Back in the Rim: language, censorship, religion, rationalism

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Isn't it "So Low Mane Eye"?

Anyway, all good points have been made, but one has only been scratched... wouldnt a large number of people "worship" the Ancients? The technology they had exhibited in the past mirrors a lot of religious type factors... they could change or create life... alter planets, and create entire societies... and all a long long time ago! I have always wondered what role they still play on society... The Hypothesis, if it is true, sort of circumvents the role of the diety, at least for the transplanted humans, no?

I always pictured the Vilani as sort of having the food god, but also a strong sense of ancestor worship, like the japanese have...

I also pictured the zhodani as having some sort of funky mind god, or a prophet like Surak from Star Trek...

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Would "Ancient Studies" along religious lines be a full blown religion, or goofy new age stuff?

 

[mike wightman]

Probably a mixture of both. There will be cultures on distant planets that have grown up over thousands of years worshipping the Ancient ones as guardians, creators etc.
There will also be the new age nutter type that jump on the religious experience bandwagon every time there is a major Ancient find or revelation.
This is IMHO, of course

 

[eiladayn]

Exactly, I would think that all Humaniti outside of the Solomani would have, at least, some reference to the Ancients in their religion, with perhaps the warbots as demonic figures?--angelic figures? These references would have faded to myth by the time the truth were found and might not even be recognizable.
Point of reference would father large scale differences in language and religions I'm sure. In fact, there are several adventure ideas that spring to mind regarding Ancient sites and religious "nuts" and pilgrims, my son the archaelogist, could tell you about a "sightseers" on a dig.

Pappy

 

[jatay3]

I think that in general, religion will always be a part of human society. It answers a need that science cannot. Outgrowing our need for religion is like outgrowing our need for food.

This is a common misunderstanding. The purpose of religion is not to "answer a need". For one thing that is dishonest. Saying "I believe" when you really mean "I am pulling a scam, but it will do everyone else good" is a lie.
The benefits or lack of a given religion are beside the point. If a religions claims are true than it's value is infinite. If it is false, than it is worthless and you are better spending your Sunday watching football. Yes there are good(and bad) by-products on Earth to most religions(not all: it is hard to find the good things about cannibal cults), but these don't compare with what is claimed.
And by the way doesn't anyalizing the "need" or "disireability" for religion somewhat beg the question. After all if you do that you assume that reason can tell you whether religion is "desireable"(despite your comparative lack of facts to base your analysis).In which case you put human reason into a place where it is promoted from a tool-into another religion.
Also when you use the term religion you need to ask ,"which religion". Religion is a general term. I am a Christian which is a "religion" in the same sense that Traveller is a "recreation", or swimming the English Channel is an "athletic activity". In other words saying something is a "religion" is a general description.
And by the way; some think science will "replace" religion because we have "advanced" so far. If it does this it will have become a religion. So in a sense the writer above is write: we do "need" religion. Fulfilling are "need" is not the main purpose, but to give glory to God.

 

[jatay3]

"I think it is quite a stretch to think that Islam or Christianity will survive that long. As major world religions, I give them 2 centuries, tops. As archaic holdovers, mayby 2 more centuries. After that, only in the history books."

Doesn't that assume the falsehood of both(one must be false of course, for they contridict eachother). Whichever is true has divine protection, does it not?

 

[jwcarroll60]

Science already has become a religion, an example is the unassailable position of the THEORY of evolution. Additional proof is found in films of jet age Hollywood which show science solving all manner of problems, and generally improving life for humanity.

 

[Anthony]

While science is certainly a specific worldview, it's not a religion as such, and the articles of faith in science are not specific theories, but rather a specific methodology. The primary article of faith for science is that evidence matters.

The theory of evolution isn't unassailable, it's just that science does have specific concepts of what is a credible critique, and creationists reliably fail to provide a critique in that form.

Specifically, a credible alternate theory must do the following:
1) It must account for existing data.
2) It must make testable predictions.
3) To the degree to which two theories account for the same data, the theory which requires fewer variables will be favored.

Creationism and intelligent design theories usually fail on #2 and #3, and often fail on #1 as well.

 

[Straybow]

That shows that theism isn't science; it does nothing to show or invalidate the role Science (with a capital S) now serves as a religion (or anti-religion) to a small portion of the populace.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Science:
The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

Religion:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

I have long wondered at exactly why Science and Religion must be at odds... Is it (on the religious side) the threat posed to doctrine by discovery? Or, Is it (on the Science side) The threat posed to Knowldege by superstition?

I must point out that I am on the science side of this, though I am sure that that was evident...

The first time I had heard that there were folks around that didn't belive the Theory of Evolution (I was young, around ten or so when I first saw "Inheirit the Wind" ) I was shocked to the core, truly. Evolution is a Theory indeed, but then isn't the existance of Dieties one also? are they not both questions of Belief? Evolution has some inconsistancies, yes, but no where near as many that most forms of creation myths do. The difference is in the data...

Personally, I find it easier to consider that a Horse is descended from an Eohippus, based only on its structure, far more than taking someone's (and it is a someone, not a god...) word that there are indeed angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, goblins, or leprechauns...

If it a question of Belief, I'll Believe it when I see it for myself... as anyone that seeks to know the unknown should...

One should also consider that without Religion, there would be no Science as we know it, or a society that can get beyond Caveman Behavior, for that matter... Our distant ancestors saw a great need to give humanity a set of rules, and they were right in so doing...

 

[jatay3]

I'll Believe it when I see it for myself... as anyone that seeks to know the unknown should...

Wouldn't that eliminate most of the things you believe in? Most of what you know is from what others have told you. You don't know that the net lets you talk to people thousands of miles away for instance...

 

[jatay3]

Our distant ancestors saw a great need to give humanity a set of rules, and they were right in so doing...

Actually are distant ancestors did not "see a need in giving humanity a set of rules" they believed the rules themselves. Only Western intellectuals have the arogance to believe they have the right to teach things they don't believe-as if they were training rats.
And where does that "need" come from? What did our "distant ancestors" care about humanity unless they either a: had a sentimental attraction toward humanity(the evidence for that attraction is low, and why should we obey a sentiment anyway?)or b: believed that they should care about humanity(in which case they believed at least part of what they were teaching).

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
Religion:
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

While most religions believe in some form of divine power, it is the belief part that defines religion. The fourth definition of religion in Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary says:

"4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

Religion implies belief but not necessarily belief in something divine.


Hans

 

[jatay3]

Personally, I find it easier to consider that a Horse is descended from an Eohippus, based only on its structure, far more than taking someone's (and it is a someone, not a god...) word that there are indeed angels, demons, spirits, ghosts, goblins, or leprechauns...


Well there is no verse in Genisis that says: "thus sayeth the Lord- the horse was not descended from an Eohippus"
Nor do any great theologians say that there are "ghosts, goblins, and leprechauns"
We know there is some form of "evoulution"(stockbreeders knew that before Darwin). To say it is the primary cause of life is rather impertinent. A lot of would-be scientists and pseudoscientists have "labratoryitis" where they think the universe revolves around the phenomenon they are studying. Freud said human nature is all about lust, and Marx said it was all about "class struggle".
Actually I find the inconsistincies of the Theory of Evoulution, which claims to be based only on physical laws(of which we only know a fraction)more striking then the alledged inconsistancies of the biblical account(which presuppposes supernatural intervention whose probability we can't measure). We know that miracles don't take place often(that's why they are called miracles)but how often is the question.
In any case why should I believe the word of scientists who think they have the brain of an ape? I realize that some people probably do have the brain of an ape(har,har,har). But if a theory comes from what is only a bundle of chemicals why should it be believed? That theory is just a chemical reaction.
In any case I do not wish to prove Christianity. I only wish to prove that Christianity is not irrational and that "Science"(which changes it's theories faster than Vargr's change their Charismatic Leaders) doesn't know everything.
In any case this is probably boring people who come here to read about Traveller.

PS As a point of whimsy who says Leprachans don't exist? The truth of an idea is not decided by what time period it is from, and the existance of leprechans was not disproved. Leprechans are no more improbable than life on other planets. Besides we wouldn't want to go insulting leprechans around St. Patricks day would we?

 

[Pagan priest]

Steven J. Gould is an author famous for his many books and essays discussing the proofs of evolution. One book of his (whose name I have forgotten...sorry) describes how science and religion do not compete at all. Rather, they should not compete at all. They have dominion over unrelated areas. Science answers what, when, how, and religion answers why.

Science gives us the measurable facts of existance. Thus do we know that evolution is indeed a proven fact. Science gives us the tools to evaluate evidence, thus we can create theories as to the lines of decent, or the origion of all life.

On the other hand, a biology text will not teach you how to be a moral member of society.

 

[Pagan priest]

Originally posted by jatay3:
"I think it is quite a stretch to think that Islam or Christianity will survive that long. As major world religions, I give them 2 centuries, tops. As archaic holdovers, mayby 2 more centuries. After that, only in the history books."

Doesn't that assume the falsehood of both(one must be false of course, for they contridict eachother). Whichever is true has divine protection, does it not?

All religions are ultimately false, as they are the attemps of finite beings (us) trying to contain the infinite (the Divine). We can only relate to one small portion of that Divine. Most of the problems between religions arise when people try to claim that the small portion that they see is the totality of Dvine existance.

The other side of this coin is that all religions are true, since each is a way for someone to view a tiny piece of the Infinite Divine.

 

[jatay3]

The other side of this coin is that all religions are true, since each is a way for someone to view a tiny piece of the Infinite Divine.


Are they true when they contridict each other? If you say all religions have "some" truth in them you might be right. Very few religions think it is virtuous to beat up ones grandmother; they are correct in that. Where they disagree they can't all be right. If one says "2+2=4" and another says "2+2=3" are both right?

 

[jatay3]

Science gives us the measurable facts of existance. Thus do we know that evolution is indeed a proven fact. Science gives us the tools to evaluate evidence, thus we can create theories as to the lines of decent, or the origion of all life.


But scientists five-hundred years ago "knew" the sun revolved around the Earth. Who knows what they will "know" tomorrow. I am not necessarily disdaining science. I am saying to take it with a grain of salt: as indeed is the scientific ideal.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by jatay3:
"The other side of this coin is that all religions are true, since each is a way for someone to view a tiny piece of the Infinite Divine."


Are they true when they contridict each other?

http://duke.usask.ca/~eppw/misc/prose/hinustan.htm

[Added a few minutes later]

For some reason none of the sites I was able to google for myself included the last verse. A friend helped me out and here is the whole poem:

http://members.shaw.ca/athomas125/blindmen.htm

(I'm keeping the original link because of the illustration

)

Hans

 

[Pagan priest]

Originally posted by jatay3:
Are they true when they contridict each other? If you say all religions have "some" truth in them you might be right. Very few religions think it is virtuous to beat up ones grandmother; they are correct in that. Where they disagree they can't all be right. If one says "2+2=4" and another says "2+2=3" are both right?

But mathematics is in the dominion of science, so neither is right for the right reasons if they do manage to say 2+2=4.

Since all religions are just one person's opinion about the unknowable, yes, each and every religion is exactly 100% correct.