Back in the Rim: language, censorship, religion, rationalism
- Thread starter ld80062
- Start date
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
"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... "
No, It wouldn't, if I understand you position corectly (which I'm not sure I do...) I may not know for sure that I am talking to some one thousands of miles away, but I am talking to someone, and someone with some form of computer. Thier location is irrelavent.
"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). "
In the Old Days, The Leaders of the Old Societies wanted, for whatever reason, to do things. they wanted to build, Organize men into Armies, and secure a good supply of resources to these ends (food, etc.) They realized that in order to do this, or anything for that matter, they needed to find a method to dissuade people from the old ways of doing things (Chopping people up with a sword that piss you off, Marrying your Sister, or what have you....) and so set the wheels of Religion in motion... It is irrelavent what or who they cared about, because the primary focus was to build coherent cultures.
"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."
I don't really know what to say to this... Fire is also a chemical reaction, and it will certainly burn the crap out of your hand if you put it into it... that's easy to believe in...
As to the "Ape" angle, I would recommend going to see a Gorilla in captivity..., especially a Baby Gorilla, which looks like a human Baby with a Gorilla head... even in the lowest form of primate distinctly Human Mannerisms can be seen clearly...
And as an Aside, this conversation would benefit greatly if we could lay off the "Western intellectual" guff, and just talk it out. I never said that Christianity in particular was Irrational in itself, merely that most forms of Organized Religion have good points and bad points, usually to an extreme degree... Religion has done extraordinary things, but it has also sent many to see who's Religion is right. And that is a FACT, sir.
No, It wouldn't, if I understand you position corectly (which I'm not sure I do...) I may not know for sure that I am talking to some one thousands of miles away, but I am talking to someone, and someone with some form of computer. Thier location is irrelavent.
"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). "
In the Old Days, The Leaders of the Old Societies wanted, for whatever reason, to do things. they wanted to build, Organize men into Armies, and secure a good supply of resources to these ends (food, etc.) They realized that in order to do this, or anything for that matter, they needed to find a method to dissuade people from the old ways of doing things (Chopping people up with a sword that piss you off, Marrying your Sister, or what have you....) and so set the wheels of Religion in motion... It is irrelavent what or who they cared about, because the primary focus was to build coherent cultures.
"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."
I don't really know what to say to this... Fire is also a chemical reaction, and it will certainly burn the crap out of your hand if you put it into it... that's easy to believe in...
As to the "Ape" angle, I would recommend going to see a Gorilla in captivity..., especially a Baby Gorilla, which looks like a human Baby with a Gorilla head... even in the lowest form of primate distinctly Human Mannerisms can be seen clearly...
And as an Aside, this conversation would benefit greatly if we could lay off the "Western intellectual" guff, and just talk it out. I never said that Christianity in particular was Irrational in itself, merely that most forms of Organized Religion have good points and bad points, usually to an extreme degree... Religion has done extraordinary things, but it has also sent many to see who's Religion is right. And that is a FACT, sir.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Common evolutionary misconception often touted by creationists, humans are not descended from Apes (in the modern sense), nor have we ever been Apes. Humans and Apes do share a common ancestor if you go back far enough , but it is no more correct to say we are evolved Apes than it is to say we are evolved fish (which, by the way, if you go back far enough, we are
).Our common Ape-like ancestor millions of years ago evolved into humans and the various species of Ape, in just the same way the ancestor of all cats evolved into lions, tigers etc.
Human brains are not derived from Ape brains.
Religion has done extraordinary things, but it has also sent many to see who's Religion is right. And that is a FACT, sir.
I know, I've heard that several times. But the problem with that argument is that it assumes that the value of a religion is it's Earthly by-products. Which assumes already that it is false. Because if a religion is true then it's value must be infinite.
In the Old Days, The Leaders of the Old Societies wanted, for whatever reason, to do things. they wanted to build, Organize men into Armies, and secure a good supply of resources to these ends (food, etc.) They realized that in order to do this, or anything for that matter, they needed to find a method to dissuade people from the old ways of doing things (Chopping people up with a sword that piss you off, Marrying your Sister, or what have you....) and so set the wheels of Religion in motion... It is irrelavent what or who they cared about, because the primary focus was to build coherent cultures.
This is assuming quite a bit. Did chiefs of cavemen really sit around a fire saying, "How are we going to get them to do what we want?" "Hey I know lets make up a system of morality then we can construct a society" And again why are they interested in constructing a society except insofar as it benefits them? And why were they believed? And how did twentieth century people figure this out. Perhaps were all smart enough to see the past while, Aristotle, Cicero, St. Augestine, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, and C.S. Lewis weren't.
I know, I've heard that several times. But the problem with that argument is that it assumes that the value of a religion is it's Earthly by-products. Which assumes already that it is false. Because if a religion is true then it's value must be infinite.
In the Old Days, The Leaders of the Old Societies wanted, for whatever reason, to do things. they wanted to build, Organize men into Armies, and secure a good supply of resources to these ends (food, etc.) They realized that in order to do this, or anything for that matter, they needed to find a method to dissuade people from the old ways of doing things (Chopping people up with a sword that piss you off, Marrying your Sister, or what have you....) and so set the wheels of Religion in motion... It is irrelavent what or who they cared about, because the primary focus was to build coherent cultures.
This is assuming quite a bit. Did chiefs of cavemen really sit around a fire saying, "How are we going to get them to do what we want?" "Hey I know lets make up a system of morality then we can construct a society" And again why are they interested in constructing a society except insofar as it benefits them? And why were they believed? And how did twentieth century people figure this out. Perhaps were all smart enough to see the past while, Aristotle, Cicero, St. Augestine, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, and C.S. Lewis weren't.
Since all religions are just one person's opinion about the unknowable, yes, each and every religion is exactly 100% correct.
Even when each and every religion contridicts every other in some way? They are all 100% "correct" as in "free from error or fault; true or accurate(Tormont Websters Illustrated Encylopedic Dictionary) Everybodies opinion with regard to the Meaning of the Universe is "free from error or fault" Imagine how that would work on Earth. What if a jury decided that every witness was right even though they disagreed. This would make an interesting court case. But the truth(or lack of) of religion is even more important than a court case.
Even when each and every religion contridicts every other in some way? They are all 100% "correct" as in "free from error or fault; true or accurate(Tormont Websters Illustrated Encylopedic Dictionary) Everybodies opinion with regard to the Meaning of the Universe is "free from error or fault" Imagine how that would work on Earth. What if a jury decided that every witness was right even though they disagreed. This would make an interesting court case. But the truth(or lack of) of religion is even more important than a court case.
I don't really know what to say to this... Fire is also a chemical reaction, and it will certainly burn the crap out of your hand if you put it into it... that's easy to believe in...
Yes because burning is the nature of fire; discussing philosophy isn't.
The problem of that line of reasoning is that it is by it's own account part of the same process. It is like asking a man how much alchohol it is safe to ingest-while he is drunk. Someone who claims that human reason is only a chemical reaction has negated his own reason.
You know there are websites to discuss this sort of thing on. This is a Traveller website
By the way it is easy to give offense while debateing. I often enjoy this sort of thing but I am not always as diplomatic as I might be. I hope everyone can bear with me.
Yes because burning is the nature of fire; discussing philosophy isn't.
The problem of that line of reasoning is that it is by it's own account part of the same process. It is like asking a man how much alchohol it is safe to ingest-while he is drunk. Someone who claims that human reason is only a chemical reaction has negated his own reason.
You know there are websites to discuss this sort of thing on. This is a Traveller website
By the way it is easy to give offense while debateing. I often enjoy this sort of thing but I am not always as diplomatic as I might be. I hope everyone can bear with me.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Well, there seems to be a lot of evidence of that, particularly in the Ten Commandments to support my view... (Thou Shalt Not Kill springs to mind... and how little that is regarded it seems...) I can't speak too much for cavemen, except that most Data suggests that they did work as groups, and against other groups of cavemen, so some one must have laid down some form of rules... even if it was "Ugh, No throw Rock at Fellow Tribe member." Or "Must not make bonk bonk with Ogg's mate, It make Ogg mad..."
The Intellectuals you invoke are fine examples, but most were considered pretty "Radical" back in the day, While St. Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, and Lewis were all much later... I'm talking more of the real old days, Birth of civilization stuff...
"I know, I've heard that several times. But the problem with that argument is that it assumes that the value of a religion is it's Earthly by-products. Which assumes already that it is false. Because if a religion is true then it's value must be infinite."
I can see your point, but must note that it is a hard stance to support, considering... it is not a value assesment, merely an observation that many don't "Get the Message" of Religion at times... I also do not see how it is possible to tell if a Religion is True or not, aside from just believing it... many may not see or choose not to see, what many Religions are built on, or are oddly dismissive of it... perhaps I read too much into history...
It is one thing to say "all Religions are infinitely valuable" but then I must wonder how the great factions of people whosay "All (Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.) must Die" by word or deed, figure into all of this... plus, to me at least it seems strange to hold the view that many do that "Life Sucks, so look forward to the Afterworld" It seems fatalistic to me and rather negative, while short changing the value of Earthly life...
The Intellectuals you invoke are fine examples, but most were considered pretty "Radical" back in the day, While St. Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, and Lewis were all much later... I'm talking more of the real old days, Birth of civilization stuff...
"I know, I've heard that several times. But the problem with that argument is that it assumes that the value of a religion is it's Earthly by-products. Which assumes already that it is false. Because if a religion is true then it's value must be infinite."
I can see your point, but must note that it is a hard stance to support, considering... it is not a value assesment, merely an observation that many don't "Get the Message" of Religion at times... I also do not see how it is possible to tell if a Religion is True or not, aside from just believing it... many may not see or choose not to see, what many Religions are built on, or are oddly dismissive of it... perhaps I read too much into history...
It is one thing to say "all Religions are infinitely valuable" but then I must wonder how the great factions of people whosay "All (Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.) must Die" by word or deed, figure into all of this... plus, to me at least it seems strange to hold the view that many do that "Life Sucks, so look forward to the Afterworld" It seems fatalistic to me and rather negative, while short changing the value of Earthly life...
My dear Baron,
It's "Thou shalt not murder". If you ever get the chance to read the good parts of the Old Testament, you'll find a lot of righteous killing going on; particularly when God is unimpressed with a certain groups moral stance on important issues, at which point the Hebrews go Biblical on them (with the Almighty providing close air support).
It's "Thou shalt not murder". If you ever get the chance to read the good parts of the Old Testament, you'll find a lot of righteous killing going on; particularly when God is unimpressed with a certain groups moral stance on important issues, at which point the Hebrews go Biblical on them (with the Almighty providing close air support).
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Oh, I've had the chance, Lord Ran...
My dear Baron,
Hopefully you know well enough, my dear friend, that I never meant that as a challenge.
I find it odd that that one commandment is probably misinterpreted more than all the others combined. It is okay to kill, when defending yourself, your family, your community; it's just not okay to murder for your own benefit.
Hopefully you know well enough, my dear friend, that I never meant that as a challenge.
I find it odd that that one commandment is probably misinterpreted more than all the others combined. It is okay to kill, when defending yourself, your family, your community; it's just not okay to murder for your own benefit.
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
Please pardon my gruff response, Old freind, I was pressed for time, and of course there was no challenge in my mind. I totally agree, it certainly is ok to kill in self defense, more than ok, imperative, when the chips are indeed down... most of my Bibles say "kill" (save for the groovy seventies one...) which definitely leaves a lot for interpretation... some in the past (I am being kind and excluding more recent history) seemed to have applied a footnote to that one, in the form of:
*unless it is Group Y you need to kill, or other opposition to the cause.
At least the more extreme Religions come flat out and say that the opposition must die. Not good, by any stretch, but at least you know where you stand...
It certainly is a sticky wicket...
*unless it is Group Y you need to kill, or other opposition to the cause.
At least the more extreme Religions come flat out and say that the opposition must die. Not good, by any stretch, but at least you know where you stand...
It certainly is a sticky wicket...
This is an odd thread.
I feel the urge to talk a bit about Justinian and his doctrines on Just War (in the context of the killing thing).
And when I hear the religious experience discussed (look up the word ineffable, as this is why discussing faith issues is ultimately problematic - if you've had a faith experience, you know it, if you have not, you don't, and never the twain can truly meet), I feel the urge to mention a great book by William James called The Variety of Religious Experience.
Religion is also distinct from Faith. Faith is a personal thing. Organized Religion may involve faith, but it is not interchangeable with personal faith.
And whenever I hear people talk about Truth from the Bible, I find it interesting to note all the changes in translation (one great example is that in the King James version, Animals and People don't share the same inner essence - people have souls, animals IIRC have souls - but in the original language the passage was written in, the same Greek or Hebrew (or Aramaic or whatever it was) word was used for both). And we know that there were additional correspondences between Paul and others that someone decided not to include, while including Colossians, Phillipians, Ephesians, etc. So, one has to imagine the Bible isn't the whole story, even for Christianity, and then there are a whole bunch of versions.
Oh, and then kick in every faith in the world having its own world view. Who am I to go and say to them - you're wrong! I can really only speak to *MY* experience and say what is right for *ME*. For me to speak to anyone else's reality is clearly a form of arrogance or hubris - I've never walked a mile in their shoes, I have no idea how the Universe or the Divine manifests to them, so how dare I tell them what is "Truth"? And why do we have the notion that Truth must be absolute and the same for all people? Perhaps Truth is something that encompasses both the individual and the universe, and subsequently we end up with a separate truth for each of us.
Oh, and don't get me started on whether or not there is actually an objective reality, a collection of individual subjective realities, a consensus reality, or whether you're all figments of my imagination..... that's a whole other metaphysical debate!
I feel the urge to talk a bit about Justinian and his doctrines on Just War (in the context of the killing thing).
And when I hear the religious experience discussed (look up the word ineffable, as this is why discussing faith issues is ultimately problematic - if you've had a faith experience, you know it, if you have not, you don't, and never the twain can truly meet), I feel the urge to mention a great book by William James called The Variety of Religious Experience.
Religion is also distinct from Faith. Faith is a personal thing. Organized Religion may involve faith, but it is not interchangeable with personal faith.
And whenever I hear people talk about Truth from the Bible, I find it interesting to note all the changes in translation (one great example is that in the King James version, Animals and People don't share the same inner essence - people have souls, animals IIRC have souls - but in the original language the passage was written in, the same Greek or Hebrew (or Aramaic or whatever it was) word was used for both). And we know that there were additional correspondences between Paul and others that someone decided not to include, while including Colossians, Phillipians, Ephesians, etc. So, one has to imagine the Bible isn't the whole story, even for Christianity, and then there are a whole bunch of versions.
Oh, and then kick in every faith in the world having its own world view. Who am I to go and say to them - you're wrong! I can really only speak to *MY* experience and say what is right for *ME*. For me to speak to anyone else's reality is clearly a form of arrogance or hubris - I've never walked a mile in their shoes, I have no idea how the Universe or the Divine manifests to them, so how dare I tell them what is "Truth"? And why do we have the notion that Truth must be absolute and the same for all people? Perhaps Truth is something that encompasses both the individual and the universe, and subsequently we end up with a separate truth for each of us.
Oh, and don't get me started on whether or not there is actually an objective reality, a collection of individual subjective realities, a consensus reality, or whether you're all figments of my imagination..... that's a whole other metaphysical debate!
The Hinterworlds Rambler
SOC-14 5K
No one is truly qualified to say that a particular religion is right or wrong, of course, I just stongly belive in saying "Knock it off!" to the killing in the name of faith, or religion. It serves no purpose. I personally need a better reason to kill or be killed beyond what book someone reads or believes in. I'm ok if its Invaders from Mars, Nazis, or other Hostiles, but I got a real problem with "It is the will of X"
or "My God Told Me to Kill You", etc...
or "My God Told Me to Kill You", etc...
Aristotle, Cicero, St. Augestine, Thomas Aquinas, Locke, and C.S. Lewis weren't.
Naturally this goes against my snide remark about "western intellectuals". My point was that the behavior you describe sounds more like the behavior of someone who had gotten newfangled ideas about remaking the earth at a prestiegious school. I thought it made cavemen sound anachronistically like Robspiere.
Naturally this goes against my snide remark about "western intellectuals". My point was that the behavior you describe sounds more like the behavior of someone who had gotten newfangled ideas about remaking the earth at a prestiegious school. I thought it made cavemen sound anachronistically like Robspiere.
"Radical" back in the day, While St. Augustine, Aquinas, Locke, and Lewis were all much later... I'm talking more of the real old days, Birth of civilization stuff...
Actually their "radical" nature is dubious. If any were "radical". Didn't they all teach much the same code? If any were "radical"(and in this case the people I picked were respectable middle-class gentlemen) their "radicalness" stems not from what they taught as for the opposition of others to what they taught.
And by the way why are they "fine" fellows if fineness comes from something invented by a caveman to manipulate his followers?
Actually their "radical" nature is dubious. If any were "radical". Didn't they all teach much the same code? If any were "radical"(and in this case the people I picked were respectable middle-class gentlemen) their "radicalness" stems not from what they taught as for the opposition of others to what they taught.
And by the way why are they "fine" fellows if fineness comes from something invented by a caveman to manipulate his followers?
If your particular religion says that killing in its name is right, than, yes, the sentence says that your religion is wrong (in that particular aspect). But then, he didn't say he wasn't entitled to have an opinion about a religion, he just said no one was truly qualified to judge.
Personally, I disagree. I think cultural relativism only goes so far and that there are objective reasons to pass judgement on some aspects of cultures and religions.
To give a (hopefully) faily neutral example, I think that any tenet that says that it is acceptable to regard another human being as inferior for no other reason than that he does not belong to a particular religion, culture or society is just plain wrong.
Hans
t is one thing to say "all Religions are infinitely valuable" but then I must wonder how the great factions of people whosay "All (Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.) must Die" by word or deed, figure into all of this... plus, to me at least it seems strange to hold the view that many do that "Life Sucks, so look forward to the Afterworld" It seems fatalistic to me and rather negative, while short changing the value of Earthly life...
I certainly did not say that I believe all religions are infinitely valueable. But I believe the religion I adhere to is such. That is why I adhere to it. If I thought it was merely a way to "express myself" I would follow the Catholic subsect instead of the Evangelical subsect as the Catholics have a more aesthetically pleasing ritual. But I think it is dishonest to follow a doctrine that one does not believe correct.
And I am not "short changing the value of Earthly life" I am placing it in proportion. To say something is more valueable than something else does not diminish "something elses" value. Gold is more valueable than silver, but I certainly wouldn't mind having a lot of silver. I did not say "life sucks", I said "life is unimportant compared to what is beyond". I am hardly one to downgrade life as I live quite comfortably.
And yes the fact that people often do the devil's work in the name of God is uncomfortable but does not negate God's Word. This phenomenon is to the Church what startown is to starport. It is a way for the evil to cover their misdeeds(sometimes from themselves). Yet our "Starport" brings necessary things from afar.
I am not trying to "prove" my faith-I realize such things are by nature unprovable. I am trying to break down walls of doubt(though that is a slightly pompous way of expressing it)in the unsure. I am also here for a reason that is less creditable, though innocent in it's place. It is a mental equivalent of "the eye of the tiger, the thrill of the fight"(Rocky III theme song). So my reward for my "great devotion" may not be as great as it might be.
I certainly did not say that I believe all religions are infinitely valueable. But I believe the religion I adhere to is such. That is why I adhere to it. If I thought it was merely a way to "express myself" I would follow the Catholic subsect instead of the Evangelical subsect as the Catholics have a more aesthetically pleasing ritual. But I think it is dishonest to follow a doctrine that one does not believe correct.
And I am not "short changing the value of Earthly life" I am placing it in proportion. To say something is more valueable than something else does not diminish "something elses" value. Gold is more valueable than silver, but I certainly wouldn't mind having a lot of silver. I did not say "life sucks", I said "life is unimportant compared to what is beyond". I am hardly one to downgrade life as I live quite comfortably.
And yes the fact that people often do the devil's work in the name of God is uncomfortable but does not negate God's Word. This phenomenon is to the Church what startown is to starport. It is a way for the evil to cover their misdeeds(sometimes from themselves). Yet our "Starport" brings necessary things from afar.
I am not trying to "prove" my faith-I realize such things are by nature unprovable. I am trying to break down walls of doubt(though that is a slightly pompous way of expressing it)in the unsure. I am also here for a reason that is less creditable, though innocent in it's place. It is a mental equivalent of "the eye of the tiger, the thrill of the fight"(Rocky III theme song). So my reward for my "great devotion" may not be as great as it might be.
If your particular religion says that killing in its name is right, than, yes, the sentence says that your religion is wrong (in that particular aspect).
My particular religion does not say that killing in it's name is right. The sword weilded justly is the state's perogative not the church's. Thus a Christian soldier(or cop) fights to the glory of God, the way a Christian mechanic fixes cars to the Glory of God I.E. he works as best he can in the work God has placed him. However I don't believe in "Holy War". That doesn't explain the book of Joshua, it is true. However that was under the old law given to the Jews. Christians are under the law of grace which is why I don't feel guilty when I eat a BLT(some commandments are to both Jews and Christians of course). I am getting slightly obscure here so I hope you will pardon me and study it yourself.
My particular religion does not say that killing in it's name is right. The sword weilded justly is the state's perogative not the church's. Thus a Christian soldier(or cop) fights to the glory of God, the way a Christian mechanic fixes cars to the Glory of God I.E. he works as best he can in the work God has placed him. However I don't believe in "Holy War". That doesn't explain the book of Joshua, it is true. However that was under the old law given to the Jews. Christians are under the law of grace which is why I don't feel guilty when I eat a BLT(some commandments are to both Jews and Christians of course). I am getting slightly obscure here so I hope you will pardon me and study it yourself.
Similar threads
