|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 10:43:15 [Permalink]
|
I attribute much of the modern ignorance of the actual contents of the Bible to intellectual laziness. Just as written correspondence has become a lost art, so to has actual reading of materials. Who wants to read Thucydides when you can go see the movie 300? They dont even teach handwriting anymore in some schools. Much of the problem lies with the preachers, they too have become lazy. They have "Teachers editions" which walk you through a sermon with hand picked quotes and thoughts on particular topics. With these tools anyone could fake or ease their way through a three hour sermon without ever reading the Bible.
On another issue, Just like preachers, some non-theist leaders are put upon the pedestal of infallability, such as Ayn Rand by her early followers.
This thread rocks btw, keep up the good work people. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
| Edited by - BigPapaSmurf on 03/23/2007 10:44:33 |
 |
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
 Posted - 03/23/2007 : 11:39:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
I attribute much of the modern ignorance of the actual contents of the Bible to intellectual laziness. Just as written correspondence has become a lost art, so to has actual reading of materials.
. . . . .
This thread rocks btw, keep up the good work people.
I cannot disagree more . . . about the written correspondence part. It may have shifted away from pen, paper, and snail-mail, but I think we live in an age where people have, and avail themselves of, diverse opportunities for written communications. From as simple as text messaging (a complete mystery to me - why not just make the call?), to blogs, to personal websites, to countless forums like these.
Not that it is all good . . . people tend to congregate and surround themselves with like-minded individuals. Very few forums have diverse populations, mainly because discourse is forsaken for personal attacks, derision, and belittling of dissenting opinions. Still, the mere fact that communication is occurring forces one to expand their own thinking process. You cannot debate someone (verbally or in posts such as these) without gaining some understanding to their position (often while still arguing against it). Unfortunately, sometimes dissension serves to narrow and entrench one's position to the point of absurdity . . . probably an ego thing.
As to your fist point . . . what, with all this writing people are doing, you expect them to also go out and read? . . . sheesh . .
. . . and what's that bit about rocks?
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 13:41:35 [Permalink]
|
ejd wrote: quote:
We can postulate that, but why the reluctance to take them at their word? In all respects, other than their faith, they are cognizant, articulate individuals.
I would take their word if they were talking about pretty much anything other than their faith. As you said, I agree that they are not rational when it comes to that.
quote:
You almost paint a picture of no personal volition for their action. That comes pretty close to viewing them as bad-guy-is-victim-of-circumstances.
People always have personal volition when it comes to their actions, and in no way have I argued that they should not have to take responsibility for their actions. I do question the notion that people have control over the generalities of what they believe. I do not think I could stop myself from being an atheist even if I tried, and I think that because when I first became an atheist, I resisted it. I didn't want to lose the comforts I found in religion. But I couldn't help the way I think. But becoming an atheist didn't change anything about my morality or personality. I just found secular ways to justify my ethics, attitudes, and actions, just like the Alabama atheist Larry Darby has found secular reasons to justify his intense racism.
BPSmurf wrote: quote:
On another issue, Just like preachers, some non-theist leaders are put upon the pedestal of infallability, such as Ayn Rand by her early followers.
My biggest problem with her philosophy was that she herself put it on a pedestal by claiming it was an objective system of ethics. The philosophy she created is called Objectivism - that by itself rang alarm bells in my head when I first heard about it.
quote:
This thread rocks btw, keep up the good work people.
Again, a shame that the guy who started this thread has ditched us, but at least we're able to keep it interesting on our own! |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/23/2007 13:42:07 |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/23/2007 : 18:11:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I would take their word if they were talking about pretty much anything other than their faith. As you said, I agree that they are not rational when it comes to that.
....
People always have personal volition when it comes to their actions, and in no way have I argued that they should not have to take responsibility for their actions. I do question the notion that people have control over the generalities of what they believe.
No offense, but I see a reluctance to give credence to faith being even a major player in anything bad, let alone the sole cause. You state that when it comes to matter of faith you will not trust anyone's self evaluation, and hence even when taking blame for their action you will not believe them?
I'm asking because it sounds like a premise that faith itself is the result of all sort of other factors in a persons' life, so that those factors, not faith itself, are to "blame" for the bad acts.
Personally I don't see the logic in that. At any point in a person's life, their character, beliefs, outlook in life, their whole persona is a culmination of experiences that have come before. These experiences are incrementally filtered and interpreted as they occur, and with each experience the person has a choice to make as far as what direction his life will take.
That choice is where responsibility comes from. I will grant you that viewed in such manner prior events share in the "blame" if you will, good or bad, for that person's actions. However, it is not a linear relationship.
People don't wait until they have a number of experiences, average them out, and then decide on a direction. Rather, it can be argued that whatever they experience last has the majority of the blame for what they choose. This is especially evident when a major change occurs, but none the less, on a given change, the blame, or credit, goes to the last trigger, as it is in effect overriding the culmination of all prior triggers/events.
If we can agree on this, I can continue, if not I'll continue anyway, but we won't agree on the conclusion.
My argument is that once faith enters the picture, by it's very nature it has an overriding influence on all else. Once that choice is made, all subsequent choices are driven by that one choice, with the possible exception of rejecting that faith.
In this case, saying that faith is not the major player in the person's action to me is akin to saying alcohol is not a major player for a person's action once they decide to drink it. If they drive drunk, and kill someone, reasonable persons will, and do, blame both the person and the alcohol, not the fact that the person may have a shitty job, or that he's lived a troubled life.
Sure, I'll agree there is an influence of prior history on his decision, but I contend the majority of the blame rests with a) his/her decision to drink, and b) the effects of alcohol dulling his senses.
I fail to distingusih the difference in the two cases. Regardless of the path that one takes to a particular point in their life, whatever is the overwhelming influence in that person's life at that moment must carry the majority of the blame/credit for their actions. Faith does not get a pass on this just because I happen to believe it is irrational and beyond my comprehension. To the person it is a rational and legitimate belief, and I shall judge them accordingly.
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/24/2007 : 22:48:17 [Permalink]
|
ejd wrote: quote:
People don't wait until they have a number of experiences, average them out, and then decide on a direction. Rather, it can be argued that whatever they experience last has the majority of the blame for what they choose. This is especially evident when a major change occurs, but none the less, on a given change, the blame, or credit, goes to the last trigger, as it is in effect overriding the culmination of all prior triggers/events.
If we can agree on this, I can continue, if not I'll continue anyway, but we won't agree on the conclusion.
Not sure if I'm properly understanding what you are saying here, but I think I don't agree. I agree that people do tend to credit the last thing - the "trigger" for causing the action, but I do not agree that the trigger is in truth what ultimately caused the action. People credited fundamentalist voters who came out to vote for those anti-gay-marriage bans on the ballots in 13 states in the last Presidential election as the main cause of Bush's re-election. But obviously it was really a culmination of a whole bunch of thing, and if anything had changed even a little to shift the balance, Kerry could have won.
quote:
My argument is that once faith enters the picture, by it's very nature it has an overriding influence on all else. Once that choice is made, all subsequent choices are driven by that one choice, with the possible exception of rejecting that faith.
I totally disagree. I think that once philosophy (regardless of whether it involves faith or not) enters the picture, people assume that it is the main guiding force in their decisions, when in reality it is only how they make sense of their feelings, motivations, and actions. Most. And sure, I'll admit that it is likely that in many cases, when someone does something horrible that seems motivated by faith, faith probably was a real motivator, and had they lost their faith, they wouldn't have done the horrible thing. BUt the same thing can be said for wonderful actions, such as the Christian lead crusades to stop human trafficking. But as a general social force, I cannot bring myself to credit faith itself for cruel actions any more than I can bring myself to credit faith for benevolent actions, because I really do think that the underlining motivation is social forces, which only later use religion and philosophy to explain themselves. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 00:21:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Not sure if I'm properly understanding what you are saying here, but I think I don't agree. I agree that people do tend to credit the last thing - the "trigger" for causing the action, but I do not agree that the trigger is in truth what ultimately caused the action. People credited fundamentalist voters who came out to vote for those anti-gay-marriage bans on the ballots in 13 states in the last Presidential election as the main cause of Bush's re-election. But obviously it was really a culmination of a whole bunch of thing, and if anything had changed even a little to shift the balance, Kerry could have won.
You are comparing an individual to a group dynamic. All I was trying to say is that once a person chooses a path in life, subsequent destinations are dictated by that path. Basically, the drinking/alcohol argument I gave is the best I can come up with as an example that to me seems comparable.
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I totally disagree. I think that once philosophy (regardless of whether it involves faith or not) enters the picture, people assume that it is the main guiding force in their decisions, when in reality it is only how they make sense of their feelings, motivations, and actions. Most. And sure, I'll admit that it is likely that in many cases, when someone does something horrible that seems motivated by faith, faith probably was a real motivator, and had they lost their faith, they wouldn't have done the horrible thing. But the same thing can be said for wonderful actions, such as the Christian lead crusades to stop human trafficking.
My argument was that you cannot separate the two, and when viewing the sum total, you cannot excuse the bad because of the good. Of course, I also think that we could easily go on without religion, and probably be better off. We'll never know, but given the current state of affairs, after millennia of various belief, I would vote for a few years without.
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
But as a general social force, I cannot bring myself to credit faith itself for cruel actions any more than I can bring myself to credit faith for benevolent actions, because I really do think that the underlining motivation is social forces, which only later use religion and philosophy to explain themselves.
You may lose me here. If I'm understanding you correctly, and I admit I may not be, you are saying that without religion and/or philosophy those social forces would still manifest themselves. If that is your argument, I maintain that removing religion would be beneficial, if for no other reason than to bring those social forces to light, and being able to address them.
You have an interesting view of the human condition, but here we can respectfully agree to disagree. I don't view the human animal as complicated as you describe. Perhaps I'm failing because I view the world through my own experiences, and things to me are pretty straight forward. I judge the human animal based on one criteria only. We have the ability to reason. By that I mean discerning complex cause/effect relationships, having the ability to imagine (plan) different scenarios not necessarily derived from current conditions, and most of all have the ability to evaluate possible consequences of different choices we could make. This evaluation is usually based on what we have learned of the world around us, and on our derived (or enforced) belief system. If that belief system is faulty, and it leads us to commit a bad act, the belief system is to blame, and the person who fails to constantly re-evaluate his belief system, is also to blame.
If I accept your argument, whatever these social forces are (and I admit to not fully understanding what these would be), they trump reason (i.e. we are not able to override them), and reduce the responsibility for the consequences of our actions.
Please correct any erroneous interpretations I may have made with regards to your statements, and then we'll put this to rest, go to our separate corners, and rest a spell.
ejd |
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 08:30:42 [Permalink]
|
One other thing that came to mind as I sat mulling . . .
Could be this is a chicken and egg discussion. Did the social construct arise out of the philosophies and belief of people, or the other way around. Could be wrong, but it seems we are essentially discussing those two points, with me in the camp of people's philosophy and belief being responsible for our social ills. If viewed like this, then I'm less sure of my stance, since, given our long history, the lines of cause and effect are blurred to be almost gone. But I'll still hold to the validity of wanting to remove at least part of what I see as being humanity's problems in the hope that some of the others ills would disappear as well.
ejd
(promising this as my last post on this thread - see, no crossed fingers, or anything). |
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 17:16:51 [Permalink]
|
ejd wrote: quote:
I also think that we could easily go on without religion, and probably be better off. We'll never know,
I tend to take the stance that we'd be no better or worse of without religion because of the lack of evidence that religious people are nicer, or happier, or better in any other measurable way.
quote:
I maintain that removing religion would be beneficial, if for no other reason than to bring those social forces to light, and being able to address them.
I knew there was a reason I persist in having this conversation over and over again with different people; it does eventually yield new thoughts! I've sort of thought this before, but never so clearly as you have stated it here, and I really find it persuasive. Perhaps the social progress that we've seen happen over the past century would have happened faster if the opponents to gender/sexual/racial equality could only use secular arguments. Hmmmmm... I'm still skeptical considering how easily science has been manipulated and pseudo science has been used to argue for the same evils that religion has pushed - racism, sexism, etc. But perhaps you are right that taking religion out of the mix would further hasten social progress. We really can't know for sure. Although it seems now that our opinions don't differ as much as I initially thought.
quote:
One other thing that came to mind as I sat mulling . . .
Could be this is a chicken and egg discussion.
It definitely could be. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/25/2007 17:18:50 |
|
|
|
Indeterminacy
New Member
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 09:48:43 [Permalink]
|
Bad week. Shit happens. I'm back...
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
One may be entitled to one's own opinions, but not to one's own facts.
Of course, with Indeterminacy's apparent idea that all knowledge is equally questionable, then perhaps he considers all facts to be opinions.
Yes, I do.
Half's mention of factual relativism, which can be used to complicate things to the point of annoyance, is valid. But, I can't say that it's self-deception. For example: Quantum theory can be (and has been) analyzed to the point that some would say we are merely an illusion of our own reality. I don't know enough about quantum theory to agree or disagree with that notion, but still, quantum theory is an example of relativism on many levels (factual, mechanical, logical, atomic), and it's being put to good use (check out www.dwavesys.com)
I can't respond to all the topics since my exit, but...
Semantics: We can argue semantics, and should. Language is a very inexact medium of communication, which is why there are so many different languages, dialects, revisions of books, interpretations of religious and historical documents, etc.
Fundamentalism: Quite possibly (in my opinion) one of the most destructive fronts to affect any faith. To take the literal interpretation of any text is a contradiction unto itself (which is why we debate semantics).
Fact/Belief: 1+1=2, on paper. What measures "1"? How can we be sure the other "1" is unequivocally an exact duplicate of the other, in all ways? (computative, qualitative, spatio-temporal... the list goes on) My point is that currently our methods of proof work great on an abstract level, but the physical world is far too imperfect to apply it in every sense (every, all, unlimited). So, we have theories, philosophies, opinions, and beliefs, which we debate, argue and sometimes kill to defend. But, no one really knows who is right. The only thing we can do is hope we can learn from each other without hostility.
Faith/Religion: Paul Tillich defined faith as "the act of having an ultimate concern." That's a very broad and somewhat ambiguous statement, but I tend to agree with him, to a point. I said my faith is strong enough to be able to question it. What I meant by that is as I "grow in faith," my "ultimate concern" may change, even just slightly. David Deida describes finding one's purpose as moving through concentric circles, closer and closer to the center. He gave a real-world example of that as a person going through various phases of life where there are deeper and deeper levels of self-discovery, all moving closer to a true understanding of one's core being, which he believes leans more towards a spiritual discovery than a worldly. We may never reach the center, but then again, we're not perfect. The idea of faith is to strive towards perfection with the realization that in this life, we'll never reach it. The form of perfection one chooses is the defining faith. Some choose Christianity, others choose Buddhism, Taoism, etc., some create their own beliefs, some choose not to have a faith and live without any regard to supernatural possibilities. Religion is the practice of the chosen faith, which is something completely different.
Those are my opinions, ideas, beliefs, yada yada... but not one of them is a fact.
|
If I ask the question with the answer to the question I am after, will it dawn on me? |
| Edited by - Indeterminacy on 03/26/2007 11:34:45 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 08:51:22 [Permalink]
|
Indeterminacy wrote: quote:
For example: Quantum theory can be (and has been) analyzed to the point that some would say we are merely an illusion of our own reality. I don't know enough about quantum theory to agree or disagree with that notion
Analyzed to that point by who? People who agree with this notion are not people who understand enough about Quantum theory. They are more often than not mediums, and other practitioners of pseudo-science, who do not use the scientific method in their work or present their findings in peer-reviewed journals. The scientists who do understand Quantum theory well enough disagree with this notion, although they are often misrepresented by the woo woos, such as David Albert, a philosopher who studies Quantum theory. Read how the assholes who made “What the Bleep Do We Know” edited Albert's interview to make it look like he agreed with the film's false connections between Quantum theory and spirituality: http://www.popsci.com/popsci/science/463c0b4511b84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
quote:
One of the few legitimate academics in the film, David Albert, a philosopher of physics at Columbia University, is outraged at the final product. He says that he spent four hours patiently explaining to the filmmakers why quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness or spirituality, only to see his statements edited and cut to the point where it appears as though he and the spirit warrior are speaking with one voice. “I was taken,” Albert admits. “I was really gullible, but I learned my lesson.” Yet the real shame with this film is that it plays on people's fascination with science while distorting and misrepresenting that science.
Indeterminacy wrote:
quote:
1+1=2, on paper. What measures "1"? How can we be sure the other "1" is unequivocally an exact duplicate of the other, in all ways? (computative, qualitative, spatio-temporal... the list goes on)
My point is that currently our methods of proof work great on an abstract level, but the physical world is far too imperfect to apply it in every sense (every, all, unlimited).
They don't just work great on an abstract level. They also work great on a practical level. If they didn't, we wouldn't have skyscrapers, space shuttles, or computers, all of which require incredibly complex calculations of engineering. You are the one who is arguing theory here now. You are the one who is taking words (such as “one”) too literally and to an absurd extreme. I guess what I'm trying to point out here, is that you are being a fundamentalist when it comes to factual relativism.
quote:
So, we have theories, philosophies, opinions, and beliefs, which we debate, argue and sometimes kill to defend. But, no one really knows who is right. The only thing we can do is hope we can learn from each other without hostility.
OK, I think I got that your higher philosophy is in agreement with factual relativism, but you also hold a sort of sub-philosophy of moderate Christianity which presumably comes along with ethics, morality, and opinions about what should be done when, why, and how. Is there anything you would die or kill to defend?
Where I'm going with this is here: I can agree with yo |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/27/2007 08:52:41 |
|
|
|
Indeterminacy
New Member
USA
26 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 10:04:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Analyzed to that point by who?
"Light and matter are both single entities, and the apparent duality arises in the limitations of our language. It is not surprising that our language should be incapable of describing the processes occurring within the atoms, for, as has been remarked, it was invented to describe the experiences of daily life, and these consist only of processes involving exceedingly large numbers of atoms. Furthermore, it is very difficult to modify our language so that it will be able to describe these atomic processes, for words can only describe things of which we can form mental pictures, and this ability, too, is a result of daily experience. Fortunately, mathematics is not subject to this limitation, and it has been possible to invent a mathematical scheme - the quantum theory - which seems entirely adequate for the treatment of atomic processes; for visualisation, however, we must content ourselves with two incomplete analogies - the wave picture and the corpuscular picture. (Heisenberg, On Quantum Physics, 1930)"
quote:
OK, I think I got that your higher philosophy is in agreement with factual relativism, but you also hold a sort of sub-philosophy of moderate Christianity which presumably comes along with ethics, morality, and opinions about what should be done when, why, and how. Is there anything you would die or kill to defend?
My wife.
quote:
I can agree with you that we ultimately might not know any capital “T” Truth, that all of our ideas about reality when taken literally might be totally wrong, that everything as we perceive it is ultimately some kind of illusion. But even if I agree with that, the agreement ends there, and then practical reality sets in. I need to decide whether I'm going to eat cereal or an omlette for breakfast, whether I'm going to vote for Tweedledee or Tweedledum, whether I'm going to steal something or buy it, etc.
Of course. We can't live in a fairy tale of perfection. But my point is if our decisions are not based on our ideals. It's a question of the ideals that that we choose to follow, and if those ideals are, in the end, the right ones to align with. That, is what we don't know.
quote:
You seem to be arguing that the first premise of factual relativism means that any sub-philosophy we choose is equal and arbitrary. Since you brought up Quantum theory, let's go with that to show why this carry-through is wrong: some ideas about the natural world produce results, and others don't. Newtonian Physics was ultimately wrong and cannot apply to all matter. However, it still applies very well on a human scale here on Earth, and engineers still use Newtonian calculations with perfectly useful results.
If everything was perfect nothing would work. The application of Newtonian Physics was and still is a good method to a limited degree. Since we're on the topic of physics, which incorporates math, let's take the concept of the derivative. x' as y goes to zero. Y never reaches zero. Y can get infinitely closer to zero, but never reach it. We can and do use the derivative to engineer and invent, but within limited, |
If I ask the question with the answer to the question I am after, will it dawn on me? |
| Edited by - Indeterminacy on 03/27/2007 10:37:47 |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 03/28/2007 : 11:47:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Indeterminacy
quote:
So why give any credit to beliefs that are clearly contradicted by evidence?
To continue to advance. If no one yields to the possibility that something may prove those beliefs to be wrong, then humanity would become complacent.
Edit: If no one yields to the possibility that something may prove current, widely accepted beliefs to be wrong....
Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but your answer doesn't make sense to me. Before you rattle off some invective about attacks and the like, know I'm asking for clarification, not casting aspersions on your answer.
Q. why believe something not supported by evidence (paraphrase)
A. because accepted beliefs could be wrong (paraphrase)
Aside from that, I have a question regarding your first post. How do you question your faith? Or, more precisely, what do you mean when you say you question your faith (re: "strong enough to question it")?
Just curious.
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Something to chew on....
