OK, given that your claim is in fact that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu and Shinto claim completeness and resist (by default) changes to their ideology, I’ll continue there.
At the offset, I will agree that any ideology…at least any that I can readily think of…by their very nature (by default) do resist changes, especially to their core tenets and/or axioms. This is the nature of ‘the many’ as opposed to ‘the one’. Yet, I doubt that others will find it difficult to agree that all such relative and ‘mind stuff’ things do change. All such things have a beginning, middle and an end. (A very quick aside and something for a different topic would be the possible exception to the default resistance of change of an ideology being some forms of integralism. But this is not the core point here now.) What is seldom addressed at any serious depth is the ideology of scientific materialism. Materialism is as much of an ‘ism’ set as is Marxism, anarchism, conservatism, Buddhism, fascism, Utopianism etc. Yet, before delving into this further, even the term ‘ideology’ has many nuanced meanings attributed to it, and while researching this I find precious few associated with theology. The notion of a theocracy is one possible exception, yet doesn’t quite fit the bill. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ideology Often I hesitate to resort to such ‘truth by link’ tactics however, here, to achieve any sort of clarity about the topic at hand; it would seem prudent to fully understand the terms being bandied about. So, perhaps Chris, you have a specific personal definition for a religious ideology we can use? Addressing the more commonly used definitions of ideology implies a necessary set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of…any system. If one applies this to religion, clearly it can be applied to scientific materialism too. Perhaps a more accurate term in the current context would be Naturalism. In any case, science itself can neither prove nor disprove the validity of scientific materialism, so its limits in determining a full and true ontology are well known. Let’s get on to addressing your arguments and our discourse here. When I denied emotions because one cannot touch them, I was playing the role of a more fundamentalist scientific materialistic. I’m sure that the theatrical propositions used to explore beliefs were not lost on most. I know emotions exist. I also epistemologically do not accept the scientific method as being the governing dogma on the issue either. While I do appreciate such studies and accept their use and function, we have often come to this point of apparent contradiction… You apparently using Naturalism as your core dogma and I wishing to explore, know and accept much more as being valid when it comes to understanding what it is to be a human being. So, I do not arbitrarily toss out evidence…especially not to ‘suit a belief set’. If anything, I neither toss out evidence nor accept it as the dogmatic methodology it is presented as being. The apparent dogma that “Simply stated, emotions are the neurochemical response framework of internal or external social stimuli.”, in no way exposes the human experience of emotion. As is appropriate at ME, I address metacognition too. I wish to have no mystery rather than impose it. Thus I find your analogy with creationism to be neither clear nor accurate. Continuing… Rather than delve into semantic criticism, reiterating previous posts, I find there to be nothing but religious thought. If you can present evidence to the contrary and breathe some life into what you call “… religion (which clearly indicates the larger group concept)…” perhaps I will change my view. Until then your ‘initial precept’ doesn’t hold as far as I can tell. Oh, and we all quickly throw stuff out here now and then…so I fully understand and empathize with the result. Now we come to your: “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).” While this is the commonly accepted view of how things work, much commentary and rebuttal is available. First, one cannot so arbitrarily and simply dismiss what you call “personal jealousies”. It is such things that can and do have an effect on the accepted view of reality. Needless to say, as so many of MEs topics can attest, politics too come into play and often impose their will upon what is disseminated as being fact. Further, your specific example of Mbranes is an excellent case of how very old math can easily be marketed as a ‘new discovery’. Its countless adherents and acolytes, many of whom disagree in substantive ways, further exposes how unsimple (not simplex?) the issue really is. Note that I do not say that it has no merit. Now to try to achieve some sort of coherent overview, I’ll do my best to address your rejection of my earlier claim that “…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’…”. Your words were: “…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…” First, I do accept that this is your thinking about religious thought. Secondly, somehow, I sense that the core of my argument has been missed. Perhaps just ignored or covertly rejected. My point is that there is no ‘science’ nor ‘religion’ nor even diversity *except* in mind. Perhaps this sort of jumping up a level can be compared with Pat’s reduction of all to a specific theory, thus being a discussion stopper. Rest assured this is in no way my intent. Even though, like you, I exist in the everyday world of what I call appearances, when seriously questioning the nature of reality and/or thinking, this core ontological view is something I do not ignore. So, rather than impose my own epistemology on the discussion here let alone project what you mean, I will wait for your evidence concerning your claims about ‘completeness’. Until then, I will stand by my earlier words. As an aside, your additional claim that “…religious thought is so diverse is an effect of its non-empirical nature…” is about as meaningful as saying that the diversity of different areas of scientific thought is an effect of its non-empirical nature. It just doesn’t hold water. Lastly, I am just totally flummoxed by your claim that “…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.” While I have run into a few people who propose attributes to god, I’ve not personally found theologians who “describe the nature of god in detail”. Perhaps if one includes the claim that god is a mystery, there could be exceptions. Your experience here greatly differs from mine. In fact, I’d love to learn from your experience. If you remember any of these detailed descriptions, I’m all ears! Since I hadn’t addressed the will of the divine nor any thought(s) that would cause one to lay down their life, including for the sake of freedom (which probably in and of itself says nothing about a ‘religious safety net’) I won’t directly address the last of your sentence. Lastly, I appreciate your appreciation. It is something rarely given. Further, I appreciate the opportunity to explore mind. On Jan 30, 7:19 am, 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 ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- 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]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
