Lack of mutual respect. Yes. When I look back I see what I see and you see what you see. I understand that you, like many Americans, have had a different exposure to religious life than I had, for example. That's where our mutuality ends, my friend. The blue eye may be my witness. How about not forgetting about a common ground for communication in the future? The will-be future as well as the going-to-be future.
On 30 Jan., 18:30, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, discovering said land is the purpose behind this discourse, isn't it? > I've definitely noticed over the years that the Faustian dialogue has become > far more refined; careful, thought out, eloquent, and built on rational > precepts. The one thing that remains which I find dissatisfying in our > exchanges is the perception of a lack of mutual respect. You've chided me as > authoritatively as any father, yet there remains a sense of compatriotism > even in the face of drastically adverse viewpoints which encourages me to > continue to expand my thinking, and to accept that there are both knowledge > and wisdom which only come with life experience that I have not attained > yet. > > C'est la vie. Although I do find the epistemological process wearying at > times, I don't know of any other way to effectively examine the processes of > perception, and by extension, the world, and my place in it. > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:13 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > ... > > Erfahren Sie mehr » -- 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.
