The atheist delusion?
11 views
Skip to first unread message
frantheman
Mar 21, 2008, 7:31:38 PM3/21/08
to "Minds Eye"
I got this from the "Irish Times" via a friend's blog-site. While
there's much in it with which I would not agree, I found it well-
written and frequently positively provocative. It covers a lot of
ground already covered here since I started checking out the Eye -
still, it might elicit some interesting comment and discussion:
The article below appears in the IrishTimes (20. March, 2008)
"The atheist delusion
"Opposition to religion occupies the high ground, intellectually and
morally," wrote Martin Amis recently. Over the past few years, leading
writers and thinkers have published best-selling tracts against God.
But the "secular fundamentalists" have got it all wrong, according to
John Gray .
AN ATMOSPHERE of moral panic surrounds religion. Viewed not so long
ago as a relic of superstition whose role in society was steadily
declining, it is now demonised as the cause of many of the world's
worst evils. As a result, there has been a sudden explosion in the
literature of proselytising atheism. A few years ago, it was difficult
to persuade commercial publishers even to think of bringing out books
on religion. Today, tracts against religion can be enormous money-
spinners, with Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and Christopher
Hitchens's God Is Not Great selling in the hundreds of thousands. For
the first time in generations, scientists and philosophers, high-
profile novelists and journalists are debating whether religion has a
future. The intellectual traffic is not all one-way. There have been
counterblasts for believers, such as The Dawkins Delusion? by the
British theologian Alister McGrath and The Secular Age by the Canadian
Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor. On the whole, however, the anti-
God squad has dominated the sales charts, and it is worth asking why.
The abrupt shift in the perception of religion is only partly
explained by terrorism. The 9/11 hijackers saw themselves as martyrs
in a religious tradition, and western opinion has accepted their self-
image. And there are some who view the rise of Islamic fundamentalism
as a danger comparable with the worst that were faced by liberal
societies in the 20th century. For Dawkins and Hitchens, Daniel
Dennett and Martin Amis, Michel Onfray, Philip Pullman and others,
religion in general is a poison that has fuelled violence and
oppression throughout history, right up to the present day. The
urgency with which they produce their anti-religious polemics suggests
that a change has occurred as significant as the rise of terrorism:
the tide of secularisation has turned. These writers come from a
generation schooled to think of religion as a throwback to an earlier
stage of human development, which is bound to dwindle away as
knowledge continues to increase. In the 19th century, when the
scientific and industrial revolutions were changing society very
quickly, this may not have been an unreasonable assumption. Dawkins,
Hitchens and the rest may still believe that, over the long run, the
advance of science will drive religion to the margins of human life,
but this is now an article of faith rather than a theory based on
evidence.
It is true that religion has declined sharply in a number of countries
(Ireland is a recent example) and has not shaped everyday life for
most people in Britain for many years. Much of Europe is clearly post-
Christian. However, there is nothing that suggests the move away from
religion is irreversible, or that it is potentially universal. The US
is no more secular today than it was 150 years ago, when de
Tocqueville was amazed and baffled by its all-pervading religiosity.
The secular era was in any case partly illusory. The mass political
movements of the 20th century were vehicles for myths inherited from
religion, and it is no accident that religion is reviving now that
these movements have collapsed. The current hostility to religion is a
reaction against this turnabout. Secularisation is in retreat, and the
result is the appearance of an evangelical type of atheism not seen
since Victorian times.
As in the past, this is a type of atheism that mirrors the faith it
rejects. Philip Pullman's Northern Lights - a subtly allusive,
multilayered allegory, recently adapted into a Hollywood blockbuster,
The Golden Compass - is a good example. Pullman's parable concerns far
more than the dangers of authoritarianism. The issues it raises are
essentially religious, and it is deeply indebted to the faith it
attacks. Pullman has stated that his atheism was formed in the
Anglican tradition, and there are many echoes of Milton and Blake in
his work. His largest debt to this tradition is the notion of free
will. The central thread of the story is the assertion of free will
against faith. The young heroine, Lyra Belacqua, sets out to thwart
the Magisterium - Pullman's metaphor for Christianity - because it
aims to deprive humans of their ability to choose their own course in
life, which she believes would destroy what is most human in them. But
the idea of free will that informs liberal notions of personal
autonomy is biblical in origin (think of the Genesis story). The
belief that exercising free will is part of being human is a legacy of
faith, and like most varieties of atheism today, Pullman's is a
derivative of Christianity.
Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and
Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal
conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be
transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are
certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is
right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary
creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious
beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of
humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that
is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.
A curious feature of this kind of atheism is that some of its most
fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the
Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general
theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American
Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of
religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of
supernatural agency (whose approval believers seek) is needed to
explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are
efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary
or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God
exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do
not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The
incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern
Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism, practice tends to have
priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in
spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam.
Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a
creed. It is only some western Christian traditions, under the
influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into
an explanatory theory.
The notion that religion is a primitive version of science was
popularised in the late 19th century. The positivists believed that
with the development of transport and communication irrational
thinking would wither way, along with the religions of the past.
Despite the history of the past century, Dennett believes much the
same. In an interview that appears on the website of the Edge
Foundation (edge.org) under the title The Evaporation of the Powerful
Mystique of Religion , he predicts that "in about 25 years almost all
religions will have evolved into very different phenomena, so much so
that in most quarters religion will no longer command the awe that it
does today". He is confident that this will come about, he tells us,
mainly because of "the worldwide spread of information technology (not
just the internet, but cell phones and portable radios and
television)". The philosopher has evidently not reflected on the
ubiquity of mobile phones among the Taliban, or the emergence of a
virtual al-Qaeda on the web.
The growth of knowledge is a fact only postmodern relativists deny.
Science is the best tool we have for forming reliable beliefs about
the world, but it does not differ from religion by revealing a bare
truth that religions veil in dreams. Both science and religion are
systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science,
for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but
at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather
than explanation. A great deal of modern thought consists of secular
myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-
science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will
fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.
In The God Delusion , Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of
religion in terms of the theory of "memes", vaguely defined conceptual
units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection.
He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to
religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but
today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education.
From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to
education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over
recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is
difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this.
Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools
and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in
common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with
Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical
Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment
would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.
Dawkins's "memetic theory of religion" is a classic example of the
nonsense that is spawned when Darwinian thinking is applied outside
its proper sphere. Along with Dennett, who also holds to a version of
the theory, Dawkins maintains that religious ideas survive because
they would be able to survive in any "meme pool", or else because they
are part of a "memeplex" that includes similar memes, such as the idea
that, if you die as a martyr, you will enjoy 72 virgins.
Unfortunately, the theory of memes is science only in the sense that
Intelligent Design is science. Strictly speaking, it is not even a
theory. Talk of memes is just the latest in a succession of ill-judged
Darwinian metaphors.
Dawkins compares religion to a virus: religious ideas are memes that
infect vulnerable minds, especially those of children. Biological
metaphors may have their uses - the minds of evangelical atheists seem
particularly prone to infection by religious memes, for example. At
the same time, analogies of this kind are fraught with peril. Dawkins
makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real
enough. He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst
atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed
scientific sanction for their crimes. Nazi "scientific racism" and
Soviet "dialectical materialism" reduced the unfathomable complexity
of human lives to the deadly simplicity of a scientific formula. In
each case, the science was bogus, but it was accepted as genuine at
the time, and not only in the regimes in question. Science is as
liable to be used for inhumane purposes as any other human
institution. Indeed, given the enormous authority science enjoys, the
risk of it being used in this way is greater."
I hope to get around to making the odd comment myself in the next few
days but I'm too tired now.
And so to bed.
Francis
there's much in it with which I would not agree, I found it well-
written and frequently positively provocative. It covers a lot of
ground already covered here since I started checking out the Eye -
still, it might elicit some interesting comment and discussion:
The article below appears in the IrishTimes (20. March, 2008)
"The atheist delusion
"Opposition to religion occupies the high ground, intellectually and
morally," wrote Martin Amis recently. Over the past few years, leading
writers and thinkers have published best-selling tracts against God.
But the "secular fundamentalists" have got it all wrong, according to
John Gray .
AN ATMOSPHERE of moral panic surrounds religion. Viewed not so long
ago as a relic of superstition whose role in society was steadily
declining, it is now demonised as the cause of many of the world's
worst evils. As a result, there has been a sudden explosion in the
literature of proselytising atheism. A few years ago, it was difficult
to persuade commercial publishers even to think of bringing out books
on religion. Today, tracts against religion can be enormous money-
spinners, with Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion and Christopher
Hitchens's God Is Not Great selling in the hundreds of thousands. For
the first time in generations, scientists and philosophers, high-
profile novelists and journalists are debating whether religion has a
future. The intellectual traffic is not all one-way. There have been
counterblasts for believers, such as The Dawkins Delusion? by the
British theologian Alister McGrath and The Secular Age by the Canadian
Catholic philosopher Charles Taylor. On the whole, however, the anti-
God squad has dominated the sales charts, and it is worth asking why.
The abrupt shift in the perception of religion is only partly
explained by terrorism. The 9/11 hijackers saw themselves as martyrs
in a religious tradition, and western opinion has accepted their self-
image. And there are some who view the rise of Islamic fundamentalism
as a danger comparable with the worst that were faced by liberal
societies in the 20th century. For Dawkins and Hitchens, Daniel
Dennett and Martin Amis, Michel Onfray, Philip Pullman and others,
religion in general is a poison that has fuelled violence and
oppression throughout history, right up to the present day. The
urgency with which they produce their anti-religious polemics suggests
that a change has occurred as significant as the rise of terrorism:
the tide of secularisation has turned. These writers come from a
generation schooled to think of religion as a throwback to an earlier
stage of human development, which is bound to dwindle away as
knowledge continues to increase. In the 19th century, when the
scientific and industrial revolutions were changing society very
quickly, this may not have been an unreasonable assumption. Dawkins,
Hitchens and the rest may still believe that, over the long run, the
advance of science will drive religion to the margins of human life,
but this is now an article of faith rather than a theory based on
evidence.
It is true that religion has declined sharply in a number of countries
(Ireland is a recent example) and has not shaped everyday life for
most people in Britain for many years. Much of Europe is clearly post-
Christian. However, there is nothing that suggests the move away from
religion is irreversible, or that it is potentially universal. The US
is no more secular today than it was 150 years ago, when de
Tocqueville was amazed and baffled by its all-pervading religiosity.
The secular era was in any case partly illusory. The mass political
movements of the 20th century were vehicles for myths inherited from
religion, and it is no accident that religion is reviving now that
these movements have collapsed. The current hostility to religion is a
reaction against this turnabout. Secularisation is in retreat, and the
result is the appearance of an evangelical type of atheism not seen
since Victorian times.
As in the past, this is a type of atheism that mirrors the faith it
rejects. Philip Pullman's Northern Lights - a subtly allusive,
multilayered allegory, recently adapted into a Hollywood blockbuster,
The Golden Compass - is a good example. Pullman's parable concerns far
more than the dangers of authoritarianism. The issues it raises are
essentially religious, and it is deeply indebted to the faith it
attacks. Pullman has stated that his atheism was formed in the
Anglican tradition, and there are many echoes of Milton and Blake in
his work. His largest debt to this tradition is the notion of free
will. The central thread of the story is the assertion of free will
against faith. The young heroine, Lyra Belacqua, sets out to thwart
the Magisterium - Pullman's metaphor for Christianity - because it
aims to deprive humans of their ability to choose their own course in
life, which she believes would destroy what is most human in them. But
the idea of free will that informs liberal notions of personal
autonomy is biblical in origin (think of the Genesis story). The
belief that exercising free will is part of being human is a legacy of
faith, and like most varieties of atheism today, Pullman's is a
derivative of Christianity.
Zealous atheism renews some of the worst features of Christianity and
Islam. Just as much as these religions, it is a project of universal
conversion. Evangelical atheists never doubt that human life can be
transformed if everyone accepts their view of things, and they are
certain that one way of living - their own, suitably embellished - is
right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary
creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious
beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of
humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that
is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.
A curious feature of this kind of atheism is that some of its most
fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the
Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general
theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American
Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of
religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of
supernatural agency (whose approval believers seek) is needed to
explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are
efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary
or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God
exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do
not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The
incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern
Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism, practice tends to have
priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in
spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam.
Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a
creed. It is only some western Christian traditions, under the
influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into
an explanatory theory.
The notion that religion is a primitive version of science was
popularised in the late 19th century. The positivists believed that
with the development of transport and communication irrational
thinking would wither way, along with the religions of the past.
Despite the history of the past century, Dennett believes much the
same. In an interview that appears on the website of the Edge
Foundation (edge.org) under the title The Evaporation of the Powerful
Mystique of Religion , he predicts that "in about 25 years almost all
religions will have evolved into very different phenomena, so much so
that in most quarters religion will no longer command the awe that it
does today". He is confident that this will come about, he tells us,
mainly because of "the worldwide spread of information technology (not
just the internet, but cell phones and portable radios and
television)". The philosopher has evidently not reflected on the
ubiquity of mobile phones among the Taliban, or the emergence of a
virtual al-Qaeda on the web.
The growth of knowledge is a fact only postmodern relativists deny.
Science is the best tool we have for forming reliable beliefs about
the world, but it does not differ from religion by revealing a bare
truth that religions veil in dreams. Both science and religion are
systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science,
for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but
at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather
than explanation. A great deal of modern thought consists of secular
myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-
science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will
fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.
In The God Delusion , Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of
religion in terms of the theory of "memes", vaguely defined conceptual
units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection.
He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to
religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but
today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education.
From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to
education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over
recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is
difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this.
Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools
and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more in
common with a certain type of fundamentalist theology than with
Darwinian theory, and I cannot help being reminded of the evangelical
Christian who assured me that children reared in a chaste environment
would grow up without illicit sexual impulses.
Dawkins's "memetic theory of religion" is a classic example of the
nonsense that is spawned when Darwinian thinking is applied outside
its proper sphere. Along with Dennett, who also holds to a version of
the theory, Dawkins maintains that religious ideas survive because
they would be able to survive in any "meme pool", or else because they
are part of a "memeplex" that includes similar memes, such as the idea
that, if you die as a martyr, you will enjoy 72 virgins.
Unfortunately, the theory of memes is science only in the sense that
Intelligent Design is science. Strictly speaking, it is not even a
theory. Talk of memes is just the latest in a succession of ill-judged
Darwinian metaphors.
Dawkins compares religion to a virus: religious ideas are memes that
infect vulnerable minds, especially those of children. Biological
metaphors may have their uses - the minds of evangelical atheists seem
particularly prone to infection by religious memes, for example. At
the same time, analogies of this kind are fraught with peril. Dawkins
makes much of the oppression perpetrated by religion, which is real
enough. He gives less attention to the fact that some of the worst
atrocities of modern times were committed by regimes that claimed
scientific sanction for their crimes. Nazi "scientific racism" and
Soviet "dialectical materialism" reduced the unfathomable complexity
of human lives to the deadly simplicity of a scientific formula. In
each case, the science was bogus, but it was accepted as genuine at
the time, and not only in the regimes in question. Science is as
liable to be used for inhumane purposes as any other human
institution. Indeed, given the enormous authority science enjoys, the
risk of it being used in this way is greater."
I hope to get around to making the odd comment myself in the next few
days but I'm too tired now.
And so to bed.
Francis
Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God Machine
Mar 21, 2008, 8:57:30 PM3/21/08
to "Minds Eye"
It is all about survival of the fittest for us tribal brained,
gullible humans.
Based on the "Evolution of Mind" and "Darwin's Cathedral" is the
following synopsis of the underlying basis of worldviews, including
religious and atheistic ones.
There is no evidence for a God responsible for the creation of the
universe, nor for a God in the Semitic religious sense of an
omnipotent, ubiquitous being that influences the universe. We
understand the underlying quantum physical oneness to all possible
universes that includes life forms that evolved from common
biochemical ancestors. Natural selection and drift are responsible
for the diversity of life.
Living organisms maximally transform ecological resources into
survival, adaptation, and proliferation of their identity. For
humans, ecological resources include other humans, resulting in a
within-species interplay of competition and cooperation. This
escalating dynamic interplay enriches strategies that maximize
diversity for the human genome, increasing its overall fitness for
planetary environments.
Worldviews arise as cultural adaptations that serve underlying genetic
drives. Gene-culture-worldview-behavior variations are naturally
selected for to maximize individual and group identity. The human
brain is limited in its capacities for worldview application and
processing. The universe is simply too complicated for the human
brain to continuously analyze all of its complexities and trade-offs
with the appropriate cost-benefit analysis quickly and efficiently.
Therefore rapid, energy efficient worldviews arise from natural
selection. Humans create optimal worldviews that offer evolutionary
value, and act accordingly to make the real world match their
fantasized ones. Success brings positive valence and continuance, and
failure brings negativity and change. The fundamental differences
between worldviews are really only ones of knowledge, imagination,
style, and strategy that are a result of natural selection based on
their:
1. Environmental origins.
2. Adaptation of their doctrines through time.
3. Profiles of their current individual leaders and membership.
4. Affects of their coevolving environmental competitors.
This worldview is obviously an evolutionary one, and I am sure it has
a few delusions in it itself, but I thought that this might help you
guys to frame your discussion about different religions vs atheism.
gullible humans.
Based on the "Evolution of Mind" and "Darwin's Cathedral" is the
following synopsis of the underlying basis of worldviews, including
religious and atheistic ones.
There is no evidence for a God responsible for the creation of the
universe, nor for a God in the Semitic religious sense of an
omnipotent, ubiquitous being that influences the universe. We
understand the underlying quantum physical oneness to all possible
universes that includes life forms that evolved from common
biochemical ancestors. Natural selection and drift are responsible
for the diversity of life.
Living organisms maximally transform ecological resources into
survival, adaptation, and proliferation of their identity. For
humans, ecological resources include other humans, resulting in a
within-species interplay of competition and cooperation. This
escalating dynamic interplay enriches strategies that maximize
diversity for the human genome, increasing its overall fitness for
planetary environments.
Worldviews arise as cultural adaptations that serve underlying genetic
drives. Gene-culture-worldview-behavior variations are naturally
selected for to maximize individual and group identity. The human
brain is limited in its capacities for worldview application and
processing. The universe is simply too complicated for the human
brain to continuously analyze all of its complexities and trade-offs
with the appropriate cost-benefit analysis quickly and efficiently.
Therefore rapid, energy efficient worldviews arise from natural
selection. Humans create optimal worldviews that offer evolutionary
value, and act accordingly to make the real world match their
fantasized ones. Success brings positive valence and continuance, and
failure brings negativity and change. The fundamental differences
between worldviews are really only ones of knowledge, imagination,
style, and strategy that are a result of natural selection based on
their:
1. Environmental origins.
2. Adaptation of their doctrines through time.
3. Profiles of their current individual leaders and membership.
4. Affects of their coevolving environmental competitors.
This worldview is obviously an evolutionary one, and I am sure it has
a few delusions in it itself, but I thought that this might help you
guys to frame your discussion about different religions vs atheism.
archytas
Mar 22, 2008, 2:35:56 PM3/22/08
to "Minds Eye"
I always wonder why religion must base itself in lies we would never
tolerate in the rest of our lives. I have no doubt though that we are
throwing a baby away in the bathwater. I don't think science has got
much to do with any of it. As soon as a religion is asked for
evidence it's basically screwed. And how can you argue with people
not interested in facts and listenning for the truth?
It's easy enough to point out religions' rotten things, but there is
also somthing insideous in the good, and something we need to question
about leaving a void. Science cannot sensibly deny religion as there
is a goi-spot in the brain to explain. There is no denial of god in
the broad sense either, though why anyone would want to believe in the
cruddy ones antiquity has put forward is beyond me. Underlying all
this, Plato argued that on had to lie to the public as they could not
take the truth. Without the lies there could be no social cohesion.
We are missing the point and Dawkins et al know very little about
social science or that their arguments are thousands of years old.
On 22 Mar, 00:57, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
> > creed. It is- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
tolerate in the rest of our lives. I have no doubt though that we are
throwing a baby away in the bathwater. I don't think science has got
much to do with any of it. As soon as a religion is asked for
evidence it's basically screwed. And how can you argue with people
not interested in facts and listenning for the truth?
It's easy enough to point out religions' rotten things, but there is
also somthing insideous in the good, and something we need to question
about leaving a void. Science cannot sensibly deny religion as there
is a goi-spot in the brain to explain. There is no denial of god in
the broad sense either, though why anyone would want to believe in the
cruddy ones antiquity has put forward is beyond me. Underlying all
this, Plato argued that on had to lie to the public as they could not
take the truth. Without the lies there could be no social cohesion.
We are missing the point and Dawkins et al know very little about
social science or that their arguments are thousands of years old.
On 22 Mar, 00:57, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
archytas
Mar 22, 2008, 5:34:29 PM3/22/08
to "Minds Eye"
I'm always struck that billions of neutrinos pass through me every
minute and I don't notice any of them. You put the ghostdance
necklace on and still get shot. Scott's review seems pretty
reasonable to me and is pretty much what I have been able to discover
for myself. He is not offering me any lies about changing water into
wine, stories from behind a burning bush, from a Golden Salamander and
the rest. I do not have to buy overpriced double glazing off him and
bullshit about it actually starting to heat my home.
In some other place I have no clue about why I have been thrown into
this world - one I'd have to get violent and exploitative in to enjoy,
even living as a recluse in that one has to do the former to establish
oneself. I want something beyond this. In as lot of my work, I meet
people who just can't grasp the stuff I teach - many these days
actually can't even read the books - they think textbooks are hard and
never realise how simplistic these really are. I think it's rare to
find people who are open minded enough to tolerate argument or know
what evidence is. Statistical work on juries show them to be wrong 1
time in 10. Only about 1 in 5 of us get fairly easy critical
reasoning right. We have a brutish history with a few gems in it
too. We have a history of people being conned by religion and
religionists. We have a new religion of consumption, as mad as any
other. Yet I still sense this is "bathwater" that has something in it
we need because rationality is not what some claim it to be. I want
there to be some point to life beyond wanting a new pair of shoes and
for life not to be cheap.
> > > right for everybody. To be sure,- Hide quoted text -
minute and I don't notice any of them. You put the ghostdance
necklace on and still get shot. Scott's review seems pretty
reasonable to me and is pretty much what I have been able to discover
for myself. He is not offering me any lies about changing water into
wine, stories from behind a burning bush, from a Golden Salamander and
the rest. I do not have to buy overpriced double glazing off him and
bullshit about it actually starting to heat my home.
In some other place I have no clue about why I have been thrown into
this world - one I'd have to get violent and exploitative in to enjoy,
even living as a recluse in that one has to do the former to establish
oneself. I want something beyond this. In as lot of my work, I meet
people who just can't grasp the stuff I teach - many these days
actually can't even read the books - they think textbooks are hard and
never realise how simplistic these really are. I think it's rare to
find people who are open minded enough to tolerate argument or know
what evidence is. Statistical work on juries show them to be wrong 1
time in 10. Only about 1 in 5 of us get fairly easy critical
reasoning right. We have a brutish history with a few gems in it
too. We have a history of people being conned by religion and
religionists. We have a new religion of consumption, as mad as any
other. Yet I still sense this is "bathwater" that has something in it
we need because rationality is not what some claim it to be. I want
there to be some point to life beyond wanting a new pair of shoes and
for life not to be cheap.
frantheman
Mar 22, 2008, 7:55:04 PM3/22/08
to "Minds Eye"
Neil, I share your longing for that "something more". I'm more and
more inclined to think that religions have some of the right instincts
but are following the wrong tracks. Of course there is much more to
life than reason/ratio - indeed the divisions we make between reason,
faith, emotions, social relationships, aesthetic sensibility etc. are
artifical - in real life they're nearly all mixed up together.
Basically, I think that human life and history are incredibly rich,
complex and deep. This is something we need to realise, rejoice in and
celebrate. The sad thing about religion is that it alienates so many
levels of what it means to be human and places them outside in some
notion of "God". The next step is that there are then people who
dominate others because they claim to know what God is - or even more,
what God wants. (Nothing very new in any of this - Feuerbach said it
all long ago!) Realising that our rational systems are models and that
we can use more than one model can help. Atheism doesn't need to be
reductionist or positivistic. Maybe what we need is an atheistic
mysticism, or humanist spirituality.
Francis
> > > > these- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »
more inclined to think that religions have some of the right instincts
but are following the wrong tracks. Of course there is much more to
life than reason/ratio - indeed the divisions we make between reason,
faith, emotions, social relationships, aesthetic sensibility etc. are
artifical - in real life they're nearly all mixed up together.
Basically, I think that human life and history are incredibly rich,
complex and deep. This is something we need to realise, rejoice in and
celebrate. The sad thing about religion is that it alienates so many
levels of what it means to be human and places them outside in some
notion of "God". The next step is that there are then people who
dominate others because they claim to know what God is - or even more,
what God wants. (Nothing very new in any of this - Feuerbach said it
all long ago!) Realising that our rational systems are models and that
we can use more than one model can help. Atheism doesn't need to be
reductionist or positivistic. Maybe what we need is an atheistic
mysticism, or humanist spirituality.
Francis
>
> - Zitierten Text anzeigen -...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »
bella
Mar 22, 2008, 8:14:28 PM3/22/08
to "Minds Eye"
How about we replace religion with ethics!
archytas
Mar 22, 2008, 8:37:34 PM3/22/08
to "Minds Eye"
Ethics is very tempting Bella - it's where Derrida ended up. The snag
I'd raise is that people are very skilled liras. I agree with
Francis, but broadly believe we need to make honesty more rewarding,
which is very difficult when knowledge is so much part of competitive
advanatge and scarcity is engineered to make profits.
I'd guess we are about to find extra terrestial life and maybe a
breakthrough in high energy physics that might shift some of our
thinking and practice. I wonder generally whether it matters whether
one's peacemaking is rational-evidence-based or faith.
I'd raise is that people are very skilled liras. I agree with
Francis, but broadly believe we need to make honesty more rewarding,
which is very difficult when knowledge is so much part of competitive
advanatge and scarcity is engineered to make profits.
I'd guess we are about to find extra terrestial life and maybe a
breakthrough in high energy physics that might shift some of our
thinking and practice. I wonder generally whether it matters whether
one's peacemaking is rational-evidence-based or faith.
stardust
Mar 23, 2008, 1:56:00 AM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
I was raised by a very Catholic mom, so I was always very skeptical of
religion in general, because from my viewpoint it hindered her more
than helped her. But to her viewpoint it helped her. So I now I
realize to each their own, and if this is how she wanted to live her
life, and that was and is her choice.
But when I had a daughter, and came time to decide whether or not to
baptize her, I struggled with this decision. In the end, I did, and
now I rationalize that I did it for family and cultural reasons and
for out of respect for my Mom.
But I felt like a hypocrite, because I am not married, and the priest
asked me if we planning on getting married and if I would be raising
my daughter in the Catholic faith, etc.
After that I decided to attend church at a Unitarian Universalist
church, a church that accepts people of all faiths and lifestyles and
where you do not have to even believe in God to go to.
But I felt like I need something and wanted raise my daughter with
some type of spiritual atmosphere ( the God-geared part of my brain!)
I have always found religion so fascinating - for me particularly how
people could believe so strongly in such irrational "facts".
But it is funny, my boyfriend who was raised in communist Russia
without any religion and finds religion irrational like I do, finds
the Unitarian Universalists too vague,( I think he is a secret
Christian-want-to be) and I think thats why many people cling so
strongly to these religions that can be so irrational and narrow
minded (in my opinion) because they want easy answers and set
directions to follow.
I think it is all based on fear. Fear of dying. Fear of immortality,
Fear that there is nothing beyond this life. Fear of making choices.
Our egos can not let go of our own importance so we strive and wish
for something more. Because we are a conscious species who can
remember the past and imagine a future and deal with abstract concepts
and worries like no other species can. At least that I know of. So we
wish for God so we feel less alone and less scared or worried.
That being said I believe in God. I chose to. But I think "God" is
beyond our understanding, and that we look for Divinity or
Spirituality often in the wrong places and in the wrong way.
I think life is simpler and more complex than we realize, and we try
to hard to find answers that are already there.
I also believe there is intelligent life in the universe besides our
planet, but I dont think we will see it till we evolve some more,
because it is like looking for a needle in a haystack but more
complex ,if you look at it from the viewpoint of : what if you have
never seen a needle or a haystack?, or seen a needle in a haystack?,
but if you knew what you were looking for...?
...It would be like finding one lone large rock on a small beach.
and thats how I think about "finding" God too.
We can only find what we can visualize or imagine, but more than that:
accept and wrap our minds around.
I think it may also explain how throughout history one group of people
will treat another group of people so horrifically when first
encountering them,
if something is new or different or "strange" and you can quite wrap
your mind around something, you fear or do not see something for what
it really is.
religion in general, because from my viewpoint it hindered her more
than helped her. But to her viewpoint it helped her. So I now I
realize to each their own, and if this is how she wanted to live her
life, and that was and is her choice.
But when I had a daughter, and came time to decide whether or not to
baptize her, I struggled with this decision. In the end, I did, and
now I rationalize that I did it for family and cultural reasons and
for out of respect for my Mom.
But I felt like a hypocrite, because I am not married, and the priest
asked me if we planning on getting married and if I would be raising
my daughter in the Catholic faith, etc.
After that I decided to attend church at a Unitarian Universalist
church, a church that accepts people of all faiths and lifestyles and
where you do not have to even believe in God to go to.
But I felt like I need something and wanted raise my daughter with
some type of spiritual atmosphere ( the God-geared part of my brain!)
I have always found religion so fascinating - for me particularly how
people could believe so strongly in such irrational "facts".
But it is funny, my boyfriend who was raised in communist Russia
without any religion and finds religion irrational like I do, finds
the Unitarian Universalists too vague,( I think he is a secret
Christian-want-to be) and I think thats why many people cling so
strongly to these religions that can be so irrational and narrow
minded (in my opinion) because they want easy answers and set
directions to follow.
I think it is all based on fear. Fear of dying. Fear of immortality,
Fear that there is nothing beyond this life. Fear of making choices.
Our egos can not let go of our own importance so we strive and wish
for something more. Because we are a conscious species who can
remember the past and imagine a future and deal with abstract concepts
and worries like no other species can. At least that I know of. So we
wish for God so we feel less alone and less scared or worried.
That being said I believe in God. I chose to. But I think "God" is
beyond our understanding, and that we look for Divinity or
Spirituality often in the wrong places and in the wrong way.
I think life is simpler and more complex than we realize, and we try
to hard to find answers that are already there.
I also believe there is intelligent life in the universe besides our
planet, but I dont think we will see it till we evolve some more,
because it is like looking for a needle in a haystack but more
complex ,if you look at it from the viewpoint of : what if you have
never seen a needle or a haystack?, or seen a needle in a haystack?,
but if you knew what you were looking for...?
...It would be like finding one lone large rock on a small beach.
and thats how I think about "finding" God too.
We can only find what we can visualize or imagine, but more than that:
accept and wrap our minds around.
I think it may also explain how throughout history one group of people
will treat another group of people so horrifically when first
encountering them,
if something is new or different or "strange" and you can quite wrap
your mind around something, you fear or do not see something for what
it really is.
Vamadevananda
Mar 23, 2008, 2:13:08 AM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
" As soon as a religion is asked for evidence it's basically screwed."
Science is equally screwed when I ask why the Big Bang did occur, if
it did. Not all the science in the world has made man a moral human
being. The evidence you speak of is that of material, perceivable
cause and effect. If that is welcome, and it is by me, then the cause
and effects pertaining to the mind of man, reflecting in his attitude
to himself and others, in his value and belief system, is equally,
perhaps more, important !
Religions arose to address that content in man's life. And, they do,
albeitly imperfectly ; but that's because even a religious man is not
a completely moral one ! And that is less on account of religion than
because of what we are, the way we are. I am talking of that which is
crooked and warped within ourself, because of which we would as easily
misuse science ( or technology ) as religion ( or professed faith ).
I find this constant sabre - rattling, positing Religion against
Science, infantile. It only seems to replicate the atmosphere in A vs
C google group. Is that what we want in Minds Eye ?
Instead, let's initiate and carry on with a dialogue. . . Say
something new and substantial in a few words, Neil !
stardust
Mar 23, 2008, 3:10:07 AM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
I think there is a paradigm shift happening slowly that is bridging
"religion" and science. And that is what I tired to refer to in my
earlier post, that what we can understand then we can accept. And I
think there is more acceptance and understanding for how science and
spirituality(what I think religion strives for) do not have to be at
odds.
> ...
>
> read more »
"religion" and science. And that is what I tired to refer to in my
earlier post, that what we can understand then we can accept. And I
think there is more acceptance and understanding for how science and
spirituality(what I think religion strives for) do not have to be at
odds.
>
> read more »
mike chen
Mar 23, 2008, 3:25:45 AM3/23/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God Machine
Mar 23, 2008, 3:59:23 AM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
I actually think that science will eventually threaten most religions
when it can offer extended lifetimes or even immortality, simulated
virtual heavens and/or utopias, and intense, emotional, magical,
spiritual experiences of "God" beings through technology, at least for
those who can afford all this.....
On Mar 21, 5:57 pm, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
> > creed. It is- Hide quoted text -
when it can offer extended lifetimes or even immortality, simulated
virtual heavens and/or utopias, and intense, emotional, magical,
spiritual experiences of "God" beings through technology, at least for
those who can afford all this.....
On Mar 21, 5:57 pm, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
stardust
Mar 23, 2008, 4:17:59 AM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
good point. but I have had the recent thought that this "God
programmed"
part of our brain is actually in the part of the brain that
technology may be able to help us have easier access to - it may make
God seem like more of a myth or it may make God just easier to find.
If God exists on some plane that is difficult to access because it is
a part of our subconsciousness brain ( for lack of a better word)
technology that allows longer life time (and more time for reflection,
prayer, meditation, ... ) and technology that exploits? parts of our
brain at this point underdeveloped, might actually bridge that gap
between science and God. - to play devils advocate here.
and again I am blending the term spirituality with religion - as that
should be the true aim of religion in my opinion but it gets hijacked.
On Mar 23, 3:59 am, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
> ...
>
> read more »
programmed"
part of our brain is actually in the part of the brain that
technology may be able to help us have easier access to - it may make
God seem like more of a myth or it may make God just easier to find.
If God exists on some plane that is difficult to access because it is
a part of our subconsciousness brain ( for lack of a better word)
technology that allows longer life time (and more time for reflection,
prayer, meditation, ... ) and technology that exploits? parts of our
brain at this point underdeveloped, might actually bridge that gap
between science and God. - to play devils advocate here.
and again I am blending the term spirituality with religion - as that
should be the true aim of religion in my opinion but it gets hijacked.
On Mar 23, 3:59 am, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
>
> read more »
archytas
Mar 23, 2008, 9:25:20 AM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
Good point on the why questions Vam - I think it's a myth that science
proceeds without them. I think it's also a general mistake to think
we can say much of substance in a few words - we rely on much hidden
language when we speak or do anything. There is much to commend in
each to their own, yet also a point at which one has to confront the
bandit, rapist and so on.
Human explanation and justification is often predicated around simple
mistakes, and we are considered to be in a time of legitimation crisis
(postmodernism - one word, yet requiring much reading to 'bottom').
The questions are really about how we can have decent relations with
each other and get rid of bloated excess whilst many people live in
squalor (of many kinds). My view is that we have made human relations
far too complicated, but need to be pretty complicated to unpick the
knots and get systems in place that allow leadership, but also control
it and change its locus to something more communal.
> > > > derivative of Christianity.- Hide quoted text -
proceeds without them. I think it's also a general mistake to think
we can say much of substance in a few words - we rely on much hidden
language when we speak or do anything. There is much to commend in
each to their own, yet also a point at which one has to confront the
bandit, rapist and so on.
Human explanation and justification is often predicated around simple
mistakes, and we are considered to be in a time of legitimation crisis
(postmodernism - one word, yet requiring much reading to 'bottom').
The questions are really about how we can have decent relations with
each other and get rid of bloated excess whilst many people live in
squalor (of many kinds). My view is that we have made human relations
far too complicated, but need to be pretty complicated to unpick the
knots and get systems in place that allow leadership, but also control
it and change its locus to something more communal.
rp
Mar 23, 2008, 1:04:10 PM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
I don't know about religion but you may call the source God or you may
call it Nature. But it is very much living otherwise it would have
been a dead world without a single conscious being in existence.
> > > > > As in the past, this is a- Hide quoted text -
call it Nature. But it is very much living otherwise it would have
been a dead world without a single conscious being in existence.
Vamadevananda
Mar 23, 2008, 1:15:54 PM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
I agree with your observation, RP, and find it profound !
> > > > > > Tocqueville was amazed and baffled by its- Hide quoted text -
Pat
Mar 23, 2008, 2:12:57 PM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 23 Mar, 07:59, Scott Richard Campbell A Seeker of the God
Machine <drgohappy2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I actually think that science will eventually threaten most religions
> when it can offer extended lifetimes or even immortality, simulated
> virtual heavens and/or utopias, and intense, emotional, magical,
> spiritual experiences of "God" beings through technology, at least for
> those who can afford all this.....
>
Ahh, survival of the fattest wallet.
> I actually think that science will eventually threaten most religions
> when it can offer extended lifetimes or even immortality, simulated
> virtual heavens and/or utopias, and intense, emotional, magical,
> spiritual experiences of "God" beings through technology, at least for
> those who can afford all this.....
>
ornamentalmind
Mar 23, 2008, 3:43:22 PM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
" Ahh, survival of the fattest wallet."
More like blind, fanatical faith in science? :-)
Pat
Mar 23, 2008, 5:00:35 PM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 23 Mar, 19:43, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> " Ahh, survival of the fattest wallet."
>
> More like blind, fanatical faith in science? :-)
>
irrespective of its outer garments. I believe Scott means well, but
I'm not so sure that everyone would feel that way when it comes time
to proving the pudding.
chazwin
Mar 23, 2008, 7:35:18 PM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Mar 22, 6:35 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I always wonder why religion must base itself in lies we would never
> tolerate in the rest of our lives. I have no doubt though that we are
> throwing a baby away in the bathwater. I don't think science has got
> much to do with any of it. As soon as a religion is asked for
> evidence it's basically screwed. And how can you argue with people
> not interested in facts and listenning for the truth?
> It's easy enough to point out religions' rotten things, but there is
> also somthing insideous in the good, and something we need to question
> about leaving a void. Science cannot sensibly deny religion as there
> is a goi-spot in the brain to explain. There is no denial of god in
> the broad sense either, though why anyone would want to believe in the
> cruddy ones antiquity has put forward is beyond me. Underlying all
> this, Plato argued that on had to lie to the public as they could not
> take the truth. Without the lies there could be no social cohesion.
If so - where?
> We are missing the point and Dawkins et al know very little about
> social science or that their arguments are thousands of years old.
correct in his blindness to "social science" though. His answer to
human social action is the meme, which casts humans and their
intentionality to a dumb mechanistic property of the brain.
chazwin
Mar 23, 2008, 7:36:38 PM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
Oh please!
> > > > > Tocqueville was amazed and baffled by its- Hide quoted text -
archytas
Mar 23, 2008, 8:50:20 PM3/23/08
to "Minds Eye"
I was thinking about the neo-con reading of Plato - I forget the guy
at the root of it and bits of the Republik where Cauchon and others
are gloating about even being able to confuse younger Guardians about
mating, and a few other references to myths of origin being vital in
control of the populace. I'd guess I came to this view from vol.1 of
The Open Society where Popper shows his dislike. It wouldn't have
been a smart move to challenge the gods of the time so directly I
would guess.
Dawkins seems to lack an awareness of challenge to rationality and its
failures through time because one can see other forces driving people
and take a lot of apparent objectivity apart. I haven't read him
recently, having been totally disapointed by Reweaving the Rainbow
years back. I must agree with 90% of what he writes - if I could
clarify on the ancients a little I don't think he grasps a certain
contempt for ignorance they did display quite openly and his own steps
in trying to evade this. I don't swallow the line that he is an
atheist crusader or whatever - he just doesn't answer problems I have
with forcing knowledge on people who seem not to be able to grasp it.
This said, as a teacher, if I had a ray gun that did this, I'd have
used it by now!
> > > > > > (Ireland is a recent example) and has not- Hide quoted text -
at the root of it and bits of the Republik where Cauchon and others
are gloating about even being able to confuse younger Guardians about
mating, and a few other references to myths of origin being vital in
control of the populace. I'd guess I came to this view from vol.1 of
The Open Society where Popper shows his dislike. It wouldn't have
been a smart move to challenge the gods of the time so directly I
would guess.
Dawkins seems to lack an awareness of challenge to rationality and its
failures through time because one can see other forces driving people
and take a lot of apparent objectivity apart. I haven't read him
recently, having been totally disapointed by Reweaving the Rainbow
years back. I must agree with 90% of what he writes - if I could
clarify on the ancients a little I don't think he grasps a certain
contempt for ignorance they did display quite openly and his own steps
in trying to evade this. I don't swallow the line that he is an
atheist crusader or whatever - he just doesn't answer problems I have
with forcing knowledge on people who seem not to be able to grasp it.
This said, as a teacher, if I had a ray gun that did this, I'd have
used it by now!
Mark S. Milley
Mar 24, 2008, 12:19:11 AM3/24/08
to "Minds Eye"
> Science is equally screwed when I ask why the Big Bang did occur, if
> it did.
I believe "the great questions" such as "what is the meaning of life",
> it did.
and "why are we here," as Vamadevananda asked in an alternate form
above, are inherently flawed. These questions are a projection of our
thoughts on the universe itself; and mirrors not only the way we
think, but paints a picture of our fears as well.
You must take a step back for a moment from your usual way of thinking
to really get what I'm saying here.
To really see things the way they are, we must get out from beneath
the shadow of our own egos.
Let me put this another way.
There is often a point of view by the more simple-minded religious
folks I know that goes something like this: "look at how beautiful the
world is, how perfect; clearly, this world and everything in it must
have been made."
The tragic flaw in this theory is that OF COURSE the world is perfect
for us; life on this planet evolved and adapted to it's environment.
This world is not perfectly tailored to us; we are suited for the
planet; we may find life on other worlds--worlds that are completely
inhospitable to us, and our world may be equally inhospitable to other
life forms. But that is beside the point.
The concept that the world is good becuase it suits us, or to consider
that our lives must have some meaning simply because we are capable of
contemplating the question, or to propose that because the universe
exists, there must have been some causation--and more, some humanesque
"reason why" for such a catalyst--all fall victim, logically speaking,
to the same fallacy; that is, because we are observers, what we
observe was meant to be observed. This is circular logic.
So, Vam, I present to you, there is no "why" did the Big Bang Occur.
Before it, we cannot rationalize what existed, but that doesn't mean
because there is a current pocket of ignorance, that it is a fine
place to put "magic" and a "god". Supernatural causation is even less
valid than natural causation, and it doesn't free us from a never
ending chain of "cause and effect"--if we supposed that "god did it"--
then that leads us to "where the heck did god come from?"
Stop asking and just accept what is.
I believe the vast majority of the "great questions" aren't really
great at all. Trying to map out a retrospective view of the past--
especially outwards by trillions of years--will in no way help us with
the problems we face today.
I present to you that asking "why" the universe exists is a less
pressing question than "what the heck are we going to do about global
warming, for example.
Vamadevananda
Mar 24, 2008, 7:52:38 AM3/24/08
to "Minds Eye"
Thank you, Mark, for trying to tell me how I need to think. I am not
buying it, so you'll have to find someone else to sell it to !
I'm sure you will realise that I have nothing personal against you. It
just that I no longer think or live by other people's thoughts and
ideas. More immediately, I am not looking for quickfix solutions, the
like you've offered in your post : like a juggler, who hides one
factor to a problem and says, ' where is the problem ? ' On other
hand, I am quite capable of residing in the problem - free domain at
will !
Let the thread continue. I look forward to hearing more from you on
this forum.
On Mar 24, 9:19 am, "Mark S. Milley" <mark.mil...@binaryswitch.com>
wrote:
buying it, so you'll have to find someone else to sell it to !
I'm sure you will realise that I have nothing personal against you. It
just that I no longer think or live by other people's thoughts and
ideas. More immediately, I am not looking for quickfix solutions, the
like you've offered in your post : like a juggler, who hides one
factor to a problem and says, ' where is the problem ? ' On other
hand, I am quite capable of residing in the problem - free domain at
will !
Let the thread continue. I look forward to hearing more from you on
this forum.
On Mar 24, 9:19 am, "Mark S. Milley" <mark.mil...@binaryswitch.com>
wrote:
Mark S. Milley
Mar 24, 2008, 7:57:01 AM3/24/08
to "Minds Eye"
That's funny. I don't see where I said that anyone else had to believe
what I believe. Sensitive much?
what I believe. Sensitive much?
Charlie Courtois
Mar 24, 2008, 6:54:17 PM3/24/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Bella,
I and my first wife raised 3 children. One, the girl,
chooses to go to Church, Protestant, and teaches
her two school age girls Bible Study one hour every
day. The two boys practice no religion. The boys
are emulating what I did, NOTHING!
Neither of my parents darkened the door of a
church; but, they chose to send me and my
sister to Catholic School. The quality of the
schooling was great in Cleveland, Ohio, then.
My sister raised her 4 girls as Catholics
and only one of them go to church, Catholic.
That my view was to let the kids decide on their
own what to do about Religion was probably
not the right way to handle it; but, I didn't feel
compelled to opt for strong teaching.
Now, with 20/20 hindsight I wish I had done
differently. Why? Because it is clear to me
that we need to work much harder to protect
the integrity and importance of the family.
I think a sound belief in God helps do that.
CharlieC
"The mind is naturally capable of knowing everything that exists" --St. Thomas Aquinas, Universal Doctor of the Church
Pat
Mar 24, 2008, 9:35:16 PM3/24/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 24 Mar, 04:19, "Mark S. Milley" <mark.mil...@binaryswitch.com>
wrote:
conclude that the Big Bang is unreasonable. If the Big Bang was an
unreasonable event, how can that be acceptable to a mind that requires
reason?
> Before it, we cannot rationalize what existed, but that doesn't mean
> because there is a current pocket of ignorance, that it is a fine
> place to put "magic" and a "god". Supernatural causation is even less
> valid than natural causation, and it doesn't free us from a never
> ending chain of "cause and effect"--if we supposed that "god did it"--
> then that leads us to "where the heck did god come from?"
>
> Stop asking and just accept what is.
>
Why? Or is there no reason behind it?
archytas
Mar 25, 2008, 2:23:04 AM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
I don't agree with Charlie on religion, but do see discipine as a real
problem in society. My view is that we have always based it on myth
and been exploited by leadership and lies. Scott's language-game is
less Frankenstein than at first sight - but I'll take death for the
time being.
Every administrative system I work or live in is flawed and pretty
corrupt. We have a very grim reminder in the UK in terms of a
children's home in Jersey at the moment, but on a wider scale we are
imprisoning kids in squalid conditions and lauding this as
"discipline". I suspect nuclear family solutions - though not what
Charlie seems to mean. We force a lot of people into no hope and are
not good at both the discipline of criminal networks or breaking their
cycle. I think a lot of this is because we assume people can get jobs
and so on when too many cannot - but also that welfare feeds the
problems along with a failure in quality of work life and dignity in
work. We tend towards idiot political posturing rather than problem
identification and solution.
> > warming, for example.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
problem in society. My view is that we have always based it on myth
and been exploited by leadership and lies. Scott's language-game is
less Frankenstein than at first sight - but I'll take death for the
time being.
Every administrative system I work or live in is flawed and pretty
corrupt. We have a very grim reminder in the UK in terms of a
children's home in Jersey at the moment, but on a wider scale we are
imprisoning kids in squalid conditions and lauding this as
"discipline". I suspect nuclear family solutions - though not what
Charlie seems to mean. We force a lot of people into no hope and are
not good at both the discipline of criminal networks or breaking their
cycle. I think a lot of this is because we assume people can get jobs
and so on when too many cannot - but also that welfare feeds the
problems along with a failure in quality of work life and dignity in
work. We tend towards idiot political posturing rather than problem
identification and solution.
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
theo
Mar 24, 2008, 6:57:08 PM3/24/08
to "Minds Eye"
Could we try to separate science from religion in that we assume, that
all theological statements are a form of expression of pre-conscious
thought, which is not as yet ready to be expressed in an other (more
scientific) way, similarly to poetry, or some forms of art.
The process of secularisation of religion, is a historical progression
from pre-conscious, to socially accepted ways of thinking, not quite
dissimilar to the realisation of science-fiction fantasies, or to
prophetic predictions, which materialise to become generally
experienceable facts.
The fact, that religion is predominently an historical tradition, and
further, that much of religious dogma is not debatable, points to an
unwillingness of "holders of eternal truths" to relinquish a monopoly,
which they would, in the case of open debate on the subject, lose,
because the concept of an anthropocentric God cannot hold in a world,
which has been discerned as ecological,that is; a world in which the
bacterium as well as the amoeba has a right to life and to growth, and
may be, in the eye of God or Gaia, a form of life endowed with the
same rights and importance as higher, or more complex biological life
forms.
The fact, that man has been winning for some time, can also be
understood as a desequilibrium, which must, sooner or later, be
righted.
The "atmosphere of moral panic" which surrouds religion, could
possibly have to do with these themes; - having to accept the fact,
that religion is a historical interpretation of an anthropocentric
world view, which is losing its validity.
grateful for any comments.
Theo
> influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into
> an explanatory theory.
>
> The notion that religion is a primitive version of science was
> popularised in the late 19th century. The positivists believed that
> with the development of transport and communication irrational
> thinking would wither way, along with the religions of the past.
> Despite the history of the past century, Dennett believes much the
> same. In an interview that appears on the website of the Edge
> Foundation (edge.org) under the title The Evaporation of the Powerful
> Mystique of Religion , he predicts that "in about 25 years almost all
> religions will have evolved into very different phenomena, so much so
> that in most quarters religion will no longer command the awe that it
> does today". He is confident that this will come about, he tells us,
> mainly because of "the worldwide spread of information technology (not
> just the internet, but cell phones and portable radios and
> television)". The philosopher has evidently not reflected on the
> ubiquity of mobile phones among the Taliban, or the emergence of a
> virtual al-Qaeda on the web.
> The growth of knowledge is a fact only postmodern relativists deny.
> Science is the best tool we have for forming reliable beliefs about
> the world, but it does not differ from religion by revealing a bare
> truth that religions veil in dreams. Both science and religion are
> systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science,
> for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but
> at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather
> than explanation. A great deal of modern thought consists of secular
> myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-
> science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will
> fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.
>
> In The God Delusion , Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of
> religion in terms of the theory of "memes", vaguely defined conceptual
> units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection.
> He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to
> religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but
> today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education.
> From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to
> education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over
> recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is
> difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this.
> Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools
> and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »...
all theological statements are a form of expression of pre-conscious
thought, which is not as yet ready to be expressed in an other (more
scientific) way, similarly to poetry, or some forms of art.
The process of secularisation of religion, is a historical progression
from pre-conscious, to socially accepted ways of thinking, not quite
dissimilar to the realisation of science-fiction fantasies, or to
prophetic predictions, which materialise to become generally
experienceable facts.
The fact, that religion is predominently an historical tradition, and
further, that much of religious dogma is not debatable, points to an
unwillingness of "holders of eternal truths" to relinquish a monopoly,
which they would, in the case of open debate on the subject, lose,
because the concept of an anthropocentric God cannot hold in a world,
which has been discerned as ecological,that is; a world in which the
bacterium as well as the amoeba has a right to life and to growth, and
may be, in the eye of God or Gaia, a form of life endowed with the
same rights and importance as higher, or more complex biological life
forms.
The fact, that man has been winning for some time, can also be
understood as a desequilibrium, which must, sooner or later, be
righted.
The "atmosphere of moral panic" which surrouds religion, could
possibly have to do with these themes; - having to accept the fact,
that religion is a historical interpretation of an anthropocentric
world view, which is losing its validity.
grateful for any comments.
Theo
> (Ireland is a recent example) and has not shaped everyday life for
> most people in Britain for many years. Much of Europe is clearly post-
> Christian. However, there is nothing that suggests the move away from
> religion is irreversible, or that it is potentially universal. The US
> is no more secular today than it was 150 years ago, when de
> most people in Britain for many years. Much of Europe is clearly post-
> Christian. However, there is nothing that suggests the move away from
> religion is irreversible, or that it is potentially universal. The US
> is no more secular today than it was 150 years ago, when de
> right for everybody. To be sure, atheism need not be a missionary
> creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious
> beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of
> humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that
> is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.
> creed of this kind. It is entirely reasonable to have no religious
> beliefs, and yet be friendly to religion. It is a funny sort of
> humanism that condemns an impulse that is peculiarly human. Yet that
> is what evangelical atheists do when they demonise religion.
> A curious feature of this kind of atheism is that some of its most
> fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the
> Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general
> theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American
> Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of
> religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of
> fervent missionaries are philosophers. Daniel Dennett's Breaking the
> Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon claims to sketch a general
> theory of religion. In fact, it is mostly a polemic against American
> Christianity. This parochial focus is reflected in Dennett's view of
> religion, which for him means the belief that some kind of
> supernatural agency (whose approval believers seek) is needed to
> explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are
> efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary
> or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God
> exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do
> not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The
> incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern
> Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism, practice tends to have
> priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in
> spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam.
> Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a
> creed. It is only some western Christian traditions, under the
> explain the way things are in the world. For Dennett, religions are
> efforts at doing something science does better - they are rudimentary
> or abortive theories, or else nonsense. "The proposition that God
> exists," he writes severely, "is not even a theory." But religions do
> not consist of propositions struggling to become theories. The
> incomprehensibility of the divine is at the heart of Eastern
> Christianity, while in Orthodox Judaism, practice tends to have
> priority over doctrine. Buddhism has always recognised that in
> spiritual matters truth is ineffable, as do Sufi traditions in Islam.
> Hinduism has never defined itself by anything as simplistic as a
> influence of Greek philosophy, which have tried to turn religion into
> an explanatory theory.
>
> The notion that religion is a primitive version of science was
> popularised in the late 19th century. The positivists believed that
> with the development of transport and communication irrational
> thinking would wither way, along with the religions of the past.
> Despite the history of the past century, Dennett believes much the
> same. In an interview that appears on the website of the Edge
> Foundation (edge.org) under the title The Evaporation of the Powerful
> Mystique of Religion , he predicts that "in about 25 years almost all
> religions will have evolved into very different phenomena, so much so
> that in most quarters religion will no longer command the awe that it
> does today". He is confident that this will come about, he tells us,
> mainly because of "the worldwide spread of information technology (not
> just the internet, but cell phones and portable radios and
> television)". The philosopher has evidently not reflected on the
> ubiquity of mobile phones among the Taliban, or the emergence of a
> virtual al-Qaeda on the web.
> The growth of knowledge is a fact only postmodern relativists deny.
> Science is the best tool we have for forming reliable beliefs about
> the world, but it does not differ from religion by revealing a bare
> truth that religions veil in dreams. Both science and religion are
> systems of symbols that serve human needs - in the case of science,
> for prediction and control. Religions have served many purposes, but
> at bottom they answer to a need for meaning that is met by myth rather
> than explanation. A great deal of modern thought consists of secular
> myths - hollowed-out religious narratives translated into pseudo-
> science. Dennett's notion that new communications technologies will
> fundamentally alter the way human beings think is just such a myth.
>
> In The God Delusion , Dawkins attempts to explain the appeal of
> religion in terms of the theory of "memes", vaguely defined conceptual
> units that compete with one another in a parody of natural selection.
> He recognises that, because humans have a universal tendency to
> religious belief, it must have had some evolutionary advantage, but
> today, he argues, it is perpetuated mainly through bad education.
> From a Darwinian standpoint, the crucial role Dawkins gives to
> education is puzzling. Human biology has not changed greatly over
> recorded history, and if religion is hardwired in the species, it is
> difficult to see how a different kind of education could alter this.
> Yet Dawkins seems convinced that if it were not inculcated in schools
> and families, religion would die out. This is a view that has more
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »...
pamelajane
Mar 25, 2008, 4:15:19 AM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
Do we question things to death? If you live in a simple society, is
not your thinking simple ? and if we live in a complex society, is it
not possible that our thinking is screwed ? who is to say we got it
right, is it not just one persons opinion. And who among us knows the
truth.
> > > right for everybody. To be sure,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
not your thinking simple ? and if we live in a complex society, is it
not possible that our thinking is screwed ? who is to say we got it
right, is it not just one persons opinion. And who among us knows the
truth.
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Jake Patterson
Mar 25, 2008, 6:50:06 AM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
But it religion really debatable? Is it not, as pointed out, an art
form? A poem? A long and ancient tradition?
Therefore it is not that religion has no place in science, but that
science has no place in religion. Can we really debate the unprovable
and find anything useful?
form? A poem? A long and ancient tradition?
Therefore it is not that religion has no place in science, but that
science has no place in religion. Can we really debate the unprovable
and find anything useful?
Vamadevananda
Mar 25, 2008, 7:05:01 AM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
Why do we have to be right ? We only need to be true, to ourself.
Also, everybody has his own truth. It's just that mine may differ from
yours !
> > > > autonomy- Hide quoted text -
Also, everybody has his own truth. It's just that mine may differ from
yours !
archytas
Mar 25, 2008, 9:14:04 AM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
I think Theo is on to something. It's right to that we can 'think
things to death' - I'm an obsessional thinker at times. There is
something too in Vam's 'true to oneself' - Wittgenstein talked about
this as 'a place of safety' in terms of ethics. I generally think
eternal truths are dangerous and that regimes of truth cause many
problems because we don't get ethical behaviour of Vam's kind.
There is a god-spot - this does not imply god - but might imply
something adaptive in evolution, perhaps something with purpose we are
yet to 'see'.
Anyway, enough of this obsessional twaddle - England are on the verge
of a series win against the mighty New Zealand! Panesar is getting
amongst them Vam, though he could do with a Chinaman in his repertoire
and his turbans are not as colourful as Bishan Bedi's.
> > > > > his work. His largest debt to- Hide quoted text -
things to death' - I'm an obsessional thinker at times. There is
something too in Vam's 'true to oneself' - Wittgenstein talked about
this as 'a place of safety' in terms of ethics. I generally think
eternal truths are dangerous and that regimes of truth cause many
problems because we don't get ethical behaviour of Vam's kind.
There is a god-spot - this does not imply god - but might imply
something adaptive in evolution, perhaps something with purpose we are
yet to 'see'.
Anyway, enough of this obsessional twaddle - England are on the verge
of a series win against the mighty New Zealand! Panesar is getting
amongst them Vam, though he could do with a Chinaman in his repertoire
and his turbans are not as colourful as Bishan Bedi's.
Lee
Mar 25, 2008, 9:36:19 AM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
There is of course much good and much bad in all aspects of life Neil,
unlike babies and bath water, I would say that if you boil a chicken
carcus, along with an onion or two a few carrots, perhaps some celery
and plenty of pepper and salt, then what you get is a liquid that
although is not the same as the ingrediants you have used, still
contains some of their flavours.
Pinning down the differant flavours in this human stock, shit that
would truely take a Godlike chef huh!
The question though is just what the hell am I talking about? In
essance I agree, there is something in this 'bathwater' of yours or
this 'stock' of mine, now if only we could get our hands on some sort
of sift fine enough to distinguish just what the hell it is, then
perhaps we could recreate for our selfes this magical recipy, heh or
of course if you have the mind for it, leave that sort of cooking to
the cheif chef huh.
On Mar 22, 9:34 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm always struck that billions of neutrinos pass through me every
> minute and I don't notice any of them. You put the ghostdance
> necklace on and still get shot. Scott's review seems pretty
> reasonable to me and is pretty much what I have been able to discover
> for myself. He is not offering me any lies about changing water into
> wine, stories from behind a burning bush, from a Golden Salamander and
> the rest. I do not have to buy overpriced double glazing off him and
> bullshit about it actually starting to heat my home.
> In some other place I have no clue about why I have been thrown into
> this world - one I'd have to get violent and exploitative in to enjoy,
> even living as a recluse in that one has to do the former to establish
> oneself. I want something beyond this. In as lot of my work, I meet
> people who just can't grasp the stuff I teach - many these days
> actually can't even read the books - they think textbooks are hard and
> never realise how simplistic these really are. I think it's rare to
> find people who are open minded enough to tolerate argument or know
> what evidence is. Statistical work on juries show them to be wrong 1
> time in 10. Only about 1 in 5 of us get fairly easy critical
> reasoning right. We have a brutish history with a few gems in it
> too. We have a history of people being conned by religion and
> religionists. We have a new religion of consumption, as mad as any
> other. Yet I still sense this is "bathwater" that has something in it
> we need because rationality is not what some claim it to be. I want
> there to be some point to life beyond wanting a new pair of shoes and
> for life not to be cheap.
> > > > these- Hide quoted text -
unlike babies and bath water, I would say that if you boil a chicken
carcus, along with an onion or two a few carrots, perhaps some celery
and plenty of pepper and salt, then what you get is a liquid that
although is not the same as the ingrediants you have used, still
contains some of their flavours.
Pinning down the differant flavours in this human stock, shit that
would truely take a Godlike chef huh!
The question though is just what the hell am I talking about? In
essance I agree, there is something in this 'bathwater' of yours or
this 'stock' of mine, now if only we could get our hands on some sort
of sift fine enough to distinguish just what the hell it is, then
perhaps we could recreate for our selfes this magical recipy, heh or
of course if you have the mind for it, leave that sort of cooking to
the cheif chef huh.
On Mar 22, 9:34 pm, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I'm always struck that billions of neutrinos pass through me every
> minute and I don't notice any of them. You put the ghostdance
> necklace on and still get shot. Scott's review seems pretty
> reasonable to me and is pretty much what I have been able to discover
> for myself. He is not offering me any lies about changing water into
> wine, stories from behind a burning bush, from a Golden Salamander and
> the rest. I do not have to buy overpriced double glazing off him and
> bullshit about it actually starting to heat my home.
> In some other place I have no clue about why I have been thrown into
> this world - one I'd have to get violent and exploitative in to enjoy,
> even living as a recluse in that one has to do the former to establish
> oneself. I want something beyond this. In as lot of my work, I meet
> people who just can't grasp the stuff I teach - many these days
> actually can't even read the books - they think textbooks are hard and
> never realise how simplistic these really are. I think it's rare to
> find people who are open minded enough to tolerate argument or know
> what evidence is. Statistical work on juries show them to be wrong 1
> time in 10. Only about 1 in 5 of us get fairly easy critical
> reasoning right. We have a brutish history with a few gems in it
> too. We have a history of people being conned by religion and
> religionists. We have a new religion of consumption, as mad as any
> other. Yet I still sense this is "bathwater" that has something in it
> we need because rationality is not what some claim it to be. I want
> there to be some point to life beyond wanting a new pair of shoes and
> for life not to be cheap.
Lee
Mar 25, 2008, 9:44:04 AM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
Hey Mark,
Heh please do let us know how a human is supposed to think and reason,
in anything other than a human mannor?
As to questions of why, cannot why also mean how. How does the TV
work? Why does the TV work?
How did the big bang occour? Why did the big bang occour?
I don't think it foolish nor wrong to ask these questions, when all of
our experiance and learning tells us that things work for a reason.
Of course if what you truely mean is 'I see no merit in these types of
questions', then that is yours to decide.
On Mar 24, 4:19 am, "Mark S. Milley" <mark.mil...@binaryswitch.com>
wrote:
Heh please do let us know how a human is supposed to think and reason,
in anything other than a human mannor?
As to questions of why, cannot why also mean how. How does the TV
work? Why does the TV work?
How did the big bang occour? Why did the big bang occour?
I don't think it foolish nor wrong to ask these questions, when all of
our experiance and learning tells us that things work for a reason.
Of course if what you truely mean is 'I see no merit in these types of
questions', then that is yours to decide.
On Mar 24, 4:19 am, "Mark S. Milley" <mark.mil...@binaryswitch.com>
wrote:
Lee
Mar 25, 2008, 9:54:11 AM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
Heh Neil,
One of my mantra's seems to be 'life, it's a funny old game innit!'
and I shall carry on in that vein. I saw on this mornings news a
teacher bemoaning the fact that a lot of children are spoilt by their
parents; they are undisciplined and so fail to work well, share,
concentrate and just plain give up when a task becomes too hard or
boring at school.
Obviously she put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the
parents. Now I guess it may sound like a tired argument nowadays, but
I agree with her, and whats more it is my generation that is to
blame(and perhaps to an extent my parents generation).
Most of my peers were ummm disciplined hard as children, and so we
choose to be a little errr softer on our own kids. Life lacks rule
books, and so each of us has to learn, or indeed make it up as we go
along. Perhaps then religon serves some in stead of these missing
books, whilst rationality serves others, perhaps then it should be a
case of 'who is your faverite authour?' rather than us vs them
menatlity we should be seeking?
One of my mantra's seems to be 'life, it's a funny old game innit!'
and I shall carry on in that vein. I saw on this mornings news a
teacher bemoaning the fact that a lot of children are spoilt by their
parents; they are undisciplined and so fail to work well, share,
concentrate and just plain give up when a task becomes too hard or
boring at school.
Obviously she put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the
parents. Now I guess it may sound like a tired argument nowadays, but
I agree with her, and whats more it is my generation that is to
blame(and perhaps to an extent my parents generation).
Most of my peers were ummm disciplined hard as children, and so we
choose to be a little errr softer on our own kids. Life lacks rule
books, and so each of us has to learn, or indeed make it up as we go
along. Perhaps then religon serves some in stead of these missing
books, whilst rationality serves others, perhaps then it should be a
case of 'who is your faverite authour?' rather than us vs them
menatlity we should be seeking?
Lee
Mar 25, 2008, 9:55:14 AM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
Hey Vam,
I agree to the essance of that, but surly some things are truer than
others?
> > > > > his work. His largest debt to- Hide quoted text -
I agree to the essance of that, but surly some things are truer than
others?
Lee
Mar 25, 2008, 10:02:31 AM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
Hey Charlie,
I agree 100% with you it seems the only humane way to raise kids, yet
that just means I have to live with the feeling that my choice may
have been wrong when I watch them both growing up to be Atheist
godless heathens. Mind you so is their Mum, and well I quite fancy
her.
> Charlie Courtoishttp://www.worksforchrist.org
I agree 100% with you it seems the only humane way to raise kids, yet
that just means I have to live with the feeling that my choice may
have been wrong when I watch them both growing up to be Atheist
godless heathens. Mind you so is their Mum, and well I quite fancy
her.
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:14 PM, bella <brownden...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How about we replace religion with ethics!
>
> --
>
> > How about we replace religion with ethics!
>
> Charlie Courtoishttp://www.worksforchrist.org
Pat
Mar 25, 2008, 5:15:36 PM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 25 Mar, 06:23, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I don't agree with Charlie on religion, but do see discipine as a real
> problem in society. My view is that we have always based it on myth
> and been exploited by leadership and lies. Scott's language-game is
> less Frankenstein than at first sight - but I'll take death for the
> time being.
> Every administrative system I work or live in is flawed and pretty
> corrupt. We have a very grim reminder in the UK in terms of a
> children's home in Jersey at the moment, but on a wider scale we are
> imprisoning kids in squalid conditions and lauding this as
> "discipline". I suspect nuclear family solutions - though not what
> Charlie seems to mean. We force a lot of people into no hope and are
> not good at both the discipline of criminal networks or breaking their
> cycle. I think a lot of this is because we assume people can get jobs
> and so on when too many cannot - but also that welfare feeds the
> problems along with a failure in quality of work life and dignity in
> work. We tend towards idiot political posturing rather than problem
> identification and solution.
>
just the obvious differences like the difference between referring to
medical practice and legal practice as different disciplines as
opposed to its meaning in 'a well-disciplined child'. It would seem
that 'a well-discilpined child' can mean a plethora of things when
talking to different parents.
The most blaring example of the difference struck me the last
time I visited my kids. I was sitting on a bed with my 3 sons
(Justin, 11; Neil, 6 and Owen, 4) watching Justin playing on his new
step-brother's PlayStation. I forget exactly what we were all talking
about but, during the discussion, someone, I think it was Neil but it
may have been Justin, said something derogatory about Owen and, rather
than get worked up about it, he simply raised his middle finger in a
firm 'f*ck you' response. Nothing said, though, just the gesture and
the gesture made rather nonchalantly.
Now the first thing that struck me was 'where did he learn the
gesture'. School, most likely. It also struck me that it wasn't the
typical two-finger British salute but the American middle finger. But
he certainly didn't get it from me and I know my ex doesn't really use
such gestures. Then it struck me as something I would have been
punished for doing had I done so at his age. I contemplated it
further, though, and felt that he handled himself quite well, he
wasn't hurt or flustered by the comment and simply just quietly
communicated his feelings rather succinctly. Since it was in the
privacy of his own home and directed to his brother and there was no
violence involved, I thought it was almost a perfectly mature
reaction. So I let it slide.
But I'd still like to know where a four-year-old English boy,
only having gone to nursery school, could have picked up the American
middle finger gesture. I reckon it came through Justin or Jamie, his
new step-brother, who is a great kid and a real asset to the family.
ornamentalmind
Mar 25, 2008, 5:18:03 PM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
Suggestion:
Learn the map of the psyche.
Covered here include an area of morality, right/wrong etc.
Also, an intellectual domain, where we deal with things like thoughts,
books, etc.
And, there exists a spiritual domain which sees all of the domains in
a unified way.
(other domains exist too)
Just seeing a clear map has helped my living a lot. Self observation
is a very very old method.
> > > > > > Tocqueville was amazed and baffled by its all-pervading religiosity.- Hide quoted text -
Learn the map of the psyche.
Covered here include an area of morality, right/wrong etc.
Also, an intellectual domain, where we deal with things like thoughts,
books, etc.
And, there exists a spiritual domain which sees all of the domains in
a unified way.
(other domains exist too)
Just seeing a clear map has helped my living a lot. Self observation
is a very very old method.
Valtermar
Mar 25, 2008, 6:34:10 PM3/25/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
Hi, Mark!
Long time, 'no seeing'. I was just wondering if you were still around.....
Good to see you back. :-)
Mark:
<<"OF COURSE the world is perfect
for us; life on this planet evolved and adapted to it's environment.
This world is not perfectly tailored to us; we are suited for the
planet; we may find life on other worlds--worlds that are completely
inhospitable to us, and our world may be equally inhospitable to other
life forms. ">>
Very good perception. We and this 'world' have a match where many things are
concerned.
See ya.
Valtermar
--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1328 - Release Date: 13/3/2008
11:31
JasonC
Mar 25, 2008, 2:02:10 PM3/25/08
to "Minds Eye"
To talk about Dawkin's argument as muddled because he sees religion,
both as a natural tendecy and something that education can alleviate,
is incorrect. What is education but that which works against are
animalistic tendacies? It is natural for us as a specis to consider
homocide as a viable means by which to secure resources are possessed
by another. This is not something created by society, it is something
that society has sought to reduce. Education teaches us that murder is
wrong and despite and natural inclination towards it, eventually we
find it abhorrent. Why can't the same thing work for religion?
The theory of memes is much more sophisticated then the author of this
post gives it credit for. It is, perhaps, still in its infancy but
that should not be discounted so easily as many other theories in many
other disciplines, which are now taken quite seriously, were once in
its place. Memetics does have the added disadvantage of a pop-culture
fascination which often times skews its ideas and simplifies its
concepts but that only serves to show how wanting that particular
niche is in our collective minds.
That being said, however, with much of what the post says. Dawkins and
Dennet are no longer making contributions to respective field so much
as playing ideological janitor in a tradition of philosophy that is a
the point where it no longer takes a thinker seriously if they do not
include in their work some treatise about why a belief in god in
misleading and why science is the answer to everything. Remember that
analytic philosophy, which Dennet is schooled in, looks to make
philosophy into science and is now stretch to cover up the obvious
limitations of science to answer the questions of metaphysics and
epistemology
In the end, if atheism is a new religion then it has the conceptual
resources to flood our intellectual debates with enough rhetoric to
force us into another dark ages. this shouldn't, however, lead us to
forget that which science (or religion) has given us before, in its
purer days.
-Jason
( http://groups.google.ca/group/philosophy-of-ethics ) <- debate the
philosophy of ethics and meta-ethics
both as a natural tendecy and something that education can alleviate,
is incorrect. What is education but that which works against are
animalistic tendacies? It is natural for us as a specis to consider
homocide as a viable means by which to secure resources are possessed
by another. This is not something created by society, it is something
that society has sought to reduce. Education teaches us that murder is
wrong and despite and natural inclination towards it, eventually we
find it abhorrent. Why can't the same thing work for religion?
The theory of memes is much more sophisticated then the author of this
post gives it credit for. It is, perhaps, still in its infancy but
that should not be discounted so easily as many other theories in many
other disciplines, which are now taken quite seriously, were once in
its place. Memetics does have the added disadvantage of a pop-culture
fascination which often times skews its ideas and simplifies its
concepts but that only serves to show how wanting that particular
niche is in our collective minds.
That being said, however, with much of what the post says. Dawkins and
Dennet are no longer making contributions to respective field so much
as playing ideological janitor in a tradition of philosophy that is a
the point where it no longer takes a thinker seriously if they do not
include in their work some treatise about why a belief in god in
misleading and why science is the answer to everything. Remember that
analytic philosophy, which Dennet is schooled in, looks to make
philosophy into science and is now stretch to cover up the obvious
limitations of science to answer the questions of metaphysics and
epistemology
In the end, if atheism is a new religion then it has the conceptual
resources to flood our intellectual debates with enough rhetoric to
force us into another dark ages. this shouldn't, however, lead us to
forget that which science (or religion) has given us before, in its
purer days.
-Jason
( http://groups.google.ca/group/philosophy-of-ethics ) <- debate the
philosophy of ethics and meta-ethics
Vamadevananda
Mar 26, 2008, 12:47:32 AM3/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
I loved your excitement, Neil ! I hope you wake up everyday and
witness the ' free of all thought ' state of the mind for a time,
while still in bed. It would cure you of all depression and obsession
with thinking !
> > > > > > Tocqueville was amazed and baffled by its all-pervading religiosity.- Hide quoted text -
witness the ' free of all thought ' state of the mind for a time,
while still in bed. It would cure you of all depression and obsession
with thinking !
Vamadevananda
Mar 26, 2008, 1:38:56 AM3/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
Yes, Lee, the entire universe and, indeed, our life is filled with
nothing but hierarchies of Truth ! Some truths are higher than
others, in the sense that realising them is difficult and oftentimes
more painful.
> > > > > > multilayered allegory, recently adapted into a- Hide quoted text -
nothing but hierarchies of Truth ! Some truths are higher than
others, in the sense that realising them is difficult and oftentimes
more painful.
archytas
Mar 26, 2008, 5:42:16 AM3/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
I think your metaphor of carcass to soup-stew is brilliant Lee.
Analytic philosophy allows one to have prudential reasons for belief,
such as believing in aroma therapy because it eases the pain in some
way even if we know it ain't curing us.
I think questions like, assuming there was a big bang and there are
multiverses etc. and if there is some importance to conscious life,
then it seems like an awful lot of energy is needed in comparison to
the oil we fight over ... what might we look for in terms of
supercivilization and manipulating huge energy resources - are worth
pondering. Not all science is technical, nor does it work only with
equations that lead to vertainty and so on. There is a creative side
and one in which one 'guesses' at the right answer until you can
demonstrate it.
One also hopes colleagues will come nosing about and say 'that's
bollox' or 'you smart bastard' or 'I've got some shit in my lab that
would help with this'. 'Come on mate, the pubs shut in half an hour'
was a favourite fo mine to hear.
I suspect people are too prissy about what science is.
If education is supposed to be about getting rid of the worst aspects
of human nature - we might ask why society encourages them so much.
> > > > > > > religion, and it- Hide quoted text -
Analytic philosophy allows one to have prudential reasons for belief,
such as believing in aroma therapy because it eases the pain in some
way even if we know it ain't curing us.
I think questions like, assuming there was a big bang and there are
multiverses etc. and if there is some importance to conscious life,
then it seems like an awful lot of energy is needed in comparison to
the oil we fight over ... what might we look for in terms of
supercivilization and manipulating huge energy resources - are worth
pondering. Not all science is technical, nor does it work only with
equations that lead to vertainty and so on. There is a creative side
and one in which one 'guesses' at the right answer until you can
demonstrate it.
One also hopes colleagues will come nosing about and say 'that's
bollox' or 'you smart bastard' or 'I've got some shit in my lab that
would help with this'. 'Come on mate, the pubs shut in half an hour'
was a favourite fo mine to hear.
I suspect people are too prissy about what science is.
If education is supposed to be about getting rid of the worst aspects
of human nature - we might ask why society encourages them so much.
Vamadevananda
Mar 26, 2008, 6:40:26 AM3/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
Because society is found upon individual attitude ( and belief and
value system ) of obtaining more and more, and bigger and better slice
of world's resource ( and space and time ) for oneself, leading to
exploitation ( of the weak and less resourceful ) and alround harm.
The education we have does not help inculcate the right attitude ( and
belief and value system ). And, lacking as it is, it is not so much
education in itself that is at fault but the fact that the ' schooled
' individual is powerless when facing the inconsistent dissonance the
society is so full of in reality.
That is what they do not teach in Harvard : the ability to empower
oneself !
> > > > > > > > that a- Hide quoted text -
value system ) of obtaining more and more, and bigger and better slice
of world's resource ( and space and time ) for oneself, leading to
exploitation ( of the weak and less resourceful ) and alround harm.
The education we have does not help inculcate the right attitude ( and
belief and value system ). And, lacking as it is, it is not so much
education in itself that is at fault but the fact that the ' schooled
' individual is powerless when facing the inconsistent dissonance the
society is so full of in reality.
That is what they do not teach in Harvard : the ability to empower
oneself !
archytas
Mar 26, 2008, 7:11:42 AM3/26/08
to "Minds Eye"
I couldn't agree more Vam. I'd probably have to add that Harvard
teaches power over others. Saul Bellow worote a novel about this long
ago - I don't like his style but the message was clear. What is on
offer in the classroom is a delusion, largely because we reward
secrecy and corruption. I was in Bucharest where the novel is set and
he got the tone right - a kind of despair that Bildung was all for
nothing - one's head could be filled with great works and yet society
never shifts.
There's a story in Cameroon about a library, built on a dream of
turning a school into a university, designed by an idiot nephew as a
great scheme to hold rainwater in one of the wettest places on earth.
An English woman refused to move the books so they were saved from the
disaster - all this happening amongst scarce resources.
I can tell of equal British disasters, notably our Millennium Dome,
though really our failures to make the world a safe place for pepople
to do what they will are of the same form. Some of the real stories
of our secret services' attempts to make the non-european world think
we are the master culture beggar belief. Things are not much
different in terms of the local intransigence of our politics and the
paranoia that ensues if one tries to tell the truth.
One can back away and protect oneself, but one is always leaving the
mess behind for others to suffer.
> > > > > > > > > British theologian Alister McGrath and The Secular Age by the Canadian- Hide quoted text -
teaches power over others. Saul Bellow worote a novel about this long
ago - I don't like his style but the message was clear. What is on
offer in the classroom is a delusion, largely because we reward
secrecy and corruption. I was in Bucharest where the novel is set and
he got the tone right - a kind of despair that Bildung was all for
nothing - one's head could be filled with great works and yet society
never shifts.
There's a story in Cameroon about a library, built on a dream of
turning a school into a university, designed by an idiot nephew as a
great scheme to hold rainwater in one of the wettest places on earth.
An English woman refused to move the books so they were saved from the
disaster - all this happening amongst scarce resources.
I can tell of equal British disasters, notably our Millennium Dome,
though really our failures to make the world a safe place for pepople
to do what they will are of the same form. Some of the real stories
of our secret services' attempts to make the non-european world think
we are the master culture beggar belief. Things are not much
different in terms of the local intransigence of our politics and the
paranoia that ensues if one tries to tell the truth.
One can back away and protect oneself, but one is always leaving the
mess behind for others to suffer.
chazwin
Mar 27, 2008, 8:46:08 AM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
We can conclude that the event was purposeless.
We CAN conclude that it is unreasonable for anyone's mind to to
perpetually require reason.
It is reasonable to accept that for some things we cannot and never
will find a purpose.
>
> > Before it, we cannot rationalize what existed, but that doesn't mean
> > because there is a current pocket of ignorance, that it is a fine
> > place to put "magic" and a "god". Supernatural causation is even less
> > valid than natural causation, and it doesn't free us from a never
> > ending chain of "cause and effect"--if we supposed that "god did it"--
> > then that leads us to "where the heck did god come from?"
>
> > Stop asking and just accept what is.
>
> Then science stops and gives up in the face of big questions.
> Why? Or is there no reason behind it?
All good scientific answers can be reformed to replaces why with
"how". Try any scientific answer to see if it works. If it does not
than you probably don't have a scientific answer.
eg. Why is the sky blue?
There is no answer for that, but : the sky appears blue because.. Is a
how answer.
By changing the emphasis on the why/how, mature science avoided the
useless answer to why: "God made it so". which used to stop science in
its tracks.
>
>
>
chazwin
Mar 27, 2008, 8:57:23 AM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Mar 25, 1:54 pm, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Heh Neil,
>
> One of my mantra's seems to be 'life, it's a funny old game innit!'
> and I shall carry on in that vein. I saw on this mornings news a
> teacher bemoaning the fact that a lot of children are spoilt by their
> parents; they are undisciplined and so fail to work well, share,
> concentrate and just plain give up when a task becomes too hard or
> boring at school.
>
> Obviously she put the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the
> parents. Now I guess it may sound like a tired argument nowadays, but
> I agree with her, and whats more it is my generation that is to
> blame(and perhaps to an extent my parents generation).
concerning "correct" behaviour. But uf parents haven't got a clue as
to the "right" way to bring up thier children then the cycle goes on.
It is hopeless abrogation to blame parents as their is no solution
from that strategy. Make it the school's responsibility to instil
responsibility and discipline then there will be some kind of
understanding in the following generation. Today kinds ar allowed to
run riot and do what they will in schools. Teachers have no power to
stop the chaos. THings need to change.
chazwin
Mar 27, 2008, 9:00:58 AM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
>
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 8:14 PM, bella <brownden...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > How about we replace religion with ethics!
>
> Charlie Courtoishttp://www.worksforchrist.org
Lee
Mar 27, 2008, 9:06:48 AM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
Hey Chaz,
Yeah but I would say a double attack form both the school and the
parents is needed.
Parents do have more sway on what their kids can do than teachers.
Parents can instill vaules and belifes systems into their own children
easyer than teachers can.
As to normative assumptions, yes of course, we all do this don't we.
We all have ideas about the 'proper' way to bring up children.
Yeah but I would say a double attack form both the school and the
parents is needed.
Parents do have more sway on what their kids can do than teachers.
Parents can instill vaules and belifes systems into their own children
easyer than teachers can.
As to normative assumptions, yes of course, we all do this don't we.
We all have ideas about the 'proper' way to bring up children.
Pat
Mar 27, 2008, 9:27:24 AM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
can also conclude that the its purpose was to develop chicken soup.
But that conclusion seems to me to be in the realm of 'highly
subjective reasoning'. Is not purpose synonymous with function? Is
the universe without function? If so, then it is without purpose.
But I see functionality all around.
> We CAN conclude that it is unreasonable for anyone's mind to to
> perpetually require reason.
> It is reasonable to accept that for some things we cannot and never
> will find a purpose.
>
subjective.
>
>
> > > Before it, we cannot rationalize what existed, but that doesn't mean
> > > because there is a current pocket of ignorance, that it is a fine
> > > place to put "magic" and a "god". Supernatural causation is even less
> > > valid than natural causation, and it doesn't free us from a never
> > > ending chain of "cause and effect"--if we supposed that "god did it"--
> > > then that leads us to "where the heck did god come from?"
>
> > > Stop asking and just accept what is.
>
> > Then science stops and gives up in the face of big questions.
> > Why? Or is there no reason behind it?
>
> Mature science (since Descartes) have never attempted to >answer "why".
> All good scientific answers can be reformed to replaces why with
> "how". Try any scientific answer to see if it works. If it does not
> than you probably don't have a scientific answer.
> eg. Why is the sky blue?
>
> There is no answer for that, but : the sky appears blue because.. Is a
> how answer.
>
sky was blue, I would answer 'the sky appears blue because...'
> By changing the emphasis on the why/how, mature science avoided the
> useless answer to why: "God made it so". which used to stop science in
> its tracks.
>
convinced that, simply by changing the question from 'why' to 'how',
one is any closer to a reasonable answer, unless one has a purposeless
agenda.
archytas
Mar 27, 2008, 10:01:18 AM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
Blaming parents is actually hopeless - most of the kids who need most
help don't really have any. There is quite a full academic analysis
of the subject, but it's not really been popularised and would
embarass all politicians. A number of cycles are involved and have
been known for a long time. I think we turn our thinking and action
away from this as surely as we must have locally in cases of abuse
like the one emerging in Jersey.
Amdist all this are fatuous management claims like 'we are learning
the lessons' when in fact they can't even listen with a fair mind. In
this sense 'education' and our culture more generally has failed at
all levels. The kids Chaz is teaching now don't even have the factory
jobs that used to sort a lot out to go into. This was hardly ideal,
but there was once a more effective system of 'education' outside
schools and fe/he.
We currently have a prevalance of initiatives that lead to success
stories - whilst the problems get worse in scale. The pilots are
always too expensive to mainstream. Admidst all the pilots, we are
actually locking up more kids in worse conditions than we ever did,
making the cycle worse. There's even a problem with the critique in
the sense it lacks understanding of victims.
Elsewhere we have a literature of super-heroes and real life careers
of one dull job after another and dog eat dog attitudes. There's good
stuff about, but making it stick is a battle for anyone involved.
Joined up thinking gets very hard. I can tell you a lot about local
drug trading and what's involved - yet this needs linking to just how
much of Pakistani GDP is wrapped up in it - more than their entire
source of hard currency from other means according to Peter Dale
Scott. Miami Vice got close in a couple of episodes (US banking and
drugs) and The Wire gets close to the bone on 'stat juking'. We could
probably write the books in here between us - but what an effort that
would be.
help don't really have any. There is quite a full academic analysis
of the subject, but it's not really been popularised and would
embarass all politicians. A number of cycles are involved and have
been known for a long time. I think we turn our thinking and action
away from this as surely as we must have locally in cases of abuse
like the one emerging in Jersey.
Amdist all this are fatuous management claims like 'we are learning
the lessons' when in fact they can't even listen with a fair mind. In
this sense 'education' and our culture more generally has failed at
all levels. The kids Chaz is teaching now don't even have the factory
jobs that used to sort a lot out to go into. This was hardly ideal,
but there was once a more effective system of 'education' outside
schools and fe/he.
We currently have a prevalance of initiatives that lead to success
stories - whilst the problems get worse in scale. The pilots are
always too expensive to mainstream. Admidst all the pilots, we are
actually locking up more kids in worse conditions than we ever did,
making the cycle worse. There's even a problem with the critique in
the sense it lacks understanding of victims.
Elsewhere we have a literature of super-heroes and real life careers
of one dull job after another and dog eat dog attitudes. There's good
stuff about, but making it stick is a battle for anyone involved.
Joined up thinking gets very hard. I can tell you a lot about local
drug trading and what's involved - yet this needs linking to just how
much of Pakistani GDP is wrapped up in it - more than their entire
source of hard currency from other means according to Peter Dale
Scott. Miami Vice got close in a couple of episodes (US banking and
drugs) and The Wire gets close to the bone on 'stat juking'. We could
probably write the books in here between us - but what an effort that
would be.
Charlie Courtois
Mar 27, 2008, 10:19:21 AM3/27/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, Chazwyman!
Would you care to tell us: 'why Aquinas was a fool?'
CharlieC
--
Charlie Courtois
http://www.worksforchrist.org
Pat
Mar 27, 2008, 10:30:25 AM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 27 Mar, 14:19, "Charlie Courtois" <cbcourt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Well, Chazwyman!
>
> Would you care to tell us: 'why Aquinas was a fool?'
> CharlieC
>
Your opening up a can of worms. Although I can think of two
> > Well, Chazwyman!
>
> Would you care to tell us: 'why Aquinas was a fool?'
> CharlieC
>
possible reasons:
1) To get to the other side.
2) It was a fancy dress party.
Then there's opinions.
Ian Pollard
Mar 27, 2008, 10:41:58 AM3/27/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
On 27/03/2008, Charlie Courtois <cbcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, Chazwyman!Would you care to tell us: 'why Aquinas was a fool?'
That kind of thing, I'd guess, would make anyone who values rationality, the scientific method, mathematics, or logic, to raise an eyebrow. He could also levitate, apparently, and everyone knows only level 9 scientologists can do this.
xxxianxx
--
"The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human advancement. "
-- John Stuart Mill
Pat
Mar 27, 2008, 10:55:58 AM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 27 Mar, 14:41, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/03/2008, Charlie Courtois <cbcourt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, Chazwyman!
>
> > Would you care to tell us: 'why Aquinas was a fool?'
>
> I'd say statements like: "for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man
> needs Divine help".
>
> That kind of thing, I'd guess, would make anyone who values rationality, the
> scientific method, mathematics, or logic, to raise an eyebrow. He could also
> levitate, apparently, and everyone knows only level 9 scientologists can do
> this.
>
> xxxianxx
>
It could be down to paradigm, though. The statement you quoted
>
>
> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Well, Chazwyman!
>
> > Would you care to tell us: 'why Aquinas was a fool?'
>
> I'd say statements like: "for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man
> needs Divine help".
>
> That kind of thing, I'd guess, would make anyone who values rationality, the
> scientific method, mathematics, or logic, to raise an eyebrow. He could also
> levitate, apparently, and everyone knows only level 9 scientologists can do
> this.
>
> xxxianxx
>
could be true if one, through their paradigm, believed that God was
behind the functionality of the brain. If one assumes (there's the
paradigm) that God is implicit in all things, then, by default, He's
the basis for all cognition. Of course that tells us exactly diddly-
squat ABOUT anything other than the paradigm itself and is, in Chaz'
words, useless. Although I've never been a fan of Aquinas, I don't
think he was a fool, per se. The full quote is "that for the
knowledge of any truth whatsoever man needs Divine help, that the
intellect may be moved by God to its act." Which only tells us his
paradigm, which we could have guessed at owing to the fact he was a
monk.
Charlie Courtois
Mar 27, 2008, 11:08:12 AM3/27/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Ian Pollard <ian.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 27/03/2008, Charlie Courtois <cbcou...@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, Ian,
I am out of my league here arguing about St Thomas
Aquinas; but many, many brilliant people have
lauded him since the 1200's.
IIb. WRITINGS (HIS PRINCIPAL WORKS)
Amongst the works wherein St. Thomas's own mind and method are shown, the following deserve special mention:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm
Ciao!
CharlieC
archytas
Mar 27, 2008, 11:41:45 AM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
It's easy enough to pick holes in Aquinas and I've been a fool often
enough personally not to see it as much of a black mark. Few minds
are switched on much and Pat is right to point to the paradigm of his
time. One can find decent stuff in Aquinas as one can in the somewhat
empirical witchcraft of the Azande. There has been popular and
intellectual support for racism Charlie and even though there are
genuine problems that get swept under this carpet we wouldn't justify
racial supremacy ideas becuse some authorities supported them.
Francis Bacon remains the clearest sociologist of science of all time,
but still took bribes in office.
On 27 Mar, 15:08, "Charlie Courtois" <cbcourt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
enough personally not to see it as much of a black mark. Few minds
are switched on much and Pat is right to point to the paradigm of his
time. One can find decent stuff in Aquinas as one can in the somewhat
empirical witchcraft of the Azande. There has been popular and
intellectual support for racism Charlie and even though there are
genuine problems that get swept under this carpet we wouldn't justify
racial supremacy ideas becuse some authorities supported them.
Francis Bacon remains the clearest sociologist of science of all time,
but still took bribes in office.
On 27 Mar, 15:08, "Charlie Courtois" <cbcourt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Ian Pollard <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pat
Mar 27, 2008, 12:13:44 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 27 Mar, 15:41, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> It's easy enough to pick holes in Aquinas and I've been a fool often
> enough personally not to see it as much of a black mark. Few minds
> are switched on much and Pat is right to point to the paradigm of his
> time. One can find decent stuff in Aquinas as one can in the somewhat
> empirical witchcraft of the Azande. There has been popular and
> intellectual support for racism Charlie and even though there are
> genuine problems that get swept under this carpet we wouldn't justify
> racial supremacy ideas becuse some authorities supported them.
> Francis Bacon remains the clearest sociologist of science of all time,
> but still took bribes in office.
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
archytas
Mar 27, 2008, 12:31:50 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
Now that's the real McCoy Pat.
> > > Charlie Courtoishttp://www.worksforchrist.org-Hidequoted text -
ornamentalmind
Mar 27, 2008, 5:23:50 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
Ian, I am glad you used the term 'guess' here. re: Aquinas/fool
For the record, I value rationality, the scientific method,
mathematics AND logic.
In addition to that, I have been studying the nature of teleology over
the last year or so too.
On Mar 27, 7:41 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/03/2008, Charlie Courtois <cbcourt...@gmail.com> wrote:
For the record, I value rationality, the scientific method,
mathematics AND logic.
In addition to that, I have been studying the nature of teleology over
the last year or so too.
On Mar 27, 7:41 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 27/03/2008, Charlie Courtois <cbcourt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Pat
Mar 27, 2008, 5:41:15 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 27 Mar, 21:23, ornamentalmind <ornamentalm...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ian, I am glad you used the term 'guess' here. re: Aquinas/fool
>
> For the record, I value rationality, the scientific method,
> mathematics AND logic.
>
> In addition to that, I have been studying the nature of teleology over
> the last year or so too.
>
it. ;-)
> On Mar 27, 7:41 am, "Ian Pollard" <ian.poll...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27/03/2008, Charlie Courtois <cbcourt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Well, Chazwyman!
>
> > > Would you care to tell us: 'why Aquinas was a fool?'
>
> > I'd say statements like: "for the knowledge of any truth whatsoever man
> > needs Divine help".
>
> > That kind of thing, I'd guess, would make anyone who values rationality, the
> > scientific method, mathematics, or logic, to raise an eyebrow. He could also
> > levitate, apparently, and everyone knows only level 9 scientologists can do
> > this.
>
> > xxxianxx
>
> > --
> > "The despotism of custom is everywhere the standing hindrance to human
> > advancement. "
>
ornamentalmind
Mar 27, 2008, 5:51:20 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
*chuckles*
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
archytas
Mar 27, 2008, 6:44:42 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
For some reason my dog just farted. It was a telological fart, though
thankfully I wasn't on the end of it and have decided not to invade
Japan as a result of it. Chicken tomorrow though so Japan may not be
safe.
thankfully I wasn't on the end of it and have decided not to invade
Japan as a result of it. Chicken tomorrow though so Japan may not be
safe.
Pat
Mar 27, 2008, 7:32:32 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 27 Mar, 22:44, archytas <nwte...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> For some reason my dog just farted. It was a telological fart, though
> thankfully I wasn't on the end of it and have decided not to invade
> Japan as a result of it. Chicken tomorrow though so Japan may not be
> safe.
>
chazwin
Mar 27, 2008, 7:56:13 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
As a teacher it has become obvious to me (and you might think it a bit
of a no-brainer) that all "problem" children's parents fit into a few
categories: alcoholics; drug addicts; single mums; work too long hours
to provide time for their kids moral development; or are just fucking
clueless and their kids are just following their lead.
Most parents care for their progeny, but those are not the problem. It
is the parents that don't give a shit or whose hands are tied in other
ways that produce troublesome children. In such cases teachers need to
have the power to intervene in some way.
of a no-brainer) that all "problem" children's parents fit into a few
categories: alcoholics; drug addicts; single mums; work too long hours
to provide time for their kids moral development; or are just fucking
clueless and their kids are just following their lead.
Most parents care for their progeny, but those are not the problem. It
is the parents that don't give a shit or whose hands are tied in other
ways that produce troublesome children. In such cases teachers need to
have the power to intervene in some way.
chazwin
Mar 27, 2008, 8:07:56 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
> > We cannot conclude that the reality of the Big Bang is "unreasonable".
> > We can conclude that the event was purposeless.
>
> Of course we can conclude that the Big Bang was purposeless. We
> can also conclude that the its purpose was to develop chicken soup.
> But that conclusion seems to me to be in the realm of 'highly
> subjective reasoning'. Is not purpose synonymous with function?
distinction between disabling teleological assumptions, and a more
objective and less bias attribution of of characteristics which
emphasises mechanistic and materialistic interpretations so as not to
confuse.
Is
> the universe without function? If so, then it is without purpose.
> But I see functionality all around.
attributes - that "subjectivity" lies with YOU. If yoou think that
the earth revolves so that plants can have a rest from the sun, then
not only are you confusing cause with effect but are assigning a false
teleology to the mechanisms of the universe.
>
> > We CAN conclude that it is unreasonable for anyone's mind to to
> > perpetually require reason.
> > It is reasonable to accept that for some things we cannot and never
> > will find a purpose.
>
> Perhaps, but it is a defeatest policy and, still, highly
> subjective.
is humanocentric and highly subjective even arrogant. The world is not
here for us, though we may see utliity in all things.
>
>
>
> > > > Before it, we cannot rationalize what existed, but that doesn't mean
> > > > because there is a current pocket of ignorance, that it is a fine
> > > > place to put "magic" and a "god". Supernatural causation is even less
> > > > valid than natural causation, and it doesn't free us from a never
> > > > ending chain of "cause and effect"--if we supposed that "god did it"--
> > > > then that leads us to "where the heck did god come from?"
>
> > > > Stop asking and just accept what is.
>
> > > Then science stops and gives up in the face of big questions.
> > > Why? Or is there no reason behind it?
>
> > Mature science (since Descartes) have never attempted to >answer "why".
>
> Does that include Descartes or begin with after Descartes?
Descartes stopped asking why and replaced the question with how.
Why tends to either give an infinite regression of further stupid
questions, or stops with "god done it, d'int he?"
>
> > All good scientific answers can be reformed to replaces why with
> > "how". Try any scientific answer to see if it works. If it does not
> > than you probably don't have a scientific answer.
> > eg. Why is the sky blue?
>
> > There is no answer for that, but : the sky appears blue because.. Is a
> > how answer.
>
> Again, that seems highly subjective. If someone asked me why the
> sky was blue, I would answer 'the sky appears blue because...'
describing how the sky appears blue, not the big "why".
>
> > By changing the emphasis on the why/how, mature science avoided the
> > useless answer to why: "God made it so". which used to stop science in
> > its tracks.
>
> I fully agree that 'God made it so' is useless. But I'm not
> convinced that, simply by changing the question from 'why' to 'how',
> one is any closer to a reasonable answer, unless one has a purposeless
> agenda.
chazwin
Mar 27, 2008, 8:11:30 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Mar 27, 2:19 pm, "Charlie Courtois" <cbcourt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:00 AM, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Well, Chazwyman!
>
> Would you care to tell us: 'why Aquinas was a fool?'
> CharlieC
No Brainer.
> > Well, Chazwyman!
>
> Would you care to tell us: 'why Aquinas was a fool?'
> CharlieC
Because he said this ""The mind is naturally capable of knowing
everything that exists" --St.
Thomas Aquinas,
If that were true why did he also think that the sun went round the
Thomas Aquinas,
earth?
NoName
Mar 27, 2008, 8:34:37 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
For the record, your dog is safe with me, Neil.
And I trust that Pat is not trying to pick a fight with me.
And I trust that Pat is not trying to pick a fight with me.
Pat
Mar 27, 2008, 8:38:16 PM3/27/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 28 Mar, 00:07, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > We cannot conclude that the reality of the Big Bang is "unreasonable".
> > > We can conclude that the event was purposeless.
>
> > Of course we can conclude that the Big Bang was purposeless. We
> > can also conclude that the its purpose was to develop chicken soup.
> > But that conclusion seems to me to be in the realm of 'highly
> > subjective reasoning'. Is not purpose synonymous with function?
>
> Absolutely NOT. Functionalism was developed to draw a clear
> distinction between disabling teleological assumptions, and a more
> objective and less bias attribution of of characteristics which
> emphasises mechanistic and materialistic interpretations so as not to
> confuse.
>
words to suit your argument. And not without purpose, which only goes
to prove my point. Things ARE done with a purpose. A thing with a
function functions towards a purpose. I do, at least. For example,
when I pee, I pee for a reason.
> Is
>
> > the universe without function? If so, then it is without purpose.
> > But I see functionality all around.
>
> Whilst one might point to a certain utility or function to particular
> attributes - that "subjectivity" lies with YOU. If yoou think that
> the earth revolves so that plants can have a rest from the sun, then
> not only are you confusing cause with effect but are assigning a false
> teleology to the mechanisms of the universe.
>
>
>
> > > We CAN conclude that it is unreasonable for anyone's mind to to
> > > perpetually require reason.
> > > It is reasonable to accept that for some things we cannot and never
> > > will find a purpose.
>
> > Perhaps, but it is a defeatest policy and, still, highly
> > subjective.
>
> No, to start with functionality is highly objective. To assume purpose
> is humanocentric and highly subjective even arrogant. The world is not
> here for us, though we may see utliity in all things.
>
>
can see utility in all things, do we do that purposelessly? Maybe you
do, but I don't.
appears blue', the answer is the same. Not all questions of 'why'
are, necessarily, the big why.
>
>
> > > By changing the emphasis on the why/how, mature science avoided the
> > > useless answer to why: "God made it so". which used to stop science in
> > > its tracks.
>
> > I fully agree that 'God made it so' is useless. But I'm not
> > convinced that, simply by changing the question from 'why' to 'how',
> > one is any closer to a reasonable answer, unless one has a purposeless
> > agenda.
>
> You aint getting this are you?
>
>
simply disagree with some of it. I don't believe, as you seem to,
that existence is without purpose. Furthermore, it seems that, while
arguing your point, you are arguing with purpose. If you act with
purpose and are nothing but molecules acting with some coherence,
why(!) do you not afford that privilege to the rest of the molecules
around you? The only other way to see it is that we always act, in
truth, without purpose. Therefore we are a waste of time. If you are
arguing that you are a waste of time (equally with the rest of us and
not any more so), I can only stand in awe and wonder why.
chazwin
Mar 28, 2008, 5:49:58 AM3/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
On Mar 28, 12:38 am, Pat <PatrickDHarring...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 28 Mar, 00:07, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > We cannot conclude that the reality of the Big Bang is "unreasonable".
> > > > We can conclude that the event was purposeless.
>
> > > Of course we can conclude that the Big Bang was purposeless. We
> > > can also conclude that the its purpose was to develop chicken soup.
> > > But that conclusion seems to me to be in the realm of 'highly
> > > subjective reasoning'. Is not purpose synonymous with function?
>
> > Absolutely NOT. Functionalism was developed to draw a clear
> > distinction between disabling teleological assumptions, and a more
> > objective and less bias attribution of of characteristics which
> > emphasises mechanistic and materialistic interpretations so as not to
> > confuse.
>
> I didn't speak of 'functionalism' though. You're twisting my
> words to suit your argument. And not without purpose, which only goes
> to prove my point.
Things ARE done with a purpose. A thing with a
> function functions towards a purpose. I do, at least. For example,
> when I pee, I pee for a reason.
Therefore when you pee - you pee with intention and purpose _ to rid
youself of that feeling of fullness.
This is not the same as the sun functioning to give plants energy. For
one thing the sun has no intention of doing so, and the sun was here
before the plants so was not designed to do that.
The distinction is that the sun still has that function without a hint
of purpose. THAT is the distinction between purpose and function. If
you don't agree then fine - but to avoid a somantic argument - but is
you will accept that then we can move on.
>
> > Is
>
> > > the universe without function? If so, then it is without purpose.
> > > But I see functionality all around.
>
> > Whilst one might point to a certain utility or function to particular
> > attributes - that "subjectivity" lies with YOU. If yoou think that
> > the earth revolves so that plants can have a rest from the sun, then
> > not only are you confusing cause with effect but are assigning a false
> > teleology to the mechanisms of the universe.
>
> I wouldn't draw that conclusion, though.
purpose , as described above, then you will recognise the distinction
that Descartes was making between "how and "why" and between
function(alism) and purpose. You will also see how useful it is too.
>
> > > > We CAN conclude that it is unreasonable for anyone's mind to to
> > > > perpetually require reason.
> > > > It is reasonable to accept that for some things we cannot and never
> > > > will find a purpose.
>
> > > Perhaps, but it is a defeatest policy and, still, highly
> > > subjective.
>
> > No, to start with functionality is highly objective. To assume purpose
> > is humanocentric and highly subjective even arrogant. The world is not
> > here for us, though we may see utliity in all things.
>
> So, then, the purpose lies within us? If we, as conscious beings
> can see utility in all things, do we do that purposelessly? Maybe you
> do, but I don't.
with purpose and can assign purpose to things around us, but we have
no direct reason to assign a purpose to other things. This is key to
understanding the meaning of life, the universe and everything else.
teleology.
1) All valid scientific questions are "how" question. And produce
descriptive answers.
2) If those question are expressed with "why" then they should be able
to be asked more precisely with "how" if not then they are not valid
scientifically.
EXAMPLE: Why is sky Blue?
You are able to re-ask this with "how does the sky appear blue". You
can then describe the function of the eye and the perception of the
brain, OR you can talk about how light is scattered by the atmosphere
to emphasis the higher spectrum of visible light.
In this way you have avoided talking about purpose.
EXAMPLE TWO: Why does the sun shine on plants.
The pre-scientific tendency was to answer: "to make the plants grow."
Hopefully you accept that this is a false answer. If not then we have
to end the discussion here.
If we re-form the question: "How does the sun shine on plants", then
we can talk about the atomic processes inside the sun, the way light
travels across space and through the atmosphere and what part of the
spectrum is absorbed by the plant.
This "why/how" test always works. Sadly there is nothing in the
Englaish language to unpack the teleological assumptions in the word
"why".
The real test of this test comes with questions of evolutionary
psychology and other related disciplines, who often produce phoney and
unreliable pseudo-scientific answers to false teleological questions.
But if we accept the findings of Darwin we have to accept that all
teleologies are false ones, because evolution leads not with purpose
but with accident and contingency.
>
> > > > By changing the emphasis on the why/how, mature science avoided the
> > > > useless answer to why: "God made it so". which used to stop science in
> > > > its tracks.
>
> > > I fully agree that 'God made it so' is useless. But I'm not
> > > convinced that, simply by changing the question from 'why' to 'how',
> > > one is any closer to a reasonable answer, unless one has a purposeless
> > > agenda.
>
> > You aint getting this are you?
>
> It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. Rather, I
> simply disagree with some of it. I don't believe, as you seem to,
> that existence is without purpose. Furthermore, it seems that, while
> arguing your point, you are arguing with purpose. If you act with
> purpose and are nothing but molecules acting with some coherence,
> why(!) do you not afford that privilege to the rest of the molecules
> around you?
means to recognise purpose or to have intention. A molecule cannot
decide whether to go left of right, up or down. It has to obey the
laws of physics as do we all.
The only other way to see it is that we always act, in
> truth, without purpose. Therefore we are a waste of time. If you are
> arguing that you are a waste of time (equally with the rest of us and
> not any more so), I can only stand in awe and wonder why.
and "purpose in the universe" above so that you can understand where
exactly I am coming from.
Lee
Mar 28, 2008, 5:54:17 AM3/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
Yes I agree with that. Do you call for bringing back the cane?
I'm a massive fan of teachers, and have always been very involved with
both my childrens schools and their teachers when it comes any
problems they have had. I know that the majority of teachers and
schools welcome as much parental involvment as possible and always
make time to see parents personaly to talk and go through verious
stratergies.
What 'powers' do you advocate giving to teachers Chaz?
I'm a massive fan of teachers, and have always been very involved with
both my childrens schools and their teachers when it comes any
problems they have had. I know that the majority of teachers and
schools welcome as much parental involvment as possible and always
make time to see parents personaly to talk and go through verious
stratergies.
What 'powers' do you advocate giving to teachers Chaz?
chazwin
Mar 28, 2008, 6:17:04 AM3/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
I'm not particualrly in favour of bringing back the cane, because of
the potential for abuse. There is one way to avoid abuse - make the
punishment public. Another teacher friend of mine think that one child
should be made into a public spectacle. Once per week the worst
behaved child should be caned in front of the entire school. Any child
that has been bullied or affected in other ways by that child will see
the punishement, and the offender will be made to look a fool and have
a clear demonstration of who is in chrage of the school.
But joking aside - exclusion should be made easier. TO throw the
responsibility back onto the parents.
The signal sent out should be: This child has not met the minimum
requirements of behaviour to come to this school so has been sent home
to learn how to behave. Parents should be forced (if necessary to
attend parenting classes whilst missing work).
There has been some improvement in exclusion power in the last few
years but schools are still reluctant to enforce, and many teachers
are weak and too permissive in the face of bad behaviour.
End the idiotic idea that the classroom belongs to the children and
not the teacher. Fuck that! Kids need to know that the way they behave
at home is not necessarily acceptible in the classroom. Teachers need
to re-claim the classroom and establish clear parameteres of conduct
within it and during lessons - with zero tolerance for break those
rules.
More councilling - to find the root causes of disruption. Sometimes
the child is just an evil little fucker and the parents suffer just as
much as the school, but there is a massive spectrum of reasons for bad
behaviour and often a bit of concern from an adult is enough to turn
things around.
The trouble is that their is an assumption that all children are
basically good and have external reasons for being naughty. This is
bullshit. Some kids are born arseholes and there is nothing to do but
put them in bootcamp and send them to Iraq. So that abused children
are spotted and "saved" we end up trying to save the unsavable too.
the potential for abuse. There is one way to avoid abuse - make the
punishment public. Another teacher friend of mine think that one child
should be made into a public spectacle. Once per week the worst
behaved child should be caned in front of the entire school. Any child
that has been bullied or affected in other ways by that child will see
the punishement, and the offender will be made to look a fool and have
a clear demonstration of who is in chrage of the school.
But joking aside - exclusion should be made easier. TO throw the
responsibility back onto the parents.
The signal sent out should be: This child has not met the minimum
requirements of behaviour to come to this school so has been sent home
to learn how to behave. Parents should be forced (if necessary to
attend parenting classes whilst missing work).
There has been some improvement in exclusion power in the last few
years but schools are still reluctant to enforce, and many teachers
are weak and too permissive in the face of bad behaviour.
End the idiotic idea that the classroom belongs to the children and
not the teacher. Fuck that! Kids need to know that the way they behave
at home is not necessarily acceptible in the classroom. Teachers need
to re-claim the classroom and establish clear parameteres of conduct
within it and during lessons - with zero tolerance for break those
rules.
More councilling - to find the root causes of disruption. Sometimes
the child is just an evil little fucker and the parents suffer just as
much as the school, but there is a massive spectrum of reasons for bad
behaviour and often a bit of concern from an adult is enough to turn
things around.
The trouble is that their is an assumption that all children are
basically good and have external reasons for being naughty. This is
bullshit. Some kids are born arseholes and there is nothing to do but
put them in bootcamp and send them to Iraq. So that abused children
are spotted and "saved" we end up trying to save the unsavable too.
archytas
Mar 28, 2008, 7:12:40 AM3/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
I think we have known the answers to many of these problems for a long
time. Today we have many people involved in hiding the real problems
almost like the Sino-Soviet political managers, rather than providing
help. The sensible debate is hidden from us too as this admits the
actual problems. Sue and Kate took our grandson to Chester Zoo
yesterday, probably costing £60 despite his ticket being 'free' from
Kelloggs. He had a great time. Most people round here couldn't get
close to affording this.
Nearly everyone round here would argue the problem is with scrote
families, but they are also sick of resources being directed towards
them. The answers aren't simple and a lot of what needs doing is
about dignity and control. Persoanlly, I would expand Chaz's boot
camp to periods of national/international service post 14 and get a
lot of kids out of school at that age into work-project discipline.
I'd probably scrap school post 16 in favour of universal
universities. Somewhere too we need to understand forceing academic
stuff down the throats of the incapable is bullying. We should be
trying to establish a more communal life, skills appropriate to this
and an idea of excellence that doesn't shit on those who can't achieve
it.
> > > > > > > > If there is no 'why' with respect to the- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
time. Today we have many people involved in hiding the real problems
almost like the Sino-Soviet political managers, rather than providing
help. The sensible debate is hidden from us too as this admits the
actual problems. Sue and Kate took our grandson to Chester Zoo
yesterday, probably costing £60 despite his ticket being 'free' from
Kelloggs. He had a great time. Most people round here couldn't get
close to affording this.
Nearly everyone round here would argue the problem is with scrote
families, but they are also sick of resources being directed towards
them. The answers aren't simple and a lot of what needs doing is
about dignity and control. Persoanlly, I would expand Chaz's boot
camp to periods of national/international service post 14 and get a
lot of kids out of school at that age into work-project discipline.
I'd probably scrap school post 16 in favour of universal
universities. Somewhere too we need to understand forceing academic
stuff down the throats of the incapable is bullying. We should be
trying to establish a more communal life, skills appropriate to this
and an idea of excellence that doesn't shit on those who can't achieve
it.
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Pat
Mar 28, 2008, 9:52:43 AM3/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
'semantic'. Whew, and here I was trying to learn a new word. Yup, I
get your concept alright.
>
>
> > > Is
>
> > > > the universe without function? If so, then it is without purpose.
> > > > But I see functionality all around.
>
> > > Whilst one might point to a certain utility or function to particular
> > > attributes - that "subjectivity" lies with YOU. If yoou think that
> > > the earth revolves so that plants can have a rest from the sun, then
> > > not only are you confusing cause with effect but are assigning a false
> > > teleology to the mechanisms of the universe.
>
> > I wouldn't draw that conclusion, though.
>
> But if you are able to draw a distinction between function and
> purpose , as described above, then you will recognise the distinction
> that Descartes was making between "how and "why" and between
> function(alism) and purpose. You will also see how useful it is too.
>
where 'why' has meaning and purpose.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > We CAN conclude that it is unreasonable for anyone's mind to to
> > > > > perpetually require reason.
> > > > > It is reasonable to accept that for some things we cannot and never
> > > > > will find a purpose.
>
> > > > Perhaps, but it is a defeatest policy and, still, highly
> > > > subjective.
>
> > > No, to start with functionality is highly objective. To assume purpose
> > > is humanocentric and highly subjective even arrogant. The world is not
> > > here for us, though we may see utliity in all things.
>
> > So, then, the purpose lies within us? If we, as conscious beings
> > can see utility in all things, do we do that purposelessly? Maybe you
> > do, but I don't.
>
> Purpose and the perception of purpose is 100% human generated. We act
> with purpose and can assign purpose to things around us, but we have
> no direct reason to assign a purpose to other things. This is key to
> understanding the meaning of life, the universe and everything else.
>
>
purpose, which, as far as I'm concerned, is fairly useless.
benefit to the planet's lifeforms that blue light is scattered more
and other wavelengths are more absorbed? Mind, I don't expect an
answer from you as I think it would take a bit (perhaps a lot) of
investigation to see if, under other light-scattering circumstances,
life would be different and, if so 'how'.
> EXAMPLE TWO: Why does the sun shine on plants.
>
> The pre-scientific tendency was to answer: "to make the plants grow."
> Hopefully you accept that this is a false answer. If not then we have
> to end the discussion here.
fair to 'the ancients', I think they would have realised that the sun
shines on everything on the Earth and not just the plants.
> If we re-form the question: "How does the sun shine on plants", then
> we can talk about the atomic processes inside the sun, the way light
> travels across space and through the atmosphere and what part of the
> spectrum is absorbed by the plant.
>
> This "why/how" test always works. Sadly there is nothing in the
> Englaish language to unpack the teleological assumptions in the word
> "why".
>
> The real test of this test comes with questions of evolutionary
> psychology and other related disciplines, who often produce phoney and
> unreliable pseudo-scientific answers to false teleological questions.
> But if we accept the findings of Darwin we have to accept that all
> teleologies are false ones, because evolution leads not with purpose
> but with accident and contingency.
>
the laws of physics in order to explore the possibilities of energy
transformations. With respect to my theory about God, He only does
things in order to explore the possibilities given energy and the laws
of physics. The God I describe does not particularly care what the
outcomes are, just as long as there are transformations of energy that
have not yet been explored.
interested in experiences by those forms of energy that are aware and,
for those that are not, simply different energy transformations. The
'purpose' is only to explore what is possible for energy to do. And
this doesn't vary much from what you believe. But, to be fair to
teleology, if teleology IS the rule, then we, because we are somewhere
in the midst of the story, probably will never see the end game.
ornamentalmind
Mar 28, 2008, 2:20:33 PM3/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
I still remember receiving corporal punishment for something I didn't
do in school in the 1940s
do in school in the 1940s
donnadonne
Mar 28, 2008, 7:29:02 PM3/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
Chazwin, the thing is that when a man knows the state of everything
being everything all that matters to him is to show his highest/
deepest respect for the mover of movers. I think it's a lovely idea.
being everything all that matters to him is to show his highest/
deepest respect for the mover of movers. I think it's a lovely idea.
Pat
Mar 28, 2008, 8:07:45 PM3/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 28 Mar, 00:34, NoName <Eunju....@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the record, your dog is safe with me, Neil.
> And I trust that Pat is not trying to pick a fight with me.
>
dogs. I'd be happy to try it, so long as it wasn't one I'd known.
Heck, I'd have trouble eating a chicken or cow I'd known. That said,
as opposed to starving, that dictum would fly straight out the
window.
Most of the people in the UK get all funny when I tell them I've
eaten squirrel and rattlesnake. Food's food. It's been a motto of
mine that, if I've seen someone else eat something and survive
(proving that it wasn't poisonous), I'd try it.
NoName
Mar 28, 2008, 8:31:42 PM3/28/08
to "Minds Eye"
Being a quasi-vegan, I wouldn't try the things mentioned.
It takes great courage for me to coexist with carnivores, but I learn
to get along with just about anyone - I even cook for them.
Not so sure about roach-eaters, though.
It takes great courage for me to coexist with carnivores, but I learn
to get along with just about anyone - I even cook for them.
Not so sure about roach-eaters, though.
Pat
Mar 29, 2008, 1:18:14 AM3/29/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 29 Mar, 00:31, NoName <Eunju....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Being a quasi-vegan, I wouldn't try the things mentioned.
> It takes great courage for me to coexist with carnivores, but I learn
> to get along with just about anyone - I even cook for them.
> Not so sure about roach-eaters, though.
>
regularly. As I'd said, out of desparation, anything goes. It would
take courage to eat a cockroach, I do admit, but if it's life or
death, I'd just try to imagine it as something else crunchy. But I
think I'd draw the line at carrion, that is, I'd draw the line before
carrion; but I haven't been THAT hungry, so there's no telling what
that level of hunger/starvation might produce.
What's a quasi-vegan? What animal products do you allow
yourself? My thought is probably dairy products, that is, milk and
milk-derived products, since they don't require the death of the
animal. But probably not eggs, although I could be wrong.
NoName
Mar 29, 2008, 2:04:12 AM3/29/08
to "Minds Eye"
I don't know.. I'd serious consider dying an honorable death before
considering roaches. Once in my life, I was hungry enough that I
thought I would die, but people came through and gave me some bread (I
could have been hallucinating).
Though I typed "quasi-vegan," I am not sure what that could really
mean. I am a "social burger eater" - If there's no choice, I'd go
with a burger but eat only the BLT (buns, lettuce, and tomato) and a
bite of the meat. I am not a big fan of milk and milk products, but
do occasionally eat cheese. Eggs are okay, but I don't care much for
the yoke part. I enjoy some fish.
Now that you know my eating preferences (more than most people I
know), you are welcome to be my chef and keep me healthy till death do
me part.
considering roaches. Once in my life, I was hungry enough that I
thought I would die, but people came through and gave me some bread (I
could have been hallucinating).
Though I typed "quasi-vegan," I am not sure what that could really
mean. I am a "social burger eater" - If there's no choice, I'd go
with a burger but eat only the BLT (buns, lettuce, and tomato) and a
bite of the meat. I am not a big fan of milk and milk products, but
do occasionally eat cheese. Eggs are okay, but I don't care much for
the yoke part. I enjoy some fish.
Now that you know my eating preferences (more than most people I
know), you are welcome to be my chef and keep me healthy till death do
me part.
archytas
Mar 29, 2008, 5:07:49 AM3/29/08
to "Minds Eye"
Somantic is a word we should use on every available occasion. It's
just so descriptive of what we do!
I'd like to grow my own food and rely on the state for little other
than running water and basic services. I suspect we are already
eating the roaches.
just so descriptive of what we do!
I'd like to grow my own food and rely on the state for little other
than running water and basic services. I suspect we are already
eating the roaches.
ornamentalmind
Mar 29, 2008, 4:26:24 PM3/29/08
to "Minds Eye"
Pat
Mar 29, 2008, 11:14:57 PM3/29/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 29 Mar, 07:04, NoName <Eunju....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know.. I'd serious consider dying an honorable death before
> considering roaches. Once in my life, I was hungry enough that I
> thought I would die, but people came through and gave me some bread (I
> could have been hallucinating).
> Though I typed "quasi-vegan," I am not sure what that could really
> mean. I am a "social burger eater" - If there's no choice, I'd go
> with a burger but eat only the BLT (buns, lettuce, and tomato) and a
> bite of the meat. I am not a big fan of milk and milk products, but
> do occasionally eat cheese. Eggs are okay, but I don't care much for
> the yoke part. I enjoy some fish.
>
> Now that you know my eating preferences (more than most people I
> know), you are welcome to be my chef and keep me healthy till death do
> me part.
>
fit to eat, except for, quite possibly, BY roaches. ;-)
stardust
Mar 29, 2008, 11:46:01 PM3/29/08
to "Minds Eye"
Focusing on the here and now as Mark said is not such an easy solution
if it was we would not have global warming. But I think he makes a
good point. It is okay and I think more than okay to wonder and try to
figure out the past and spiritual matters etc but also we need to live
in the present and deal with the Now. Cause we've got some stuff that
needs to be dealt with now.
But as I said in an earlier post I believe in "God", but I think "God"
as we like to label him is beyond our understanding and we tend to
look through him through our own filter.
Yes we think the world is perfect and thus it must have been created
for us and yes it could just have to due with evolution and
adaptation, I get that but that is in sense my point that we can look
for answers to spiritual questions in the usual places our mind
wanders to because the universe is a big place and our familiar Earth
is only a very very small part ( and I definitely did not add enough
verys there!)
On Mar 24, 7:57 am, "Mark S. Milley" <mark.mil...@binaryswitch.com>
wrote:
> That's funny. I don't see where I said that anyone else had to believe
> what I believe. Sensitive much?
if it was we would not have global warming. But I think he makes a
good point. It is okay and I think more than okay to wonder and try to
figure out the past and spiritual matters etc but also we need to live
in the present and deal with the Now. Cause we've got some stuff that
needs to be dealt with now.
But as I said in an earlier post I believe in "God", but I think "God"
as we like to label him is beyond our understanding and we tend to
look through him through our own filter.
Yes we think the world is perfect and thus it must have been created
for us and yes it could just have to due with evolution and
adaptation, I get that but that is in sense my point that we can look
for answers to spiritual questions in the usual places our mind
wanders to because the universe is a big place and our familiar Earth
is only a very very small part ( and I definitely did not add enough
verys there!)
On Mar 24, 7:57 am, "Mark S. Milley" <mark.mil...@binaryswitch.com>
wrote:
> That's funny. I don't see where I said that anyone else had to believe
> what I believe. Sensitive much?
Chris Jenkins
Mar 29, 2008, 11:50:29 PM3/29/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
I don't mean to sound flippant, but what does this sentence mean? Exactly what does focusing on the here and now have to do with mappable solar cycles of radiation which heat and cool the earth's atmosphere in a predictable and trackable way for the last 650,000 years?
stardust
Mar 30, 2008, 12:11:21 AM3/30/08
to "Minds Eye"
Sorry, I am fairly new to the group and I just realized I was posting
on this thread replying to earlier posts . I jsut clicked on the
discussion post link and thought the 25 listed were all there was and
did not realize I had to hit the newer link to get to the other 87
messages posted! Sorry.
On Mar 29, 11:50 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
on this thread replying to earlier posts . I jsut clicked on the
discussion post link and thought the 25 listed were all there was and
did not realize I had to hit the newer link to get to the other 87
messages posted! Sorry.
On Mar 29, 11:50 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I don't mean to sound flippant, but what does this sentence mean? Exactly
> what does focusing on the here and now have to do with mappable solar cycles
> of radiation which heat and cool the earth's atmosphere in a predictable and
> trackable way for the last 650,000 years?
>
> what does focusing on the here and now have to do with mappable solar cycles
> of radiation which heat and cool the earth's atmosphere in a predictable and
> trackable way for the last 650,000 years?
>
Chris Jenkins
Mar 30, 2008, 12:21:30 AM3/30/08
to Mind...@googlegroups.com
No worries, Stardust, I was just trying to get to the meat of your analogy. I don't see at all what corrolation you are drawing between focusing on the here and now, and global warming. Is it because you think that humans, if they were focused on the here and now, would be able to prevent global warming?
On 3/29/08, stardust <JNSm...@gmail.com> wrote:
archytas
Mar 30, 2008, 3:12:22 AM3/30/08
to "Minds Eye"
I like words that aren't in the dictionary Orn. I seem to remember
Soma was a drug in Brave New World and a number of references in
Sartre - I used to refer to the 'soma of certainty' in my anarchist
scripts. I like somantic as describing arguments with no critical
depth, from the 'drug' of legend and myth, Hollywood's defeat of Marx
and Henry George - arguments based in a trance-like soap opera.
Saw your point straight away Star and agree in large part. Would like
to see more.
Neil
On 30 Mar, 05:21, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No worries, Stardust, I was just trying to get to the meat of your analogy.
> I don't see at all what corrolation you are drawing between focusing on the
> here and now, and global warming. Is it because you think that humans, if
> they were focused on the here and now, would be able to prevent global
> warming?
>
Soma was a drug in Brave New World and a number of references in
Sartre - I used to refer to the 'soma of certainty' in my anarchist
scripts. I like somantic as describing arguments with no critical
depth, from the 'drug' of legend and myth, Hollywood's defeat of Marx
and Henry George - arguments based in a trance-like soap opera.
Saw your point straight away Star and agree in large part. Would like
to see more.
Neil
On 30 Mar, 05:21, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No worries, Stardust, I was just trying to get to the meat of your analogy.
> I don't see at all what corrolation you are drawing between focusing on the
> here and now, and global warming. Is it because you think that humans, if
> they were focused on the here and now, would be able to prevent global
> warming?
>
> On 3/29/08, stardust <JNSmor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sorry, I am fairly new to the group and I just realized I was posting
> > on this thread replying to earlier posts . I jsut clicked on the
> > discussion post link and thought the 25 listed were all there was and
> > did not realize I had to hit the newer link to get to the other 87
> > messages posted! Sorry.
>
> > On Mar 29, 11:50 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I don't mean to sound flippant, but what does this sentence mean?
> > Exactly
> > > what does focusing on the here and now have to do with mappable solar
> > cycles
> > > of radiation which heat and cool the earth's atmosphere in a predictable
> > and
> > > trackable way for the last 650,000 years?
>
> > > On 3/29/08, stardust <JNSmor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Focusing on the here and now as Mark said is not such an easy solution
> > > > if it was we would not have global warming.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sorry, I am fairly new to the group and I just realized I was posting
> > on this thread replying to earlier posts . I jsut clicked on the
> > discussion post link and thought the 25 listed were all there was and
> > did not realize I had to hit the newer link to get to the other 87
> > messages posted! Sorry.
>
> > On Mar 29, 11:50 pm, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I don't mean to sound flippant, but what does this sentence mean?
> > Exactly
> > > what does focusing on the here and now have to do with mappable solar
> > cycles
> > > of radiation which heat and cool the earth's atmosphere in a predictable
> > and
> > > trackable way for the last 650,000 years?
>
> > > On 3/29/08, stardust <JNSmor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Focusing on the here and now as Mark said is not such an easy solution
ornamentalmind
Mar 30, 2008, 4:09:18 PM3/30/08
to "Minds Eye"
***guesses stardust is omniscient since they use "we" for all they
know***
> > what I believe. Sensitive much?- Hide quoted text -
know***
ornamentalmind
Mar 30, 2008, 4:11:20 PM3/30/08
to "Minds Eye"
Neil, thanks. Those were about the only associations my associative
mind could come up with. Of course I wasn't sure it had been your
intention.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
mind could come up with. Of course I wasn't sure it had been your
intention.
stardust
Mar 30, 2008, 7:31:35 PM3/30/08
to "Minds Eye"
Perhaps global warming was not the best analogy to talk about dealing
with present issues because global warming does have a lot due to with
the past and future.
The past in that it is a result of of past carbon emissions etc.
(obviously I am taking the slant that global warming has been effected
by human pollution and depleting of resources and not a natural state
of the Earth - and yes I know the Earth as warmed and cooled in the
past and that there are different mindsets about global warming)and it
effects the future because that is when we will see more effects or
consequences.
So global warming is one of those topics that kind of natural lends to
thinking about past and future.
But my point was the only way human beings can make change and change
their state of affairs is dealing with their present situation. Which
I think most do not. Individuals and whole nations both sit around and
talk and talk and discuss the past and discuss the future, but very
little gets done to change the present situation.
Which is why conflicts continue to be conflicts and problems continue
to problems.
Again, global warming is a difficult example but a lot of time is
spent on discussing its causes and arguing over its future
consequences,
and I think it is just a mass denial or procrastination on the part of
a lot of human beings.
I mean even if it is natural and not cause by humans, if that is the
position we want to take...(again focusing on the past and future) ...
What if that ends up to be wrong?
and more to my point Is finding alternative fuel sources, reducing
carbon emissions, and changing the way we use planetary resources a
bad thing? (look to the present moment and make changes that will
effect your present)
Again global warming tricky because changing these things would not
effect things right away, but I think it would effect the present in
that it might change people's mindset.
I of course can not speak for every nation and every individual but it
seems to me that there is so much procrastination going on in thinking
about the past and the future and not a lot of work dealing with
current issues step by step
Just an opinion or viewpoint I have recently been thinking about about
why things never change enough and the same things seem to happen over
and over, and what seems to solvable is made to be so complicated and
problematic in to much discussion in the how and why and not enough
about the what to do.
I do though think past and future should play a part in solving stuff,
but not such a big part.
On Mar 30, 12:21 am, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
with present issues because global warming does have a lot due to with
the past and future.
The past in that it is a result of of past carbon emissions etc.
(obviously I am taking the slant that global warming has been effected
by human pollution and depleting of resources and not a natural state
of the Earth - and yes I know the Earth as warmed and cooled in the
past and that there are different mindsets about global warming)and it
effects the future because that is when we will see more effects or
consequences.
So global warming is one of those topics that kind of natural lends to
thinking about past and future.
But my point was the only way human beings can make change and change
their state of affairs is dealing with their present situation. Which
I think most do not. Individuals and whole nations both sit around and
talk and talk and discuss the past and discuss the future, but very
little gets done to change the present situation.
Which is why conflicts continue to be conflicts and problems continue
to problems.
Again, global warming is a difficult example but a lot of time is
spent on discussing its causes and arguing over its future
consequences,
and I think it is just a mass denial or procrastination on the part of
a lot of human beings.
I mean even if it is natural and not cause by humans, if that is the
position we want to take...(again focusing on the past and future) ...
What if that ends up to be wrong?
and more to my point Is finding alternative fuel sources, reducing
carbon emissions, and changing the way we use planetary resources a
bad thing? (look to the present moment and make changes that will
effect your present)
Again global warming tricky because changing these things would not
effect things right away, but I think it would effect the present in
that it might change people's mindset.
I of course can not speak for every nation and every individual but it
seems to me that there is so much procrastination going on in thinking
about the past and the future and not a lot of work dealing with
current issues step by step
Just an opinion or viewpoint I have recently been thinking about about
why things never change enough and the same things seem to happen over
and over, and what seems to solvable is made to be so complicated and
problematic in to much discussion in the how and why and not enough
about the what to do.
I do though think past and future should play a part in solving stuff,
but not such a big part.
On Mar 30, 12:21 am, "Chris Jenkins" <digitalprecip...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> No worries, Stardust, I was just trying to get to the meat of your analogy.
> I don't see at all what corrolation you are drawing between focusing on the
> here and now, and global warming. Is it because you think that humans, if
> they were focused on the here and now, would be able to prevent global
> warming?
>
> I don't see at all what corrolation you are drawing between focusing on the
> here and now, and global warming. Is it because you think that humans, if
> they were focused on the here and now, would be able to prevent global
> warming?
>
Lee
Mar 31, 2008, 6:23:43 AM3/31/08
to "Minds Eye"
Heh Pat I know what you mean, as an exbutcher though I have no qualms
at all about eating most dead animals.
at all about eating most dead animals.
Pat
Apr 1, 2008, 3:02:06 AM4/1/08
to "Minds Eye"
On 31 Mar, 11:23, Lee <l...@rdfmedia.com> wrote:
> Heh Pat I know what you mean, as an exbutcher though I have no qualms
> at all about eating most dead animals.
>
forbid, I be seen as being aminoist. ;-)
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages