Orn is learning to be a master and is highly sensitive to many ruses in argument. Sooner or later he will come full circle (no doubt again) and catch himself in the superior guise he seeks to deflate. The journey serves to remind us all of the same faults and may lead to something better. Science proceeds in the same manner, and is subject to the same mis-use. Even Orn is merely human and thus delightfully fault-ridden. I have passed the secret gate myself, several times, and still trip over the boot-scraper of the eternal return, sliding on Blair-vomit to the bottom of the pit. The material confuses all as much as it can form an evidential base. It remains fantastic that staring at pollen grains in water and other similar occasions of experience lead us to clocks going slower at high speed, and via dark energy to think we can reach the current edge of the universe in 30 years within the relativity-ship whilst billions elapse from where we started and can never return to as it was. We do not know, yet, that we can survive such travel biologically. The cross-purpose of much discussion here is that religion can be as dangerous in some hands as the fusion-bomb could be in others. History generally and the history of religion is outstandingly perverted, yet something in both has truth. We never seem able to proceed from a point in which we accept we want free of the perversion, perhaps even that this is possible with great care. Some many seem entirely swamped by perverse history and arrogant ignorance and this drags us down as surely as listening to Blair as though he can speak the truth. I see no reason not to listen to good spiritual argument or good scientific argument, but where do we find either? For that matter the accounts of actual experience always appeal more than political hogwash. 'Master', of course, does not have to mean 'controlling bastard' or whatever (to which we all form prey at times). I think I have just been guilty in trying to 'shame' my 'bored' grandson into looking at maps of the world. Bill just does too much for me to worry about him as a manipulator. I shall try to contact him from my next lurid (oops! curse that irony) dream. Accepting authority presumably means accepting it in a form that allows one to drop it when given authority to inflict pain, something not so totalising one becomes a Nazi. One very noticeable thing about the terrorist survivor of Mumbai was how 'innocent' he was and how vile his controller. Religion preys on the innocent and we could say much the same for global warming arguments. Where is our land beyond this?
On 30 Jan, 15:19, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 2:59 AM, ornamentalmind > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > “…Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists > > (by default) changes to the ideology.” – chris > > > “I know of precious few religions that make such a claim. Almost no > > one claims to know what god actually is.” – orn > > > “Christianity Judaism Islam Hindu Shinto Say again?” – chris > > > OK, since you are not making a claim with the above question, I’ll > > assume that you meant to imply that those religions “claim > > completeness, and resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” If > > you didn’t mean to imply this, then one can ignore the rest of my post > > and you can clarify what, if anything, you were saying. > > Yes, that is definitely what I'm stating. > > > > > > > > > To save time, I’ll go into the topic in detail so that most of my > > assumptions will not have to be ferreted out. > > I’ll also repost a little more of your original post for the context: > > “A notable difference between scientific thought and religious thought > > is that scientific thought does not in any way claim to be complete; > > it is ever evolving and growing as the volume of total observations > > grows. Religion, on the other hand, does claim completeness, and > > resists (by default) changes to the ideology.” - chris > > > As I’ve pointed out numerous times over the years, there is no > > religion (in the context of our current discussion) that is separate > > from the notions and thoughts of people. The same is true for science. > > You even used the terms ‘scientific thought’ and ‘religious thought’ > > above. So, with that as a given, we can continue. > > > As a quick aside, I find it strange to take the role of an apologist > > for religion(s)…not adhering to a specific theology nor embracing > > faith nor revelation as stated earlier…and clearly not even being near > > the ‘creationist’ that you so rudely attempted to impose upon me. > > Continuing… > > Now, now, Orn. I made a clear analogy to creationists by demonstrating the > arbitrary tossing out of evidence to suit a belief set. Not to sound five > years old, but you started it. ;) You denied the physical existence of > emotions, because you were unable to 'touch' them. This is simply ignoring > all that we do about emotions, and how well understood they are, by imposing > a meaningless test for them (talk about moving the goalposts!), and saying > they are somehow mysterious if they don't pass your arbitrary test. That's > simply not true. We know as much about emotions as we know about gravity, > perhaps more, and we learned that by measuring their changes and effects. > Simply stated, emotions are the neurochemical response framework of internal > or external social stimuli. Emotion as an indicator of some mysterious force > simply doesn't hold up anymore, because we do implicitly understand their > function and origin, and how to manipulate them. Continuing... > > > > > As far as I know, there is no monolithic point of view of any of the > > theologies you listed Chris. I’m sure you have some thoughts about > > each as do I. Also, millions of other people have their own subjective > > views of each ‘religion’ (or, more accurately, ‘religious thought’) > > too…each having their own spin. Yes, I know that there are specific > > tenets involved. Some would embrace the ten commandments. Others would > > embrace sheria law. The list could continue for a long time, no? And, > > in almost every if not actually every case, there would be those who > > disagree with the tenets listed. This is what I mean by no monolithic > > view or thought about any religion. Yes, we do each have some vague > > set of beliefs about what these religions consist of…yet when > > examined, there is no full agreement at all about any of them. > > Yes, absolutely. Individual people do have differences in interpretation, > but that doesn't change the initial precept. Remember, I said 'claims to > have'. All religions claim to have. I think I made a mistake in my wording > which allowed for the wiggle here, that being the interchangeable use of > religion (which clearly indicates the larger group concept), and religious > thought (which can rightly be interpreted to mean the thoughts of the > individual, despite that not being my intention). In re: "You can do > better", you're right. After all the years I've spent here, I should know > better than to hack out responses in between job functions, as semantic > failings will be quickly illuminated. Thank you for that. > > > > > Your original claim had to do with a comparison between scientific > > thought and religious thought… making the proposition that they > > differed in that the former makes no claims as to being complete while > > the latter does. > > Which, as Vam illustrated, it does. > > > > > It is true that many scientists will change their beliefs if and when > > other scientists present a better model and/or experiment methodology > > showing a preferable reality. So, in this way scientific thought can > > change over time. There may be examples to the contrary, but that > > would be for a different topic. > > > It is also true that some religious thinkers are rigid when it comes > > to some of their beliefs about reality. > > Summed up simply so: When new discoveries are made in science, the general > response is just that, to welcome a new discovery. Personal jealousies and > politics aside, the new information is generally welcomed into the community > at large, albeit via rigorous cross testing (Hawkins' M-Theory, for > example). > > > > > > > > > Now we come to your specific claim about ‘completeness’…a notion that > > is not clearly defined. So, I hope you will excuse me if my guess as > > to your meaning does not quite fit, OK? When you changed your terms > > from ‘religious thought’ to ‘religion’, a subtle difference was > > possibly introduced. By using ‘religion’, it may appear to be easier > > to imply and/or impose a monolithic point of view upon some nebulous > > ‘thing’ rather than individual thinkers. So, this is my first point… > > there is no pure religious thought just as there is no pure ideology > > when it comes to practice let alone human expression of their thinking > > thereof. I can list examples even though I’m in no way an expert on > > religion and I’m sure you could to. I have Muslim friends who > > completely disagree with the views and actions of the more radical > > ‘terrorist’ types…and I would hazard a guess that the reverse is true > > too. And here, I’m not even addressing other Muslim sects such as > > Sufis…who’s views are rejected by many too. The obvious examples in > > Christianity are legion. Every way of thinking exists…from Catholic > > views to Protestant, from Baptist to Charismatic, from Universalists > > to KKK members…all claiming to be ‘Christians’ when it comes to their > > belief systems. Jewish thinking can be found to be Orthodox or > > Reformed along with countless other verities of viewpoints too. I’m > > not an expert on Hindus but would hazard a guess that the same is true > > there as with Shinto thought too. > > > So, since there is and *always* has been divergent thinking when it > > comes to theological ideology, clearly there can be no valid claim > > when it comes to any sort of ‘completeness’…that is as long as one > > doesn’t include the ‘completeness’ of human thinkers being different > > and always changing. > > > Now perhaps you meant some sort of ‘official’ view of what any given > > religious thinking *should be*. This of course is a different issue. > > And, one could take the Catholic church and it’s pope as an example > > and point out many of the numerous changes in their tenets that have > > been promulgated over even the last few decades. Different Muslim > > Imams are known to do the same as are Jewish rabbis. Again, since my > > knowledge about religions in general is slim, I will only hazard a > > guess that the last two are similar. > > > So, one can only conclude that in reality, ‘religions’ do not make the > > claims as to being ‘complete’ as you say they do Chris. Now I do > > understand that it is a common atheistic tactic to impose authority > > and thinking upon ‘religious thinkers’, but it just doesn’t match > > reality. > > I couldn't disagree more. Despite the diversity among religious thinkers, > each sect, each major religious organization, each group founded on an > ideology, does indeed claim to have the complete and total truth. Pat, all > by himself has discovered the complete and total truth. The fact that > religious thought is so diverse is an effect of its non-empirical nature, > not a rebuttal to my observation of each set of "religious thought" in > itself claiming completeness. > > > > > > > > > Now you may have noticed that I originally said that I knew of > > ‘precious few religions that make such a claim’. And that the > > qualifier of ‘few’ was used because, in fact, I know of none but do > > not presume to know about all religions and their members and their > > religious thinking. So, there in fact may be some. I just don’t know > > of any. > > > I followed this up with something I’m not sure has been addressed or > > not. And that was that “Almost no one claims to know what god actually > > is.” Perhaps Pat is one exception. Perhaps there is the religious > > thinker her and there who hold tight to some sort of belief as to the > > exact nature of the divine, but again, even the most central point of > > theologies includes an area always ripe for discussion and examination > > for those so interested. In fact, I do find such ‘changes’ in thinking > > over the ages to be quite similar to how scientific thinking evolves. > > One merely finds a preferable model to impose upon what is perceived > > to be real. > > > I hope that you don’t decide to just attack my last paragraph instead > > of the rest of this post. I know this last isn’t fully thought out yet… > > but did want to address all of my original post. > > Oh, Orn, you should know by now that I hate cherry picking responses; when I > make a complete point, composed of many sub-points, I want all the points > addressed in rebuttal. I certainly offer the same consideration to you that > I desire. > > Most theologies I have encountered (see? an appropriate qualifier.) do in > fact have very specific "understandings" of the nature of God. Every Pastor, > Imam, Rabbi, Magwa, Shaman that I have ever spoken with or studied (again, > the qualifier) has purported to not only describe the nature of God in > detail, but also describe his or her will in general, and specifically, his > or her will for me. When one is willing to lay down one's life for the > concept of God, one obviously thinks that one has a full understanding of > the religious safety net one has in place. > > Your arguments are strong here, Orn. I appreciate the time and attention. > > > > > > > On Jan 29, 10:36 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Christianity > > > Judaism > > > Islam > > > Hindu > > > Shinto > > > > Say again? > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:34 PM, ornamentalmind < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > “…Religion, on > > > > the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) > > > > changes to > > > > the ideology.” – chris > > > > > I know of precious few religions that make such a claim. Almost no one > > > > claims to know what god actually is. > > > > > On Jan 29, 6:38 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Lee <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Is this correct Chris? There is no faith required in an emprical > > > > > > stance? > > > > > > > I don't think it is you know. We all belive that the Earth > > revolves > > > > > > around the sun despite not having personaly conducted any > > experiments > > > > > > ourselves. We belive instead the data from those who have perfomed > > > > > > such experiments. > > > > > > > So then I personly have no experiance of the above yet it is > > > > > > certianly what I belive to be true. I must belive it because I > > trust > > > > > > the works of others, there is a little faith in that surley? > > > > > > Aha!, he says...I've got him! But not so much, my friend. This is the > > > > same > > > > > argument that's been bandied about forever; I'm surprised you don't > > have > > > > my > > > > > response memorized. In scientific axioms, we do accept that the data > > > > > provided by someone else is accurate. We have the option, however, to > > > > > approach that experiment for ourselves, and measure and test those > > axioms > > > > > using the scientific process. The hallmark of empirical observation > > is > > > > > reproducibility, and we know that a billion times out of a billion, > > > > dropping > > > > > this rock in my controlled laboratory will result in it landing on > > the > > > > > floor. Ah, but wait! Isn't it possible that on the billion and first > > try, > > > > it > > > > > might float? We have a certain surety in our empirical processes due > > to > > > > the > > > > > reproduction factor, but since we accept that our knowledge is not > > > > absolute, > > > > > we (or our proxies) continue to study and test the data, perform more > > > > > complex observation, and keep a healthy sense of skepticism with > > regards > > > > to > > > > > ALL of our learned scientific knowledge. > > > > > > A notable difference between scientific thought and religious thought > > is > > > > > that scientific thought does not in any way claim to be complete; it > > is > > > > ever > > > > > evolving and growing as the volume of total observations grows. > > Religion, > > > > on > > > > > the other hand, does claim completeness, and resists (by default) > > changes > > > > to > > > > > the ideology. > > > > > > > To love also, yes we can see and test emotions, but as every > > teenager > > > > > > will know some times when a person say 'I love you' they may not be > > > > > > telling the truth. I am loved, my wife oves me, of this I am > > certian. > > > > > > By her words, by her actions, know all of this, empricaly I know > > it. > > > > > > She could though be living a lie, there is really no way for me > > know > > > > > > that for sure, other than her telling me. So I belive that all of > > her > > > > > > words and all of her actions that have lead me to the conclusion > > that > > > > > > she loves me are true. There is certianly an element of faith in > > that > > > > > > too. > > > > > > > Ultimatly though, we will all belive as we will, for good or for > > ill, > > > > > > logic, empricalism, faith, can you really tell me which methoed of > > > > > > though is best? Can you then show me the evidance why you belive > > > > > > this? Can you show me certian objective evidance? > > > > > > > Myself, I 'belive' that all three are important for all of us, I > > deny > > > > > > that anybody can live by logic, empircalism, or faith alone, and > > > > > > further I 'belive' that to even try to do so does a person no good. > > > > > > Hah but that is just a belief of mine, based on some faith, some > > > > > > logical deductive reasoning and some empircal experiance. > > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 14:39, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On each of those topics, no faith is required in an empirical > > stance. > > > > > > > Emotions exist, are measurable, have an underlying physiological > > > > > > mechanism, > > > > > > > which can be fine tuned or adjusted via externalities. Intuition > > is > > > > > > > subconscious analysis. We do it, it's observable, and as would be > > > > > > expected, > > > > > > > is certainly nothing like "ESP". Vitality, attention? I don't > > > > understand > > > > > > > their inclusion. By vitality, do you mean how energetic someone > > is, > > > > or > > > > > > how > > > > > > > healthy? Why would that be a matter of faith? Same with > > > > attention...how > > > > > > is > > > > > > > focus a faith issue? Charm? Do you mean an accelerated > > understanding > > > > and > > > > > > > capability within interpersonal ritualistic behaviour? Love is > > easy > > > > as > > > > > > > well...assuming you're willing to define it first. > > > > > > > > Those who think that science doesn't cover all the tenets and > > facets > > > > of > > > > > > > human behaviour, aren't viewing those things from a scientific > > > > > > perspective, > > > > > > > which makes sense...once you begin to analyze them from a > > scientific > > > > > > > perspective, they lose their mystery, and there is an appeal to > > the > > > > > > mystery, > > > > > > > for those who need faith. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 9:31 AM, ornamentalmind < > > > > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > I wonder about “having faith in” things like: emotions, > > intuition, > > > > > > > > vitality, attention, charm etc. How does that work? Does one > > > > require > > > > > > > > having ‘empirical’ proof of such things? Note that I’ve left > > ‘love’ > > > > > > > > off of the list too. > > > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:57 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes, Pat, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We > > > > know. > > > > > > > > > > However, you're mistaking the empiricist stance, as so many > > > > theists > > > > > > do. > > > > > > > > > > I will believe something when I am presented with empirical > > > > evidence > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > its > > > > > > > > > existence. Until such time, I do not expend belief. There is > > no > > > > > > empirical > > > > > > > > > evidence for a soul, therefore I do not believe in such a > > thing. > > > > You > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > > faith that souls are comprised of fields of energy. I do not. > > You > > > > > > have > > > > > > > > faith > > > > > > > > > that humans possess souls to begin with. I do not. This is > > not a > > > > > > faith > > > > > > > > based > > > > > > > > > stance; it's a faithless stance. I'm not sure why that > > concept is > > > > so > > > > > > > > > difficult for those with faith to understand. Did you start > > out > > > > with > > > > > > > > faith, > > > > > > > > > and simply can't conceive of not believing in something not > > > > > > implicitly > > > > > > > > > proven? Neither Ian nor I have implicitly stated "There is no > > > > soul, > > > > > > there > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > no God". We simply note that lacking evidence for such, we > > can't > > > > have > > > > > > > > faith > > > > > > > > > in it. > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Pat < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat < > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that > > > > there is > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > > > > > > > > > > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if > > someone > > > > > > claims > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that > > claim > > > > must > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > > > > And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that > > ther > > > > eis > > > > > > no > > > > > > > > > > soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any > > evidence. > > > > > > There > > > > > > > > > > is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul > > is a > > > > > > 'field > > > > > > > > > > of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... > > Yes, I > > > > know > > > > > > > > > > that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, > > but > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means > > it > > > > > > hasn't > > > > > > > > > > been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when > > > > Uranus > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into > > > > existence > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > the telescope landed there? And the whole Russell's Teapot > > > > thing > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > so naff I'm surprised anyone falls for that logic. As I've > > > > said > > > > > > > > > > before many times, just because you have not detected > > something > > > > is > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > > evidence that it does not exist. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > > > Google > > > > > > > > Groups > > > > > > > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > > > > > > > > .com> > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the > > Google > > > > > > Groups > > > > > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > [email protected]. > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > > > > > > .com> > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > > > . > > > > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.-Hidequotedtext > > - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > > Groups > > > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > .com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
