Religion is funny - psychotically funny. Argue otherwise if you can.
CharlasLet's Talk Religion
Únete a LibraryThing para publicar.
Este tema está marcado actualmente como "inactivo"—el último mensaje es de hace más de 90 días. Puedes reactivarlo escribiendo una respuesta.
1JGL53
Facts ultimately will always be stranger than fiction. It's like - fiction writers - to mix metaphors - always start behind the eight ball and they can never catch up. To wit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVrqZbHuMKc
2Dzerzhinsky
Okay I'll bite. I put it to you this way: facts are irrelevant. Meaning is what counts. Facts add up to nothing; they never explain anything. They never tell us anything we really want to know for our human condition.
The most important thing any human being wants to know is 'why' something happened. Facts only state 'how' something happens. Never the ultimate cause; only the circumstances. And they're almost never of any real utility when it comes to human issues or social problems.
If 'all the strictly necessary facts' were all it take to solve problems; then Einstein would have settled all the world's dilemmas, wouldn't he? If facts are all that matter, then why do issues like gun control, death penalty, and abortion continue to resist solutions?
The truth is, mere facts never solve human conundrums. Our plight is comprised of value-conflicts; not figures on a sheet of paper.
Anyone who has ever studied law or been in a courtroom knows that many facts are far too open to human interpretation. Witnesses to the scene of an accident rarely agree. Perception is faulty. Almost any 'outcome' can be 'arrived at' by several sets of facts leading there; all in very plausible ways. That's why we have juries.
"Precision is the hob-goblin of small minds" sez Emerson; and it was never more true of society than today when people cling to irrelevant data and empty information with nearly white-knuckled insecurity. 'Scientism' is a modern mania.
The most important thing any human being wants to know is 'why' something happened. Facts only state 'how' something happens. Never the ultimate cause; only the circumstances. And they're almost never of any real utility when it comes to human issues or social problems.
If 'all the strictly necessary facts' were all it take to solve problems; then Einstein would have settled all the world's dilemmas, wouldn't he? If facts are all that matter, then why do issues like gun control, death penalty, and abortion continue to resist solutions?
The truth is, mere facts never solve human conundrums. Our plight is comprised of value-conflicts; not figures on a sheet of paper.
Anyone who has ever studied law or been in a courtroom knows that many facts are far too open to human interpretation. Witnesses to the scene of an accident rarely agree. Perception is faulty. Almost any 'outcome' can be 'arrived at' by several sets of facts leading there; all in very plausible ways. That's why we have juries.
"Precision is the hob-goblin of small minds" sez Emerson; and it was never more true of society than today when people cling to irrelevant data and empty information with nearly white-knuckled insecurity. 'Scientism' is a modern mania.
3paradoxosalpha
>2 Dzerzhinsky: people cling to irrelevant data and empty information with nearly white-knuckled insecurity
I think that charge could be leveled more fully against the superstitiously religious than against the "scientistically" secular. There are those who cling to the data ("givens") that the world is six thousand years old, or that all existing species were the result of deliberate supernatural creation. They cling to the data that an actual historical man named Jesus, or Muhammad, or Gauatama expressed a mandate that applies to all humanity. They cling to many data that are empty information, even in the face of reasoning and evidence that establish contrary facts.
The extent of specialized knowledge in contemporary science does create difficulties of popular legitimation. It would be unwise to give scientists the unquestionable authority of a priesthood. But, in such cases as climate change denialism, we now see them being treated not only as a priesthood, but as a deprecated, heathen priesthood whose claims are held to be false and pernicious. That looks to me like the most counter-productive manifestation of white-knuckled insecurity.
I think that charge could be leveled more fully against the superstitiously religious than against the "scientistically" secular. There are those who cling to the data ("givens") that the world is six thousand years old, or that all existing species were the result of deliberate supernatural creation. They cling to the data that an actual historical man named Jesus, or Muhammad, or Gauatama expressed a mandate that applies to all humanity. They cling to many data that are empty information, even in the face of reasoning and evidence that establish contrary facts.
The extent of specialized knowledge in contemporary science does create difficulties of popular legitimation. It would be unwise to give scientists the unquestionable authority of a priesthood. But, in such cases as climate change denialism, we now see them being treated not only as a priesthood, but as a deprecated, heathen priesthood whose claims are held to be false and pernicious. That looks to me like the most counter-productive manifestation of white-knuckled insecurity.
4JGL53
> 2
Sorry you misinterpreted my point but the "facts" I was referring to would be that of the existence of religious beliefs. Such is far stranger and bizarre, IMO, than anything science fiction writers could ever produce.
The "facts" of science - well those would be those facts relating to sanity. Unless someone is a religious nut then no one should be discombobulated by such facts.
The comedian in the video is pointing out the insanity of the fact of religious belief - and did an excellent job.
So much for facts. lol.
Sorry you misinterpreted my point but the "facts" I was referring to would be that of the existence of religious beliefs. Such is far stranger and bizarre, IMO, than anything science fiction writers could ever produce.
The "facts" of science - well those would be those facts relating to sanity. Unless someone is a religious nut then no one should be discombobulated by such facts.
The comedian in the video is pointing out the insanity of the fact of religious belief - and did an excellent job.
So much for facts. lol.
5John5918
>2 Dzerzhinsky:
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that all religious language is metaphor. As you say, in this context meaning is more important than literal facts.
Perhaps another way of looking at it is that all religious language is metaphor. As you say, in this context meaning is more important than literal facts.
6JGL53
>5 John5918:
An atheist is someone who interprets all religious claims in terms of metaphor - or allegory, analogy, and poetic expressionism, etc. Such is the essence, or Geist as it were, of religious imagery and language.
A person who is religious, in western monotheistic terms, believes the miracle stories of the christian bible (and/or Jewish sacred or inspired scripture, or the koran) constitute actual revelations of supranatural facts that one must commit to take to be as real as the nose on one's face.
Now sure, one can pose as a liberal or progressive or modernistic "religious" person and aver, no, the above is not right. But those who do are just wrong. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Last I heard you cannot do that.
I.e., one cannot maintain an air of intellectual and logical integrity and thorough-going psychological wellness and, at the same time, aver something like, say, jesus was the second part of the trinity who, by sacrificing his earthly life, literally saved all humans from the eternal consequences of sin and that by resurrecting back from death unto life therein gave the literal example of a promised eternal spiritual life to all who "believe in him".
What a joke. Here's the only practical choices - believe in the miracles of christianity literally and thereby toy with schizophrenia - or - accept all religious miracle stories as fables and metaphorical tales from the crypt and be an atheist - regardless of what you label yourself. - Thou shall not eat and have thy cake both - for such is forbidden. lol.
This is not rocket science or brain surgery. Since I worked out the above by the time I was around 10 yrs. old I can only imagine any person of average I.Q. who has passed high school work with a C+ or better average can understand the above with no problem.
An atheist is someone who interprets all religious claims in terms of metaphor - or allegory, analogy, and poetic expressionism, etc. Such is the essence, or Geist as it were, of religious imagery and language.
A person who is religious, in western monotheistic terms, believes the miracle stories of the christian bible (and/or Jewish sacred or inspired scripture, or the koran) constitute actual revelations of supranatural facts that one must commit to take to be as real as the nose on one's face.
Now sure, one can pose as a liberal or progressive or modernistic "religious" person and aver, no, the above is not right. But those who do are just wrong. They are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Last I heard you cannot do that.
I.e., one cannot maintain an air of intellectual and logical integrity and thorough-going psychological wellness and, at the same time, aver something like, say, jesus was the second part of the trinity who, by sacrificing his earthly life, literally saved all humans from the eternal consequences of sin and that by resurrecting back from death unto life therein gave the literal example of a promised eternal spiritual life to all who "believe in him".
What a joke. Here's the only practical choices - believe in the miracles of christianity literally and thereby toy with schizophrenia - or - accept all religious miracle stories as fables and metaphorical tales from the crypt and be an atheist - regardless of what you label yourself. - Thou shall not eat and have thy cake both - for such is forbidden. lol.
This is not rocket science or brain surgery. Since I worked out the above by the time I was around 10 yrs. old I can only imagine any person of average I.Q. who has passed high school work with a C+ or better average can understand the above with no problem.
7librorumamans
>4 JGL53:
The "facts" of science - well those would be those facts relating to sanity. Unless someone is a religious nut then no one should be discombobulated by such facts.I would say, rather, that someone who isn't destabilized (easier to type) by the facts of contemporary physics and cosmology is of questionable sanity.
8JGL53
> 7
(I am WAY ahead of you, dude, and, at age 69, I may have been ahead of you before you were born, lol.)
I was already "destabilized" by reading Alan Watts and other writers on Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism a few years before I began to be aware of the facts and implications of modern physics.
Much of what eastern thought has implied all along and what now western science has confirmed sounds crazy to the uneducated ears of mainstream western monotheists, for sure. But here, I suppose, is the skinny on real insanity. If someone takes their personal existence WAY too seriously - as eternal and absolute - then such is based in ignorance, and a nasty egotism that approaches real insanity - or unsanity, as it were.
If one understands and accepts the facts of modern physics then one would have no basis for the ignorance that engenders the western monotheistic form of narcissism, i.e., a form of NPD -narcissistic personality disorder.
Perhaps this type of of distasteful narcissism hasn't been established by western medical science as a recognized unhealthy mental condition - a psychiatric disorder - but in my opinion it god damn well should be, lol.
(I am WAY ahead of you, dude, and, at age 69, I may have been ahead of you before you were born, lol.)
I was already "destabilized" by reading Alan Watts and other writers on Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism a few years before I began to be aware of the facts and implications of modern physics.
Much of what eastern thought has implied all along and what now western science has confirmed sounds crazy to the uneducated ears of mainstream western monotheists, for sure. But here, I suppose, is the skinny on real insanity. If someone takes their personal existence WAY too seriously - as eternal and absolute - then such is based in ignorance, and a nasty egotism that approaches real insanity - or unsanity, as it were.
If one understands and accepts the facts of modern physics then one would have no basis for the ignorance that engenders the western monotheistic form of narcissism, i.e., a form of NPD -narcissistic personality disorder.
Perhaps this type of of distasteful narcissism hasn't been established by western medical science as a recognized unhealthy mental condition - a psychiatric disorder - but in my opinion it god damn well should be, lol.
9librorumamans
>8 JGL53:
We're actually neck-and-neck in both respects.
Where we differ, apparently, is that the western theologians – mostly Christian – who interest me are not ignorant narcissists who are dismissive of contemporary physics and cosmology.
This possible difference is not something that we need to have a spat over.
We're actually neck-and-neck in both respects.
Where we differ, apparently, is that the western theologians – mostly Christian – who interest me are not ignorant narcissists who are dismissive of contemporary physics and cosmology.
This possible difference is not something that we need to have a spat over.
10John5918
>9 librorumamans:
There are indeed many Christian theologians who have found contemporary physics and cosmology to be very instructive and who explore how it informs the Christian narrative. Like you, I find their work interesting.
There are indeed many Christian theologians who have found contemporary physics and cosmology to be very instructive and who explore how it informs the Christian narrative. Like you, I find their work interesting.
11JGL53
> 10 "There are indeed many Christian theologians who have found contemporary physics and cosmology to be very instructive and who explore how it informs the Christian narrative. Like you, I find their work interesting."
"...it informs the christian narrative..."!? Really? In what conceivable way?
The whole enterprise of modern physics has established physicalism/materialism with such a high degree of confidence that there is no gap left for a "god", whatever that is supposed to be. The Higgs particle was the last piece of the puzzle. Quantum field theory has no holes left for any "god" to occupy.
A "god" (a free-floating immaterial conscious essence?) is supererogatory to the universe - "god" theory is adscititious to rational thought concerning the origin or nature of the universe.
Ontological dualism is crap, John. You're not even grasping at straws, you're grasping at quantum field fluctuations.
lol.
"...it informs the christian narrative..."!? Really? In what conceivable way?
The whole enterprise of modern physics has established physicalism/materialism with such a high degree of confidence that there is no gap left for a "god", whatever that is supposed to be. The Higgs particle was the last piece of the puzzle. Quantum field theory has no holes left for any "god" to occupy.
A "god" (a free-floating immaterial conscious essence?) is supererogatory to the universe - "god" theory is adscititious to rational thought concerning the origin or nature of the universe.
Ontological dualism is crap, John. You're not even grasping at straws, you're grasping at quantum field fluctuations.
lol.
12zangasta
Deepak Chopra explores how quantum* informs consciousness.
_____
* It's not my fault that this doesn't work grammatically.
_____
* It's not my fault that this doesn't work grammatically.
13zangasta
It is a mistake to extend why questions beyond where they belong. If I am hit by a rock, discovering that it was thrown by a human will necessitate knowing why, but if it simply rolled off a nearby mountain, I only need to understand how to avoid a recurrence, eg by staying clear or maybe by digging a tunnel.
It may be easy to be misled into wondering "why is there something rather than nothing", but the most that is warranted is how, if even that.
It may be easy to be misled into wondering "why is there something rather than nothing", but the most that is warranted is how, if even that.
14JGL53
> 13
"...It may be easy to be misled into wondering 'why is there something rather than nothing', but the most that is warranted is how, if even that."
Exactly. And science is all about the how.
But in continuing to ask "why?"" regarding "everything" religious nuts and their fellow-traveler new age goofs all remind me of nothing more sophisticated than the infinite regress of a three-year-old asking "why?" again and again until the parent loses patience and shuts the kid down with either word or hand.
If the goofs and nuts are trying to make the point that only a "god" can be the answer to the "why?" question (thereby proving god's existing by sound logical argument, lol) then the next question - and their burden now to answer - is "Why is there a god rather than no god?", lol.
Their answer, we can anticipate, is "Because god is by definition eternal." - which is not a real answer since "everything" is allowed by the laws of logical to exist eternally also, in some form or another.
IOW. the competing brute facts of 1. the material universe vs. 2. a god are both equally entitled to eternal existence. But since the universe is evident but god is not, god thus violates Occam's Razor which the material universe does not. That should settle it for logic and logical questioning.
However the religious nuts will then go on to the infamous design argument, which is what they were thinking about all along. Such is based in pure illogic also, an explanation concerning which I will leave to another day as my little fingers have grown weary.
"...It may be easy to be misled into wondering 'why is there something rather than nothing', but the most that is warranted is how, if even that."
Exactly. And science is all about the how.
But in continuing to ask "why?"" regarding "everything" religious nuts and their fellow-traveler new age goofs all remind me of nothing more sophisticated than the infinite regress of a three-year-old asking "why?" again and again until the parent loses patience and shuts the kid down with either word or hand.
If the goofs and nuts are trying to make the point that only a "god" can be the answer to the "why?" question (thereby proving god's existing by sound logical argument, lol) then the next question - and their burden now to answer - is "Why is there a god rather than no god?", lol.
Their answer, we can anticipate, is "Because god is by definition eternal." - which is not a real answer since "everything" is allowed by the laws of logical to exist eternally also, in some form or another.
IOW. the competing brute facts of 1. the material universe vs. 2. a god are both equally entitled to eternal existence. But since the universe is evident but god is not, god thus violates Occam's Razor which the material universe does not. That should settle it for logic and logical questioning.
However the religious nuts will then go on to the infamous design argument, which is what they were thinking about all along. Such is based in pure illogic also, an explanation concerning which I will leave to another day as my little fingers have grown weary.
