Orn, just so you know, I haven't forgotten this post, but wanted some time to fully chew on it. I'll spend some more time on it today, hopefully. It was such a well formed response that I thought it deserved some time and attention.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 4:50 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > 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]<minds-eye%[email protected]> > . > 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.
