I would only quibble I'm not sure where mind is Orn. I'm inclined to the view weather has some connection and I'm materialist in the sense I think what we can identify as material conditions count and in slicing plant specimens to investigate rather than just think about them. One hardly sidles up to an Xtian colleague doing a DNA electrolysis and asks what god is telling her about the process. I suspect some argument in here amounts to this. Your post from Walter Wink shows what can be done in sensible consideration of religious being, a concern for knowledge and actual history. I have Catholic colleagues who think the Vatican is full of dorks and evil, who work in stem-cell research. Some of them still pray, perhaps down the pub with me.
My own subject (biology come social research) starts with very materialist assumptions, yet these cannot last in our speculations, even on experimental design. There may yet be a materialist explanation of much spiritual or informational (there is in part), and even though we know there is a difference in what we scan in social rather than individual situations (of brains) this still has a material explanation. Actually, there are many explanations, but generally one we prefer in terms of matching the evidence - but maybe sometime we will find some equivalent of what happens to speeding clocks and hence our 'evidence'. The questions for me Bill, selfish as I am in some regard, are about whether you can provide ideas, experience and so on that could boot me into a paradigm shift or real consequence. I think, in a way, that you do, though neither of us is pretending this will affect a DNA chromatograph. Some seem not to grok this at all, or the philosophy that opens-up all argument to strong and weak consideration, circumstantial application and heuristic take-up rather than quasi- religious, certainty-demanding methodism rather than particularism. I would, of course, be proud to be Chris' father, thank god I'm not (as an atheist and in preferring him as a friend) and am an advocate of critical nurture and time in which philosophy is put aside because all we can do with it is hit each other over the head. The absolute can wait and may not like me. Many people have the same problem! I too have little concern on this, for I would not be what they want, a career disabling condition if ever there was one. No doubt the populace would have chosen Blair ahead of me, and no doubt they would chose the next Blair ahead of me. I should worry about this (says that Jewish bit of me)! This planet is like a dire holiday resort caught in the no-fly zone of a war. Even this may be better than being part of the war, the fate of most. On 31 Jan, 10:01, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > “…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…” – archy > > Yep…iconoclasm must be ultimately imposed upon itself…as must Ockham’s > razor. Overall, I just do not respond in writing to the all too common > and all too clear cases of hypocrisy, ignorance and lies posted here…I > merely wince a bit and note it. Chris appears to appreciate > recognition. Little by little, ego reduction clarifies. > > On Jan 30, 9:13 am, 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 ‘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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
