call him Nigger. I suggest you read Huck Finn, since it seems you have not. It is one of the great books of the world and a treasure of literature.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2011, 03:21:11 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:10:21 PM
No, I believe that this text (the bible) is much more badly suited to teach moral lessons than say Huck Finn, Oliver Twist or James and the Giant Peach. If Bible stories can result in opposite conclusions then it doesn't lead to the truth. If the Bible doesn't lead to truth then what is the point of the bible?
Well it might not. But everybody is familiar with it and it is referenced constantly in popular culture and people are used to considering it sacred. Teaching moral lessons using the Bible is generally more impactful than citing Oliver Twist as very few Americans will be familiar with it outside of the musical and British Lit students.
Good, we agree. Where we disagree is that I think the Bible is a bad moral example and you are agnostic on the issue. Do I understand that correctly?
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:23:18 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 03:12:14 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 02:51:04 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 10:51:36 AM
Where do you get Prostitutes out of this? If you are going to arguing about this stuff, you really should brush up on your theology.
I have sound reason to considering the Adulteress to be equivalent to a modern Prostitute, you should really brush up on your theology.
What is that sound reason?
Read some theology books and get back to me...
I have. Are you going to answer?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 03:24:11 PM
Wait a minute, I thought you didnt do that sort of thing Viking. I though you learned your morality from Huck Finn.
Don't consider anything I say to Raz to be part of any attempt at a constructive discussion.
I am very bible literate. I had "Knowledge of Christianity" and (after a Human Rights Court Ruling on Religious Discrimination) "Knowledge of Religion" (same course as before only now with one lecture on islam, one on buddhism and one on other religions). I know the bible and I find it stupid. I know my Luther, Calvin and Aquinas. I even know my Plantinga. I've read both and found that Huck Finn is a much much better source of morality than even the best book of the bible.
Ah, so you are simply a dishonest hatemonger who has no willingness to debate the issue. Good day, sir.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2011, 03:25:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:22:35 PM
If you think that the Bible is nothing more than literature then I have no problem with that. You'd do much better getting your morality from Huck Finn though.
I guess I disagree. A book written over hundreds of years by many different authors has alot more to say about things than one book written by one dude. But I guess less damage would come out of people thinking Huck Finn was literally true :P
A Physics Graduate who wrote a book about Physics would have infinitely more to say about the topic than a book written by every innovator in physics from Archimedes to Newton to Boyle to Faraday to Einstein. The same applies to chemistry, history, medicine, mathematics, geography, literature, languages, biology, education, book binding, beer brewing, car racing etc. etc. This applies to all fields we can define and I assert that it also applies to Morality. If Newton and Archimedes were still considered to have been true then this computer would not work. We can see from Afghanistan that applying the moral truths of Abraham and Moses does not work.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:56:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2011, 03:25:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:22:35 PM
If you think that the Bible is nothing more than literature then I have no problem with that. You'd do much better getting your morality from Huck Finn though.
I guess I disagree. A book written over hundreds of years by many different authors has alot more to say about things than one book written by one dude. But I guess less damage would come out of people thinking Huck Finn was literally true :P
A Physics Graduate who wrote a book about Physics would have infinitely more to say about the topic than a book written by every innovator in physics from Archimedes to Newton to Boyle to Faraday to Einstein. The same applies to chemistry, history, medicine, mathematics, geography, literature, languages, biology, education, book binding, beer brewing, car racing etc. etc. This applies to all fields we can define and I assert that it also applies to Morality. If Newton and Archimedes were still considered to have been true then this computer would not work. We can see from Afghanistan that applying the moral truths of Abraham and Moses does not work.
*drags fingers away from keyboard, desparate fighting desire to yell at Viking for being stupid again*
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 03:59:42 PM
*drags fingers away from keyboard, desparate fighting desire to yell at Viking for being stupid again*
If this is all that is needed to bring you to an insensible rage in a discussion maybe I should move to Winnipeg and become a consultant to criminal defense lawyers.
What am I saying that is stupid? What, if any, errors do I have in my reasoning? What, if any, poor assumptions do I make? Unlike religious truth, my truth changes when the facts change or when I get proved wrong. Please help me be more right more often by showing me the errors I made.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:09:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 03:59:42 PM
*drags fingers away from keyboard, desparate fighting desire to yell at Viking for being stupid again*
If this is all that is needed to bring you to an insensible rage in a discussion maybe I should move to Winnipeg and become a consultant to criminal defense lawyers.
What am I saying that is stupid? What, if any, errors do I have in my reasoning? What, if any, poor assumptions do I make? Unlike religious truth, my truth changes when the facts change or when I get proved wrong. Please help me be more right more often by showing me the errors I made.
I don't live in Winnipeg any more than you live in Iceland. :huh:
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 03:43:33 PM
Yes, religious morality from a book is necessarily tautologous given the non-existence of god; Socrates sort of makes that clear about 300 years before Jesus. I keep having to repeat this, John 8:1-11 is not a parable. I understand the parable and I understand it's interpretations. I'm possibly the only person here who has taken a comparative religion course of any sort so I know the interpretations that the pastor is not telling you.
The reason I picked this story is because it is Euthyphro's dilemma in the bible. It is religion attempting to deal with a 300 year old philosophical problem that the Gospel writers were almost certainly aware of (given that many of them were greek). Jesus is confronted with an obviously unjust situation. This woman is about to be killed because she could only feed herself by relying on the favor of men she was not married to. This was obviously morally wrong to kill her for trying to feed herself and not die, it was also GOds law that she must die for this crime. Stoning her is obviously wrong, but GOd already said it was right. Euthyphro's dilemma is solved by Jesus threatening to out the Johns among those who are about to stone her.
This is an exceptionally unsatisfactory morality tale because at the end what is right and just is still obviously impious and criminal and the only salvation for this woman was the grace of Jesus (Calvin FTW). It is a story where the moral content is completely reliant on the divinity of Jesus and the inherent sinful nature of man (again Calvin FTW).
Now the point I was trying to make to Valmy that got this discussion started was that this story is completely immoral unless it presumes Jesus as God. It does not stand on it's own merits without the divinity of Jesus. I had gotten Valmy to the point where he agreed that there was not spiritual realm outside of the material world and I had gotten him to agree that happiness, love, envy etc. were artifacts of the material brain. He did argue at that point that the Bible was still a good source for morality, I disagree with that.
You realize that you are now asserting your position is correct because of a particular interpretation of the parable. Surely you must recogize there are more ways then one to read that particular passage of text. Your admittedly literalist view and a more nuanced view which understands the deeper lesson. Socrates can be read in much the same way - In Eythrypho, there is, on the surface, a delimma of morality. But the deeping meaning of that dialogue is Socrates search for truth. In other words a literalist approach will always miss the deeper meaning within.
I'm a bit surprised by CC on this thread. He's not exactly the most religious person out there. I'm surprised by the stance he's taking here.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 04:30:55 PM
I'm a bit surprised by CC on this thread. He's not exactly the most religious person out there. I'm surprised by the stance he's taking here.
He sees the comedy value.
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 04:14:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:09:03 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 19, 2011, 03:59:42 PM
*drags fingers away from keyboard, desparate fighting desire to yell at Viking for being stupid again*
If this is all that is needed to bring you to an insensible rage in a discussion maybe I should move to Winnipeg and become a consultant to criminal defense lawyers.
What am I saying that is stupid? What, if any, errors do I have in my reasoning? What, if any, poor assumptions do I make? Unlike religious truth, my truth changes when the facts change or when I get proved wrong. Please help me be more right more often by showing me the errors I made.
I don't live in Winnipeg any more than you live in Iceland. :huh:
Do you think I'd acatually live in Yellowknife? WTF? Winnipeg has civilisation and the correct pastries.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 04:25:15 PM
You realize that you are now asserting your position is correct because of a particular interpretation of the parable. Surely you must recogize there are more ways then one to read that particular passage of text. Your admittedly literalist view and a more nuanced view which understands the deeper lesson. Socrates can be read in much the same way - In Eythrypho, there is, on the surface, a delimma of morality. But the deeping meaning of that dialogue is Socrates search for truth. In other words a literalist approach will always miss the deeper meaning within.
You forget how the Euthyphro dialogue ends. Euthyphro asserts that piety is whatever the gods like and leaves. Socrates is then carted off to his trial for impiety. This is not the fuzzy niceness of the pursuit of truth. It is a condemnation of the concept of Divine Command Ethics.
Your post-modern anything goes view of religion is presumably only useful for debate purposes. Do you actually believe that God thinks it is ok for whoever to interpret the holy book in any way they please?
The constant reference to the deeper meaning within is just silly. This deeper meaning is never articulated. In short you are saying that the true meaning of the passage is not directly related to the words used in the passage. Your deeper meaning is ultimately what you brought with you to the passage.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:49:55 PMYour deeper meaning is ultimately what you brought with you to the passage.
Indeed, for that is what interpretation is all about. By definition, one cannot interpret something from elements he can't fathom. Which doesn't mean that it is unchanging, nor that one only reads what one wants. One can certainly argue about the best fits - but one can never positively "prove" meaning. Which is why I am puzzled by your positivist view of morals.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 19, 2011, 04:57:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:49:55 PMYour deeper meaning is ultimately what you brought with you to the passage.
Indeed, for that is what interpretation is all about. By definition, one cannot interpret something from elements he can't fathom. Which doesn't mean that it is unchanging, nor that one only reads what one wants. One can certainly argue about the best fits - but one can never positively "prove" meaning. Which is why I am puzzled by your positivist view of morals.
I am trying to to convince my debate partners here that
1) The Bible is not a source of knowledge itself (e.g. from God)
2) The Interpretation and Analysis of the Bible only serves as a buffet for you to pick and choose what supports your existing moral and ethical ideas
3) Moral and Ethical knowledge improves over time just like knowledge of Physics and Geography and thus more modern works which either contemplate or are on Ethics and Morality are more relevant
The reason you are confused is that the defense against these claims of mine shift from pre-modern to post-modern views of knowledge. At one time the Bible is a good book with good content and should be used as a source of morals, it then being shown that the Bible has obvious immoral claims then the defense is that it is all a matter of interpretation.
My argument against the Good and True Bible is that it is neither good nor true by showing evil and untruth in the Bible.
My argument against the Liberal Interpretative Bible is that in that case Religion is irrelevant and Mark Twain and Charles Dickens are better sources of Morality and Ethics.
I think the reason you are confused is that I'm debating on two fronts against not a consistent view of nature, but rather a shifting ground fallacy which one moment argues that it is all in the interpretation and the next that the Bible is good and true. They also think I'm a dick for saying the Bible is a bad and immoral book, but they refuse to show that it is good and moral.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:30:30 PM
3) Moral and Ethical knowledge improves over time just like knowledge of Physics and Geography and thus more modern works which either contemplate or are on Ethics and Morality are more relevant
:wacko:
Quote from: Neil on September 19, 2011, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:30:30 PM
3) Moral and Ethical knowledge improves over time just like knowledge of Physics and Geography and thus more modern works which either contemplate or are on Ethics and Morality are more relevant
:wacko:
BTW Naval technology and doctrine improves over time so... Dreadnaughts are obsolete.
Quote from: Neil on September 19, 2011, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:30:30 PM
3) Moral and Ethical knowledge improves over time just like knowledge of Physics and Geography and thus more modern works which either contemplate or are on Ethics and Morality are more relevant
:wacko:
I wonder what the ethics of the future will be like.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 06:34:55 PM
I wonder what the ethics of the future will be like.
'futuristic'
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 06:13:23 PM
BTW Naval technology and doctrine improves over time so... Dreadnaughts are obsolete.
The Dreadnaught was a tugboat, you goof.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:30:30 PMI think the reason you are confused is that I'm debating on two fronts against not a consistent view of nature, but rather a shifting ground fallacy which one moment argues that it is all in the interpretation and the next that the Bible is good and true. They also think I'm a dick for saying the Bible is a bad and immoral book, but they refuse to show that it is good and moral.
Argh. I had a long answer, which I lost and lack the courage to retype it. Suffice to say: the reason I am confused is not because you are trying to argue in the alternative, but rather that the argument you trot out to fight the contradiction in the nature of the Bible lead you on wobbly hermeneutical grounds, which are unnecessary for your argument. One can be a atheist and find wisdom in the Bible; one can be an atheist and not subscribe to that bizarre evolutionary argument on the nature of ethics and morals; one can find knowledge, and things true, in works of fiction -- which can include the Bible if you are an atheist. In other words, I find your two fronts to be poorly chosen, leaving you open to many side arguments and counterpoints which can be, could be, easily made tangential.
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:30:30 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 19, 2011, 04:57:02 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 04:49:55 PMYour deeper meaning is ultimately what you brought with you to the passage.
Indeed, for that is what interpretation is all about. By definition, one cannot interpret something from elements he can't fathom. Which doesn't mean that it is unchanging, nor that one only reads what one wants. One can certainly argue about the best fits - but one can never positively "prove" meaning. Which is why I am puzzled by your positivist view of morals.
I am trying to to convince my debate partners here that
1) The Bible is not a source of knowledge itself (e.g. from God)
2) The Interpretation and Analysis of the Bible only serves as a buffet for you to pick and choose what supports your existing moral and ethical ideas
3) Moral and Ethical knowledge improves over time just like knowledge of Physics and Geography and thus more modern works which either contemplate or are on Ethics and Morality are more relevant
The reason you are confused is that the defense against these claims of mine shift from pre-modern to post-modern views of knowledge. At one time the Bible is a good book with good content and should be used as a source of morals, it then being shown that the Bible has obvious immoral claims then the defense is that it is all a matter of interpretation.
My argument against the Good and True Bible is that it is neither good nor true by showing evil and untruth in the Bible.
My argument against the Liberal Interpretative Bible is that in that case Religion is irrelevant and Mark Twain and Charles Dickens are better sources of Morality and Ethics.
I think the reason you are confused is that I'm debating on two fronts against not a consistent view of nature, but rather a shifting ground fallacy which one moment argues that it is all in the interpretation and the next that the Bible is good and true. They also think I'm a dick for saying the Bible is a bad and immoral book, but they refuse to show that it is good and moral.
You are ghost fighting then.
1) The Bible need not be the word of God to have valuable lessons. Neither BB nor Raz have put forward a literalist interpretation that requires it be so btw. You are the only one here that does insist on a literal interpretation and you seem to be unable to comprehend how it might be interpreted differently and so you seem blind to the arguments BB and Raz are making.
2) How is that any different from any other great work of literature or art. As I said before, the fact that there can be many interpretations does not make the text devoid of meaning but rather the opposite.
3) I am not sure where to start here and will leave it to Oex since this is much more his field than mine. But suggesting that the Bible, Socrates, Plato or any number of other ancient sources are no longer relevant to our understanding of ethics and morals strikes me as odd in the extreme. I think you come to this view because you seem to misunderstand the nature of the ethics and morals much of the Bible teaches. Just to be clear, one does not need to count themselves a Christian to understand the Bible has valuable moral lessons to teach. There are some lessons - like the Golden Rule that will always be important to civil society.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 19, 2011, 08:41:05 PM
Argh. I had a long answer, which I lost and lack the courage to retype it. Suffice to say: the reason I am confused is not because you are trying to argue in the alternative, but rather that the argument you trot out to fight the contradiction in the nature of the Bible lead you on wobbly hermeneutical grounds, which are unnecessary for your argument. One can be a atheist and find wisdom in the Bible; one can be an atheist and not subscribe to that bizarre evolutionary argument on the nature of ethics and morals; one can find knowledge, and things true, in works of fiction -- which can include the Bible if you are an atheist. In other words, I find your two fronts to be poorly chosen, leaving you open to many side arguments and counterpoints which can be, could be, easily made tangential.
I would have like to see the long answer. You know what hermeneutics and positivism is and you use both words correctly in the sentences you use.
At this point I am not arguing for Atheism. Atheism is also not a required step in my argument (though the strictly material god that my argument allows is rather uninteresting), though it helps. I'm arguing that the Bible is a bad book with bad morals. When making that case accepting that the Bible can be a source of wisdom is something the other side needs to make me do.
As for my chosen fronts, Hier stehe Ich, Ich kann nicht anders. (Here I stand, I can do nothing else.) I'm arguing my conviction, not trying to find a non-defeatable position to hold.
I agree with Viking - the main problem with Bible is not that it is not a word of God - but that it is a book presenting a worldview that is not only alien and out of sync with modern morality - but often it is outright immoral, even if you compare it to some of the contemporary ethics, such as those developed by the Greeks.
The Old Testament is particularly bad at this - it is a book which glorifies murder, rape, betrayal and arbitrary barbaric laws. The New Testament is a little better, but not if you consider the letters, which are equally filled with prejudice.
All the valuable lessons of the Bible (mainly confined to the gospels) can (and could, at the time they were written) be already found elsewhere. And they are standing side by side with a lot of disgusting crap produced by a rather primitive culture.
In short, arguing that the Bible is a valuable source of moral lessons is a bit like arguing that Galen's books are a valuable source of lessons about medicine. Sure, he got some of his more basic stuff right (the equivalent of the "Golden Rule" which is one of the basic tenets of most modern ethical systems - but at the same time was neither invented by "Jesus" nor it is accepted without additional qualifications or refinements anymore - so again you can find it better elsewhere), but other things he got horribly wrong. There are now many better, more accurate books about medicine. You could read his books for entertainment or if you are interested in history of medicine - but no modern medical professional needs to read his books to be good at what he does (and in fact, if he started his medical education from Galen's books - not to mention if he only read Galen's books for his medical education - he could be very very bad at what he does) - they are obsolete.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 08:51:16 PM
3) I am not sure where to start here and will leave it to Oex since this is much more his field than mine. But suggesting that the Bible, Socrates, Plato or any number of other ancient sources are no longer relevant to our understanding of ethics and morals strikes me as odd in the extreme. I think you come to this view because you seem to misunderstand the nature of the ethics and morals much of the Bible teaches. Just to be clear, one does not need to count themselves a Christian to understand the Bible has valuable moral lessons to teach. There are some lessons - like the Golden Rule that will always be important to civil society.
Unlike most Bible supporters, those who study Socrates and Plato do not claim they were divinely inspired. And to my knowledge no modern philosopher or ethicist embraces them as a primary material or a source of his or her system.
Btw, when you say "Bible" do you really mean "Gospels" or are you saying that the Old Testament (e.g. Leviticus, or the history of the conquest of Canaan) teach us a "valuable moral lesson"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 08:51:16 PM
You are ghost fighting then.
1) The Bible need not be the word of God to have valuable lessons. Neither BB nor Raz have put forward a literalist interpretation that requires it be so btw. You are the only one here that does insist on a literal interpretation and you seem to be unable to comprehend how it might be interpreted differently and so you seem blind to the arguments BB and Raz are making.
Now, if that were really the case (that nobody is suggesting the bible is anything special) then why can't any of you accept that some of what the bible teaches is monstrous and that there exists other literature which can be morally instructive without including monstrous bits?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 08:51:16 PM
2) How is that any different from any other great work of literature or art. As I said before, the fact that there can be many interpretations does not make the text devoid of meaning but rather the opposite.
It's no different, yet it gets treated differently. The fact that there are many interpretations means that it cannot be a source of knowledge in itself. In that case ANY book is a source of meaning. Anything from Porn to Poetry can be infused with meaning.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 19, 2011, 08:51:16 PM
3) I am not sure where to start here and will leave it to Oex since this is much more his field than mine. But suggesting that the Bible, Socrates, Plato or any number of other ancient sources are no longer relevant to our understanding of ethics and morals strikes me as odd in the extreme. I think you come to this view because you seem to misunderstand the nature of the ethics and morals much of the Bible teaches. Just to be clear, one does not need to count themselves a Christian to understand the Bible has valuable moral lessons to teach. There are some lessons - like the Golden Rule that will always be important to civil society.
Pretending that me arguing that Plato and Aristotle are no longer the best sources to go to for moral knowledge means that they are no longer relevant is not true. But, they are to modern philosophy what Newton is to physics and Darwin is to biology, the guys who got the ball rolling and had the first good ideas. It is a bit of a slight to Kant, Hume, Locke, Voltaire etc. imho.
You do make my point with your reference to The Golden Rule. Both Confucius and Rabbi Hillel (plus various Greeks) defined the Golden Rule in their writings hundreds of years before Mary and Joseph had their per-marital romp in the hey.
But, since you do open for this, what from Plato or Socrates or Aristotle has remained cutting edge for all these years? And more importantly, if we are to use them how do we separate their bunk (plato's forms, aristotle's ethics) form the more useful stuff? We rely on more modern work to sift that. The bible, as is, does not undergo such a process.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 06:34:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 19, 2011, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:30:30 PM
3) Moral and Ethical knowledge improves over time just like knowledge of Physics and Geography and thus more modern works which either contemplate or are on Ethics and Morality are more relevant
:wacko:
I wonder what the ethics of the future will be like.
I don't think it is that hard to predict. If there is one consistent trend in the history of ethics and its development, it's the extending definition of "us", "tribe" or "community" (which is accompanied by affording the rights "we" have - and personhood - to more individuals).
If this trend continues, stuff like veganism or "great apes' rights movement" is probably the relatively near future of human ethics.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 02:04:12 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 19, 2011, 06:34:55 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 19, 2011, 05:40:04 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 19, 2011, 05:30:30 PM
3) Moral and Ethical knowledge improves over time just like knowledge of Physics and Geography and thus more modern works which either contemplate or are on Ethics and Morality are more relevant
:wacko:
I wonder what the ethics of the future will be like.
I don't think it is that hard to predict. If there is one consistent trend in the history of ethics and its development, it's the extending definition of "us", "tribe" or "community" (which is accompanied by affording the rights "we" have - and personhood - to more individuals).
If this trend continues, stuff like veganism or "great apes' rights movement" is probably the relatively near future of human ethics.
How long do you think this "trend" has been going on?
Since the creation of civilization.
It started with a family, then moved into a tribe, then into a state, a nation, a religion ("There will be no Greek nor Jew" - Christianity played a significant role here - the concept of "Christendom" is also an example of this trend), then a race/"civilization", then the humanity as a whole. Now we are starting to coopt other beings capable of feeling pain, emotion etc.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 04:42:18 AM
Since the creation of civilization.
It started with a family, then moved into a tribe, then into a state, a nation, a religion ("There will be no Greek nor Jew" - Christianity played a significant role here - the concept of "Christendom" is also an example of this trend), then a race/"civilization", then the humanity as a whole. Now we are starting to coopt other beings capable of feeling pain, emotion etc.
Nonsense. The 20th century is full of examples of the narrowing of "us". It fluctuates, it doesn't steadily move in one direction. Even your examples demonstrate this. "State, nation, and religion, race/civilization" aren't an example of increasing size of accepted groups.
Quote from: PDH on September 20, 2011, 07:54:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 01:53:09 AM
I agree with Viking
Viking loses :(
I'm glad that I scrolled down before I posted that.
So Viking, how do you respond to this total devastation of all your arguments?
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 01:56:41 AM
Unlike most Bible supporters, those who study Socrates and Plato do not claim they were divinely inspired. And to my knowledge no modern philosopher or ethicist embraces them as a primary material or a source of his or her system.
Btw, when you say "Bible" do you really mean "Gospels" or are you saying that the Old Testament (e.g. Leviticus, or the history of the conquest of Canaan) teach us a "valuable moral lesson"?
Generally when I concern myself with Leviticus and the conquest of Canaan (and prior) we are talking about something you already mentioned in this thread. The conciousness of humanity to extend its sense of "us" to embrace greater and greater units.
One big thing I like to point to is how Noah clearly does not make a big deal about saving just his family since the rest of humanity has dissappointed God. Then later Moses is given an almost identical deal, I will save you and rebuild once I zap these Israelites who have dissappointed me, but Moses refuses because in his mind the Israelites are all his tribe. Thus we go from the righteousness of the individual to the laws and wellbeing of the tribe being above all and then later we move into the idea, Isaiah here is what I am thinking of, that Israel is there to serve all humanity. And so forth. You can see this very process playing out over centuries with different authors. Many interesting spiritual, moral, and ethical lessons can be learned there.
Quote from: BibleFor a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread
:yeahright:
Quote from: The Brain on September 20, 2011, 08:44:18 AM
Quote from: BibleFor a prostitute can be had for a loaf of bread
:yeahright:
It is an moral lesson about waiting for a desperate famine so you can get sex for cheap.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 08:14:04 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 01:56:41 AM
Unlike most Bible supporters, those who study Socrates and Plato do not claim they were divinely inspired. And to my knowledge no modern philosopher or ethicist embraces them as a primary material or a source of his or her system.
Btw, when you say "Bible" do you really mean "Gospels" or are you saying that the Old Testament (e.g. Leviticus, or the history of the conquest of Canaan) teach us a "valuable moral lesson"?
Generally when I concern myself with Leviticus and the conquest of Canaan (and prior) we are talking about something you already mentioned in this thread. The conciousness of humanity to extend its sense of "us" to embrace greater and greater units.
One big thing I like to point to is how Noah clearly does not make a big deal about saving just his family since the rest of humanity has dissappointed God. Then later Moses is given an almost identical deal, I will save you and rebuild once I zap these Israelites who have dissappointed me, but Moses refuses because in his mind the Israelites are all his tribe. Thus we go from the righteousness of the individual to the laws and wellbeing of the tribe being above all and then later we move into the idea, Isaiah here is what I am thinking of, that Israel is there to serve all humanity. And so forth. You can see this very process playing out over centuries with different authors. Many interesting spiritual, moral, and ethical lessons can be learned there.
I still think it is a shitty source of "moral lessons". To use my earlier medical book analogy, imagine you had an old medicine manuscript which would carry the following three lessons:
1. Lemon juice is a good cure for common cold
2. Cancer can be cured by applying leeches
3. A feverish baby can be cured by being left for 10 minutes in a burning oven
Even if lesson no. 1 is vaguely true (although quite primitive, inaccurate and not completely true), the other two range from completely useless to actually harmful. Noone would argue that, as a result, studying that book would constitute a good "medical lesson".
Now consider the Bible (I am going to use the NT as an example only, as pointing out immorality in OT is like shooting dead fish in an empty barrell):
1. Treat others like you want to be treated
2. Homosexuality is a sin as bad as murder and theft.
3. A woman should always submit to a man's will
How's that different from the above example? You have one vaguely correct lesson (but one that is too vague and not accurrate enough - Kant formulates it in a much better way) and two which range from idiotic to actively harmful.
It is a shitty book, which should come with a health warning.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 02:01:29 AM
Pretending that me arguing that Plato and Aristotle are no longer the best sources to go to for moral knowledge means that they are no longer relevant is not true. But, they are to modern philosophy what Newton is to physics and Darwin is to biology, the guys who got the ball rolling and had the first good ideas. It is a bit of a slight to Kant, Hume, Locke, Voltaire etc. imho.
Yeah, one can read Artistotle or Plato if one wants to study the history of philosophy (and I guess it is a good stepping stone for more complex philosophical ideas) but noone is "interpreting" them as a part of modern philosophy.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 02:01:29 AM
But, since you do open for this, what from Plato or Socrates or Aristotle has remained cutting edge for all these years? And more importantly, if we are to use them how do we separate their bunk (plato's forms, aristotle's ethics) form the more useful stuff? We rely on more modern work to sift that. The bible, as is, does not undergo such a process.
Actually it did, but noone reads Augustine or Aquinas. That's the problem with religious people - they are awfully ignorant, including about their own religion.
Edit: Speaking of which, this is another area where the Roman Catholic Church, for all its failings, comes ahead of other Christian denominations. Catholic scholars do not study Bible per se - they develop a whole line of ethics called "The Catholic Social Science" - you may disagree with many of its concepts, but it develops in the same way modern day objectivists develop (instead of "reinterpreting") Plato or Kantists built on the ethics of Aristotle. That's a far cry from "Bible study" which is a pseudo-science.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:18:56 AM
How's that different from the above example? You have one vaguely correct lesson (but one that is too vague and not accurrate enough - Kant formulates it in a much better way) and two which range from idiotic to actively harmful.
Well that is not the only one. I was just using that as an example since you mentioned this particular moral pattern in this thread. But the main reason I think using the Bible for productive purposes is good is because almost everybody is familiar with it and it is so ingrained in western culture. It is pretty fantastic and colorful as well despite its drawbacks.
The laws of Leviticus are basically saying that since the tribe is the ultimate than the laws of the tribe are the ultimate morality. I think the particular part about Homosex was a statement about the temple prostitution practiced in the Middle East at the time but hey who knows? The actual context is pretty distant now. I also like that book just because at the end of it God gives a very specific formula for how he is going to smite Israel should they not follow all these laws. Of course God never does any of these things when the Israelites continually do break these laws for the rest of the OT and when I point this out to a Bible literalist they eventually have to admit that God was being symbolic there. And then once you get them to admit that well...
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:22:38 AMYeah, one can read Artistotle or Plato if one wants to study the history of philosophy (and I guess it is a good stepping stone for more complex philosophical ideas) but noone is "interpreting" them as a part of modern philosophy.
:huh: Where do you get this idea? Plenty of people are revisiting, and reinterpreting Aristotle and Plato today.
Also we are talking about the humanities not the sciences here. Whether or not Michel Foucault is a more advanced and more truthful philosophy than his predecessors is a matter of opinion.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:24:27 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 02:01:29 AM
But, since you do open for this, what from Plato or Socrates or Aristotle has remained cutting edge for all these years? And more importantly, if we are to use them how do we separate their bunk (plato's forms, aristotle's ethics) form the more useful stuff? We rely on more modern work to sift that. The bible, as is, does not undergo such a process.
Actually it did, but noone reads Augustine or Aquinas. That's the problem with religious people - they are awfully ignorant, including about their own religion.
Edit: Speaking of which, this is another area where the Roman Catholic Church, for all its failings, comes ahead of other Christian denominations. Catholic scholars do not study Bible per se - they develop a whole line of ethics called "The Catholic Social Science" - you may disagree with many of its concepts, but it develops in the same way modern day objectivists develop (instead of "reinterpreting") Plato or Kantists built on the ethics of Aristotle. That's a far cry from "Bible study" which is a pseudo-science.
I'm not sure that's all that different from what Protestant denominations do. While Protestants first resource is certainly the Bible, but there are numerous works analyzing and interpreting the Bible, and our understanding of what the Bible means or says has changed in numerous ways over the centuries.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2011, 09:39:26 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:24:27 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 02:01:29 AM
But, since you do open for this, what from Plato or Socrates or Aristotle has remained cutting edge for all these years? And more importantly, if we are to use them how do we separate their bunk (plato's forms, aristotle's ethics) form the more useful stuff? We rely on more modern work to sift that. The bible, as is, does not undergo such a process.
Actually it did, but noone reads Augustine or Aquinas. That's the problem with religious people - they are awfully ignorant, including about their own religion.
Edit: Speaking of which, this is another area where the Roman Catholic Church, for all its failings, comes ahead of other Christian denominations. Catholic scholars do not study Bible per se - they develop a whole line of ethics called "The Catholic Social Science" - you may disagree with many of its concepts, but it develops in the same way modern day objectivists develop (instead of "reinterpreting") Plato or Kantists built on the ethics of Aristotle. That's a far cry from "Bible study" which is a pseudo-science.
I'm not sure that's all that different from what Protestant denominations do. While Protestants first resource is certainly the Bible, but there are numerous works analyzing and interpreting the Bible, and our understanding of what the Bible means or says has changed in numerous ways over the centuries.
See, that's my point. The CSS is *not* about "what the Bible means or says". It is a body of social science which has its roots in the writings of Aquinas and Augustine, and some of the concepts expressed in the Bible, but (as is the Catholic wont) it does not dwells too much on those parts of the Bible that are not consistent with it.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:48:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2011, 09:39:26 AM
I'm not sure that's all that different from what Protestant denominations do. While Protestants first resource is certainly the Bible, but there are numerous works analyzing and interpreting the Bible, and our understanding of what the Bible means or says has changed in numerous ways over the centuries.
See, that's my point. The CSS is *not* about "what the Bible means or says". It is a body of social science which has its roots in the writings of Aquinas and Augustine, and some of the concepts expressed in the Bible, but (as is the Catholic wont) it does not dwells too much on those parts of the Bible that are not consistent with it.
But my point was that it's like argueing the differences between common law and civil law. Each has a different foundation, but in the end they wind up looking fairly similar, with similar amount of analysis.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:48:21 AM
it does not dwells too much on those parts of the Bible that are not consistent with it.
Well it would be very difficult to find something that is consistent throughout the entire Bible. Just as I pointed out the entire basis of its morality changes at various points as people change the conception of who is 'us' and their relationship to 'God'. I find it a bit fascinating that when some new writer would write something they just added it to the Canon and did not appear to go back and update the past material to make it consistent. I guess once people decided to combine it into one giant work it was already too late for that.
I disagree. In science (even social science), method counts as much as the final result. The quality of the method determines how rigid or flexible the system is, and how receptive it is to improvements. The CSS method allows for much better debate than "what does the Bible really say" (not to mention the latter is quite ridiculous for anyone who does not consider the Bible to be divinely inspired, whereas the CSS is interface compatible with "atheistic" sciences).
Edit: this was in response to Beeb.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 09:51:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:48:21 AM
it does not dwells too much on those parts of the Bible that are not consistent with it.
Well it would be very difficult to find something that is consistent throughout the entire Bible. Just as I pointed out the entire basis of its morality changes at various points as people change the conception of who is 'us' and their relationship to 'God'. I find it a bit fascinating that when some new writer would write something they just added it to the Canon and did not appear to go back and update the past material to make it consistent. I guess once people decided to combine it into one giant work it was already too late for that.
The last of the books was written several centuries before it was combined, you know. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:53:49 AM
The last of the books was written several centuries before it was combined, you know. ;)
I know but by that point the previous stuff was already sacred scripture.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 09:29:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:22:38 AMYeah, one can read Artistotle or Plato if one wants to study the history of philosophy (and I guess it is a good stepping stone for more complex philosophical ideas) but noone is "interpreting" them as a part of modern philosophy.
:huh: Where do you get this idea? Plenty of people are revisiting, and reinterpreting Aristotle and Plato today.
I commend you. I stopped reading his post when he said he agreed with Viking although Viking never actually made the argument Marti said he was agreeing with.
I stopped reading Vikings posts when he said starting creating positions nobody has taken in this thread. Viking is off having an debate with himself and Marti is in agreement with Viking with points Viking never raised.
This has become a classic Languish thread.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 10:00:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:53:49 AM
The last of the books was written several centuries before it was combined, you know. ;)
I know but by that point the previous stuff was already sacred scripture.
Yes and no. There are many books which were not included in the Bible - so consistency was not a particularly important thing. The better question is why the Nicean Council included contradictory books in the holy scripture.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 01:42:28 AM
I would have like to see the long answer. You know what hermeneutics and positivism is and you use both words correctly in the sentences you use.
Hmm, Viking really is a condescending git, isn't he?
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 11:54:04 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 10:00:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:53:49 AM
The last of the books was written several centuries before it was combined, you know. ;)
I know but by that point the previous stuff was already sacred scripture.
Yes and no. There are many books which were not included in the Bible - so consistency was not a particularly important thing. The better question is why the Nicean Council included contradictory books in the holy scripture.
Have you ever tried getting a Bible through Council? Niggas amend like crazy.
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 08:11:07 AM
Quote from: PDH on September 20, 2011, 07:54:07 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 01:53:09 AM
I agree with Viking
Viking loses :(
I'm glad that I scrolled down before I posted that.
So Viking, how do you respond to this total devastation of all your arguments?
God save me from my friends, I can protect myself from my enemies.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 09:31:58 AM
Also we are talking about the humanities not the sciences here. Whether or not Michel Foucault is a more advanced and more truthful philosophy than his predecessors is a matter of opinion.
And we can have an opinion, even if it is a poor one of the ancient ones. Proving Foucault wrong means we can ignore him. Apparently, proving the Bible to be wrong does not have that effect. In my view this puts christians in the same bin of moral honesty as post-modernists.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 09:29:17 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:22:38 AMYeah, one can read Artistotle or Plato if one wants to study the history of philosophy (and I guess it is a good stepping stone for more complex philosophical ideas) but noone is "interpreting" them as a part of modern philosophy.
:huh: Where do you get this idea? Plenty of people are revisiting, and reinterpreting Aristotle and Plato today.
Revisiting yes, reinterpreting not so much. Aristotle and Plato don't have value in and of themselves and figuring out what they really meant in line XXX means nothing. Their ideas stand and fall on their own merits. Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics are not cutting edge when discussing the organization of society. They might get quoted in mordern texts, but few modern political scientists are arguing for the Timarchic Fascism of The Republic.
Newton saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 11:54:04 AM
Yes and no. There are many books which were not included in the Bible - so consistency was not a particularly important thing. The better question is why the Nicean Council included contradictory books in the holy scripture.
The better question is how the Nicean Council included books in the Holy Scripture when that was never discussed at any point during that council (not to be cheeky but man one would think Christianity was invented at Nicea considering how much it gets credit for things that had nothing to do with it). How and where exactly the Biblical Canon was decided on is a bit of mystery AFAIK.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 01:18:25 PM
And we can have an opinion, even if it is a poor one of the ancient ones. Proving Foucault wrong means we can ignore him. Apparently, proving the Bible to be wrong does not have that effect. In my view this puts christians in the same bin of moral honesty as post-modernists.
How exactly could we prove Foucault wrong? And if we could, could some of his writings be wrong and others not be wrong? Or must he either be entirely right or not right at all?
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 01:31:02 PM
Revisiting yes, reinterpreting not so much. Aristotle and Plato don't have value in and of themselves and figuring out what they really meant in line XXX means nothing. Their ideas stand and fall on their own merits. Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics are not cutting edge when discussing the organization of society. They might get quoted in mordern texts, but few modern political scientists are arguing for the Timarchic Fascism of The Republic.
Newton saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Do you have any particular support for this rather surprising assertion.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 01:45:49 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 11:54:04 AM
Yes and no. There are many books which were not included in the Bible - so consistency was not a particularly important thing. The better question is why the Nicean Council included contradictory books in the holy scripture.
The better question is how the Nicean Council included books in the Holy Scripture when that was never discussed at any point during that council (not to be cheeky but man one would think Christianity was invented at Nicea considering how much it gets credit for things that had nothing to do with it). How and where exactly the Biblical Canon was decided on is a bit of mystery AFAIK.
Yes and no. Biblican canon wasnt decided at the Nicean Council in the sense that the books were not selected there. But the Nicean Council - along with a serious of such Council in that period did debate and decide on the nature of Jesus and God which then become "Canon" for the Church or at least part of it.
How the books were selected is not much of a mystery. We have good sources for that and modern scholars who have written extensively on the topic - See Ehrman as a good example.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 01:53:47 PM
Yes and no. Biblican canon wasnt decided at the Nicean Council in the sense that the books were not selected there. But the Nicean Council - along with a serious of such Council in that period did debate and decide on the nature of Jesus and God which then become "Canon" for the Church or at least part of it.
Yeah but the issue they debated is really obscure and arcane except to history and theology nerds.
You have to remember that this was at a time when councils didn't have to be about anything.
I wonder if Vikings theory about old things becoming obsolete applies to the world of art. Does the Mona Lisa lose value when it's next to a work by Peter Doig?
Anything does.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:52:58 AM
I disagree. In science (even social science), method counts as much as the final result. The quality of the method determines how rigid or flexible the system is, and how receptive it is to improvements. The CSS method allows for much better debate than "what does the Bible really say" (not to mention the latter is quite ridiculous for anyone who does not consider the Bible to be divinely inspired, whereas the CSS is interface compatible with "atheistic" sciences).
Edit: this was in response to Beeb.
Well ultimately the point of Christian theology isn't to determine what the Bible says, but rather what God says.
And who on earth said that Protestant theology was incompatible with science? And who ever described science as "atheistic"?
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 01:31:02 PMTheir ideas stand and fall on their own merits. Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics are not cutting edge when discussing the organization of society. They might get quoted in mordern texts, but few modern political scientists are arguing for the Timarchic Fascism of The Republic.
You are treating Plato's
Republic or Aristotle's
Politics as receipe books to plunder, the equivalent to self-help books, offering simple causal schemes and easily applicable social blueprints. No wonder you think them obsolete. We produce - and no doubt the Greeks produced - tons of ephemeral blueprints, which do not survive the passing of time and the changes in social conditions, and milieu, and mores - that is the essence of
politics, not of political philosophy. Plato, and Machiavelli, and Hobbes's times are long gone, and no doubt the material suggestions they offered (i.e., how to organize a Greek city, how to conduct war in the Italian peninsula, how to avoid conflict due to religious strife) - but the underlying ideas on justice, power, society, drive at much deeper, unresolved question which still shape our understanding of the politics. "Modern political scientists" - at least those who are concerned about philosophy rather than quantitative analysis of public policies - ask variants of the same questions which were asked before: what is just? what is the best City (i.e., mode of government), what is the basis of social life? how should we understand the nature of power?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 02:12:37 PM
I wonder if Vikings theory about old things becoming obsolete applies to the world of art. Does the Mona Lisa lose value when it's next to a work by Peter Doig?
Mona lisa is only famous becasue it was stolen. Not much to do with teh thread, i just wanted to point it out.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 01:49:28 PM
How exactly could we prove Foucault wrong? And if we could, could some of his writings be wrong and others not be wrong? Or must he either be entirely right or not right at all?
Are you really trying to be serious? Sophistry? Proving Foucault wrong on the topic X means we don't have to take his views on X seriously. Please try to be serious.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 01:49:56 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 01:31:02 PM
Revisiting yes, reinterpreting not so much. Aristotle and Plato don't have value in and of themselves and figuring out what they really meant in line XXX means nothing. Their ideas stand and fall on their own merits. Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics are not cutting edge when discussing the organization of society. They might get quoted in mordern texts, but few modern political scientists are arguing for the Timarchic Fascism of The Republic.
Newton saw further by standing on the shoulders of giants.
Do you have any particular support for this rather surprising assertion.
I refer you to the Analytical Tradition in Philosophy.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 03:24:38 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 01:31:02 PMTheir ideas stand and fall on their own merits. Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics are not cutting edge when discussing the organization of society. They might get quoted in mordern texts, but few modern political scientists are arguing for the Timarchic Fascism of The Republic.
You are treating Plato's Republic or Aristotle's Politics as receipe books to plunder, the equivalent to self-help books, offering simple causal schemes and easily applicable social blueprints. No wonder you think them obsolete. We produce - and no doubt the Greeks produced - tons of ephemeral blueprints, which do not survive the passing of time and the changes in social conditions, and milieu, and mores - that is the essence of politics, not of political philosophy. Plato, and Machiavelli, and Hobbes's times are long gone, and no doubt the material suggestions they offered (i.e., how to organize a Greek city, how to conduct war in the Italian peninsula, how to avoid conflict due to religious strife) - but the underlying ideas on justice, power, society, drive at much deeper, unresolved question which still shape our understanding of the politics. "Modern political scientists" - at least those who are concerned about philosophy rather than quantitative analysis of public policies - ask variants of the same questions which were asked before: what is just? what is the best City (i.e., mode of government), what is the basis of social life? how should we understand the nature of power?
No. I'm saying that if you want to know about politics you don't read a 2300 year old book on the topic. There have been developments in the field in the intervening years. The same applies to morality and ethics. If we want to know the best knowledge of morality and ethics we don't want to refer to a 2400 or 1700 year old book (Babylonian Exile and Council of Nicea), we want the cutting edge on the topic.
What Kant, Dewey and Stuart Mill said about morality and ethics is much more developed and relevant to any human than what Plato, Epicurus and Aristotle may have said about morality and ethics; if only because Kant, Dewey and Stuart Mill have read Plato, Epicurus and Aristotle and not the other way round.
The Ancients did have insights into the nature of power. What I will assert is that the Moderns have the same insights, at least they have Plato and Aristotle to read to help them get there. They also have the ability to draw on more history, knowledge and experience to approach the issues and they have centuries of thought to support them in analyzing the failures of the Ancients and to solve problems they could not resolve.
This is self evident in the "hard" sciences, easy to prove in the "soft" sciences and untrue in the purely subjective fields of art. It should be clear to any honest observer that in any objective or testable field that modern knowledge is superior to ancient knowledge. Today we (in the secular west) live in a society with greater happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth than any other society in history or geography. We do know from objective sources that the less likely your society is to draw it's morals and ethics from The Bible the greater the happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth your society is.
However. If you agree with the following statements then we agree on the topic up for discussion (as far as I see it)
1 - There is no non-material source for the Bible.
2 - The philosophy of morality and ethics has progressed in the last 2000 years.
If you agree with these two statements then we agree on the basics.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 02:00:39 PM
Yeah but the issue they debated is really obscure and arcane except to history and theology nerds.
Agreed
<backs away slowly>
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 02:00:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 01:53:47 PM
Yes and no. Biblican canon wasnt decided at the Nicean Council in the sense that the books were not selected there. But the Nicean Council - along with a serious of such Council in that period did debate and decide on the nature of Jesus and God which then become "Canon" for the Church or at least part of it.
Yeah but the issue they debated is really obscure and arcane except to history and theology nerds.
The salvation of your eternal soul is "really obscure and arcane" and only relevant to "history and theology nerds"?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 02:12:37 PM
I wonder if Vikings theory about old things becoming obsolete applies to the world of art. Does the Mona Lisa lose value when it's next to a work by Peter Doig?
Get 1 Marty Point for a horrendously inappropriate analogy.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 04:14:21 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 02:00:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 01:53:47 PM
Yes and no. Biblican canon wasnt decided at the Nicean Council in the sense that the books were not selected there. But the Nicean Council - along with a serious of such Council in that period did debate and decide on the nature of Jesus and God which then become "Canon" for the Church or at least part of it.
Yeah but the issue they debated is really obscure and arcane except to history and theology nerds.
The salvation of your eternal soul is "really obscure and arcane" and only relevant to "history and theology nerds"?
I am beginning to realize you have no idea what the Councils - there were more than one btw - discussed during that period in history. Here is a hint - it had nothing to do with salvation of the soul.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 04:18:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 02:12:37 PM
I wonder if Vikings theory about old things becoming obsolete applies to the world of art. Does the Mona Lisa lose value when it's next to a work by Peter Doig?
Get 1 Marty Point for a horrendously inappropriate analogy.
The reason you are so bad at analogies is you have trouble recognizing when one is apt.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2011, 03:22:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 09:52:58 AM
I disagree. In science (even social science), method counts as much as the final result. The quality of the method determines how rigid or flexible the system is, and how receptive it is to improvements. The CSS method allows for much better debate than "what does the Bible really say" (not to mention the latter is quite ridiculous for anyone who does not consider the Bible to be divinely inspired, whereas the CSS is interface compatible with "atheistic" sciences).
Edit: this was in response to Beeb.
Well ultimately the point of Christian theology isn't to determine what the Bible says, but rather what God says.
And who on earth said that Protestant theology was incompatible with science? And who ever described science as "atheistic"?
I said atheistic science
s. There are scientific theories that are atheistic, surely you will agree that? My point was that a CSS theorist could very well discuss it with an atheist social scientist - whereas someone who is about "interpreting the Bible" would be considered ridiculous.
I think a lot of good points have been brough up in this thread. :smarty:
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 04:20:41 PM
I said atheistic sciences. There are scientific theories that are atheistic, surely you will agree that? My point was that a SCC theorist could very well discuss it with an atheist social scientist - whereas someone who is about "interpreting the Bible" would be considered ridiculous.
I have no idea what you just said.
What is an atheistic theory of science?
What does the Supreme Court of Canada have to do with this?
Why is it considered ridiculous that someone who interprets the Bible can also have a good scientific discussion. The ridiculous statement would be that anyone who believes in God cannot also be a good scientist - lets just right off Enstein as being incapable of having a good scientific discussion shall we?
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 04:20:11 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 04:18:29 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 02:12:37 PM
I wonder if Vikings theory about old things becoming obsolete applies to the world of art. Does the Mona Lisa lose value when it's next to a work by Peter Doig?
Get 1 Marty Point for a horrendously inappropriate analogy.
The reason you are so bad at analogies is you have trouble recognizing when one is apt.
Some points why the analogy is completely misplaced and you are an idiot:
1. Aesthetics is not governed by the same laws as science.
2. Still, in the terms of technique, more modern works of art are usually superior to older ones (hence, a painting by Van Gogh is, artistically, better than a drawing on an ancient Greek vase).
3. In works of art, value of the piece is to a large extent determined by its age, as opposed to its objective aesthetic and/or artistic value. In fact, even in science, a manuscript of Leonardo's flying machine would be worth more than a blueprint of Boeing 737 - but that does not mean that Leonardo's design is technologically superior.
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2011, 04:22:30 PM
I think a lot of good points have been brough up in this thread. :smarty:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrollcats.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F05%2Fcontrarian_trollcat.jpg&hash=1ad41bfb7d9a85200f9ac270918b3be2269db3fd)
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 04:27:27 PM
Some points why the analogy is completely misplaced and you are an idiot:
1. Aesthetics is not governed by the same laws as science.
I knew it wouldnt take long
philosophy has nothing to do with laws of science which is why Raz's analogy is apt. Your fundamental misunderstanding once again leads you astray. But feel free to make another analogy. It should be amusing.
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2011, 04:22:30 PM
I think a lot of good points have been brough up in this thread. :smarty:
Do you think so? I think it's pretty much just been Viking's usual blitz against religion, with a rotating crew of posters chipping away at his more blatant overreactions.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 04:25:58 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 04:20:41 PM
I said atheistic sciences. There are scientific theories that are atheistic, surely you will agree that? My point was that a SCC theorist could very well discuss it with an atheist social scientist - whereas someone who is about "interpreting the Bible" would be considered ridiculous.
I have no idea what you just said.
What is an atheistic theory of science?
What does the Supreme Court of Canada have to do with this?
Why is it considered ridiculous that someone who interprets the Bible can also have a good scientific discussion. The ridiculous statement would be that anyone who believes in God cannot also be a good scientist - lets just right off Enstein as being incapable of having a good scientific discussion shall we?
I meant CSS, it was a typo. Einstein wasn't religious - it's a myth / a bunch of misinterpreted quotes. Not sure who Enstein was though.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 04:27:27 PM
Some points why the analogy is completely misplaced and you are an idiot:
1. Aesthetics is not governed by the same laws as science.
2. Still, in the terms of technique, more modern works of art are usually superior to older ones (hence, a painting by Van Gogh is, artistically, better than a drawing on an ancient Greek vase).
3. In works of art, value of the piece is to a large extent determined by its age, as opposed to its objective aesthetic value. In fact, even in science, a manuscript of Leonardo's flying machine would be worth more than a blueprint of Boeing 737 - but that does not mean that Leonardo's design is technologically superior.
Philosophy isn't governed by the same laws as the science. That was the point. Philosophy is more like art then it is science. :frusty:
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 04:31:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2011, 04:22:30 PM
I think a lot of good points have been brough up in this thread. :smarty:
Do you think so? I think it's pretty much just been Viking's usual blitz against religion, with a rotating crew of posters chipping away at his more blatant overreactions.
Lets not forget Marti adding even more comedic value.
Quote from: Neil on September 20, 2011, 04:31:21 PM
Quote from: DGuller on September 20, 2011, 04:22:30 PM
I think a lot of good points have been brough up in this thread. :smarty:
Do you think so? I think it's pretty much just been Viking's usual blitz against religion, with a rotating crew of posters chipping away at his more blatant overreactions.
Nah, I just wanted to say something profound, but I didn't want to read through 6 pages of horseshit.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 04:27:27 PM
Some points why the analogy is completely misplaced and you are an idiot:
1. Aesthetics is not governed by the same laws as science.
2. Still, in the terms of technique, more modern works of art are usually superior to older ones (hence, a painting by Van Gogh is, artistically, better than a drawing on an ancient Greek vase).
3. In works of art, value of the piece is to a large extent determined by its age, as opposed to its objective aesthetic value. In fact, even in science, a manuscript of Leonardo's flying machine would be worth more than a blueprint of Boeing 737 - but that does not mean that Leonardo's design is technologically superior.
Philosophy isn't governed by the same laws as the science. That was the point. Philosophy is more like art then it is science. :frusty:
Nope. Philosophy is a science, not an art.
Marty - Philosophy is not a science. It can deal with science, but is not science itself.
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 04:33:00 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 20, 2011, 04:27:27 PM
Some points why the analogy is completely misplaced and you are an idiot:
1. Aesthetics is not governed by the same laws as science.
2. Still, in the terms of technique, more modern works of art are usually superior to older ones (hence, a painting by Van Gogh is, artistically, better than a drawing on an ancient Greek vase).
3. In works of art, value of the piece is to a large extent determined by its age, as opposed to its objective aesthetic value. In fact, even in science, a manuscript of Leonardo's flying machine would be worth more than a blueprint of Boeing 737 - but that does not mean that Leonardo's design is technologically superior.
Philosophy isn't governed by the same laws as the science. That was the point. Philosophy is more like art then it is science. :frusty:
Nope. Philosophy is a science, not an art.
Raz had the right idea - <backs away slowly>
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:34:58 PM
Marty - Philosophy is not a science. It can deal with science, but is not science itself.
I disagree. It is a study of certain fundamental concepts and uses rational argument. It is capable of building on older concepts and developing them. As such, it can formulate theories.
It may be not a natural science, but it is a science nonetheless. It is part of humanities, which includes other social/human sciences, such as history, sociology etc.
Marti what in your world is science?
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 04:05:29 PMToday we (in the secular west) live in a society with greater happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth than any other society in history or geography. We do know from objective sources that the less likely your society is to draw it's morals and ethics from The Bible the greater the happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth your society is.
I do not *know* these things, and have a hard time figuring out how you know them, nor what these objective sources are. How should we define happiness? (Note that if we measure it by the number of suicide, ours is the worse society...) What is social cohesion? Is modern Western society really more cohesive than the society of the 14th c.? Is endemic tribal warfare resulting in the death of 5 people inherently worse than global warfare resulting in the death of 60M people? How can we measure the happiness of medieval people? How is it remotely comparable to the happiness of 18th c. people, or 21th c. people?
What we measure by doing so is simply our own satisfaction - or lack thereof - in our own world, and our distance to the past. That is not inherently bad: doing history effectuates such a realization, and provides test cases for our morals and ethics. If you wanted to disregard the Bible on those grounds - that it provides few guidelines for ethical problems of our days - that is what you would need to provide. You would neet to show how Wittgenstein is a better guide for action in the 21st c. than the Bible, based on its adequation. But your attempts to discuss the Bible's moral contents have taken a strange litteralist turn (casting the first stone, etc.), which did not go in your favour. When you were pointed out that meaning lies not in the simple succession of words (something which philosophical linguisitics might have helped you recognize...), you turned simultaneously to the vacuity of all interpretation and the bizarre chronological argument. You therefore have transformed the quest for meaning, and the existence of values into a process of accumulative knowledge. By that token, anything which is chronologically close to us is better, and anything which is remote is worse. Fascism and Nihilism is better than Liberal Democracy, and Feudalism better than Ancient Democracy. Yet humankind is not playing Sid Meier's Civilisation.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 04:44:04 PM
Marti what in your world is science?
It occurs to me Marty grew up in a different world then the rest of us. In Communist bloc, philosophy (and history)
was a science.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 04:18:35 PM
I am beginning to realize you have no idea what the Councils - there were more than one btw - discussed during that period in history. Here is a hint - it had nothing to do with salvation of the soul.
From the Wiki article on the Council of Nicea
QuoteTo most bishops, the teachings of Arius were heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls.
We have almost 2000 years of the Catholic Universal Church using Councils to determine doctrine for the purpose of the salvation of souls. If you don't think the primary theological purpose of the Catholic Church for the past 2000 years was the salvation of the souls of all of humanity you really really really need to get a history book. The councils were always about heresy and thus always about the salvation of souls.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 04:25:58 PM
I have no idea what you just said.
What is an atheistic theory of science?
What does the Supreme Court of Canada have to do with this?
Why is it considered ridiculous that someone who interprets the Bible can also have a good scientific discussion. The ridiculous statement would be that anyone who believes in God cannot also be a good scientist - lets just right off Enstein as being incapable of having a good scientific discussion shall we?
Shit like this pisses me off
QuoteI do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
Einstein used the word God for the universe. Spinoza's god, not the bible's. Einstein's god is science, to try to use him to support ANY form of theism is either uninformed, ignorant or mendacious.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:34:58 PM
Marty - Philosophy is not a science. It can deal with science, but is not science itself.
WTF? You can do science without a white lab coat. Philosophy is (if anything) the systematization of the understanding of the nature of knowledge. It is the science of knowledge. I think you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of what either science or philosophy is.
Incidentally, I don't think Spinoza should really be considered an Athiest. People accused him of that, but he didn't think of himself in that way.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 05:35:41 PM
From the Wiki article on the Council of Nicea
As I thought, you really dont have an understanding what what going on there.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 05:51:08 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:34:58 PM
Marty - Philosophy is not a science. It can deal with science, but is not science itself.
WTF? You can do science without a white lab coat. Philosophy is (if anything) the systematization of the understanding of the nature of knowledge. It is the science of knowledge. I think you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of what either science or philosophy is.
Much of what philosophy deals with is not empirical evidence - SOME philosophy does, but not all.
I will agree that there is some overlap, but philosophy is NOT a science and does not always operate within scientific norms.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 05:51:08 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:34:58 PM
Marty - Philosophy is not a science. It can deal with science, but is not science itself.
WTF? You can do science without a white lab coat. Philosophy is (if anything) the systematization of the understanding of the nature of knowledge. It is the science of knowledge. I think you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of what either science or philosophy is.
Colour me suprised you and Marti have the same view of what science is.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 05:53:00 PM
Incidentally, I don't think Spinoza should really be considered an Athiest. People accused him of that, but he didn't think of himself in that way.
He was a pantheist.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 04:58:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 04:05:29 PMToday we (in the secular west) live in a society with greater happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth than any other society in history or geography. We do know from objective sources that the less likely your society is to draw it's morals and ethics from The Bible the greater the happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth your society is.
I do not *know* these things, and have a hard time figuring out how you know them, nor what these objective sources are. How should we define happiness? (Note that if we measure it by the number of suicide, ours is the worse society...) What is social cohesion? Is modern Western society really more cohesive than the society of the 14th c.? Is endemic tribal warfare resulting in the death of 5 people inherently worse than global warfare resulting in the death of 60M people? How can we measure the happiness of medieval people? How is it remotely comparable to the happiness of 18th c. people, or 21th c. people?
What we measure by doing so is simply our own satisfaction - or lack thereof - in our own world, and our distance to the past. That is not inherently bad: doing history effectuates such a realization, and provides test cases for our morals and ethics. If you wanted to disregard the Bible on those grounds - that it provides few guidelines for ethical problems of our days - that is what you would need to provide. You would neet to show how Wittgenstein is a better guide for action in the 21st c. than the Bible, based on its adequation. But your attempts to discuss the Bible's moral contents have taken a strange litteralist turn (casting the first stone, etc.), which did not go in your favour. When you were pointed out that meaning lies not in the simple succession of words (something which philosophical linguisitics might have helped you recognize...), you turned simultaneously to the vacuity of all interpretation and the bizarre chronological argument. You therefore have transformed the quest for meaning, and the existence of values into a process of accumulative knowledge. By that token, anything which is chronologically close to us is better, and anything which is remote is worse. Fascism and Nihilism is better than Liberal Democracy, and Feudalism better than Ancient Democracy. Yet humankind is not playing Sid Meier's Civilisation.
We know these things because every single objective test shows us this. We can take any sensible definition of happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth and find out that de-linking society from revealed religion promotes all of these things. You are obfuscating, but to deal with your examples.
Suicide, apples or oranges. Explicit moral prohibitions will skew an comparison between secular and non-secular societies simply because the issue is not the act of suicide but the anguish that leads to it.
Social cohesion, yes we are more cohesive since discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, marital status, societal status etc.etc.
The 20th century modern societies have a much much lower mortality rate due to violence than any previous societies in history. Facts are stubborn things. We have one big war, they have one small one every week. Mortality rates are what matter, not size of fatal clashes.
The way we can compare happiness of primitive societies to modern ones is to give people the choice of which they choose to inhabit. As long as Mexicans and Algerians will risk their lives to move to California and France this historical experiment will continue to show the happiness difference.
Regarding Wittgenstein as a moral example or guide, I don't see him as such at all. I don't think he would have done so either. A repressed rejected and periodically suicidal homosexual that hit school children as a moral example? I named Kant, Stuart Mill and Dewey as better sources of morality than The Bible. I will however assert Wittgenstein is better on the nature of knowledge and logic than either Plato or Aristotle or both.
As to this misunderstanding that newer means better. I am not asserting that new ideas are better by virtue of being newer. Thats just as stupid as asserting that moral lessons are better by virtue of being from the Bible. Any improvement on any idea is almost certainly going to be newer, either by reviving an older better idea or by inventing a new better idea. In systems where ideas can be objectively tested then the newest remaining tested idea is almost certainly the best. The problem with revealed religion here is that none of the ideas are permitted to be tested and if they are found wanting they are redefined as symbolic passages rather than litteral. Bad morality in the bible is ignored or re-invented, not tested and improved upon.
As for the vacuity of interpretation. If text requires interpretation then it's meaning is brought by the interpreter not the author. Words have meaning independent of the interpreter by means of consensus. These words have consequences. The case I have been making here is that if words have meaning the bible is monstrous and false and if interpretation matters the the bible has no purpose and any text will do and better texts are to be preferred.
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 05:53:40 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 05:51:08 PM
Quote from: AnchorClanker on September 20, 2011, 04:34:58 PM
Marty - Philosophy is not a science. It can deal with science, but is not science itself.
WTF? You can do science without a white lab coat. Philosophy is (if anything) the systematization of the understanding of the nature of knowledge. It is the science of knowledge. I think you either have a fundamental misunderstanding of what either science or philosophy is.
Much of what philosophy deals with is not empirical evidence - SOME philosophy does, but not all.
I will agree that there is some overlap, but philosophy is NOT a science and does not always operate within scientific norms.
Theoretical Physics and anything done using the Qualitative Method are specifically non-empirical branches within science. You do not have to be Quantitative and Empirical to do a systematic inquiry into the nature of something.
I'll agree that some branches of what is called philosophy is not philosophy (as the critique of Derrida goes). Philosophy, as long as it strives to understand the nature of knowledge and it's place in the world, is a science. Since Heidegger we have had men who call themselves philosophers who actively seek to obfuscate meaning and this destroy knowledge by suggesting experience corrupts and thus all knowledge is subjective and all communication misleading.
Quote from: Malthus on September 20, 2011, 05:54:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 05:53:00 PM
Incidentally, I don't think Spinoza should really be considered an Athiest. People accused him of that, but he didn't think of himself in that way.
He was a pantheist.
Which means that he did not believe in any spiritual non-material god. For him the Universe itself was God and we were part of it. Which makes him almost identical to Carl Sagan in his view of the nature of the Universe.
Remember, Deism, Pantheism, Unitarianism etc. are not religions with gods and commands. To them the universe is the holy book itself. Galileo called it the Book of Nature. Spinoza was a strict materialist like myself and Wittgenstein.
Spinoza did not believe that God and Nature were the same thing.
Quote"as to the view of certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken".
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 05:53:58 PM
Colour me suprised you and Marti have the same view of what science is.
I certainly am. Viking is no dummy, which is why I find his statements so bizarre. My guess is that he driven on by his hatred of religion and has had counter so many arguments and adjust his own that he's arguing something he no longer believes anymore. His arguments have some strange ramifications. For instance the conquest of the New World by the Europeans was supremely moral, as not only was their technology superior their older systems of philosophy were morally superior.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 07:37:50 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 05:53:58 PM
Colour me suprised you and Marti have the same view of what science is.
I certainly am. Viking is no dummy, which is why I find his statements so bizarre. My guess is that he driven on by his hatred of religion and has had counter so many arguments and adjust his own that he's arguing something he no longer believes anymore. His arguments have some strange ramifications. For instance the conquest of the New World by the Europeans was supremely moral, as not only was their technology superior their older systems of philosophy were morally superior.
Since I hold no such views on the moral supremacy of the europeans I have no problems. You however seem determined to misrepresent what I say rather than trying to understand me.
You are making stuff up about me, that is why you think it's bizarre.
You do hate religion. You've made that very clear. You also made statements indicating that moral knowledge increases with time. This would indicate that that the Europeans who had an older moral tradition then the native Americans (who mostly didn't have writing and those that did had it for a shorter period then the Europeans), were morally superior. Just as we are moral superior to people who lived in the middle ages.
I admit I don't know a great deal about science. In fact, I know so little about science I think Cracked Magazine articles have relevant scientific facts in them. http://www.cracked.com/article_19442_8-simple-questions-you-wont-believe-science-cant-answer.html?wa_user1=1&wa_user2=Science&wa_user3=article&wa_user4=feature_module
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 07:56:19 PM
You do hate religion. You've made that very clear. You also made statements indicating that moral knowledge increases with time. This would indicate that that the Europeans who had an older moral tradition then the native Americans (who mostly didn't have writing and those that did had it for a shorter period then the Europeans), were morally superior. Just as we are moral superior to people who lived in the middle ages.
Do you realize there is a difference between Moral Knowledge, Moral Behavior and Moral Justification?
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 06:28:50 PMWe know these things because every single objective test shows us this. We can take any sensible definition of happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth and find out that de-linking society from revealed religion promotes all of these things. You are obfuscating, but to deal with your examples.
I am not obfuscating at all. My job is trying to understand these things in past societies - and I fear it is neither objective, nor testable - especially if you consider that such categories have histories -- and therefore social consequences from their very existence. The fact that you are brushing them away does not make them more easily attainable, and "sensible" definitions of happiness will precisely underscore philosophical differences, hence making the circular argument very difficult to breach into. In other words, by having a positivistic view of history, you create categories which are vindicated by their apparition, and fulfillment, in our own time. For example, if your "sensible" definitions of happiness and peacefulness happen to correspond to the kind of happiness and peacefulness which exist today, and which correspond to our moral preferences, it should not be surprising to see that it actually manifesting itself more and more through time. This is a basic fallacy.
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 08:00:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 07:56:19 PM
You do hate religion. You've made that very clear. You also made statements indicating that moral knowledge increases with time. This would indicate that that the Europeans who had an older moral tradition then the native Americans (who mostly didn't have writing and those that did had it for a shorter period then the Europeans), were morally superior. Just as we are moral superior to people who lived in the middle ages.
Do you realize there is a difference between Moral Knowledge, Moral Behavior and Moral Justification?
Explain it to me.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 08:12:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 06:28:50 PMWe know these things because every single objective test shows us this. We can take any sensible definition of happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth and find out that de-linking society from revealed religion promotes all of these things. You are obfuscating, but to deal with your examples.
I am not obfuscating at all. My job is trying to understand these things in past societies - and I fear it is neither objective, nor testable - especially if you consider that such categories have histories -- and therefore social consequences from their very existence. The fact that you are brushing them away does not make them more easily attainable, and "sensible" definitions of happiness will precisely underscore philosophical differences, hence making the circular argument very difficult to breach into. In other words, by having a positivistic view of history, you create categories which are vindicated by their apparition, and fulfillment, in our own time. For example, if your "sensible" definitions of happiness and peacefulness happen to correspond to the kind of happiness and peacefulness which exist today, and which correspond to our moral preferences, it should not be surprising to see that it actually manifesting itself more and more through time. This is a basic fallacy.
I had a hard time understanding what you posted here. I think this is because you are not using sentences. The bit I labeled red I do not understand. I know what all the words mean but I don't understand what you are trying to say.
The bit below that uses sentences, so I think I get that. You are saying that I am posing the tautology that we are progressing towards better morals and ethics because we have arrived at a point where my subjective view is that ethics and morality are better than before. Basically positing progress because we have had progress.
Well, it seems we need to deal with the sociopath's morality then. I don't think it is controversial for me to say that I don't like post-modernism. I think it is pretty honest of me to say that the reason I don't like it is that it is true. All experience is subjective and no true objective truths or values actually exist. This is of course also useless and counterproductive in trying to to know anything or communicate any knowledge. I can't know anything because my senses (and cultural preconceptions etc.) might deceive me, I furthermore cannot communicate any knowledge I might think I have because my understanding of any word or text is limited to my preconceptions and subjective attitudes.
I cannot say that torturing little babies is wrong without appealing to divine sourced objective morality since any natural morality can ultimately be made subjective since the sociopath doesn't mind torturing babies and the masochist doesn't mind being tortured. How can we know what is good or bad in the case where there is no god provide laws dividing right from wrong and we can't make a thing right just by voting to make it right. Basically there is no god so there is no divinely sourced morality and people do not agree so there is no objective natural morality. How can we know anything about morality at all you seem to be asking. How can we judge one set of morals and ethics to be better that some other you might ask.
I think I can answer that question clearly. Yes, morality is subjective and it is empirical. Morality is not objective and rational. You can't use a moral axiom and then logically use that to derive which action is moral and which behavior is ethical. Basically what is moral and ethical are the behaviors which create a society which the consensus opinion participate in. Note, this is not me saying that morality is what the consensus agrees upon. This is me saying morale behavior is the behavior which creates the society the consensus would wish to participate in.
The example I'd like to use is abortion here. If the consensus is that the society we'd like to participate in is the one with no abortions the moral action is not banning abortions, but rather the moral action is the one which creates the society where abortions do not happen. In my mind that is one with good quality sex-ed and access to prophylactics ect.
No issue however ever decides this. I'd like to live in a free society where nobody chooses to have an abortion. If abortion were your only issue then banning it and using chastity belts on women who don't actively want children might achieve your moral goal. In reality this is not the case so morality is also a balancing of priorities and a valuation of what social, ethical or moral cost you are willing to pay for social, ethical and moral goods.
We can rank moral values from bad to good using our knowledge of the success of our chosen means to achieve our chosen ends.
To have any morality of any kind the sociopath and the masochist need to be denied a veto on morality; this is why the consensus of society matters.
For every medieval peasant who prefers serfdom to the welfare state I can find 100 easily, the standard isn't which he would choose but rather which would he wish to be a fully informed member of.
I reject this rationalist view of morality because it is not objective does not rely on axioms, but to quote the bible, Matthew 7:16, "you shall know them by their fruits".
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 08:23:43 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 08:00:59 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 20, 2011, 07:56:19 PM
You do hate religion. You've made that very clear. You also made statements indicating that moral knowledge increases with time. This would indicate that that the Europeans who had an older moral tradition then the native Americans (who mostly didn't have writing and those that did had it for a shorter period then the Europeans), were morally superior. Just as we are moral superior to people who lived in the middle ages.
Do you realize there is a difference between Moral Knowledge, Moral Behavior and Moral Justification?
Explain it to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics
wikipedia is a good place to start.
So, you don't know either?
Wow just wow Viking. You do know what Oex does for a living right?
Anyway, I will sit back and await Oex's response which btw I am sure everyone but you will understand.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F_s-DS4mgvlmw%2FSMl0f0lbfkI%2FAAAAAAAAA_o%2F6DtSaHtjdaA%2Fs400%2FSM1082Cripple-Fight-Posters.jpg&hash=592181249b6091f4e129d76fd2f7544839af7d86)
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 08:12:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 06:28:50 PMWe know these things because every single objective test shows us this. We can take any sensible definition of happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth and find out that de-linking society from revealed religion promotes all of these things. You are obfuscating, but to deal with your examples.
I am not obfuscating at all. My job is trying to understand these things in past societies - and I fear it is neither objective, nor testable - especially if you consider that such categories have histories -- and therefore social consequences from their very existence. The fact that you are brushing them away does not make them more easily attainable, and "sensible" definitions of happiness will precisely underscore philosophical differences, hence making the circular argument very difficult to breach into. In other words, by having a positivistic view of history, you create categories which are vindicated by their apparition, and fulfillment, in our own time. For example, if your "sensible" definitions of happiness and peacefulness happen to correspond to the kind of happiness and peacefulness which exist today, and which correspond to our moral preferences, it should not be surprising to see that it actually manifesting itself more and more through time. This is a basic fallacy.
Oex, I fully appreciate that you and I do not share whole lot of common opinions on certain topics, but after reading your posts in this thread I have a complete man-crush on you for the night. :hug:
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 03:35:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 01:49:28 PM
How exactly could we prove Foucault wrong? And if we could, could some of his writings be wrong and others not be wrong? Or must he either be entirely right or not right at all?
Are you really trying to be serious? Sophistry? Proving Foucault wrong on the topic X means we don't have to take his views on X seriously. Please try to be serious.
I am being serious. You are the one saying idiotic shit like how we can ignore ancient stuff because...it seems every single thing said was proven wrong? How? By whom? When? And further I will ask again how does one prove Foucault wrong on any topic?
This thread is almost as great as the big Quebec one.
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2011, 11:31:10 PM
I am being serious. You are the one saying idiotic shit like how we can ignore ancient stuff because...it seems every single thing said was proven wrong? How? By whom? When? And further I will ask again how does one prove Foucault wrong on any topic?
I'm not saying that all ancient stuff was wrong. I'm saying we have more knowledge than the ancients on every topic and thus the best source for knowledge on any topic, morality and ethics included, is not the ancients, it is the moderns.
I'm saying the field of ethics and morality as of today is much more developed than the field of ethics and morality was in classical greece and syria.
How this leads people to insist that I think asocial mental wrecks who worked in the nature of knowledge like Wittgenstein and postmodernists like Foucault are moral paragons or have some special expertise in morality is beyond me. Einstein was a smart guy, but he didn't know shit about animal husbandry. Just because we know more about animal husbandry today than we did 2000 years ago does not mean that every single living person today is better at it than any random herdsman from 2000 years ago.
The experts of today know more about morality and ethics than the experts of 2000 years ago.
Again, I can understand perfectly what Viking is saying.
The totality of modern knowledge is greater than ancient knowledge (and unless you are a Van Daeniken nut, probably we have not "lost" any knowledge of the ancients). So on every topic, it is better to read a modern book than an acient one. It does not mean that modern books are not wrong - but you can find a modern book that is better than any ancient book, in terms of knowledge included in it.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2011, 10:52:46 PM
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 20, 2011, 08:12:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on September 20, 2011, 06:28:50 PMWe know these things because every single objective test shows us this. We can take any sensible definition of happiness, peacefulness, social cohesion and wealth and find out that de-linking society from revealed religion promotes all of these things. You are obfuscating, but to deal with your examples.
I am not obfuscating at all. My job is trying to understand these things in past societies - and I fear it is neither objective, nor testable - especially if you consider that such categories have histories -- and therefore social consequences from their very existence. The fact that you are brushing them away does not make them more easily attainable, and "sensible" definitions of happiness will precisely underscore philosophical differences, hence making the circular argument very difficult to breach into. In other words, by having a positivistic view of history, you create categories which are vindicated by their apparition, and fulfillment, in our own time. For example, if your "sensible" definitions of happiness and peacefulness happen to correspond to the kind of happiness and peacefulness which exist today, and which correspond to our moral preferences, it should not be surprising to see that it actually manifesting itself more and more through time. This is a basic fallacy.
Oex, I fully appreciate that you and I do not share whole lot of common opinions on certain topics, but after reading your posts in this thread I have a complete man-crush on you for the night. :hug:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 09:28:30 PM
Wow just wow Viking. You do know what Oex does for a living right?
Anyway, I will sit back and await Oex's response which btw I am sure everyone but you will understand.
Given that obviously neither one of you can show that either the bible is a satisfactory source of moral knowledge and/or explain why, if interpretation matters, Huck Finn or any other obviously more moral book than the bible cannot be used in it's place to better effect.
Oex isn't arguing your case at all. He is arguing against my contention that there is better moral knowledge, that moral knowledge can be identified, that moral knowledge is in today's corpus of work and that secular western humanist moral standards are superior. Ask him what he thinks of the bible as a source of moral knowledge and teaching. Oex already argued to me that I could make my atheist point by mere conceding that the bible could be a useful (as useful as any other) source of moral teaching. You just like him right now because he is disagreeing with me. I'd suggest that in this discussion you two are on my side of it given that you don't think that all morality is completely subjective.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 09:28:30 PM
Wow just wow Viking. You do know what Oex does for a living right?
I gotta remember that argument and use it when we talk about legal matters. After all that's what I do for a living.
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2011, 06:08:15 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 09:28:30 PM
Wow just wow Viking. You do know what Oex does for a living right?
I gotta remember that argument and use it when we talk about legal matters. After all that's what I do for a living.
Won't work. History professor is a million times more prestigious than a lawyer. Just ask beeb.
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2011, 06:08:15 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 09:28:30 PM
Wow just wow Viking. You do know what Oex does for a living right?
I gotta remember that argument and use it when we talk about legal matters. After all that's what I do for a living.
Allegedly. <_<
General comment: it is common for people who do things for a living to be clueless about them.
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2011, 08:09:03 AM
General comment: it is common for people who do things for a living to be clueless about them.
What do you do for a living?
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2011, 08:12:12 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2011, 08:09:03 AM
General comment: it is common for people who do things for a living to be clueless about them.
What do you do for a living?
Whatever I have to.
Quote from: PDH on September 21, 2011, 07:37:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2011, 06:08:15 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 09:28:30 PM
Wow just wow Viking. You do know what Oex does for a living right?
I gotta remember that argument and use it when we talk about legal matters. After all that's what I do for a living.
Won't work. History professor is a million times more prestigious than a lawyer. Just ask beeb.
It's only a thousand times more prestigious. <_<
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2011, 08:09:03 AM
General comment: it is common for people who do things for a living to be clueless about them.
What an amazing piece of wisdom. You should write for the Bible.
For those who thought ID was a serious attempt at science.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&feature=player_embedded#!
Ken Miller, Catholic Biologist and expert witness one the side of Science at the Pennsylvania ID trial at Dover explains in a clear and unambigious way that ID is wrong. It might be a sign of the difficulty of the problem that it takes 2 hours. But, after those two hours you will not think that ID is a serious attempt at science.
The outcome of the Dover trial did conclude that ID was not science and if only the school board had appealed we could have had a supreme court ruling on this.. but they were all voted out.
Quote from: Viking on September 21, 2011, 10:14:19 AM
For those who thought ID was a serious attempt at science.
Viking, you're shadowboxing again. No one on Languish has argued against evolution.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2011, 10:18:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 21, 2011, 10:14:19 AM
For those who thought ID was a serious attempt at science.
Viking, you're shadowboxing again. No one on Languish has argued against evolution.
did we ever have a poster who did that. Seige doesn't count becasue he thinks the moon landing is a hoax too. Did Fahdiz during his religious years?
Siege watched Mythbusters and now thinks the moon landings are legit.
Quote from: HVC on September 21, 2011, 10:38:53 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2011, 10:18:21 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 21, 2011, 10:14:19 AM
For those who thought ID was a serious attempt at science.
Viking, you're shadowboxing again. No one on Languish has argued against evolution.
did we ever have a poster who did that. Seige doesn't count becasue he thinks the moon landing is a hoax too. Did Fahdiz during his religious years?
Hortlund did.
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools, afterall its a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions.
The only problem is when it gets into creationism and starts saying evolution is wrong, there it`s just outright wrong and anyone who supports that needs shooting.
*pow* *pow*
Hey, I'm shadow boxing!!!11111oneoneoen
*pow* *pow*
in this thread even...
*pow* *pow*
Edit: oh, wait, Tyr wasn't arguing that Evolution wasn't science? Irrellevant, since I was criticizing Tyr for claiming ID was and the video is about how ID is not science. Shadow Boxer? Takes one to know one.
Quote from: PDH on September 21, 2011, 07:37:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 21, 2011, 06:08:15 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 20, 2011, 09:28:30 PM
Wow just wow Viking. You do know what Oex does for a living right?
I gotta remember that argument and use it when we talk about legal matters. After all that's what I do for a living.
Won't work. History professor is a million times more prestigious than a lawyer. Just ask beeb.
Plus everyone agrees Oex is a history professor. Marti's claim to be a lawyer on the other hand is often tested by the things he says about the law.
Quote from: Viking on September 21, 2011, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools, afterall its a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions.
The only problem is when it gets into creationism and starts saying evolution is wrong, there it`s just outright wrong and anyone who supports that needs shooting.
*pow* *pow*
Hey, I'm shadow boxing!!!11111oneoneoen
*pow* *pow*
in this thread even...
*pow* *pow*
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2011, 10:18:21 AM
Viking, you're shadowboxing again. No one on Languish has argued against evolution.
Bolded for emphasis, since you missed it the first time.
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2011, 10:55:37 AM
Quote from: Viking on September 21, 2011, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: Tyr on September 15, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
I`ve no problem with intelligent design, it is indeed a valid idea that is fine to teach in schools, afterall its a commonly believed answer to one of the great questions.
The only problem is when it gets into creationism and starts saying evolution is wrong, there it`s just outright wrong and anyone who supports that needs shooting.
*pow* *pow*
Hey, I'm shadow boxing!!!11111oneoneoen
*pow* *pow*
in this thread even...
*pow* *pow*
Quote from: Barrister on September 21, 2011, 10:18:21 AM
Viking, you're shadowboxing again. No one on Languish has argued against evolution.
Bolded for emphasis, since you missed it the first time.
I refer you to the post where I add in on edit this text
QuoteEdit: oh, wait, Tyr wasn't arguing that Evolution wasn't science? Irrellevant, since I was criticizing Tyr for claiming ID was and the video is about how ID is not science. Shadow Boxer? Takes one to know one.
Tyr never said ID was a science. Lots of things are taught in schools that aren't sciences.
Quote from: HVC on September 21, 2011, 10:38:53 AMdid we ever have a poster who did that. Seige doesn't count becasue he thinks the moon landing is a hoax too. Did Fahdiz during his religious years?
I don't think I ever did that, but I am *sure* I argued a pro-ID viewpoint.
Quote from: fahdiz on September 22, 2011, 03:04:13 PM
Quote from: HVC on September 21, 2011, 10:38:53 AMdid we ever have a poster who did that. Seige doesn't count becasue he thinks the moon landing is a hoax too. Did Fahdiz during his religious years?
I don't think I ever did that, but I am *sure* I argued a pro-ID viewpoint.
Pro? Don't flatter yourself.
Sorry to revive such a contentious thread from its peaceful slumber, but I just re-discovered a particularly striking passage from Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents" that I underlined years ago:
"The whole thing [religion] is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. It is still more humiliating to discover how large a number of people living to-day, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions."
:lol:
See, but that's just stupid, even moreso when it was written than it is today.
This coming from the man who invented "Psycho-history". I think that settles it, Freud said it was bad so it has to have something going for it.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2011, 06:40:25 PM
This coming from the man who invented "Psycho-history". I think that settles it, Freud said it was bad so it has to have something going for it.
At least Jung spanks Keira Knightly.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 25, 2011, 06:34:53 PM
Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents" that I underlined years ago:
:mmm:
Quote from: Neil on September 25, 2011, 06:39:22 PM
See, but that's just stupid, even moreso when it was written than it is today.
I don't know, I think I understand where he's coming from. He was writing in 1930, having watched all the material bourgeois progress of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, having virtually pioneered what we consider psychology, and yet the mystifications of organized religion held sway as much as ever. :mellow: Hard not to be a little disappointed.
I try to be especially respectful of peoples' religious views since I had the mixed blessing of being part of the small amount of Americans who grow up in essentially atheist families. My father's grandmother kept kosher and was apparently an observant Jew, but that is the closest hereditary link I have with any kind of religion. I'm as much a cultural atheist as others are cultural Catholics, so I try to acknowledge that my biases against religion are as much an unthinking reflex as other peoples' biases towards religion are. But at the end of the day, I find it totally incomprehensible. To think that a major contender for the presidency of the United States finds merit in praying for rain is mind-boggling.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 25, 2011, 06:34:53 PM
Sorry to revive such a contentious thread from its peaceful slumber, but I just re-discovered a particularly striking passage from Freud's "Civilization and Its Discontents" that I underlined years ago:
"The whole thing [religion] is so patently infantile, so foreign to reality, that to anyone with a friendly attitude to humanity it is painful to think that the great majority of mortals will never be able to rise above this view of life. It is still more humiliating to discover how large a number of people living to-day, who cannot but see that this religion is not tenable, nevertheless try to defend it piece by piece in a series of pitiful rearguard actions."
:lol:
meh, I hate it when other people think and say things I really really wish I thought or said myself 150 years before I think or say them myself.
In 1930, the average man was still the same ignorant wretch that he had been for the last fifty years. Until you educate them without treating them contemptuously, they won't learn and will continue to believe in their silly hedge gods. Moreover, back then, they didn't have the level of science and knowledge (which disprove the existance of the popular gods) that we take for granted today.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on September 25, 2011, 07:40:04 PM
Quote from: Neil on September 25, 2011, 06:39:22 PM
See, but that's just stupid, even moreso when it was written than it is today.
I don't know, I think I understand where he's coming from. He was writing in 1930, having watched all the material bourgeois progress of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, having virtually pioneered what we consider psychology, and yet the mystifications of organized religion held sway as much as ever. :mellow: Hard not to be a little disappointed.
I try to be especially respectful of peoples' religious views since I had the mixed blessing of being part of the small amount of Americans who grow up in essentially atheist families. My father's grandmother kept kosher and was apparently an observant Jew, but that is the closest hereditary link I have with any kind of religion. I'm as much a cultural atheist as others are cultural Catholics, so I try to acknowledge that my biases against religion are as much an unthinking reflex as other peoples' biases towards religion are. But at the end of the day, I find it totally incomprehensible. To think that a major contender for the presidency of the United States finds merit in praying for rain is mind-boggling.
Freud was a charlatan. His beef against Religion was that it stood in the way of his new witchdoctory. I mean, he was sitting around interpreting dreams like a shaman. He falsified his findings, and put back psychology back twenty years. The guy was fucking useless. He claimed that the reason Jews were so neurotic is because they had secretly murdered Moses out in the desert 3,000 years ago.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 21, 2011, 09:41:57 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 21, 2011, 08:09:03 AM
General comment: it is common for people who do things for a living to be clueless about them.
What an amazing piece of wisdom. You should write for the Bible.
:lmfao:
I may steal this at some point.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2011, 08:41:59 PMFreud was a charlatan. His beef against Religion was that it stood in the way of his new witchdoctory. I mean, he was sitting around interpreting dreams like a shaman. He falsified his findings, and put back psychology back twenty years. The guy was fucking useless. He claimed that the reason Jews were so neurotic is because they had secretly murdered Moses out in the desert 3,000 years ago.
Honestly, if you're going to rail against religion, there are a hell of a lot more convincing and credible critics than Freud to use. I mean, really now.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2011, 06:40:25 PM
This coming from the man who invented "Psycho-history". I think that settles it, Freud said it was bad so it has to have something going for it.
So tell us all about the details of the pill-induced delirium episode you found God.
G.
Quote from: Grallon on September 25, 2011, 08:54:32 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2011, 06:40:25 PM
This coming from the man who invented "Psycho-history". I think that settles it, Freud said it was bad so it has to have something going for it.
So tell us all about the details of the pill-induced delirium episode you found God.
G.
How does this follow from what I said?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 25, 2011, 08:48:50 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 25, 2011, 08:41:59 PMFreud was a charlatan. His beef against Religion was that it stood in the way of his new witchdoctory. I mean, he was sitting around interpreting dreams like a shaman. He falsified his findings, and put back psychology back twenty years. The guy was fucking useless. He claimed that the reason Jews were so neurotic is because they had secretly murdered Moses out in the desert 3,000 years ago.
Honestly, if you're going to rail against religion, there are a hell of a lot more convincing and credible critics than Freud to use. I mean, really now.
I may be completely wrong but my guess is that it's primarily the quote itself that Cap finds some worth in, not the source.