Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.

"Acceptable" targets

262 posts / 0 new
Last post
Fri, 2014-07-04 06:31
Lorsa Lorsa's picture
DivineWrath wrote:Lorsa wrote
DivineWrath wrote:
Lorsa wrote:
I really don't want to get into the epistemology debate again (unless you want to but that's for another thread) but I really felt like I should point out that we don't [i]actually[/i] have any knowledge of how we appeared. There's theories which haven't been disproven yet but there isn't nor can there ever be any true knowledge regarding that question for a very simple reason.
I'm not interested in getting into that debate again. I'll make my points quickly and move on.
I'll apologise for my part in it. Perhaps we could've had it in a way that would have caused less frustration for you and been more constructive. The past is the past.
DivineWrath wrote:
Lorsa wrote:
We weren't there to observe it.
A complication. It is not the end of the investigation. It is like arguing that you can't convict someone of murder because no one was there to see it...
I do agree that it's not the end of investigation. However I must say that I would say something like that in terms of murder convictions. You can hate me for it if you like, but given just fingerprints, DNA and bloody clothing as evidence, I would say that there's no way we can truly know that someone commited a murder. Evidence planting is a thing after all. I do accept that this is probably one of the reasons why it's a good thing I'm not planning on working in the legal system.
DivineWrath wrote:
Quote:
Personally I think that trying to discover how life happened on Earth scientifically to be a waste of everyone's time.
The guy who discovered radio waves said he had no idea of what it could be used for... I think that a proof of concept would be useful. We could for instance start looking for planets with conditions similar to the lab experiments instead of just earth like...
Yes well, after hearing arguments from you, MAD Crab and Bibliophile (on various places) as well as my younger self shouting at me, I have to retract that statement. It *is* worthwhile trying to discover how life happened. Consider me convinced.
DivineWrath wrote:
I think I'll leave it at that unless someone *really* wants to debate it in the proper thread. Trying to get back on topic now. I believe this thread moved in the epistemology directions after I tried answering how many didn't believe and how many were motivated by politics. This was back in reply #130 . So maybe we should try talking about motivations again?
I would like to explain what is probably [i]my[/i] motivation, using part of my PM to MAD Crab: I understand though that we may live in very different cultures. Over in America there are people that want to stop schools from teaching about evolution and want to instritute creationism as a "valid secondary theory" and uses these arguments in order to "prove" that you can't truly know so that's enough of a reason to teach people that the world is 6000 years old. I don't want that to happen at all and in Sweden that really isn't a problem (considering it's the most ahteist country in the world). All I really want, and this is how it relates to "acceptable targets" is for people to stop pointing at religious people, even creationist Christians, and say "you stupid deluded idiots, we KNOW what really happened and you are undeniably WRONG". According to logic I don't feel that is something that is "acceptable" to say. It's better to say "it really isn't very likely that..." or so I think anyway. Does my motivation make sense to you?
—
Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]
Top
Fri, 2014-07-04 08:59
Armoured Armoured's picture
A post on topic? Impossible!
(In the following I refer to faith, religion and churches a lot, and as a rule mean the Christian and Muslim faiths and places of worship. Lumping them together is insensitive, but the point of the post.) I think a major factor is how that religion affects people specifically, and society generally. Atheists often (but not always) see themselves as part of larger society, as they do not have a social group provided by a church. This can be because atheists often also take the western patronizing view on religions. From such a position, certain things are commonly observed. For one, it is easy to perceive churches of differing sects or religions as being very similar, and one can wonder why those sects, implicitly segregating people, exist at all. Especially in the west, Protestants and Catholics are extremely similar- and yet frequently are seen as being at blows with one another. The religions are seen as being the problem behind this sort of conflict, and this can seem pointless. People who have similar beliefs and behaviors, arguing and fighting over what can be seen as two differing editions of one book. Religion is dividing people, inciting conflict, it seems pointless.. and dangerous. For another, in a time when progress is so rapid, religious voices are the ones which hold us back. Less so for technology as the internet and cellphones have become ubiquitous, but in the social sphere the voices of dissent come primarily from people of faith. In the west, gay and transgender rights, equal treatment of women, and issues like abortion are strongly supported by many, especially the younger generations. Open information reveals the horrors that occur for people living in states where these rights are not present, like much of the Middle East. While obviously not all religious people agree with oppression of these groups, the people who do almost exclusively identify their authority on the matter as their faith. So to the observer of these issues, the enemy is clear- its the church. Basically, to the average atheist's eyes, the Abrahamic religions are harmful to society, and do not offer enough good to outweigh the bad that people commit in their name. Other religions don't enter the public consciousness like they do, for various reasons. So when one identifies as a christian, many atheists will see them as a member of a system which is actively damaging to society, and so encourage you to abandon support of that system. When one identifies as a Buddhist, follower of Asatru or Shinto, there isn't that association.
Top
Fri, 2014-07-04 09:43
otohime1978 otohime1978's picture
I honestly don't understand
I honestly don't understand why science and religion must be at each others throats all the time. They're not even about the same things.
—
[size=6][i]...your vision / a homunculus on borrowed time Katya Bio: http://eclipsephase.com/comment/46253#comment-46253
Top
Fri, 2014-07-04 11:09
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
otohime1978 wrote:I honestly
otohime1978 wrote:
I honestly don't understand why science and religion must be at each others throats all the time. They're not even about the same things.
Same. In fact, this is the point I've been trying to make to MAD crab in my last couple of posts. I do think there's a real and somewhat valid clash between religious ethics and secular ethics, especially here in the US. A lot of religious christians believe that everyone should follow their (religiously-derived) ethical code, which gets into what Armoured was saying: non-christians don't want to live by the christian ethical code, and so christians are viewed as attackers because some of them try to put that ethical code into law.
—
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Top
Fri, 2014-07-04 12:30
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Agreed
%100 You would not apply a field of mathematics to evaluate the quality of a piece of music.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Fri, 2014-07-04 14:39
Lorsa Lorsa's picture
Steel Accord wrote:%100
Steel Accord wrote:
%100 You would not apply a field of mathematics to evaluate the quality of a piece of music.
Interestingly enough people do just that. :) Just the other year, I had a small project where I got to construct a computer program that would compose music using mathematical formulas and it worked surprisingly well. I do agree though about science and religion. When I want to learn about how the world works I go to the university and practice science. When I want to pray I go to church and practice religion. I seem to spend more time at the university though...
—
Lorsa is a Forum moderator [color=red]Red text is for moderator stuff[/color]
Top
Fri, 2014-07-04 15:36
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Valid
I thought my point might have such a rebuttal. I'm not surprised. To use a hard, austere system like math to interpret artistic expression makes sense. To spend more of one's time in the secular world is likewise as valid. Many Buddhists are renowned neuroscientists after all.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Fri, 2014-07-04 15:42
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Counter
Most ethical Christians, if you asked them, will tell you they are fine with people being atheists. According to their (/our) belief system, you have the ability to choose what you believe. A senator who is Christian, has no more or less authority, than an atheist one. (Or a Hindu one, or a whatever else one.) So he has exactly equal ability to make policy based on his or her interpretation of what is lawful. Now I think the whole system breeds scum no matter where you stand in the first place, but again, that's my personal interpretation of any national government. Again, to bring it back on topic. If a non-Abrahamic spiritual can achieve a level of mutual peace with the secular world, why CAN'T an Abrahamic one?
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Fri, 2014-07-04 15:52
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Encouragement
Is that an objective statement, or are you encouraging me to abandon my own patronage to the Church of Rome? You are not wrong in that many religious voices probably would not condone some sciences, including transhumanist research. I cannot speak for them, so I shall speak for myself. I believe such a future is not only within a moral framework reconcilable with any number of interpretations of God, I believe it is a divine imperative in many ways. I was raised Catholic, I've studied many religions, consider myself Gnostic, and would not mind even joining a Buddhist monastery for a time. In my heart, these all reinforce one another. Faith, science, and the Self.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 03:32
Lilith Lilith's picture
RE...
otohime1978 wrote:
I honestly don't understand why science and religion must be at each others throats all the time. They're not even about the same things.
They aren't. People with something to gain—politically, rhetorically, or financially—just like to paint things that way. Back in the day, the most learned scholars were the religious sects that had the time and patronage necessary to postulate theories and make cataloged observations of natural phenomenon. Many Christian monks formed the earliest scientific theories. During the height of the Arabic kingdoms, Islamic religious scribes collected countless scholarly works from around the world and shared them with pretty much anyone that wanted to learn from them. The notion of science and religion being mutually-exclusive is a much more modern concept, and it was birthed from people with agendas to push.
Steel Accord wrote:
A senator who is Christian, has no more or less authority, than an atheist one. (Or a Hindu one, or a whatever else one.)
Debatable, given that an atheist senator is far less likely to be elected to office. It's often been said in the US that it's better to be gay/lesbian than an atheist, because people will accept the former far easier than the latter.
Steel Accord wrote:
Again, to bring it back on topic. If a non-Abrahamic spiritual can achieve a level of mutual peace with the secular world, why CAN'T an Abrahamic one?
Google "the moral decline of America", and ask this question to any of the people who believe that the only way to "save" this country is by making it more Christian ... as though they weren't already the controlling majority. Some people believe that secularism itself is a problem to be solved. Just ask Fox News.
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 14:32
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Point by point
First point: Agreed %100 Second point: Here is a quick list of openly atheistic people in U.S. politics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law#United... Just because the country is religious in majority does not mean it's government requires a church affiliation to hold office. Besides, any politician that describes him or herself as any form of spiritual, I take with enough salt to remake the Utah salt flat! Third point: Well, I sort of agree with them. Not that I think Christianity is the "true" Church as I hope I've made clear. No, but I do think some kind of moral fiber needs more memetic circulation. -Recognizing good and evil -Personal responsibility -Respect for others These aren't strictly Christian or even religious sentiments. They are ones that seemed to have declined in great numbers though. So I think the argument is more that, spirituality does lead one to consider the greater and long term consequences of their actions. Where atheism is more concerned with the here and now. Now if atheism had something of a central node, an NGO focused on defining what is moral and right from the atheistic viewpoint, I don't think you would find as many people outright hostile to the idea.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 17:11
DivineWrath DivineWrath's picture
Steel Accord wrote:Now if
Steel Accord wrote:
Now if atheism had something of a central node, an NGO focused on defining what is moral and right from the atheistic viewpoint, I don't think you would find as many people outright hostile to the idea.
Actually, that is the beauty of things. You aren't bound to a single set of morals set forth hundreds or even thousands of years ago. You can create new morals and adapt existing morals that make sense in this modern age. Unfortunately, people have this misconception that Atheism means that you must believe in nothing, and that anything goes. They think that Atheists can't take any other stance because that it is their dogma, they believe in nothing. Some people don't even know what Atheism is, where some have said to family "I don't mind if you don't believe in God, but Atheism!?", only knowing that Atheism is a bad thing. There have been Atheists that have made an effort to make morality systems that would work in an Atheist world. For instance, Sam Harris says that if there is a moral concern that people aught to have, it aught to be about human suffering and human well being. Because these things are facts about human nature, they can be understood in terms of science. You could not only use science to figure out what reduces suffering and increases human well being, you can also use it figure out new ways of doing those things. I think I'll stop there for right now. I'm a bit busy right now...
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 17:37
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
Steel Accord wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
Third point: Well, I sort of agree with them. Not that I think Christianity is the "true" Church as I hope I've made clear. No, but I do think some kind of moral fiber needs more memetic circulation. -Recognizing good and evil -Personal responsibility -Respect for others
Uh... While I expect you may agree that modern america is not quite as civil as it could be, I'm really hoping you aren't actually agreeing with the people talking about this country's 'moral decline'. Here, let me quote one of them for you.
Quote:
We didn’t have condom machines in the restrooms, and immoral behavior was the exception, rather than the norm. Today, seventh graders are being taught how to pray to Muhammad and wage their own Jihad. Saying the pledge of allegiance is disapproved of in many areas. Elementary school children are forced to watch plays that portray homosexuality as a perfectly normal and acceptable lifestyle choice. Children are taught that parents who object to homosexuality or its indoctrination in our schools are divisive, intolerant, narrow-minded, bigoted,…you get the idea.
(First google result for "The Moral Decline of America") Yep, America sure is in decline. Kids have access to contraception, taught about other religions and viewpoints, and even being told not to put homosexuals to death! Overall I think that our nation as a whole is becoming more moral, not less.
Steel Accord wrote:
These aren't strictly Christian or even religious sentiments. They are ones that seemed to have declined in great numbers though. So I think the argument is more that, spirituality does lead one to consider the greater and long term consequences of their actions. Where atheism is more concerned with the here and now. Now if atheism had something of a central node, an NGO focused on defining what is moral and right from the atheistic viewpoint, I don't think you would find as many people outright hostile to the idea.
*blink blink* For atheism to become acceptable, it needs a centralized authority on morality? I think that's a really strange stance to take. Part of the point of atheism is that a practitioner follows their own conscience and their own moral codes rather than ones handed to them by others. I think people are capable of making moral choices without some outside force guiding them.
—
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 18:08
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Not my point
I wasn't saying atheists have no morals, I was addressing Lilith's specific point as to U.S. conservatives WITH that view point. I understand completely that atheism is not the same as nihilism. My point was that there is no center of atheism like their is with most religions, which can trace the basis of their moral code back to a Holy text or a founder. If Sam Harris were somehow recognized as something of an atheistic figurehead, than his moral system would have more respect by Conservatives.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 18:29
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Yes and no
I do agree with some points, but not others. Certainly I think the more open and tolerant society is the better one. My point on a centralized "church" of atheism, as I pointed out already, was not my actual feelings on the viewpoint but an address to what the perceived intent of Con-Christians are talking about when they see atheism as a whole, as no different than nihilism. That is not my personal take on the subject. However I would once again put it to most of you to question this: CAN atheistic thought be separated from secular politics? What does it offer the human soul when completely divorced from nations and policy?
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 20:16
otohime1978 otohime1978's picture
Sorry, but I have to agree
Sorry, but I have to agree with Lilith. You think that your religion is more qualified for being a moral authority on [i]anything[/i], when the people who claim the US is in declined continue to advocate for bigotry, intolerance.
Steel Accord wrote:
I do think some kind of moral fiber needs more memetic circulation. -Recognizing good and evil -Personal responsibility -Respect for others
And who decides what is good and evil?
—
[size=6][i]...your vision / a homunculus on borrowed time Katya Bio: http://eclipsephase.com/comment/46253#comment-46253
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 20:29
Pyrite Pyrite's picture
Steel Accord wrote:CAN
Steel Accord wrote:
CAN atheistic thought be separated from secular politics? What does it offer the human soul when completely divorced from nations and policy?
An unbiased search for, and accounting of, truth. Also a sense of wonder at the enormity and complexity of the universe as it really is.
—
'No language is justly studied merely as an aid to other purposes. It will in fact better serve other purposes, philological or historical, when it is studied for love, for itself.' --J.R.R. Tolkien
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 20:33
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Unloading
Regardless of how it sounded, that was not my intent. However, your response is exactly what I've been looking for this entire time! A genuine existential supposition, unrelated to politics or past interactions with people. Those are your own internal findings. (Consequently, if you do truly feel God has abandoned you, I'm so sorry you feel that way.) Seeing atheism as the "natural" state is actually quite compelling. Unaffected, open, and the question of Faith left to the person by themselves.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 20:38
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
I don't!
When did I say that? I didn't say Christianity was more qualified, just that we need "Something" that isn't strictly of the physical world. I don't know if anyone or thing strictly mandates good and evil, but I certainly believe that they exist and would exist. Even if mortal intelligence in any form wasn't around to subjectively define them.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 20:41
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
I see
NOW we're getting somewhere! The search for truth certainly is one as old as our own sentience. However, speaking from my own research and experience, my belief in a Greater Power has not diminished my appreciation for the dizzying wonders of the cosmos. Again, the two often find ways to reinforce each other in my head. Edit: "un" my head. Seriously? And I want to be a writer! XD
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 21:03
otohime1978 otohime1978's picture
Steel Accord wrote:I don't
Steel Accord wrote:
I don't know if anyone or thing strictly mandates good and evil, but I certainly believe that they exist and would exist. Even if mortal intelligence in any form wasn't around to subjectively define them.
So, you believe there is a force in the universe that cares?
—
[size=6][i]...your vision / a homunculus on borrowed time Katya Bio: http://eclipsephase.com/comment/46253#comment-46253
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 21:05
Pyrite Pyrite's picture
Steel Accord wrote:NOW we're
Steel Accord wrote:
NOW we're getting somewhere! The search for truth certainly is one as old as our own sentience. However, speaking from my own research and experience, my belief in a Greater Power has not diminished my appreciation for the dizzying wonders of the cosmos. Again, the two often find ways to reinforce each other un my head.
I think you're able to do that because you accept religion as an abstract, rather than a specific set of claims. I intend to follow the evidence where it leads, and to critique the evidence to see what stands up to scrutiny. With enough evidence, I would accept the god claim. Is there any amount of evidence, any possible observation about the universe, that you believe would lead you to abandon Theism?
—
'No language is justly studied merely as an aid to other purposes. It will in fact better serve other purposes, philological or historical, when it is studied for love, for itself.' --J.R.R. Tolkien
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 21:10
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Summation
At It's simplest, yes.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 21:25
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Evidence
I would like to give you an answer, but honestly, I might need to meditate on what exactly would disprove it entirely. I have had my doubts in the past, but those were usually at the possible nature of God rather than It's existence. For instance, on this very forum, we discuss transhumanism. If Singularity is possible, who's to say it hasn't happened already? What if God is an S:7 or beyond toposophic Super-Mind and we are in a reality E created? Such a thought caused me to question my views on God as a strictly supernatural force. However, horror gave way to wonder shortly afterward. "Wait a minute, that's not bad that's BADASS! :D" I believe my words were. This only served to further my Faith in transhumanism as both an inevitable and beneficial eventuality, but also strengthened my Gnostic Faith. Again, going back to my favorite quote: "Fellow creators, the Creator seeks." (See the first page of this thread for the rest. XD) IF God is a Super-Singularity mind, what if E just wants us to join Them as fellow ascended beings? What if God . . . is lonely at the top? Again though, I would have to think heavily upon the question before I can give you a definitive answer.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 22:11
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
Steel Accord wrote:...I would
Steel Accord wrote:
...I would once again put it to most of you to question this: CAN atheistic thought be separated from secular politics? What does it offer the human soul when completely divorced from nations and policy?
I wouldn't say that atheistic thought necessarily provides anything. I'm sure for different atheists, different aspects of their atheism provide different things. Is there something you think religious belief necessarily offers which atheism would not?
—
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 22:25
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Spirituality
Well, much like your point, that depends highly on the person in question. As dependent on the chosen religion or religions. It does lead one to ask and ponder many different questions concerning both the immediacy of morality as well as the grand nature of reality. Now I'm not saying atheists CAN'T be spiritual, but that's up to them. Whereas conversing, praying, meditating, and listening in an environment as part of a school of thought that claims there is a grander purpose to our existence actively engenders spirituality. It's still up to each individual to find his or her own path, but having Faith gives one more tools to facilitate self examination and grants context for outward observation.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 22:51
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
Steel Accord wrote:
Steel Accord wrote:
It does lead one to ask and ponder many different questions concerning both the immediacy of morality as well as the grand nature of reality.
You see, I think everyone*, regardless of faith or lack thereof, ponders these sorts of questions. Faith (Or atheism) is just a lens through which people do their pondering. *Not actually everyone. Some atheists do not wax philosophical, and some religious people simply accept the beliefs they were taught in their youth.
—
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Top
Sun, 2014-07-06 23:10
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
otohime1978 wrote:I honestly
otohime1978 wrote:
I honestly don't understand why science and religion must be at each others throats all the time. They're not even about the same things.
They seem to be about very much the same thing. Science (and more generally rationality) covers the understanding of the world and everything in it. Many religions present an ontology and anecdotes that is in opposition to the scientific approach. At best, religion and science could respectfully disagree and/or ignore eachother's existence.
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 00:02
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Agreed
These are things that, at least as far as I believe, are universal to sapient thought. From my perspective, Faith is a superior lens through which to search because the basic consent of all Faith is that what we perceive is not all that there is. That is however, my perspective and I make no claims to it being objectively correct.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 00:04
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Combination
They also could inform each other if allowed to. They can be separate but within the wonders of sophont intelligence, their coexistence can lead to exciting theories and interesting new takes on old subjects.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 00:30
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
But they really aren't.
But they really aren't. Science answers "how" questions. Religion answers "Why". Science tells us how the universe works, while religion attempts to explain why the universe exists. In practice it doesn't always work out, but that's true of everything. There's no reason that science and religion cannot happily coexist and in many instances they do.
—
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 00:38
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
True
Amen to that! . . . Get it? XD
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 01:25
MAD Crab MAD Crab's picture
No.
No. I'm going to hurt some feelings here, but just no. Everybody's got some wonderful feel good separation of religion and science going on here, but it's just not true. Religion is not particularly about the why - read the damn books, would you? It's all about the how! It's completely wrong, of course, but 99% is about how things happen. The why that's listed is great, except that if you can't rely on 99% of the book, why should you rely on the other 1%? Science doesn't pretend to give you any whys, but that's hardly a failing. It's entirely possible that there is no why at all. Things happen because they happen, and everything is a cosmic accident. It's not comforting, it's not happy. Maybe it fits EP just a little too well and the universe is a cosmic horror story. But we've got hundreds of conflicting whys written down arguing with each other, or a reliable, repeatable system that says that there is no why to it, it just happened.
—
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 01:53
Erulastant Erulastant's picture
And what do you say to those
And what do you say to those people who are religious, but not bible literalists? (Including, y'know, anyone who's not Christian.) To the people who see no conflict between their faith and science and reason? Do you tell them that they are not religious? Or that they are incorrect in their secular beliefs? Because if they [i]are[/i] religious, and they [i]do[/i] believe in science and reasoning and all the conclusions which have come from those... Where is the conflict? Just because it frequently happens that faith and reason are at odds does not mean that they necessarily must be. That's kind of the whole point we've been making: We know there [i]are[/i] conflicts between scientific views and some religious views (held by some, but not all religious people). But there don't [i]have to be[/i]. Science cannot tell us a why. That does not mean science tells us there is no why. For many people, religion provides that. For others it doesn't.
—
You, too, were made by humans. The methods used were just cruder, imprecise. I guess that explains a lot.
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 02:14
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
. . . I think I'm in love.
I'm just kidding! XD But seriously, eloquently put and I could not have said that better. The Bible dates the Earth specifically, it's wrong. No two ways about it. That doesn't mean it contains absolutely no applicable wisdom. Besides, I've always thought the Old Testament was more meant as interpretational than hard fact. After all, if Hinduism is to be believed, reality as we understand it was fashioned from the petals of a lotus blossom. Probably not hard fact. BUT! The traditional mantra of "Oooooooom" was said to be the first sound to vibrate through the endless chaos and wake Lord Vishnu from slumber, who then tasked Brahma with creating the world. A single vibration giving birth to the physical universe? Sounds somewhat close to String Theory doesn't it?
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 02:19
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Yes
It's my thought that when you preface your point with "I'm going to hurt some feelings" you significantly reduce whatever weight your point might otherwise carry. You are, of course, free to say there is no why. So I shall likewise exercise my freedom and continue to endeavor that a why exists.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 04:06
Lilith Lilith's picture
RE...
Steel Accord wrote:
If Sam Harris were somehow recognized as something of an atheistic figurehead, than his moral system would have more respect by Conservatives.
That's a gamble I would very readily bet against given the current conservative climate. And that doesn't even factor in the Tea Party.
Steel Accord wrote:
When did I say that? I didn't say Christianity was more qualified, just that we need "Something" that isn't strictly of the physical world. I don't know if anyone or thing strictly mandates good and evil, but I certainly believe that they exist and would exist. Even if mortal intelligence in any form wasn't around to subjectively define them.
I've always been of the belief that people don't (and shouldn't) need religion to tell them things like "killing other people is bad". Perhaps I'm crazy, but as much of a curmudgeonly cynic as I am, I still think people generally aren't inclined to be horrible malcontents to one another, regardless of whether or not there's a copy of the Bible handy to tell them what to do. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Scientific_viewpoints]Science backs me up on that[/url], to a point, anyway.
Erulastant wrote:
Is there something you think religious belief necessarily offers which atheism would not?
Hope. Marx called religion the "[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people#Marx]opiate of the people[/url]" once. I'm sure he meant it disparagingly, but regardless there's always been a ring of truth in it to me. (I'm not a Marxist, mind, though I was born to a country that long feared the dictatorships that claimed to adherence his system of thought.) What I [i]am[/i] is a cynic, so forgive me if I come off too negative. The world sucks. Even as it's getting better, it still sucks for a lot of people, and for a lot of those people there's no real hope that the better day that's just over the horizon is ever going to arrive for them personally. Religion offers a faint glimmer of hope to counter the otherwise horrible bleakness of mediocrity that threatens to consume the common person. In the old days of fiefs and feudalism, the thought was "toil until you die like a good peasant, and get rewarded in Heaven for life well-spent". And in those days, that really was about the best prospect a tenant farmer had, other than not dying in their 30s. We've come a ways since, but for the average low-to-middle income, minimal-to-average educated layman, religion still offers that safety net of "well even if your life goes to shit, there's Heaven to look forward to!". I mean, science is great, don't get me wrong, but some people can't—or won't—understand it, especially when there's a simpler alternative to be offered. Path of least resistance and all that; trying to explain the concept of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panspermia]panspermia[/url] to the average someone is bound to get you a lot more blank looks than convincing them God willed Creation into being in six days ... which of those two theories you find more ridiculous says a lot about you in that regard. I could go on, but I'm trying to be brief. So yeah ... I say hope. Because even among people that [i]are[/i] rational and [i]do[/i] value science, there's still those that cling to religion because hey, "[i]What if the Bible's right about that part, at least?[/i]".
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 04:09
Pyrite Pyrite's picture
Steel Accord wrote:It's my
Steel Accord wrote:
It's my thought that when you preface your point with "I'm going to hurt some feelings" you significantly reduce whatever weight your point might otherwise carry. You are, of course, free to say there is no why. So I shall likewise exercise my freedom and continue to endeavor that a why exists.
And I'll continue to feel that positing an external why handed down to us invalidates the power of people to forge meaning in the universe. In my opinion, meaning emerges from the experiences of sentient beings interacting with the universe. To fulfill some external meaning would be no different from being a programmed robot going through the motions of its assigned task. Even if there was a being of extreme power and sophistication beyond ours, that being wouldn't have a special right to define our lives for us.
—
'No language is justly studied merely as an aid to other purposes. It will in fact better serve other purposes, philological or historical, when it is studied for love, for itself.' --J.R.R. Tolkien
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 06:10
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Science of altruism
I completely agree. I think people have an inherent moral compass, which is part of why I'm an idealist. Deep down, there is good in every heart just as much as there is the potential of evil. I still think Marx calling religion "the opiate of the masses" is incredibly disrespectful to any number of individuals who dedicated their lives to studying theology and ethics. (Martin Luther, Ghandi, Pope Gregory the Great, Guru Nanak, etc.) It does grant hope, but I get the impression you are thinking of it as a kind of willingly false hope. Again, it all comes back to Faith. Closing your eyes, covering your ears and refusing to accept the world just because it's uncomfortable to your perceptions is the exact opposite of Faith. Faith is facing the world, come glory or ruin, while still holding your beliefs intact.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 06:11
MAD Crab MAD Crab's picture
I suppose you're right, I
I suppose you're right, I shouldn't start with things like that. Call it my Canadian upbringing and our tendency to apologize in advance, even when we're not particularly sorry. I still do not see what it even means to be religious without being a literalist. You believe in the bible, but not what it actually says? So what is it you do believe? Something that you come up with yourself, mixed with whatever you were taught? Some kind of homebuilt morality system. That's fine, it's pretty much what those of us who don't believe in gods or demons end up doing. But I certainly cannot assign more weight to it than that.
—
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 06:18
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Meaning
I don't disagree with you. Maybe I'm wrong and there is no greater power. In which case, my defined perception that there IS One is me exerting my own supreme will upon the universe. And my support of transhumanism and singularity can be called something of a passive crusade. To become and create divinity in It's absence. "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." ~Voltaire. So if our lives are complete chance, then we owe it to ourselves and all of reality to spread intelligence as far as we can reach. Isn't that the ultimate end goal of transhumanism? To extend the near limitless capabilities of our minds and souls beyond the confines of our fleshy shells and Earthen cradle?
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 06:41
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Sohrry. XD
I'm not asking you to assign anymore weight to what I believe in than what you are willing to, if any at all. All I was trying to discern at first was why atheists never seem to criticize non-Western religions, and then if their feelings were truly based on introspection rather than reaction to politics. Of both of those, I have received satisfactory responses and I appreciate all of you for being so open and patient. Is it so hard to imagine someone being religious and not dogmatic? I believe the New Testament recounting of Jesus is a historical document as much as it is Scripture. We do know Jesus of Nazareth DID exist after all. Was He the Son of God? I don't know, no one can know for certain. Does that make His teachings of peace, love, and healing any less true? The same goes for the Buddha, the Prophet Muhammed, Moses, Laozi, . . . Aleister Crowley. XD and so on. Just as philosophers, psychiatrists, even scientists in burgeoning fields, and similar modern mystics have differing takes on the immaterial and the metaphysical; the nature of spirituality is something each individual must discover on their own with the tools and methodologies they feel most ring true in their heart.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 08:49
Smokeskin Smokeskin's picture
Erulastant wrote:And what do
Erulastant wrote:
And what do you say to those people who are religious, but not bible literalists? (Including, y'know, anyone who's not Christian.) To the people who see no conflict between their faith and science and reason? Do you tell them that they are not religious? Or that they are incorrect in their secular beliefs? Because if they [i]are[/i] religious, and they [i]do[/i] believe in science and reasoning and all the conclusions which have come from those... Where is the conflict? Just because it frequently happens that faith and reason are at odds does not mean that they necessarily must be. That's kind of the whole point we've been making: We know there [i]are[/i] conflicts between scientific views and some religious views (held by some, but not all religious people). But there don't [i]have to be[/i]. Science cannot tell us a why. That does not mean science tells us there is no why. For many people, religion provides that. For others it doesn't.
Even the Minimally Religious Person (MRP) that believes in everything science says and "only believes his religion provides the why" will end up in trouble. Eventually he's going to apply his powers of rationality to his religion and the why it provides him. And what will he see? No corroborating evidence. No falsifiable statement. A history of those before the MRP of the same religion to have held onto various beliefs that turned out to be proven false. A huge number of religious people in the past and present who has beliefs that similar to the MRP's but different and not mutually compatible. The feeling of being religious being turned on and off as the result of brain damage or magnetic stimulation. The vast body of knowledge on the psychology of belief, cognitive dissonance and how uncritically people believe what they learn as a child and how easily swayed they are by peer pressure. What happens then? If he has internalized the principles of science and rationality, he would look at some possible hypotheses: - every religion is right even though they are logically incompatible - the MRP's religion is right and everyone who believes in another religion is wrong and their beliefs are due to various genetic, psychylogical and sociological factors - the MRP's religion is false like every other religion If you apply scientific reasoning, the most likely hypothesis is obvious. And the MRP would stop being religious and so he can't exist. In practice, the MRP is someone who applies the scientific principles selectively. This allows him to go through the motions and do science in many areas, but he has not internalized the principles of science and rationality. This is why religious people talk about that necessary "leap of faith". There is a need to stop applying rationality and bootstrap belief to become and remain religious.
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 09:00
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Getting at . . .
So what is your point? That no dedicated scientist can still be a practicing Hindu? Just because someone might come to the conclusion that their faith is somehow "correct" when corroborated by supporting evidence doesn't mean he would reject others having different practices. After all, conditions may change and his tests might reveal a different result.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 09:03
Lilith Lilith's picture
Steel Accord wrote:It does
Steel Accord wrote:
It does grant hope, but I get the impression you are thinking of it as a kind of willingly false hope.
Willing, yes. False, no. At least not to those who believe. It's only false if proven such, and as this thread has established, there's many facets of religion that are beyond our current ability to disprove. Faith is admirable, to the extent that it doesn't become blind zeal. It's one of the reasons why I often play deeply-religious characters even though I lost interest in the Church myself somewhere around six years old. Being able to cling to faith and have it push you forward in the darkest of times can be a pretty inspiring thing to watch, but it's also something I know I'll never be capable of. Then again, in settings like D&D and Warhammer, where the gods can actually (and [i]literally[/i]) respond to mortal pleas and prayers, perhaps Faith isn't quite so difficult to maintain, so maybe it's not quite as impressive anymore.
MAD Crab wrote:
I still do not see what it even means to be religious without being a literalist. You believe in the bible, but not what it actually says? So what is it you do believe?
I think [url=http://youtu.be/x8Afv3U_ysc?t=57s]John Cleese[/url] said it best, really. I'm paraphrasing here, but the founders of religion were intelligent men of their time who wrote guidlines for ethics in the form of parables and stories that extensively used metaphor that was not meant to be taken literally. This fact is often (and repeatedly) overlooked by those without the intelligence to appreciate metaphor in the slightest.
Steel Accord wrote:
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him." ~Voltaire. So if our lives are complete chance, then we owe it to ourselves and all of reality to spread intelligence as far as we can reach. Isn't that the ultimate end goal of transhumanism? To extend the near limitless capabilities of our minds and souls beyond the confines of our fleshy shells and Earthen cradle?
It's funny you'd mention Voltaire who, as both a deist and a skeptic, had profoundly mixed feelings towards the Bible, warned against the dangers of religious extremism and zealotry, and often referred to both Christianity and Islam as being more dangerous than good. In fact, he once called Christianity in particular "...the most ridiculous, the most absurd and the most bloody religion which has ever infected this world." Of course, Voltaire also wasn't too fond of things like democracy (on account of how stupid he believed the common man to be; sometimes I feel like he was somehow channeling the current American political climate in that regard), and the specific line you quote was a famous response he gave towards a work that denounced Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. As I said, he had mixed feelings on the issue. Moving on to transhumanism, those sound more like [i]your[/i] goals for transhumanism more than anyone else's, and while some might share them, I can assure you that not everyone does.
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 09:26
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Point by point
Well in those settings, Faith is less about the Powers that Be existing and more about having Faith in their benevolence and gratitude toward your following. A good example would be Harry demonstrating loyalty to Dumbledore in the Chamber of Secrets. "Only that, would have called Fawkes to you." Why do you think you aren't capable of inspirational faith, my friend? :( ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ah, good ol' Cleese. Funny man, wise man. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Yes, most of my favorite philosophers I find are likewise those I also disagree with frequently. I'm sorry for the subjective take on this forum's central concession. I thought I was being pretty broad when I said it. How do you define the broadest goal of transhumanism?
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 09:37
Lilith Lilith's picture
Steel Accord wrote:Why do you
Steel Accord wrote:
Why do you think you aren't capable of inspirational faith, my friend? :(
Because ever since I was young, I've constantly been seeking rational solutions to an increasingly-irrational world. The notion of believing something "just is" doesn't mesh with my mindset, and I find it hard to have much vested interest in a God that shows as much interest in me as I do in Him.
Steel Accord wrote:
I'm sorry for the subjective take on this forum's central concession. I thought I was being pretty broad when I said it. How do you define the broadest goal of transhumanism?
"Evolving the human species beyond its current physical and mental limitations by means of science and technology." Anything beyond that is putting on airs, and I certainly don't feel any obligation to spread our reach beyond this little mud-ball of ours. We've not yet proven ourselves to responsible tenants thus far. Me, personally, I'll be happy just to not have to worry about dying.
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 10:35
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
Bein' fancy
I can see why you would have doubts given such a personal history. I would humbly just suggest that someone as clearly open minded as you might actually surprise herself one day. As for the second part, my apologies that was my theatrical and extropian side showing. XD Hey in our defense though, it's not like good old mother Gaia has been all warm sunshines and placid herbivores in our history here!
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 10:42
otohime1978 otohime1978's picture
I'm out
All I see is more people confusing all faiths and religions with Abrahamic ones in their arguments.
—
[size=6][i]...your vision / a homunculus on borrowed time Katya Bio: http://eclipsephase.com/comment/46253#comment-46253
Top
Mon, 2014-07-07 10:53
Steel Accord Steel Accord's picture
See ya!
My deepest apologies if that includes myself as well. Feel free to send me a private message if you want to talk further some time. I appreciate your input.
—
Your passion is power. Focus it. Your body is a tool. Hone it. Transhummanity is a pantheon. Exalt it!
Top

Pages