Is it true that ''Religion Poisons Everything''?
I'm a quarter-way through the book ''God is Not Great'' by the celebrated and late Christopher Hitchens.
In it Hitchens tries to make the case that religion is ''bad'' for almost everything - science, progress, peace, ethics, children, women, you name it and religion is a negative influence.
Hitchen condemns all the religious, even those who have the weakest feelings of sympathy for the holy, as deletorious to, what he probably thinks, to healthy humanism and scientific inquiry.
He thinks and claims that religion is an infantile fantasy, used or abused by those with vested interests to oppress and deny useful knowledge to the people.
He even presents evidence that the holy books of the monotheistic triad of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are poor works of questionable authenticiy and, worse, contain divine commands to commit genocide, torture, rape, etc.
How does one fit the above picture painted by Hitchens with the general conception that religion is good?
Hitchens also talks about how ridiculous it is to consider that the holy books are to be read metaphorically and not literally. How do we know when a passage is literal or metaphorical? When it suits our needs?
All in all, he presents a grotesque image of religion and he doesn't seem to be completely off the mark and that scares me.
If you ask me, I think nothing ever is a total failure. Religion may have a black spot or two or too many for Hitchens, but what of its all important message that goodness is great and evil is condemnable?
So, what do you think?
Religion poisons everything?!
In it Hitchens tries to make the case that religion is ''bad'' for almost everything - science, progress, peace, ethics, children, women, you name it and religion is a negative influence.
Hitchen condemns all the religious, even those who have the weakest feelings of sympathy for the holy, as deletorious to, what he probably thinks, to healthy humanism and scientific inquiry.
He thinks and claims that religion is an infantile fantasy, used or abused by those with vested interests to oppress and deny useful knowledge to the people.
He even presents evidence that the holy books of the monotheistic triad of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are poor works of questionable authenticiy and, worse, contain divine commands to commit genocide, torture, rape, etc.
How does one fit the above picture painted by Hitchens with the general conception that religion is good?
Hitchens also talks about how ridiculous it is to consider that the holy books are to be read metaphorically and not literally. How do we know when a passage is literal or metaphorical? When it suits our needs?
All in all, he presents a grotesque image of religion and he doesn't seem to be completely off the mark and that scares me.
If you ask me, I think nothing ever is a total failure. Religion may have a black spot or two or too many for Hitchens, but what of its all important message that goodness is great and evil is condemnable?
So, what do you think?
Religion poisons everything?!
Comments (252)
Why does that scare you? Because you are religious? Or because you fear the consequences of religion in our world? I think the latter has already been established throughout all of mankind's history.
For anyone who dives into the mechanics of religion, both in society and in terms of human psychology will agree with most of what he says. The last stand of religion against rational ideas is that it holds people under moral guidance that atheism doesn't have, which is only a true statement for apologists, not atheists. I seem to remember a study that showed that the number of crimes in more atheistic communities is less than in religious ones.
Religion is a very attractive source of answers about life and I would argue that if you aren't a person who's generally thinking about life and the world in any rational ways, you tend to lean against anything mystical and fantastical as your source of truth. In the end, it skews perception and there's a high risk of people taking advantage of this to fit their agendas. If you are susceptible to even accepting fantasy as truth you will most likely be very susceptible to manipulation, therefore any type of manipulation is easier done through the process of religious belief. Even in totalitarian societies that weren't built on a religious foundation, like Communist Russia and Nazi Germany, the mechanics of those societies are very much religious in nature.
Sure, Communism sought to destroy religion and commit genocide on an unimaginable scale, because it was religious in nature. Is the sort of absurd position people advocate.
Quoting Christoffer
You mention irrationality. If you know anything about the history of science, you will know that the big-bang was discovered by a Catholic priest, and that the entire atheist theoretical physics community sought to deny it. Let's not forget that Newton was deeply religious and according to the French, Lamarck discovered evolution, and was religious.
Is to philosophical discussions of theism, what Donald trump is to productive discussions on governance. Both are entertainers and salesmen.
That is also pure opinion and very bad philosophy by the way.
Are you saying that the mechanics of making Lenin and Stalin into deity-like figures, following hard doctrines and mantras to make enemies of those who think differently from the regime, isn’t religious in its mechanics? I hope you understand what it is I’m talking about here. Religious mechanics aren’t confined to faith in the supernatural, the mechanics are the mechanics of manipulation and humans ability to stick to answers when in positions of having no other answers.
Quoting Inis
This is in no way a counter argument to what I said. You take a section of history and decisions of people as an argument against the points I made. This is just a fallacy.
Schools, hospitals, homes for the aged and infirm, foundling homes, orphanages, shelters for the poor, alms houses, medical missions, charitable aid societies, plenty of beautiful art and architecture. So no, not everything.
It is true that Communism's approach to apostasy is similar to some religions, but in a European context, there are no religions like that. There are of course religions that are coercive in other ways, but the fact remains that if Orthodox Church was anything like Communism, used the same techniques, then it could have resisted it.
Quoting Christoffer
Fine, but do you want to live in a safe, cohesive, high-trust, high-care society? If you do, then what is your plan? The best known method is to have a common set of values that are expressed in your society's institutions, myths, and rituals.
But in your defence, Communism does have those things, so perhaps the distinction is between values that are natural to your genetics and the genetics of your society. A religion that has evolved along with a society in a natural way, will not be in conflict with it.
Yes, and the theory of evolution and religion have lived happily ever after since then... :smirk:
(BTW, saying that Lamarck "discovered evolution," is a gross simplification of the history, at best. No one person "discovered" evolution, including Darwin.)
Having said that, I do think that the relationship between science (and reason generally) and religion may be a bit more nuanced than Hitchens proposes. While I enjoyed his work (including God is Not Great), such sweeping statements as "religion poisons everything," are IMO hyperbolic. Words such as "all," "always," and "everything" are of little value in intellectual discourse: very little is absolute, and there are almost always exceptions or borderline cases.
The first instance of this is when religion is coupled with power structures, which will inevitably lead to religion being corrupted by those who are in power and wish to remain there, or even expand their domain.
The second instance is when it is coupled with the fact that on average humans do not respond well to uncertainty, and belief is almost always uncertain in nature. A common response is to zealously attempt to convince as many persons as possible that one is in fact not only certain, but one is also right. When faced with resistance there is much kicking and screaming, and in more archaic times also violence.
The zealot may claim to only want to help the other uncover the truth, but a feigned arrogance together with a total lack of the respect of the other's viewpoints reveals the true intention behind his actions; to compensate for a lack of certainty, by trusting the age old principle of 'repeat something enough times and it becomes the truth'. It's exactly for this reason that I don't hold men like Christopher Hitchens in particularly high regard.
The problem lies with humans, not with religion. Then again, it is also particularly human to be looking for the problem outside oneself, instead of within.
Quoting Christoffer
Doesn't this support a hypothesis that this behavior while usually attributed to religion, has nothing to do with religion?
Well, both the Church of England and the Catholic Church have declared evolution and big-bang to be compatible with their beliefs.
Also it is instructive to note that according to Catholic doctrine, faith is unnecessary. The truth may be achieved through reason.
But of course, I am conveniently ignoring the persecution of Galileo, as atheists must ignore the many cases of corrupt atheist science.Quoting Arkady
Hitchens was political. His aim was to undermine Western society by attacking the institutions that might oppose what he wanted most - war in the Middle East.
You should finish the book first, as many of your and other peoples issues are addressed by the end.
It is not meant as hyperbole, he makes the case that religion poisons everything it touches, that even any good works it does is tainted and if the poison (religion) is removed we would be better off.
Even if this somewhat sanitized picture of the relationship between Catholicism and evolution is true, it does not tell the whole story. For one thing, even just restricting our view to Christianity alone, evangelical Christians and their Protestant cohorts generally are much less hospitable towards evolution than are Catholics.
I don't impugn your posts for their omission of Galileo. Not every discussion of science and religion must mention him.
It's a shame Lysenko rarely gets a mention, though.
Quoting Inis
I am pretty catholic and I don't think that is actuate. Faith plays an immense roll in Catholicism, what the church does say, is there is no conflict between faith and reason. To me Thomas Merton said it best
“Reason is in fact the path to faith, and faith takes over when reason can say no more.”
Hitchens is right in many things he said about religion; however, the definition of religion he applied was very restrictive, and only accounts for what I personally call book cults in the Age of Piscis, from the Bible to Puranas and all literal literary idolatries in between. Many of these books are good readings; but none of them deserves a cult and much less, to see Reality through their strange lenses.
However, the phenomenon of Religion is much larger and complex. So much so, that Religion is not really optional for human beings: it´s inherent to Man* and to have a soul. Social groups that don´t follow literary or superstitious religions, still need religion; they just don´t call it so. All the rituals, symbols, foundational myths, special days, family meals, parades and walks in the park with the dog are religious in nature and required for the functioning of social bonds, social institutions and personal balance. But Hitchens apparently preferred to call "religion" just to literary cults; and among them, pseudo-monotheistic religions such as Christianism or Judaism and personality cults such as Islamism. Might it be he was really unaware of basic understandings of religion in Sociology and Anthropology?
*Contrary to what feminists say due to their ignorance, the use of "Man" to refer to human kind is not "sexist" or "discriminatory". Man was used to refer to humanity in the English language before it was used to refer to males of the species; and it comes from an Ancient root that also gave us Manu, the first man (the first people) in Hindu stories. Man is therefore a proper way to refer to both men and women when you only want to speak of "all people belonging to the hu-man species".
Actually, I've seen Lysenko discussed in a number of sources. Carl Sagan, arguably one of the most prominent advocates for scientific reason in the latter 20th century, has written about Lysenko as a paradigm example of ideology prevailing over dispassionate analysis of scientific data, and the oft-catastrophic consequences of unreason run amok (especially when it's backed by a powerful, autocratic state).
One of my favorite quotes is Feynman's "nature cannot be fooled," and, though he was talking about the Challenger space shuttle disaster, it could apply equally well to Lysenko's crackpot genetic ideas.
To think that so many people were misled by few and that this, if nothing, deception is an instrument of manipulation by those who are rich and powerful is frightening.
I'm not religious (I wish I were) but if I were I'd be devastated to realize all that I believed in was a lie. It's like waking up after having been in a deep coma for, say, 30 or 40 years.
Have you read the book? He cites many authorities on varied subjects from religion to science. I believe he's done his homework on the subject.
He makes sense and if his claims were true then it's a damning report on religion.
However one fallacy he's most likely, not that he does, to commit is that of oversimplified cause which is basically cherrypicking those bits that confirm his prejudices.
Could these be done to serve a vile purpose? To become centers of religious indoctrination and produce an army of fanatics?
Perhaps God isn't the problem and neither is the messenger at fault. It's the church and its gang who resort to underhand tactics and spoil what is actually good.
If that’s your line then what you have there is a conspiracy theory, where everything that opposes the view that the religion in question is malign is taken as an attempt at trickery, that therefore supports the theory. It’s entirely circular.
No one seriously denies the failings of the various churches, but it doesn’t follow that the religion they espouse can be described as poison.
Hitchens was a very skilled troll, may he rest in peace where ever he is now. I admired his skill, being a bit of a troll myself. But he did sometimes seem to take himself a tad seriously. Thank God I never do that! :smile:
Christianity is not compatible with democracy and for me that is a huge problem. The US used to have education for good moral judgment and that is essential to our liberty and democracy manifesting a good life. Coming from Greek philosophy, the foundation of our democracy, a moral is a matter of cause and effect, and the more their philosophy leaned on math and science, the less important their gods as controlling powers, became.
But the atheist also have it wrong. The Greeks preserved a notion of universal law and our technologically smart society seems to think it is fine to act like the selfish gene, put one's self first and deny any need to consider anyone else or even the planet. We have turned technology into some kind of god that will resolve all problems, no matter what we do. Both atheist and religious folks ignoring universal laws.
We must get back to education for good moral judgment and that is learning how to think, not what to think. Basing our decisions on how we feel about this or that, instead of what we know about this about that, is deadly. We must stop acting like the selfish gene. Being ruled by feelings instead of knowledge. However, we must not ignore feelings....
All holy books have good advice about being better humans. They all contain the high points of human wisdom or they would not have been reserved. The bible says things like we should forgive people their debts in 7 years. This does not apply to 30 year contracts, but we might apply it to debts that were not an agreed on contract? Giving a person a clean start is one of the most humane things we can do for each other. It boosts the spirit of love and I think that is important. Our spirit (how we feel) is perhaps more important than facts because what we think and do is very much about how we feel.
Yea, what he said.
Still, we should salute Hitchen's rhetorical skill, he was no slouch at an activity all of us are engaged in here, typically with considerably less ability.
What would have hooked me on Hitchens is if he had later wrote a book making the other side of the case. I saw him more like an attorney making a passionate case for his client rather than a true believer. A good attorney should be able to work any side of an argument, and I would have enjoyed seeing him triumph in that way. Oh well, not enough time, never enough time...
Or, when reason can say no more, reason faces that reality and embraces not having anything else to say, and explores the new realm it has discovered. And anyway, one can always say a great deal about not having anything else to say. Don't ask me how I know this. :smile:
The way Hitchens writes the first few chapters leaves nothing to the imagination about the rest of the book.
As advised I'll finish the book. Thanks
Yes, if you are expecting him to soften up or change the tone you will be disappointed. I merely meant that he addresses the counter-arguments and concerns that have been raised.
Ok. That's sensible but is it true? Is Hitchens doing nothing more than hatching a conspiracy theory?
What of his ''evidence''?
Religious apologists, as far as I can see, can't deny his findings. All they can do at this point is to defend themselves obliquely. If Hitchens says ''the Bible is not authentic'' they will have to reply by saying something like ''the Bible isn't to be read literally'' since Hitchens is right and so can't be refuted.
May we consider what education has to do with how we interpret a holy book? The masses were not educated for scientific thinking until the twentieth century. Where people are still ignorant they believe in Satan and demons and do terrible things to children and each other. Our God, was a jealous, revengeful, fearsome, punishing God and we believed demons could possess people, until our bellies were full and we gain better knowledge and security. Only in modern times has this God become a loving God. But it is more than this.
We can interpret the holy books concretely or abstractly. It is a matter of how to learn to think. A liberal education encourages abstract thinking, so the stories in holy books are like the moral stories we read our children, not to taken literally. Education for technology did not prepare us for abstract thinking as well as liberal education did. The result in being concrete thinkers. That means understanding the story of Adam and Eve literally instead of abstractly.
When we had liberal education, we used the Conceptual Method for teaching. Students learned progressively more complex concepts.
Education for technology uses the Behaviorist Method and that is used for training dogs! :gasp: This is extremely bad for our liberty and democracy and Christianity with this education is what lead to Nazi, Germany.
:grin: :ok:
Okay, the institution of the Jubilee did not only applied to 7 years cycles, there were also major jubilees every 50 years if my memory is right; the purpose of these periodical redemptions was to help to prevent inequality; or stress that the only inequality that mattered was to either be part of the new national identity or social contract, or remain a gentile. Jews have always had this idea that they are all equals before God, that was adopted by Christian and Gnostic New Age cults. It is easy to see how this notion, that was not Egyptian, that was not Greek or Roman, helped to create the ideology behind Democracy.
It does not mean, as Jews think, that ideas of equality before the law or democracy are Jewish contributions to Civilization. More realistic and closer to the truth, would be to understand that the Mediterranean melting pot (Judaism is a Mediterranean, "European" religion, and not a Semite or Oriental religion as Jews believe) brewed new ways of understanding society that were universal; it´s a Post-Alexander world where the polis or the ethnic nation was no longer the axis of culture and society, but a new Cosmopolitan basin communicated with fast ships and Roman vias, and the alphabet.
Globalization made possible global religions and identities. A Thousand years later, Spanish queen Elizabeth decreed that all "Indian" peoples of any colour, culture or language discovered would be Spanish subjects, with the same rights that Spaniards enjoyed. Spain did NOT have colonies, but provinces, with representatives that had the same voice and vote in Spain affairs as people from Madrid or Barcelona. This revolutionary understanding was based on the strong Catholic (Catholic means universal) foundation of the new Spain "we are all God´s Children", and inspired philosophers in Spain that tried to defend these equalitarian ideas when Spain was the most influential cultural power in both Europe and America. Also Jews expelled from Spain helped to spread these ideas across Europe with the help of freemason logias, particularly in England and France. Roman philosophers such as Cicero and Seneca, were considered "divinely inspired" and their ideas about Civitas and Law continued inspiring Europe.
So the point is, yes, Judaism, Christianism played a huge role in developing Democracy as we understand it, as they served as vessels of ideas of citizenship and universal human dignity that were unknown to Plato or Socrates, but became widespread during the cultural revolutions of the first centuries of the Age of Piscis in the Mediterranean and the Near East.
I haven’t read the book, but having read the Sermon on the Mount the notion that the Christian religion is a poison will always to me seem patently ridiculous.
Hitchen's only real issue with the Bible, is those of us who believe it is revelation. And every issue he uses to attack the Bible, could also be said of homer, yet he does not attack the Iliad.
Here is what it comes down to. It is not a fact that God is or God is not. It is reasonable to believe that God is, and it is reasonable to believe God is not. For good salesmen, both theist and atheist, there is good money to be made in pitting these reasonable beliefs against each other.
Those who value reason and philosophy should be able to recognize and respect the counter position, argue with passion but without a acrimony. Listen and understand the other position and be willing to change our position if reason so dictates. I find this rare.
I have enjoyed reading Hitchens. I once read a laudatory biography of Mother Theresa (Something Beautiful for God) and later read Hitchens' The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice. The woman seems to have been a rather hard boiled bitch saint. I'm glad I didn't have to deal with her.
Christopher (meaning 'Christ bearer' -- a most ironic name for a militant atheist) Hitchens was a chronic ax-grinder. That was his specialty. Ax grinders have a necessary and useful role in society. It's dirty work but somebody has to do it. So read his books, derive benefit from them (a clearer view because some of the dead wood has been cut away) and then move on.
Magic and religion are human creations, obviously, as are the gods. We called the gods into existence, not the other way around. It follows, it is obviously guaranteed, it is a law of nature, it is as sure as the sunrise that religion will have all the flaws, failures, and faults of humankind. And all the virtues as well.
Religions provide people with necessary narratives, myths, stage settings, codes, rules, and so on to give meaning and order to life. Are there other ways of doing this? Sure. There are secular equivalents, there are the arts. There is science. There are folkways.
It isn't that religion poisons everything. What is true is that human reason and rationality are insufficient to structure a reasonably perfect world without too many flaws. The world would not be the Peaceable Kingdom if religion were to disappear.
I was just reading about salesmen and them being a good example of people with credibility issues. However, Hitchens seems genuine and the book seems well-researched.
The conventional religions have a completely warped view of what is good and what is evil in my view.
I agree that religions are very negative. They'd be fine if folks could somehow just keep their beliefs to themselves, but religions massively impact cultural mores, laws, etc. That's not just keeping the beliefs to oneself.
This seems to assume Christianity has had no positive influence on Western societies, and also that there could somehow be a society that isn’t guided by its beliefs.
No worries, my view of hitchens is just an opinion. If it makes it any better feel the same way about most evangelical tv preachers.
People just love simple answers. And the media loves confrontational arguments.
To say "on one hand there are bad aspects" yet then to continue "on the other hand there are positive aspects" is to the modern social media consumer a very confusing view and/or simply lame. It's dull.
What modern public wants from the discourse are stark views that can be rude (as if they would be more sincere when they aren't nice or tolerant) and annoy people who are against these views. You see, a lot of people who agree with Hitchens views just love how rude he could be to others. This is a general thing not just related to Hitchens. Just look what kind of material in Youtube there is about him and how these debates are named:
- Hitchens delivers one of his best hammer blows to cocky audience member
- Christopher Hitchens brutal honesty pissing off muslims
- Christopher Hitchens own debate
- Christopher Hitchens -the best of the Hitschlap
- etc....
This of course isn't just about Hitchens, but typically all media-philosophers or social critics (like Hitchens) are loved by media because of the confrontational narrative. And people just love this "X owns y"-type of discussions. Grotesque can be entertaining.
And then, America is a very religious country, hence being an atheist is something "scandalous"!
The latter part I'm not thinking--I would just like (what I consider) better beliefs to be the influence.
Re positive influences of Christianity . . . well, I like gospel music a lot, and it's inspired some great art aside from that, too. ;-)
Maybe not [I]everything[/I], but let's not forget that Socrates was literally made to drink poison as a result of being charged with impiety and corruption of the youth, or that the twin towers weren't attacked because the minds of the terrorists had been poisoned by backgammon, or that...
And for Christian beliefs to be restricted in their influence, where others you do favour are not? This notion that Christians should keep their beliefs to themselves, as if they should have no part in the discussion, seems ill considered given Christianity’s role in forming Western society, and what it can still offer us. Its admonishments against greed seem especially pertinent now, in our age of rampant and harmful cupidity.
All good and bad things about Christianity, are good and bad things of European and Western culture. The Left hates Christianity or anything that attacks Christian and Post-Christian culture, because they recognize this connection. For some reason, they don´t realize that the Left itself is a Post-Christian sect. Christian churches have their political leanings; for example, in the Catholic Church, if you believe in God but not the Church, you may join base communities (like I did in my time). If you believe in both God and the Church, you can join Opus dei for example. If you believe in the Church but not God, you may like "Theology of Liberation" groups; and if you believe in neither God nor the Church, you can join Jesuit ranks like Pope Francisco.
These different political groups were translated to the secular society; with Protestant Europe contributing their own.
Alright then, how about the 918 people who died after drinking poison in the Jonestown Massacre, some of whom were forced? Or was that badly reported too?
Anyway, aren't you the same guy who said that BBC News was the top provider of fake news in the U.K.? Why should anyone trust your judgement on this? :brow:
I don't agree with the majority of the ethical views of the major religions. So yeah, I want to see what I prefer have influence rather than stuff I don't agree with . That shouldn't be surprising.
There’s an important distinction between wanting your preferred views to have more influence, and desiring that others keep their views to themselves.
Speaking of Protestant Europe, do you remember when it went to war with Catholic Europe? I wonder what that was about. I seem to remember reading something about a Thirty Years' War. I wonder how long that went on for. I wonder how many people died. I think that it might have had something to do with some people being thrown out of a window, though don't ask me why. I guess they just wanted a closer look at the ground below and the other fellows were kind enough to give them a helping hand.
I want people to keep mainstream religious view to themselves and not influence society with them because I don't agree with those views--not most of them at least. I don't like the social mores they've contributed or amounted to.
Are you aware that’s a bigoted view to take?
Hitchens' book needs to be read in the context of when he wrote it and his experience around that time.
It was not long after the WTC attacks in 2001. Hitchens had adopted America as his new home and had a deep affection for it. He took the attacks personally as an attack on that which he loved most of all. The book was an angry retaliation at what he saw as the root of the fanaticism that drove those attacks. Far from being a careful piece of philosophical analysis, it was an outpouring of rage and grief.
Add to that that Hitchens was a great showman and wordsmith with a penchant for hyperbole, and we get the exaggerated book that's being discussed. Regardless of what one thinks of his vicious attack, one cannot help but admire his skill with words. The title and subtitle are about the best attention grabbers and memorable phrases one can imagine.
Think of the book as a fascinating, entertaining insight into what was going on in Western culture in the early 21st century, not as a work of philosophy to be analysed.
In the sense that all preferences are, sure.
There is no such sense in all preferences. Preferring apples in no way entails that I am intolerant of oranges.
Preferences against something, where you don't care for it.
Preferring not to eat an orange does not entail that I am intolerant of oranges.
Did you forget that we're talking about cultural influence? So that, for example, you can only have oranges? We're not talking about something that's just a personal choice.
I’m not certain what you mean. I’m questioning your view that Christians should not give a public voice to their beliefs; I called your view bigoted; you claimed that to have a preference against something is, in a sense, to be intolerant of it; I believe I’ve shown that to be false.
As I said in my first post in this thread, "religions massively impact cultural mores, laws, etc. "
I didn't mean literally not saying anything. Lol
You're not an Aspie, are you? Because you seem to be interpreting comments as if you are.
Quoting Terrapin Station
The above is what I’m responding to. It’s the notion of Christians “keeping their beliefs to themselves”, as if they shouldn’t have a say, that I’m taking issue with. But look, if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.
Leave Asperger's Jerry Johnson alone. And stop being so intolerant of oranges. What has Donald Trump ever done to you?
Nicely said, and true, but um, we're not actually interested in reason and philosophy. We're interested in using the illusion of such interest to inflate our delicate self images. This is an incredibly wise bit of reason, I feel much better now.
However, Jesus is concrete and essential to religion because we can not have an emotional relationship with an abstract concept, right? Paul went to the Greeks and argued for making an abstract God a concrete one, right? He is saying Jesus is a god and that is very concrete. He is saying a man is a god and that is concrete, not abstract.
Trump is the result of replacing abstract thinking (liberal education) with concrete thinking (education for technology) and that is the end of the democracy we defended in two world wars. This is a religious and political problem. It returns us to tribalism and intensifies conflicts instead of uniting us.
There was a time when Jews, Muslims, and Christians believed they worshipped the same god. The three religions believing the God of Abraham, is the one and only true God. Then each new religious group thought they needed to correct the mistakes made those who when before. Same god, just differences how we understand God's truth and what is required of us. That is a problem with being concrete instead of abstract. If we were thinking abstractly, we would not be so sure of ourselves and ready to argue against another person's understanding of God.
If we focus on the difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking, we might change the argument enough to make some progress instead of repeating the same arguments again and again and again.
How about Christians preventing education in the higher order thinking skills, as was the agenda of the 2012 Texas Republicans? How about Christians insisting science books include their story of creation, which they did do Texas until a supreme court decided with the people of science that the creation story is not science. Without liberal education, Christians have become a very serious problem. Christianity without liberal education is what Germany had, and now that is what we have.
Could you explain that with some examples maybe?
This is the same bad logic that gun advocates use. You can kill someone with almost anything, therefore we shouldn't ban guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Should we ban people?
Except that people kill people with guns, and guns are a good tool for that job. Similarly, terrorists blow people up, and religion is a good tool for creating terrorists.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it already has been. For example, in the Russian and Spanish revolutions.
But it pales in comparison to the impact of religion in that same regard.
It´s human nature. So to be really atheistic, you have to be: an individual separated from the mass, and understand that your own religious beliefs are not the ultimate truth. All spiritual leaders are atheistic at some stage: Zoroaster, Jesus, Paul, Buddha: they all had to reject energetically the gods they were told to believe and doubt of their own beliefs, to reach a point where they could communicate with phenomenal reality with new rules and images.
Yowee! you got me in a corner. I was hoping someone else would understand this difference in education and the difference in abstract and concrete thinking and say things better than I have said them. But now that you ask, I am excited by the thoughts that come to mind.
I looked for a definition of "god" and got "a mighty and powerful force". Okay, that applies to all gods because it is an abstract, universal thought. We can have so much applying this abstract notion of a god, to the Greek gods. Each god and goddess is a concept, I like Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D.'s explanation of gods and goddesses as archetypes best. Each of us has an inner god or goddess and the one that dominates us may change as we age. I was a Demeter goddess when I was a mother. Now I am Athena because my focus is political and about teaching men how to rule themselves, or defending democracy as I understand it. There is absolutely no question in my mind that these gods and goddess exist, as Bolen understands them. Concepts are very powerful! Now apply this reasoning to the God of Abraham. Exactly what is this God?
Every discussion I have seen uses only the Christian concept of God, and there are only two choices, either you believe in this one and only God, or you are an atheist. Bull shit! That is concrete thinking, not abstract thinking. Something happened to human consciousness and I am not exactly sure what but to hold there are can be only one god, the god of Abraham, is to concrete and not abstract thinking of god. Whatever god can be? Once we attempt to define god, we know not god.
Paul was wrong when he defined the unknown god as the knowable Jesus. We do not directly experience God, therefore, we can not know God, but some people did directly experience Jesus. It is sort of sleight of hand to make something as concrete as a human being the God that is beyond our comprehension. Does anyone else see this? It is the difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking. A god that is unknowable and beyond our comprehension is an abstract god. A god that is jealous, revengeful, punishing and fearsome is not an abstract god. As soon as we ascribe human traits to a god, it is no longer an abstract concept of god and now we have another sleight of hand.
It becomes impossible to discuss an abstract god, the moment that god is made concrete, (humanized). Now we are not talking about God, an abstract concept, but what we believe about a god and the rightness of this god's mythology. This is a trap like the tar baby in the Brer Rabbit stories. The more you hit the tar baby created by concrete mythology (humanized god), the more stuck you are in the tar. Did God make man out of mud and was there a flood? Sumerian stories tell us this so, only Sumerian stories are about many gods. We have no scientific reason to believe a god made us of mud and walked in a garden with us. Abstract thinking of a mighty and powerful force just doesn't take our minds there. There is no god who had favorite people, but at that time, everyone thought they had a patron god or goddess who took care of them. This false concept of gods and goddess became the one and only god and we still go to war believing this god is on our side, even when we are fighting a Christian enemy. This is not the god of all. The god of all is an abstract mighty and powerful force with no favorites and no human characteristics, no jealousy and no desire for revenge. Concrete versus abstract.
We need to look no further than (Christian) Nazi Germany and Communist countries to answer that question. People who believe they can know absolute truth, are absolutely dangerous. However, when God is an abstract, no one can know absolute truth. An abstract god is unknowable and beyond our comprehension. An abstract god is not a humanized god like Zeus and the God of Abraham, and for sure an abstract god does not have favorites, or help people win wars, or protect humans from their own folly.
Only when there is no perceived power greater than humans, or when God is a concrete notion, such as Zeus or the God of Abraham, can people believe they know absolute truth and become a threat to others. Such a god can and does pull people into wars and lead to very bad judgment such was putting the economy first and destroying the planet with ignorance.
I love your explanation of logic. :cheer:
Wars are good for religion and religion is good for war. :wink:
My solution is: to restrict the use of tools that are dangerous to people and places that minimize the risk; for example, only clinically sane people that never were convicted of violent crimes should have them, and not on the streets but in their homes or cars. Religious and political books that advocate violence and hate (Quran, Mein kampff, Comunist Manifesto...) should only be read by people who have critical skills and sufficient cognitive abilities to understand that they are bad, and not by children or ignorant people without those personal defenses. This really means that adults have no right to force these pamphlets on vulnerable people, meaning young children, people with psychological ailments and the iliterate.
The bottom line is that any tool or power in our hands, must go together with the power and responsibility to use it for good and not to harm others or oneself. The advocates of a religion, must prove that their texts and rituals are safe to use by the people are directed to; and they lose the "right" to express that religion (or political ideology) as soon as what they do is not in accordance with the ethical standard of a society.
On the other hand, cults that are ready to prove that they are good for society should be permitted and welcome; for example I think that Wiccans are more good than harm, or Quakers with their eight Peace Nobel prizes (so far).
Or, as I like to call it, false vs. trivial.
Or, as I rhetorically asked, should we ban people? And the answer is obviously no. It doesn't have to be a slippery slope all-or-nothing kind of thing.
Quoting DiegoT
There's only so much that can be realistically done, though. A place like the U.S. could certainly do more on gun control. But some of what you say seems too impractical, or like it could backfire, or as though it's already covered to at least some degree. On that last point, for example, I know that there are already legal restrictions on freedom of speech for these sort of reasons, and I found this online: Tackling extremism in the UK: December 2013 Report from the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Tackling Radicalisation and Extremism. And that's the stuff they were doing around five years ago. It's not like the powers that be have been sitting on their hands this whole time.
I do not understand that logic. Can you explain how the difference between abstract and concrete can equal the difference between false vs. trivial? Possibly illusion versus reality- everything is energy but we perceive a solid reality, however, this does not make our perception false. Ice is made of water, but that does make ice a false concept. And judging our perception of a solid reality as trivial isn't very helpful. "Trivial" is a completely different judgment than one of truth and falseness. As long we are caught up in space and time, understanding this disillusion seems paramount. A reality outside of time and space would matter why?
Sure. Claims about a concrete God are false or at least unsubstantiated, and claims about an abstract God, even if true, are trivial. Atheists believe in an abstract God. It's not really a god though, it's just a concept. There's no controversy there. But also, to make matters worse, you have claimed that this God is unknowable and beyond our comprehension. How can something that you can't know or comprehend mean so much to you? That doesn't even make sense to me. You're basically talking about nothing or a nonsense.
For me, it makes no sense to distinguish between political and religious discourses. For example, up to the seventeenth century or later, all ideologies had some religious ground; if you read the Torah with Iron Age eyes, you will discover that is a very political pamphlet: a monarchy with its clergy that aspired to control the Levant and be independent from Persia and Egypt (which they eventually achieved for two centuries before the Romans). If you started a political movement, say, in the VII century, you would include at least one god in the discourse because it was addressed to people who could not conceive power without being sanctioned by some daemonic figure.
Nowadays, neither new religions nor new political movements have a total need for a personal, angry or loving, deity; because there is more than a critical mass of people with abstract thinking. Even so, all social movements tend to develop "religious" traits that will increase over time. North Korea is closer and closer to call his piggy leader the Son of God.
Communism is teleological, it has a symbolic metanarrative, all kind of symbols and rituals and texts that are more than texts, and idealized personalities. It doesn´t just organize economic life, but also culture and the very way people think and feel and behave about themselves and family and friends. What more is needed to call it a religion? It´s both a religion and a political movement, just like Christianity, Judaism and Islamism. Or like Feminism or Nationalism.
The Greeks moved away from their gods when they got into math and science. We now know earthquakes, volcanoes, droughts, and hurricane, and so on, happen because of natural cause-effect. The Greeks concluded even the gods were under the law. Unlike the God of Abraham, especially when this God is taken over by Christians, becomes a God who can do anything he wants, and violate any laws of nature He wants to violate. A supernatural god who can be manipulated with our piety, offerings, and rituals. That is a supernatural god far beyond the powers of nature gods, and these Christian yahoos destroyed the pagan temples where math and medicine were taught and set us back thousands of years cutting off from the knowledge that had been gained over many centuries.
Cicero, one of the most important men in Roman, read by all who were curious of democracy, explained what happens is about nature, cause and effect, and our sacrifices and prayers will not change the consequences of what we say and do.
However, trying to understand the unknowable god, that mighty force, universal law, the cause and effect that rules our lives, means opening our minds to infinity and all possibilities. Now and only now is there a hope of democracy meaning rule by reason, and not rule by authority over us. This is not trivial and atheist who deny a mighty force greater than their own, are not an improvement.
First of all, you need to stop saying that it's unknowable if you're going to tell me about it. That's a blatant contradiction.
Second, I'm not saying that it's trivial in terms of how you might think or feel about it. But it's trivial in terms of where the controversy lies. It's like if you were to tell me that the Loch Ness Monster exists, and then when I react with disbelief, you explain that you only meant as an abstraction, it would deflate the issue to a triviality. I can accept that the Loch Ness Monster exists as an abstraction. I can accept that people can get satisfaction out of it, that it can mean a lot to them. But that's beside the point. The Loch Ness Monster doesn't actually exist. You won't find the Loch Ness Monster in Loch Ness, because it isn't there. And no one is denying that we can conceive of such a creature. We can conceive of lots of weird and fantastical things.
Quoting Athena
Sure. That's the false or unsubstantiated side of the fork.
Quoting Athena
Yeah, and he was right.
Quoting Athena
You're both contradicting yourself and moving the goalposts. My criticism wasn't directed against what you describe, which is different from what you claim to be talking about.
You seem to have gotten yourself into a right muddle!
Most glaringly, an absolute authority figure (more than an idealized personality), and an aspect of transcendence.
Why is it a contradiction to say there is a mighty and powerful force that is beyond our comprehension? We can know creation is the result of a mighty and powerful force. We experience the manifestation of that mighty and powerful force and we can study the manifestation of this force, so we can know of the manifestation, but the mighty and powerful is beyond our comprehension. Maybe someday as we explore the energy of all creation more fully or/and if we come to understand multiple dimensions, we might think we comprehend the mighty and powerful force, but not today. There is no contradiction. We do not know everything.
I like the saying, the beginning of wisdom is "I don't know." When we think we know something, we stop learning of it. It is better to think we don't know, than to believe we do know. That is to say when we think we know God, we know not God, but only what we think we know.
Quoting praxis
You both seem to be conflating communism, the political ideology, with communist states. To my knowledge, there's nothing in communism which says that there must be a Stalin-like or Mao-like figure.
Or did you perhaps mean Marx? He is just one of a number of people to produce writings on the subject, and it's his ideas which matter, and they matter based on their own merits or demerits.
That appears to be the Christian hang up I hope we get past. Christians have humanized a God and that is not necessary to have a belief in a mighty and strong force that manifest our three-dimensional experience of reality. The Christian God authority is counterproductive. I promise you there is no God that wanted animal sacrifices. However, there is a right way and wrong way of doing things. When we do things right we get good results and when we do things wrong we get bad results. Believing a God will save our sorry asses so we don't have to use science to figure things out, is a mistake. Do you see the difference between believing there is a supernatural authority and believing science is important to staying out of trouble? Going from town to town flogging yourself or burning witches will not spot plagues, but science can.
Mighty, powerful, a force, a creator of the universe, able to manifest itself in ways which can be experienced and studied by humans, universal law, the cause and effect that rules our lives, greater than us, essential to preventing humans from believing they are the highest power, essential to preventing humans from projecting themselves into a concept of a god and believing that they can know the will of God, not a human force, not a superhuman, you seem to suggest it has a will, manifests our three-dimensional experience of reality, does not want animal sacrifices...
You know and comprehend all of this about it. Yet it's unknowable and beyond our comprehension.
Sure.
Rather, it's what I believe are two essential qualities of what may be regarded as 'religion', which I point out in response to DiegoT's query.
Quoting Athena
Counterproductive to what purpose? If God's not the ultimate authority then who does God answer to?
Quoting Athena
This is a non sequitur that you cannot promise me, unless you're a God or something. Maybe there is a God and he gets a kick out of critter sacrifices."
Quoting Athena
"Trouble" is a little ambiguous so I can't quite agree that science is important to staying out of it, or even that staying out of it is a desirable objective.
Quoting Athena
The science exists to end world hunger, as well as many other human challenges, yet millions starve to death each year. Fuck religion and science, people need to wake up.
Okay, and how do you propose we go about researching God? Quoting S
I hardly think a notion of God is equal to a notion of the Loch Ness Monster. How could an argument about the existence of a Loch Ness Monster be abstract? The existence of a Loch Ness Monster is universal in what way? How would knowledge of a Loch Ness Monster make us think or behave differently? Compared to the notion of a mighty and powerful force that we must come to understand for our very survival. Are you wanting to argue there is no mighty and powerful force that gives form to the three dimensional experience we have, and 2+2 does not equal 4 on the moon or Mars but only on earth does 2 + 2 equal 4, or that a triangle on Mars is not the same as a triangle on earth? Are you understanding what math has to do with abstract thinking? Would "do unto others as you would have them do to you", be different on a different planet?
Quoting S
I am sorry, I do not understand the meaning of that sentence. Greek stories of the gods contain truths. When we interpret them abstractly we can have the advantage of the truths. However, if we interpret the stories concretely then our understanding is false. Same with interpreting the Bible. There is wisdom in holy books and we see it when are thinking abstractly, however, when we are thinking concretely we have false beliefs mixed up in the wisdom and the result of this can be very bad. That is why the church didn't want uneducated people to have Bibles that they could read for themselves. Things like the witch hunts, or beating the devil out of our children, can come out of uneducated people reading the Bible.
I do not think you find that in Hinduism or Buddhism?
Quoting praxis
Ah, God is the authority of what and how does that work? What you said is completely incomprehensible to me because I do not believe there is a God that can be as a human authority. There is a right way and wrong way to do things, but that is not because a god says this is so. It simply is how things work. Our planes can appear to violate the laws of gravity because of taking advantage of air flow, and there is no god authority that says this is how things will be. It is the laws of physics that makes it so. Starting a war with another country may have some benefits but the problems will likely outweigh the benefits, although we are unlikely to be conscious of them. If we were more conscious it is unlikely we would engage in war. That is saying, it is wrong to start a war because of the destruction, not because a god wants us to war or doesn't want to war. We are the only human authority. The mighty and powerful force is not such an authority.
Quoting praxis
What evidence do you have that there is a god that would want animal sacrifices? Without evidence why would anyone think a god would want such a thing and what would be the qualities of such a god? Frankly, I think it is repulsive for humans to think they can manipulate a god to do their will by sacrificing animals or saying prays. Perhaps we should try cannibalism and see how well that works. I can not judge that myself but must wait for a god authority that I don't believe exist, to tell me cannibalism and sacrificing animals doesn't please a god? That is nuts. It is a good example of why such a belief is counterproductive. It prevents us from knowing truth. Welcome to the dark ages, brought on by Christian thinking. No thank you, that is what I am opposing.
Quoting praxis
Yeap, welcome to the dark ages brought on by Christian thinking. And folks, god has allowed Satan to have power on earth and we are in the last days, so ignore what science has to say about global warming, and those who are quite sure destroying another country is not the will of God. This is a huge thinking problem and I hope we get past it.
Liberal education prepares us for scientific thinking and good moral judgment (abstract thinking). That is not education for technology (concrete thinking) Your thinking here has been concrete, not an abstract and this is a serious problem in the world today. It seems you need a Bible to tell you cannibolism is not okay because you don't think we can make these moral (science) judgments for ourselves. That means liberty and democracy are not possible, so why are we paying so much to defend our democracy? Maybe China has better leaders and can give us a better economy and better defense? What would make a president of the US a better leader if liberty and democracy are bad ideas?
Quoting praxis
We can also feed all the stray cats and dogs, and I do not think that is a good idea. If you want to start a thread to debate if we can feed the world or not, and if that is a good idea or not, pm me and I will throw in my two cents worth.
In 1830 Tocqueville wrote that Christian democracies becoming a despot, a totalitarian government that would so control our lives our lives they would be meaningless and unfulfilling. I have always seen the conflict between communist and Christians totally baffling. Communism is applied Christianity, isn't it?
If liberty and democracy are bad ideas then we currently have the best possible leader.
Quoting Athena
You would debate whether relieving human suffering is a good idea or not? Granted that merely feeding the hungry (1 out of 6 people currently alive, approximately), isn’t a fix to universal human flourishing, but the effort would be in the right direction, I believe.
The late-great Christopher Hitchens took a very strongly worded position against religion and did his best to dissuade the world at large from taking it seriously, but I think there is at least a drop of hyperbole in the statement.
Religion may indeed poison everything (to varying degrees) but, it has nurtured some other things too...
Hitchens would probably have liked the following aphorism:
"You can have a glass of perfectly clean and drinkable water, but if you add just a single drop of feces it ruins the lot"
It's fair to say that religion does cause some harm to just about everything in some form or another... And religion being the prevailing home-team, I don't exactly blame him for over-stating his case (it's meant to be pushed back against)...
The first two books that Gutenberg printed out: The Bible and Maleus Maleficarum. There you had the religious wars and the witch hunts.
Wow. That's a blatant red herring. Just to clarify, is your "Okay" a concession to the following quote which you were responding to?
[I]"First of all, you need to stop saying that it's unknowable if you're going to tell me about it. That's a blatant contradiction".[/I]
Quoting Athena
That's missing the point. The point wasn't that they're equal. That's not what analogies are supposed to do. Analogies are just supposed to show that there's something in common, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification. I could make an analogy between a man and a mouse. I wouldn't be suggesting that they're equal.
Quoting Athena
Really? It could obviously be abstract if I'm talking about the concept or idea of the Loch Ness Monster, instead of talking about an actual creature.
You know what, I think I might end it here. Sorry, but your response isn't very rational. Maybe if you show some improvement we can try again. Yes, I know you'll probably think that I'm arrogant for saying such a thing. That's because I am. But I've also been generous enough to try to help you out by identifying where you've gone wrong.
For example, in your reply to praxis, you respond to him saying that your claim that there is no God who wanted animal sacrifices is a non sequitur, that it's possible there is, and that you can't know either way, by asking him questions and making comments as though he had in fact said that there is such a God, and then you strongly express your disapproval. This is a textbook fallacious response.
I'm guessing that praxis recognised that and decided that it wasn't worth the bother.
Communism is as you say, a practical answer to "Matthew 5:5: "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." It´s no wonder that first socialists and the first feminists were deeply religious people; all totalitarian movements born as a response or reaction to the Masonic cultural revolution (Enlightenment) and the tragedies of the Industrial Revolution, that is: socialism, marxism, anarchism, feminism, fascism, nazism and more; all share the same basic ideas. These ideas are:1 the suprapersonal structure (the people, class, race, political movement) are the real human subjects and individuals are only cells of these organisms, with no inherent value separated of the suprapersonal movement. We see this in feminism, where the movement ask for more posts for women for being women, not for their individual merits. 2. The Salvation metanarrative: the Jewish foundational myth, that is not so original (Aztecs had a similar one, exodus included), is about a people that needs to be liberated from oppression and march to a new promised land that ultimately needs to be conquered by force; this ethnic aspiration is legit because it´s part of a grand divine plan to lead human History to its literary climax or resolution of all conflicts. All revolutionary movements we know are adaptations of this recurring theme in the Torah. 3. Manicheism, or belief that moral categories are not mere subjective appraisals of how actions relate to our personal values; but real cosmic forces of which men, with free will, are also part: History as a fight of good versus evil.
That beatitude is an admonishment to live a gentle life; its practical answer is just that. Forceful overthrow of perceived oppressors would be its opposite.
As I understand, early Christians were communist in that they owned no private property and shared everything, but the politicisation of Communism is different, and the claim that the USSR, say, embodied a kind of practical Christianity is odd.
Thanks but how about ''a word of truth is better than an entire library of lies''
All in all, your warning heeded, his book does have truth in it. If I were a believer I would make my relationship with God a personal one and sidestep the priestly middlemen. Of course I would seek guidance in the interpretation of scripture. Understanding God is likely to be impossible without some goodly assistance.
Do you think most of Christopher Hitchens' worries about religion has to do with the failures of organized religion with its dogmatic tendencies?
This may not be entirely true because he reveals that God commanded genocide and rape in the holy books.
Any ideas?
Oh no, you've misunderstood. You see, with the goodly assistance from your local priest, you can discover that that sort of thing was just a colourful metaphor for loving your neighbour or something.
Well the Churches are not Christianity, as if they’ve somehow superseded Christ, so their political alignments are beside the point. Peter Hitchens’ description of Moscow, during the final hours of the Soviet Union, depicts a filthy swamp of petty corruption, where everyone informed on everyone else, abortions outnumbered live births, and a simple politeness like holding a door open for someone was viewed with suspicion. And, as far as I understand, Marxism doesn’t have a problem with being rich per se, as Christianity does, but only with riches gotten through exploited labour.
Christianity advocates a practical communism - repudiation of private property and everything shared according to need - but Communism is not inherently Christian, because so much of the Christian message is absent or explicitly rejected.
I'm way off-track :grin:
I love your reply.
Quoting praxis
Yes, I would debate the notion that it is possible to do that, and I would debate the idea that it is a good thing to do. A debate is about gaining information and that is important to have a good plan. I am concerned that the food supply is very vulnerable and that this problem is getting rapidly worse. Also feeding people results in breeding people and that makes the problem worse.
I often say things to prompt some thinking on what is said. If you want to argue a god is knowable that means doing some research, but the best we can do is research the manifestation of a mighty and powerful force and infer something about the mighty and powerful force and that is being done.
Quoting S
But what does the mighty and powerful force have in common with the Loch Ness Monster? How is our thinking of the two same? Now if you are speaking of Zeus or the God of Abraham, they share in common imaginary ideas of what exists. But I have said believing these notions of gods are real is concrete thinking, either they exist or they don't. Concrete.
I am speaking of abstract thinking and that makes the notion of god, a mighty and powerful force, completely open and now we can wonder if the manifestation is limited to 3 dimensions, or if there are multiple dimensions, and how might people living on another planet think of this god? We can ask why did other people say there are different gods? What truths do people share in common and on what do they do they disagree. There is so much more we can come to know when we think abstractly.
What made Athens so highly intelligent, leading some to believe they were a race of genius, is abstract thinking. In a world full of concrete thinkers, the people of Athens began thinking abstractly and this lead to science and the advancement of western civilization. Then like the US they became focused on technological correctness and began to atrophy.
You are speaking of the US, right? We have mandatory reporters. Teachers, health care workers, counselors and anyone working with people is such a way are mandatory reporters who can get in serious trouble if they do not report suspect abuse, and so much as holding a baby and hitting the wives car with a fist, can be reported as child abuse.
When we "liberated" women, increasingly women and children fell below the level of poverty and abortions increased.
We used to laugh at the poverty of Russia and many people sharing homes. We now have people sharing homes and those living on the streets tend become like feral cats.
Ah! I see. You were talking about abstract thinking, whereas I was talking about abstract thinking. :meh:
Yeah, well you don’t hear much optimism about the current state of the West.
A debate or argument is also about attempting to persuade others... perhaps so that they may adopt your plan.
Quoting Athena
It’s an odd world we live in. In many parts of the world starvation is common and in other parts obesity is a sign of poverty. Both science and religion have failed to promote balance. I think we have to find it for ourselves.
How do you define abstract thinking? I love your argument because it led to me finding the best definition of abstract thinking I have ever seen.
Now that goes with Daniel Kahneman's explanation of "Thinking, Fast and Slow". Daniel Kahneman explains how our brains work and why even the most highly educated people can make terrible mistakes in judgment. Some people have a gut reaction to the notion of God and that is fast thinking. Those who question the existence of God are slowing down to ponder the deeper implications of the possibility of a God.
Here is a very short and excellent explanation of fast and slow thinking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8gpV-xjECM
My 11 year old great grandson understands arguing as an ego challenge rather than as a method to discover truth. A democracy is rule by reason, not rule by Trump deciding what is best for us. We are to argue what is so and what should be until we have a consensus on the best reasoning. Then we declare this a law as we have a law of gravity. It is universal, not special interest. We all agree to the follow the law because it makes sense and if we do not agree with it, it is our duty, our responsibility to persuade others that the reasoning is wrong, and of the better reasoning.
Again, this understanding is about abstract thinking. Democracy is a very complex concept. Believing democracy means everyone participates in the government and everyone has a degree of political power is nice but it also far from understanding the deeper meaning and more complex concept. The simple understanding most people have of democracy is concrete thinking, not abstract thinking.
That's not even a definition, it's just someone's opinion [i]about[/I] abstract thinking as contrasted with concrete thinking. Abstract thinking is thinking about or in terms of abstractions, and I've already said what abstractions are. Again, they're ideas or concepts. The idea or concept of the Loch Ness monster exists, and the idea or concept of God exists, and claiming that either one exists is trivial as fuck; in the case of the latter, because it misses what the whole atheism/theism debate is about.
Capiche? :brow:
I don't see how the opinion you express here requires so much denigration.
Because I said, "fuck", and "capiche", and raised my eyebrow? Who the hell cares? What did you come here for: to do philosophy or to tone police?
Hopefully, S is young and will realize better in time.
Do you have any ideas about how the mental work of abstract thinking can be made comprehensible to those who know as little as S? I am feeling frustrated with this challenge. Nothing important about democracy is understood without understanding what abstract thinking has to do with liberty and democracy. It is a way of perceiving human capability and God, that is essential to understanding our liberty and democracy as rule by reason but how can this be explained so it is more understandable? This is not the Christian God but the Deist God.
I expressed my opinion.
Just like you did.
What did I come here for? That is a good question.
I will think about it.
This may not be the right forum for you. Bad manners is not the meaning of freedom of speech. You aren't a monster. Just immature.
I came here to share knowledge with others who are here to share knowledge, and I have a huge preference for maturity and civility. I don't think others have a right to tear down the standard that has been set here.
I don't agree with your judgement either.
Oy vey.
The difference is that mine was relevant to the topic.
Quoting Valentinus
You should do. The primary purpose of this forum is to discuss philosophy, and the topic of this discussion is whether or not it's true that religion poisons everything. If you felt an irresistible urge to deviate from this topic to let me know that you disapprove of my tone, then you could have done that in a private message or somewhere more appropriate.
Staying on topic is important, wouldn't you agree? Is the topic about my manners or tone or level of maturity? Will that somehow change the validity of my criticism?
[B]Now, to get back on track (at least in relation to where Athena has taken the discussion, which is a tangent in itself!), there are only two categories of entities corresponding to abstract and concrete. They are, respectively, what exists as a thought or an idea or a concept; and what actually exists, what's physical, stuff like organisms and objects. If God is not the latter, then God must be the former. But Athena seems confused about this and has gone off track.
I'm just raising the question, if God is an abstract entity, and therefore either a thought or an idea or a concept, then, as a soft atheist or an agnostic, why should I really care? For that matter, why should a theist care? Why should anyone care? The controversy is whether or not God actually exists, concretely. So this line of thinking misses the point, does it not?[/b]
I am saying the God Abraham religions are not compatible with the democracy. I am also saying it is possible to have a concept of God that is separate from religion. Are you arguing against these points? Please clarify your argument.
Okay, I'm sorry. There-there, hush now, mummy make it better. Would you like a tissue? How about a hug?
Are you done now? Can we continue? Or would you rather drag this out some more?
The idea of a organized religion, such as, Catholicism, Islamism, and basically all the main types of religion, is erroneous. The idea of going to a religious center that tells you what a deity whats you to do according to their interpretation of ancient books, already sounds ridiculous.
Any organized religion makes a kind of brain wash on their followers, and people are sometimes to blind to see.
I disagree, I think that any such concept is a) deism which is still theism b) isnt a meaningful definition of god or c) has no meaningful distinction from religion.
Can you explain your concept of god?
Quoting Athena
I would agree, considering they are premissed upon a supreme dictator.
I think that that last sentence is either untrue or misleading. Whilst I agree that those religious beliefs and some other beliefs would be effected, most such people apply a double standard, which is in itself unreasonable, but it means that they can live their lives in accordance with reality to an extent. If it weren't for this, I would expect the mad houses to be full to the brim with them. And that'd be [I]a lot[/I] of people.
Well yes, everyone must use reason to some degree or else they would be destroying their ability to live. But I don't think being religious and still being able to live in accordance to reality to an extent is an excuse to be religious.
Yes, from my perspective it's not either, because I value reason more than that.
Ah, a god the existence of which makes no real difference. A bit like a celestial tea pot in terms of what it does, or rather [i]doesn't[/I] do. Except that even a celestial tea pot does more than this god, which literally does nothing at all. At least a celestial tea pot floats aimlessly in space, potentially colliding with other objects. And if you were to object along the lines that it makes you feel a profound sense of awe and reverence, well, that doesn't require a god. One could feel that way about the universe or a celestial tea pot or innumerable other things.
So you are agreeing with me. Right?
Yes, albeit with the qualification that it's a matter of judgement rather than a matter of fact. I judge it to be inexcusable because of my values, whereas others judge it differently because they have a different set of values. There's not an objective right or wrong here in my view.
No objective right or wrong here, or at all? If just in this case then I wonder how you differentiate.
In my view, ethics and aesthetics are subjective matters. That's a topic in itself. I accept that there are facts about the world, and I would reject the alternative that there are no facts at all on the basis that it leads to absurdity with a Moorean shift. The distinction between the two is that facts about the world do not depend on the existence of any subject perceiving them. They don't depend on subjects at all. Even if we all suddenly ceased to exist this very second, there would continue to be facts thereafter. The world wouldn't cease to exist along with us, and so long as the world exists, there will be facts, such as that there is a world.
For me, the important differences are, the way we come to know God and what we believe about humans. Both are based in Greek philosophy. The Sumerians had a story telling us we were created to help the river stay in its banks. The Greeks didn't seem to have an idea of why men were made, but women were made to be both desirable to men and as a punishment for men. :lol: Down the road, philosophers decided everything had a purpose. Birds are born to fly, horses are born to run, and humans are born to think. Believing we are born to think is a whole lot different from what religion tells us! The very first story tell us desiring knowledge is what got us in trouble with God in the first place. I like the story of Pandora and the box a whole lot better! She opened the wedding gift from Zeus, not to gain the power of knowledge but because she was curious. This may sound like silly stories, but what they tell us about what we think of humans and knowledge is important. We are curious and want to know, and are born to think, no sin! NO SIN.
The God of Abraham holy books are about who has the authority and who is to obey. That is not compatible with democracy. The Greeks and Jews fought over who should get a job. The Jewish way was dependent on birthrights, and authority and jobs were inherited. The Greeks gave jobs to whoever was the most suited to do a job. This lead to war
Christians were very tied into this inherited authority notion until the renaissance brought pagan thinking into the community and transition to modernism began. This goes with exploration and commerce and people without royal blood getting wealthy and seeing life differently than the Christian story. Our story of God and what we believe about humans is very important!
Next is the curiosity and that we are born to think, as the bird is born to fly. Wanting knowledge is not a sin. Wanting knowledge of God is natural, and the only thing we can study is nature. The only thing we can study is nature. Essential to our liberty and democracy is understanding how things work. We are not sure if God is 3 dimensional or multidimensional. We are not sure string theory is getting us closer to understanding the reality of our reality? If you want me to define an unknown God, I can not do that. All I know is we don't know everything and need to keep our minds open.
The problem with being atheist is the closed mind and exaggerated opinion of humans as the highest authority. That is nuts. Humans don't know enough to think they are at the top of the chain. Collectively we can know a lot, but individuals can know very, very little. The more we know, the more we know of what we do not know. That leads us to the unknowable God. It keeps us humble and our minds open.
Not all reasoning is the same. People read holy books and take it on faith that the books are the best knowledge of life we can have. A few people willing to read the books, question the truth of what is said and look for evidence. That is a completely different level of thinking/reasoning.
To think on the higher level requires training for abstract thinking. Unfortunately, that was dropped when we replace liberal education with education for technology. The masses are stuck with thinking on the concrete level and have no awareness of the abstract level of thinking. We lack an understanding of thinking and how our brains work. Especially my Christian friends avoid math and science because they just don't want to make the effort of thinking. They want authority over them and to be free of responsibility and just obey God's chosen authority over us. Democracy is a huge responsibility they don't want. They want the lion king to return and restore paradise for them and they believe Trump is a great father for our country. :lol: Point- do we want democratic responsibility or a Great Father to rule us? We can reason in favor of either, but not of the reasoning will be high order reasoning.
I understand what you meant by subjective. I asked because you seemed to be making a distinction between some morals and the morals being discussed ”...here...” and I was curious about how you made that distinction. It appears you do not.
I would say that is a description “b)”, no meaningful definition of god. You have taken some ideas you had and called it god. Why? Couldnt you avoid alot of confusion by not using the word god?
An unknowable god is not a meaningful definition either. It describes nothing, has no exlanatory power at all, no substance at all that would necessitate the use of the term “god”.
So I still disagree.
You left out the group that read the holy books, looked at their message and their purpose. Thought deeply about them. And find meaning in them, and by faith chose against the other alternatives to believe them.
You point is just the same old tired and complete false belief that dumb people believe and smart people don't
Quoting Athena
This is just patently false, and insulting. Take out the word "christian" and put in any other group and see how it reads.
as is the rest of the paragraph - it is pure bigotry
Why?
How is it not wrong to accept a truth without evidence? I understand that people judge things different because of different values, but it doesn't make their judgments correct.
Quoting S
Aesthetics is subjective, sure. But ethics? I disagree. There is an objective morality. The standard of value that all individuals have is their own lives. Life is the most important value. Which means that everything that propels an individual's life forward is moral, and everything that doesn't is immoral. Reason, which is fundamental to the survival of your life, must be an objective moral value. It cannot be subjective.
Faith isn't reason though. Faith is irrational. There is only one kind of reason.
Quoting Athena
No, everybody is capable of reason. Everyone has the choice to put their emotions aside, to observe reality, and to use logic to come to conclusions on reality.
Quoting Athena
That's their choice. It doesn't mean they can't.
Quoting Athena
I agree with that, absolutely.
Quoting Athena
What do you mean by democratic responsibility? I don't know how you're getting two kinds of reason. There's only one kind.
Quoting DingoJones
:hearts: I love your questions and over the years have had to answer them many times. Christians and atheist both hate me. :lol: A mod in a science forum got so frustrated with me, he banned me.
What happens when we insist God is unknowable?
What is wrong with confusion? Isn't it a whole better than being sure we know the truth?
Why does a god have to be defined? Really why does a god need to define? The moment we think we know god, we know god not. Do you get the logic of that statement? All we can know is what we think we know, and God is beyond our comprehension so perhaps we should not be too sure of what we think we know as we should not be too sure there are only 3 dimensions.
It totally changes the argument with religious people when there is agreement that there is a god. It is much better than spending eternity going around in a tiny circle about the existence of God. End that stupid argument! God exist, now what? Now we have a chance of having meaningful arguments. Atheists can join this larger argument if they can get past their knee jerk compulsion to argue there is no god. And really how much abstract thinking is there in the argument that there is no god? Atheists are shooting themselves in the foot when they block intelligent discussion with the one argument that there is no god. Their stupid argument only proves to the Christians that they are right because the Bible speaks of those evil non-believers. How logic is it for atheists to keep proving them right when their goal is to prove them wrong? Change the argument.
I have no problem with the existence of God. The universe is obviously ordered or we would not be here to argue the point. Now can we get information?
The universe doesn't have order.
By observing it we obtain a sense of order and understanding of the universe.
What would a disordered universe look like? For example, things that can be both hot and cold at the same time. Or things that can go up and down at the same time. That kind of universe wouldn't exist. If it did exist and we lived in it, then we would obtain our sense of order from that universe.
Im not sure how to respond to any of that. Im glad that my questions amuse you, but you didnt really address anything I said.
You arent really offering anything of substance, the words are just empty assertions. You could replace “god” with any gibberish word and lose nothing from your statements.
Also, did you just state with pride that you were banned for being frustrating? That doesnt sound like a good thing.
You made some excellent points. I listen to college lectures and know without question that some of our countries highly honored professors are Christians. However, a problem comes up when they are arguing with an atheist who may have a math and science foundation of knowledge because their foundation of knowledge is so different. You see, it is not a matter of IQ but rather a matter of having different foundations for knowledge. A similar problem comes up when speaking of people from different cultures with different religions.
We can take out the word "Christian" and put in the words, Hindu, Buddist, Jew, Muslim, Taoist. Are you as willing to honor these people as you want us to honor Christians, or does the term bigot apply only when speaking of non-believers and Christians? Are you equally willing to honor all other religions? A big problem I have with religious people is they tend to believe they know God's truth and everyone else is wrong unless they are Hindu or Buddist. Do you believe you know God's truth and everyone else is wrong? Do you point a figure at those others and say they are ignorant? I know Christians mean well but they have made enemies with their certainty that they know God's truth and others do not.
No one pondered Christianity more than Martin Luther and he believed God determined who would be masters and who would be servants and that the witch hunts were necessary. He lived with a lot of ignorance. Studying the bible does not resolve that problem.
I like the Bhagavad Gita explanation of being a good person better than the Biblical explanation. I like the notion that wise sagas are important to us, and that this is human wisdom, not the word of God. I think the notion that a God spoke to only a few people very suspect of error. Like if God does work that way, then Allah corrected the religious ideas of Jews and Christians when he gave the correct explanation to Mohammed, right? Or how about this, God spoke to the Jews his chosen people and later comers shouldn't mess this up with new stories and we should be sacrificing animals as God commanded us to do, and all the pagans did at that time, although those pagans were not worshipping the right god, but they got the need to sacrifice animals right. Of course, before you decided what is God's truth, you studied all the other religions so you could make an informed decision, right? That is what you mean by giving the decision a lot of thought, right?
If the people do ask questions of the religion available to them, what questions are they asking and where are they looking for answers? We can reasonably argue the universe is ordered and therefore there must be a god. It is everything else they believe about reality, humans, and god that matters. It is not just a question of if there is or isn't a god. Does God talk to us as Quakers believe, or just a few people, or is Joseph Campbell right about god speaking to everyone, only people in different environments and with different cultures understand Him differently?
You know there are Christians who avoid math and science because they don't want to put the effort into learning math and science, so your logic that what I said is false has to be an emotional response not your reasoned response. In general, people avoid learning math and science, even professors. This becomes a problem when people who have at least some understanding of math and science are arguing with those who do not. Their argument cannot be based in logical because they are not working with the same foundation of knowledge.
Okay, I am bowing out of this discussion. This is really, really sad that at this point in time, there can are people who believe the universe doesn't have order.
Folks here is your problem. Education for technology has not resulted in people having a good understanding of reality, and there is no point in arguing with them. Their religious belief is the poison that is being questioned. They are sure they know truth and won't question what is true. We are in serious trouble!
Oh dear, I didn't think my thoughts were that different. :worry:
Oh yes, I was banned from a science forum for speaking of god as I speak of god and it hurt a lot. Whenever I get excited about an argument and start having one realization after another, and become euphoric as my sense of enlightenment grows, I get banned. That is a huge crash from my euphoric state of being. For you to say I don't make any sense is disheartening, but at least I am not worried about you banning me, and you ask questions! What a gift those questions are. I try to say things that make people question what they think, but I am not doing so well when it is taken as gibberish.
There is no substance to an abstract. Reach out your hand and try to pull a 4 out of the sky. Do you pay attention to math and things like string theory? That is where this crazy thinking begins with the Greeks and math. The Sumerians and Egyptians were much better at math than the Greeks, but then some geek Greeks like Archimedes, Democritus, Diophantus, Eratosthenes, Euclid, Hipparchus, Heron Of Alexandria, Ptolemy and Pythagoras began playing with math concepts. They advanced math from practical mathematics to abstract concepts. The ideal and universal truth. The triangular shape is not just what you make with a rope and use as a tool, but on earth, the moon, and Mars a triangle is a triangle. That is a quantum leap of intelligence. It is abstract, not concrete.
With math, we can know the unknowable. I have college lectures where a professor can talk about math and knots for hours. With math, we can learn of DNA and the universe. I am not a mathematician, but I read books and listen to lectures explaining how math can be used, and why we believe this and that. I wish I were young with a more pliable brain and had a math coach who could help me understand the mysteries of math. Math is about so much more than numbers! The book "A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe" gives a very different understanding of god than holy books. Each number, 1 through 10 represents a concept of nature. With this knowledge, we have cured more evil than religions have. To know god is to understand how the universe works and this is pretty important to our survival and good moral judgment.
We may be on the verge of another math breakthrough that will radically change our perception of reality. Math has changed and changed since we first began thinking in terms of numbers. As math changes so does our understanding of reality change. When someone says the universe is not ordered, I can not deal with that. It is like telling a Christian there is no god. To see reality through math is a very different perspective that trying to understand it by reading a holy book.
So...? I don't see the supposed relevance of that to what I said.
Quoting AppLeo
Oh god. Those are some [i]big[/I] assumptions from you. To be clear, we're talking about ethical statements or statements reflecting a value judgement, because that's what, [i]"Inexcusable!"[/I], makes it.
For starters, let's not call it a truth, because there are positions which don't accept that such statements are true or even truth-apt. Once you've ruled them out with a sound argument, and we are agreed on that, then we can call it a truth.
It's wrong [i]from your perspective[/I] if you base what's wrong on that criterion. But there is nothing forcing anyone to apply that criterion.
And you have yet to make the case for correct/incorrect being appropriate here.
Quoting AppLeo
It's fine to disagree, but you should be more careful in how you approach this topic. You seem to just rush in head first with a shit load of controversial assumptions as if they're established fact!
Quoting AppLeo
These are just a string of bald assertions.
What about them isn't factual?
Quoting S
How?
If the universe was not created, why does it appear to be our reality? Of course, there is the Hindu explanation that this is all a dream and when the dreamer wakes up, it all starts over again. Our reality could be a hologram or multi-dimensional and what we perceive could be only a tiny part of what is. For sure it is all energy and at the atomic level, the rules of physics are not the same as the rules we have thought hold the universe together. but we can use those laws of physics to create and destroy. That gives us evidence for believing in them.
Laugh, instead of questioning if there is a god, should we be questioning if there is a manifested reality? My perceptions could be all wrong, but I perceive a created universe, and that I can follow the laws and get good outcomes, or violate the laws and get bad outcomes. For there to be a manifest reality there are laws of physics that give it order. At least for the universe I perceive, all depends on those laws and order.
Of course, if our sun slipped into another dimension, it would take at least 8 minutes for the darkness to reach us and without its gravity, we would no longer be held in an orbit around it. Then our argument about of if the universe was created and if it has order or not, wouldn't really matter. :lol:
The burden doesn't lie with me.
Quoting AppLeo
What? Do you know what a bald assertion is? How am I supposed to explain how except by saying that they fit the description? I can't really do much in this situation. Can you show me where in your post that these big claims were accompanied by a supporting argument?
The universe is real and evident; it just wasn't created. Existence can't be created from nonexistence.
So life isn't the most important value? And reason isn't mandatory to furthering one's life?
That's not how this works. If you want to continue this exchange, then you'll have to put in a lot more effort. Otherwise I'll bring it to an end.
If you're going to claim that life is the most important value, and that reason is mandatory to furthering one's life, then you'll need to a) explain the supposed relevance to what we've said beforehand, and b) if they're relevant, attempt to justify them.
Do not throw loaded questions at me or try to shift the burden. And do not ignore what I've written: quote me and address it.
Im not saying you dont make sense, im saying that the terms you are using dont have any meaning. They are just placeholders for a concept you cant define or explain or know anything about. Thats functionally the same as saying nothing at all.
Also, didnt say you were speaking gibberish, Im saying that a gibberish word with no meaning could function equally well as the one you are using (god etc).
Its difficult to see why your explanations should be called god at all.
Yes, I wasn't being that specific. I meant these sorts of issues about these kinds of judgement. This would just be one example.
I strongly doubt you can make even a halfway reasonable argument for this.
Life is the most important value if you want to live life. People who disagree don't interest me because they obviously don't care about themselves or the lives of others. This is for people who choose life. How do you pursue life properly? With reason. Why? Because you must live in accordance to reality and the only way to do this is with reason. You must observe with your senses and then use logic to make non-contradictory conclusions of reality. If you don't live in accordance to reality you destroy your ability to live happily and fully. For example, someone who believes in the after-life wastes their time and energy worshipping a God that doesn't even exist. Or a terrorist who believes he'll be rewarded in the after-life if he blows himself up. Or a hungry person who thinks that if preys to to a God that doesn't exist will deliver him food. Or someone who wishes and lives as if reality is a certain way when it is not. This is not a matter of judgment but of fact. There is a right and wrong if you care about your life. People who hold values based on faith or selflessness are incorrect, which means religious people hold the wrong values. People can only hold differing values as long as those values are aligned with their rational self-interest. Someone may value music and another person may value engineering, but they are both values that increase the quality of an individual's life. Religion asks you to accept a morality that is selfless, meaning a duty to your fellow brothers, and without reason because God and religious morality must be accepted without evidence or the use of logic.
Debate on the value of religion is one debated even by those who do believe in a higher power. Historically speaking, religion can be seen to be the most effective cause of human unity. Regardless of the original intentions of religion, religion has fueled conquest, death, peace, safety, and belonging. Religions are a set of precedents that each culture lives by. Religions soak up the moral fiber of a culture, and is the medium through which people choose to subscribe to said religion. Human power of belief is the strongest power in the world. In one case, a native American tribe told stories of wise men getting togeather in masses, believing that they could move a mountain, and moving that mountain with their belief. Ancient stories of monsters whose existance came from the negative emotions of humans are present all over the world. I am personally inspired by the studies of qi, and how our thoughts can effect our energy. Religion's power is in its belief, and without religion, humans may have anguished under the weight of intellect.
I know, right? Her posts are too long and rambling, and full of disordered thinking and wishy washy notions. Lacking in succinctness, lacking in substance, lacking in logic. I think I can see why she was banned.
Im not convinced as of yet that Athena is lacking in substance and logic, the succinctness I agree on though. She said she gets excited, and she seems to be operating from a fairly idiosyncratic basis...im trying to figure it out but Im not sure its a suspension of reason or anything like that.
It may be accurate to say, for instance, that Christianity is the most effective cause of Christian unity. It would be quite inaccurate to say that Christianity, or any other form of religion, is the most effective cause of human unity. Religion may successfully unify those within a group, but this unity does not extend beyond the in-group. This is a very important aspect to realize.
Quoting Reverie of Renaissance
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but this is clearly false. If religions absorbed the moral fiber of a culture then religions would only express that [good?] moral fiber. And people subscribe to religions for a variety of reasons.
Bit late to the party, but here's my two cents...
If by religion he means the religions he knows (Christianity, and judeo-christian religions) then i would tend to agree. If he means all religions, then I'd disagree.
Religion is supposed to be a veneration of the highest values in a given society, a veneration of all that is good… Judeo-Christian religions specifically tend to focus on life-denying values, but not all religions before were like that.
We are social creatures, and religion probably plays a vital role in a flourishing society. As philosophers we tend to pride ourselves on standing outside the masses, on our individualism… but ultimately I think, individualism is merely a solution to a bad situation, and far from the pinacle of what we can achieve, and as such nothing to be all that proud of really.
I'm not convinced as yet that it's worth the effort of engaging with to such an extent. You know when you look over a post and think to yourself, "Oh my god, what a muddle! Where do I even begin?"...? Maybe you're more kind and patient than me. I'm more of the "don't suffer fools gladly" type.
So mysticism and death can be considered good things by some people because there is no objective right and wrong. That's my understanding from you.
Try taking out the word Christian in your sentence and insert black people and see how it reads
Quoting Athena
You don't really believe this do you, it's a joke right.
Quoting Athena
Wow - sometimes all you can say is wow.
Of course they can be [I]considered[/I] good things by some people. They can be [I]considered[/I] good things by some people [i]regardless of whether or not there's an objective right and wrong[/I]. And they wouldn't even [i]necessarily be mistaken[/I] in considering them as such if there were an objective right and wrong. You'd have to make a [i]further[/I] argument for that.
If you were to ask me whether I consider them to be good things, then I would answer that, like you, I do not. However, unlike you, I don't try to justify that for which there is no reasonable basis for justification. I don't try to make out that my judgement is reflective of an objective standard. It's a judgement which stems from my values. Values are not objective. Values are based on how we emotionally connect. I emotionally connect with reason, I value it, so that's what influences my judgement. And I value it over and above other considerations in certain circumstances. But not everyone is like me. Others might care more about what gives them peace of mind, and what helps them cope with life, and as a result believe something unreasonable. I wouldn't simply say that they're wrong (as a value judgement), at least not without a subtext whereby if you were to read between the lines, you would know that I only meant wrong [i]in accordance with my set of values and priorities[/I].
I agree generally, but the benifit of the doubt has delivered the goods too many times for me to not give the person a good, fair chance.
Mysticism and death is bad. I don't understand how they are good things. They are objectively bad. Why would we want to live in a world where humans don't value life, and pursue mysticism instead of reason to understand reality. People who don't value life and don't hold reason as an absolute are people who make the world worse, not only for themselves, but for everybody else. Your kind of thinking is the reason why people can justify doing horrible things. Because there is no right or wrong. Because there is no morality, people can do whatever it is they please because, "it's my values there is no right and wrong."
Can you explain how they are objectively bad? Of course I generally know what you mean by saying that "death is bad" and I agree on an emotional level, but I don't know how you can claim this is true on an objective level.
Mysticism is good, btw, because it may help us to see beyond the duality of good/bad or life/death and in so doing relieve the anxieties these dualities may produce in us.
Because life is good if you want to live. That's just a fact. How do you live life if you don't your life? And why would anyone not want to value their life? Makes no sense.
Mysticism is objectively bad because it's the acceptance of something as truth without evidence or proof. It's even worse when people accept something as truth when it contrasts with what is evident or proven already. Accepting truths without evidence is detrimental to one's life in all cases. It's not a matter of what you value.
It's also a fact that people value things that are not normally considered "good." For example, there are thousands of nuclear weapons in the world, so they must be valued in some way, but few people would say they are good things. Less dramatically, people who smoke, drink, and have a poor diet typically value their lives, yet they continue to consume these things regardless of how they negatively impact their health.
Also, it makes perfect sense that someone might strive to lessen the value they put on their life because it might reduce existential anxiety.
Quoting AppLeo
That's not what mysticism is. Please consult a dictionary.
I'm not talking about that. I'm saying that to value life and to use reason is to be objective.
Quoting praxis
That is what mysticism is.
:brow:
Mysticism: belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.
You forgot the other defintion.
"belief characterized by self-delusion or dreamy confusion of thought, especially when based on the assumption of occult qualities or mysterious agencies."
Mysticism is the antithesis to reason. Reason is our only means to knowing reality.
That I can agree with.
Quoting AppLeo
So all other species (lacking our capacity to reason) that we know of do not know reality?
If this is what you actually believe, can you explain this belief? Other species appear to know reality.
Animals can only know reality through observation. They navigate through life with their instinct.
Humans navigate with reason.
I've already explained my belief a bunch times earlier.
Well durr! Of course you judge them to be bad. So do I! That's because of the criteria we use for judgement, which is based on our values, which are based on our emotions. Don't expect me to explain how they're good things. I can only explain why [i]other people might judge[/I] them to be good things.
Quoting AppLeo
Unsubstantiated.
Quoting AppLeo
Wrong question to direct at me.
Quoting AppLeo
More or less preaching to the choir. I value life and reason over and above death and mysticism, remember?
Quoting AppLeo
Completely wrong! My values lead to the same value judgement that you end up with. And neither my kind of thinking on meta-ethics nor your kind of thinking on meta-ethics is the reason why people can justify doing horrible things. People believe that they're justified in doing horrible things because of their own thoughts and feelings, which are not my thoughts and feelings, and which could involve thinking about right or wrong as objective, or thinking about right or wrong as subjective, or thinking that there's no right or wrong, or not even thinking about meta-ethics at all.
Quoting AppLeo
That's not a claim that I have made. That is not my position, nor a logical consequence of my position.
Quoting AppLeo
Given what I said above, any logical consequences based on this false premise of yours are irrelevant to my position.
I'm going to end this discussion between us now because you seem like a novice who needs to study the various positions of meta-ethics before jumping in the deep end and trying to debate one of them. Don't try to run before you can walk. Frankly, you're small fry, and I'm a great white shark.
I question if the general public understands that difference between concrete thinking and abstract thinking, fast thinking and slow thinking, nor between doing math and thinking mathematically, so let us work on that...
Most parents can help their children do basic math, but the new math is not the basic math most of us learned. The difference is so great, schools should have night classes for parents to learn new math so they can help their children with homework. The children whose parents can not help them are at an extreme disadvantage because it is learning a thinking skill, not just adding and subtracting. Most of us grew up with timed math test. That was is using the Behaviorist Method for education that is also used for training dogs. There is a stimulus and response. It is fast thinking. New Math is slow thinking.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Black people can also be Christians. Politically the problematic group is not Blacks as a race but Christians as a group. Blacks as a group do not believe they are the only ones who know God's truth. Christians as a group, believe they are the only ones who know God's truth. These people are using a book for evidence and that is not how historians or scientist look for validation of what they believe. Because Christians are using their interpretations of a holy book to know truth, they can not come to an agreement on what truth is. Whatever, the word "Christian" is not equal to the word "Blacks".
I think an understanding of what you said depends on understanding the different modes of thinking.
Understanding the difference between accumulating facts and analyzing those facts with mathematical and scientific thinking and mysticism or the debating Scholastics were doing, are completely different modes of thinking.
The Church promoted Scholasticism and Scholastic scholars argued how many angels could stand on the head of a pin and if Eve had hadn't eaten the forbidden would babies be born miniature adults instead of helpless babies? They took a lot of pride in their serious contemplation of truth. That is how the Greeks came to argue what is true and good following Aristotle, and we should all know, Aristotle didn't have an understanding of the importance of experimenting to gain facts, and basing our understanding on evidence that can be observed. There was severe backlash against Aristotle that ended scholasticism and brought us into the modern age. Grrrr I am out of time, Here is link that may help...
Not all thinking is the same, and if we are using the scientific method we may not put much faith in mysticism. What I said of the difference between Christian and scientific thinking, and these people with their different approaches to knowing truth, do not trust each other.
No. They are not different forms of thinking. It's a matter of life or death. Reason is our only means of discovering the truth. Reason applies Aristotelian Logic. Mysticism is a bunch of nonsense. Mystical people claim to know the truth without any evidence or proof. They just know because they "feel" it from within. But our emotions do not reflect reality. The time period ruled by mysticism was the dark ages. The Renaissance was ruled by reason, where people actually focused on science and facts. Reason is the only form of objective communication. If you hold a piece of truth, you can communicate that to another person so that they know that truth. With mysticism, it is subjective. Which means you have no way of communicating what you know to another person. People must accept that what you say is true without evidence or a logical understanding. When men are reduced to such a lowly state, that they cannot communicate by objective means, it's only a matter of time before they result to violence to settle disagreements that cannot be settled objectively.
You're wrong on both counts, all mammals navigate through life with the same fundamental framework. 'Knowing' something essentially means being able to make predictions about that something and all mammals have this basic capacity. Humans can make more predictions about the world and more sophisticated predictions than other species.
Maybe you mean to say that other species don't have language and can't pass on things they've learned to their fellows, when you say that [i]"Animals can only know reality through observation."[/I]
As for humans navigating the world with reason, do I really need to point out how irrational people are???
Humans can think way bigger and deeper than any animal. Why do we kill wild animals that attack us instead of trying to have a civil discussion with them? Because they're dumb and instinctual.
Quoting praxis
Yeah, people are irrational. Why do you think the world is falling apart? And why do think I keep advocating for reason over faith and mysticism? When people are irrational, they destroy their ability to live because they accept some things as truth without evidence or proof. Religious people are a perfect example of this.
Which is another way of saying that we can make more predictions and more sophisticated predictions about the world or 'reality'. Nevertheless, other mammals can learn and make predictions about the world or reality, and they fundamentally do it in the same way that we do.
This line of discussion started with your claim that [i]"reason is our only means to knowing reality."[/I] I suggest that a better way of saying this is that with language people have the ability to share information or mental representations and in this way we may 'know reality' in a way that other mammals cannot, in addition to our own experience.
We're apparently able to form more complex concepts and mental simulations than other mammals, and this relates to 'knowing reality' in terms of making predictions and 'navigating through life', but all concepts are formed from [i]experience[/I].
Mysticism is based in experience. Though with the capacity of human reason people can fool other people into believing things that are not based in their personal experience in order to manipulate others.
The essential value of mystical experience is that it may relieve existential anxiety. An anxiety unique to human beings and their capacity for form concepts like death, self, etc.
Earlier you claimed that [i]"Humans navigate with reason."[/I] How can humans navigate with reason if they are irrational?
Quoting AppLeo
Because you have a simplistic understanding of faith and mysticism, quite frankly, and you overvalue reason.
Quoting praxis
Yeah, I agree.
Quoting praxis
Subjective experience that isn't objective. It's mysticism that fools people into believing things that are not real. If some guy says that he can talk to God, and God told him that you must sacrifice your children, you would want to know the evidence of this God and why God would ask you to do such a thing. Which means one must use reason not mysticism when they deal with other human beings.
Quoting praxis
People are not split into two groups of rationality and irrationality. We have a combination of rational and irrational thinking. What allows humans to live life and to not die is the rationality that they still have. The people that live more rationally than others will live happier and more prosperous lives. The ones that are more irrational live unhappy and destructive lives.
Quoting praxis
No. It's because I want people to live the best life they can live, and the only way to do that is with reason, not faith or mysticism.
To try and clarify things a bit, animals are generally thought to be pre-rational. As you've mentioned humans are generally thought to be rational. Crazy folk are irrational. And mysticism is trans-rational.
Again, the value of mysticism is that it can relieve existential anxiety. This is important to a happy and fulfilled life, although most don't realize it, I believe.
Can you not also see the value of faith (not necessarily religious)? Are you faithful to nothing or no one? It's difficult to imagine anyone living a happy or fulfilling life without faith in anyone or anything. It would be very isolated, purposeless, and empty.
Disagree. People shouldn't place their happiness on something outside of themselves in the first place. To be faithful is to undermine the value and judgment of your own mind. How does faith, accepting something as truth without evidence lead to happiness or relieve anxiety? You relieve anxiety and find happiness when you find out what is true because there is evidence for it.
Mysticism isn't effective in relieving existential anxiety unless it's [i]experienced[/I] to some degree.
Quoting AppLeo
So being faithful to your spouse, for instance, which may have nothing to do with religion, is undermining your minds value and judgment? Faith has an aspect of loyalty.
Quoting AppLeo
Mysticism and faith are not synonymous, you're conflating the two. Also, mysticism is experiential and may not need to be taken on faith. As for faith, I've alluded to its social qualities, without which it's difficult to imagine happiness or fulfillment, for me anyway. And I'm not talking about religious faith necessarily.
Well we aren't talking about the same kind of faith anymore.
Faithful in the sense in being loyal to someone is fine. Faith in terms of accepting truths without evidence is bad.
Quoting praxis
They are the same in the sense that they both accept truth without evidence.
Oh please, you know what a ridiculous thing this is to say. We can't verify every truth claim we encounter everyday.
Quoting AppLeo
Mysticism can be experiential. Apparently you don't believe me when I make this claim. Being a person who claims to believe that accepting a truth without evidence is bad, I assume you will try to verify my claim before deciding which of us is right.
So because can't verify something, we should just fill the holes and hope we're right? I think it's intellectually lazy and destructive to claim a truth that you have no evidence for.
Quoting praxis
No it can't. Give an example of how it is.
You’ve just claimed that mysticism can’t be experiential. Do you have evidence of this or are you being intellectually lazy?
There are countless examples of people reporting mystical experiences. I doubt any of these will be convincing for you. I also doubt any authority on the subject would convince you. You think it might help if I tried to explain it neurologically? Deactivation of the default mode network apparently coincides with mystical experiences. There are numerous scientific studies on this, if you care to look up more information about it (and not be intellectually lazy).
If they have evidence.
If someone has a mystical experience with the Flying Spaghetti Monster why should I believe them if they can't prove it to me? Why should I have faith in them?
Okay, I will go a step further into a subject I love. First, I use the word "God" because that is what interests Christians and I hope to build a bridge between their understanding of God and mine. Just insisting there is no God, strengthens their notion that they have God's truth and I don't want to do that. That is being a little bull-headed, isn't it? And how much fun is it to around and around in a circle of if God does or does not exist? That is a boring and irritating argument that goes nowhere. It will come to no good. Better to say something that others might think about. Okay, there is a God, now let us talk about what is real about this God. Now we have an argument worthy of our effort.
Here is something to think about...
And here is something else to think about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNDGgL73ihY
The laws of quantum mechanics are not the same as the laws of our universe. To this day the quantum mechanic thing keeps happening and gets organized in our universe. I think that is a correct way to explain the existence of our manifest reality and the quantum mechanics from which this comes?
Oh, oh I keep wanting to say another word we could use is logos. I am not referring to Jesus, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was Gods". I guess all the Bibles are using the word "word" now and not logos but the original word from John would have been logos.
Jewish ideas of man and God were hijacked by the Greeks and then codified and formalized by Rome. Very much a work of man, not the voice of God. The notion of a trinity God was impossible to communicate in Latin until new words were created and this lead to a lot of warring between Christians who already had Greek concepts and Christians who did not. However, Greeks with their geometric, sacred math had no problem with the trinity.
"The Triad is the form of the completion of all things." Nichomachus of Gerasa a Pythagorean philosopher.
"Surface is composed of triangles" Plato
"Force without wisdom falls of its own weight." Horace a Roman poet.
Manifestation coming out of the trinity was a Greek concept long before it became a Christian concept and logos is the voice of reason, the wisdom, also a Greek concept long before Christianity.
Are you saying all people organize their thoughts the same way with the same fundamental thoughts, so reason should bring them to exactly same conclusion and if it does not, one person is wrong and the other one is right?
Why are you so sure you know reality? We can know a lot about our planet and we are learning more about the universe but that is not all there is to know.
Your understanding of our consciousness is very limited. I will dare to say, abstract thinking takes us far beyond the concrete and limited world we crudely perceive. But consciousness is so much more than this. We are aware of only a tiny bit of our experience at any one time and even that can be distorted or lacking in information.
I have had mystical experiences and they are more than emotion. They can be concepts with relatively no feeling at all. They can be events that have on explanation other than someone who just passed is communicating to me. The last one was validated, by me sending someone words that made no sense to me, and she gave the words that gave meaning to the words I sent her, without her knowing that was what she was doing. The lights flickering in an elevator when another friend crossed over makes me question why this unusual thing happened at that time. My sense of another incarnation may be imaginary, but the thoughts have impacted my life and I would not claim with the certainty that you have there is no more to reality than what we are aware of.
Personally, I would consider that a delusion and put no more thought into it.
But you were advocating for faith weren't you? Have faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You'll go to hell if you don't you know.
Why was any of that addressed to me? It has nothing to do with anything I said. Again. This is just you rambling now, using “responses” to other posters as an excuse to blather on about little of substance. Masterbate on your own time, Im out.
Well actually you don't know if you'll go to hell or not, only I can know. But I can't prove it to you. But you should accept it blindly because apparently that leads to happiness and a good life.
I explicitly said that I wasn’t talking about religious faith necessary.
It is pointless to continue. I suggest, if it interests you, to study what religion is: how and why it may have developed and the role it plays in society. Then perhaps you’ll be able to untangle concepts like faith and mysticism from religion.
These kind of arguments seem kind of fruitless to me. People can and do live different lives from each other, can and do feel differently about things, can and do have different sets of values, and can and do order them differently in terms of priority. That's the case with you two. You don't have to see eye-to-eye on this, you know? It's not like there's an answer in the same way that there's an answer to what 2 + 2 equals or what planet we're on.
I'm now sure that we can't, assuming that AppLeo is being sincere, and that's okay. :blush:
Now where did I put that copy of [i]The Virtue of Selfishness[/I]...
[I]"I value mysticism! Mysticism makes me happy!".
"I disagree! I don't value mysticism, I value reason! Reason makes me happy!".[/I]
What's the difference between religious faith and normal faith? They are both faith.
Quoting praxis
Religion is worthless.
Disagree. There is living in accordance to reality and there is not living in accordance with reality. Mystics don't live in accordance to reality. They want to live in a way that is impossible. They want to live based on what they feel. Not based on the facts. They want to avoid reality and pretend in a fantasy. You can't pursue life if what you value is life if you are mystical. If you value death then by all means be mystical because death goes hand and hand with mysticism.
It would be more 'reasonable' to think of reason and instinct as a continuum rather than either/or. Non-human animals can exercise some reason and some human behaviors are instinctual.
I mean yeah, but that observation is trivial and doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Humans need to reason and cannot rely on instinct to live.
Which one of my arguments fails? Be specific or I'm just going to assume that you're insulting me because you like to feel superior to people you disagree with.
Which one? Can you point to anything I say at all?
Most animals aren’t capable of reasoning, they are not equipped for it at all. Its not unique to humans but its not correct to say reason is a continuum. It really is something that you have or do not have.
I didn't say that because we have reason, life has a purpose. I said because life has a purpose to live, it is an objective fact that we must use reason.
Premise 1: The purpose/meaning of life is to live life.
Premise 3: Humans are a form of life.
Premise 2: Humans need certain things in order to live. Food, water, shelter.
Premise 4: Humans can only get the things they need by using reason.
Premise 5: Without reason, humans cannot get what they need.
Conclusion: It is an objective fact that humans must use reason to live.
If there is no proof of something, there is no reason to act as if it exists. To do otherwise would be to accept it as faith. Faith is detrimental to one's life because you cannot get what you need based on believing, only by knowing.
There's millions of examples.
People who believe in God tell homosexuals that they can't be homosexual. They even use their faith as an excuse to hurt and murder people. Homosexuals are forced to suppress themselves and are told that they will burn in hell if they don't. Why? Because it's based on faith. Any rational person would tell you to be homosexual if it makes you happy.
Or when someone is is suffering from cancer, but they have this irrational belief that God is testing their faith. That if they rely on a doctor to save them that must mean that they don't trust God to do what's right for their life. And there are people who take their faith seriously and would actually deny help from a doctor.
Or someone who has faith in the after life. They spend all this time and energy in this life preparing for something that they don't even know exists! And on top of it, they can't ask questions or change their morality because if they do, they'll burn in hell for eternity.
Or the crusade wars. I don't even need to explain that. It's because of faith those wars happened.
And in general, having faith in something makes you unable to prove something to other human beings. Which means that if you ever want to resolve a problem regarding faith, in other words, if you want everyone to agree with you, you have to result to violence. You must force people to agree with you.
Quoting AppLeo
That is a case of a Christian fundamentalist. Faith isn’t the problem.
Quoting AppLeo
This is what Christian Scientists believe. Faith that God exists isn’t the problem.
As for the last paragraph, it seems you have a problem with evangelism. People can have faith without forcing their beliefs on others. I have a problem with evangelism, too.
Well, the people who don't take their faith so seriously are fine I guess. They are fine because their reason overpowers their faith. They don't actually take the test of God seriously enough to not consult help from a doctor, they let homosexuals be homosexuals, etc...
It's reason that keeps people from doing stupid things. It's not because of faith that allows people to live. You can choose to have faith, but it doesn't make your life better. It only has the potential to destroy your life.
I read a statistic the other day that one in six people living today are starving to death. That's messed-up, right? I doubt those one in six could give a fuck about reason or mysticism. A ham sandwich would make them happy. But once their basic needs are met, other needs could rise to the surface, such as the need for meaning. Not just any meaning but big all caps MEANING. Picture in your mind the iconic vision of that sissy guy rolling a rock up a hill, if you will.
Now at this point I could start dropping Vicktor Frankl quotes, but I'm not gonna do that. I have too much respect for your intellect.
What I will do is simply point out that religion has developed to help bind groups via shared values, goals, etc, and that this is theoretically a successful survival strategy in terms of evolutionary psychology. Cooperative groups are positioned to be more successful or functional than uncooperative groups. There is ample historical evidence to agree with TheMadFool when he suggest (I'm assuming, I didn't read the OP) that this can turn poisonous. Systems of meaning that are based in ultimate authorities are prone to corruption. Power corrupts.
My position is that systems of meaning, or rather, the components of meaning can be developed outside of a religious framework. AppLeo would toss the baby with the bathwater and be left with a God shaped hole in his heart. :razz: I suggest that we keep the baby. Babies make people happy. Well, they do for most people anyway. I don't want one.
You can believe what you want, but that doesn't mean I can't disapprove of your beliefs.
The real "grand scheme" puts humans and animals in the boat together. One of the ways religion poisons, is by splitting humans off from the rest of the animal kingdom, claiming divine favor, godliness, exclusive reason, etc. for humankind and a rather flat existence for everything else.
Much human behavior is genetically (or instinctually) directed--probably less than in other animals because our brains are organized for reasoned, instinctual over-rides. We tend to focus on behaviors we have reasoned control over, and pay much less attention to behaviors which are directed genetically.
Genetic control governs HOW we respond to WHAT. It doesn't govern whether we like Progresso more than Campbell soup, but it could very well govern how insistent we are about making our own soup. Instincts are what decide whether we will try -- and enjoy -- a ride on a roller coaster or not. Risk aversion or risk tolerance isn't something you choose.
As for animals reasoning, we have observed birds and mammals both doing problem solving. Crows are not reading Aristotle, but they have problems and they solve them--sometimes. We don't always solve our problems either, and we are reading Aristotle.
You mean you're entitled to your opinion? I guess that works too.
People are entitled to wrong opinions.
Pragmatically speaking, if it serves them some utility and doesn't harm others, then whatever floats their boat.
I haven't explored the concept of 'reasoning' much and what that might be exactly, but it must have to do with the ability to form high level concepts and mentally manipulate (simulation?) them. This would seem to require language or language level symbolism of some kind. Not sure if other species of mammals have this capacity.
Of course other mammals can learn and solve problems, and they do it in essentially the same way that we do.
Yes, I agree.
But take the crows that figure things out that are of interest to crows--like fishing a grub floating on water in a tube, but below the level the crow can reach with it's beak... The crow, in this situation, picked up pebbles and dropped them into the tube--raising the water level until the grub was close enough to grab.
Trial and error? (I've certainly used that method successfully on a couple of occasions. Read the instructions when all else fails...) Now, the experimenters had placed a solution at hand (or at beak). Supposed several different kinds of objects -- twigs, bits of polystyrene foam, little ball bearings... small stones. How long would the crow have taken to figure out that only bits of stone worked well? Would the crow have checked out the options first, and then selected small stones?
Crows have large bird brains and they are very social. They make many sounds besides their familiar 'caw'. They maintain relationships with their parents over a year at least. They can recognize specific human faces (identifying the faces attached to people they consider trouble as opposed to faces of people who tossed food around). And it is the face, not the body -- masks were used in the experiment and birds used the mask to identify the wearer. In the experiment there was some indication -- not a lot but some -- that crows could pass this information about nuisance or useful people from one generation to another -- not biologically, but by 'communication' of some sort. Unfortunately, too many of the crows had disappeared during the au natural experiment to produce much data on this last item. One adolescent child of the surviving parent crow did correctly recognize a mask as trouble. But... too little data to be trusted.
If squirrels and crows could cross breed, they's probably be running things.
I said not all animals, specifically to address this sort of reference. My point being, I do not think it is a matter of only degrees. It is also something that animals either have or do not have. The new research seems to suppport that crows possess reason.
Okay, thank you for letting me know you are not interested.
You are welcome, please, have a good day.
It would be easy to train them to do that. We have a few parrots and I could probably train them to do that. Do we know for sure that they were not trained?
Still, birds have been observed using sticks (which they had to "prepare") to spear insects in tree crevices.
The Minnesota DNR has a batch of cameras set up in various places to catch wildlife doing their thing without people being around. One of the cameras observed a wolf fishing. The wolf was beside a typical creek where one would find non-game fish like suckers swimming around. Interestingly, the wolf watched the water, grabbed a sucker, then deposited it on the bank above the water (biting it to kill it). Then it went and repeated the fish capture. It had 5 or 6 not-very-big fish collected before it ate them.
No one has observed wolves fishing, that I know of. Was this a pioneer wolf or is this just previously unobserved behavior? Don't know.
There's been enough videos made of various animals (like squirrels and raccoons) figuring out how to open doors, for instance, and not just by pushing, for us to suppose that they are capable of fairly complex problem solving. Cats and dogs are observed doing some of these sorts of things too.
Absolute nonsense. Not only is it possible, there are plenty of people who value mysticism and live their lives in accordance with mysticism.
What you say often seems to be misaligned with what you actually express. It needs to be translated. All you actually seem to be expressing here is that it's not an ideal in your eyes and you disapprove of it.
How does mysticism help someone live life and prosper if mysticism cannot get them the facts and actually distorts the facts?
How?
Quoting S
So you admit that in order to live and prosper someone needs facts. Finally.
Quoting S
What do you mean by that?
Quoting S
Well how would you define it? Mysticism is the opposite of reason. It's knowing reality without having to observe and make logical conclusions about your observations.
Even by your definition of mysticism, your claims fail to be true, provided it's not all or nothing, which it isn't in reality. It would be ludicrous to interpret mysticism in the latter way. You'd basically be suggesting that mystics are insane.
money=power
strength=power
war=power
religion=power
dirt=not powerful
fork=not powerful
toast=not powerful
So it's not as religion is poison more than power is poison, a piece of toast cannot change the world, but war can, money can and so can religion, it's all to do with a power lust
I think that you're touching on a lot of great points, but it seems to me that the conclusion is off. You made a comment about how even non-religious regimes like the Communist and NAZI movements were still somewhat religious in nature. I agree. But shouldn't we therefore conclude that the real issue is human nature? If human beings are inclined to act irrationally or violently when they have high fervor for an ideology, is that the ideologies' fault? Let's say that all religions, secular and theistic, are made up. Just the ravings of madmen. That means that WE are the problem, because we wrote the dogma that drives us toward evil. Now, if it's the case that human nature is inherently evil, then how can we get people to do good if not with an ideology? It seems to me that there are only 3 possibilities here:
1: Human beings are inherently good. Religion is man-made. Therefore, religion is inherently good.
2: Human beings are not inherently good. Religion is man-made. Therefore, religion is not inherently good.
3: Human beings are not inherently good. Religion comes from God. God is inherently good. Therefore, religion is inherently good.
I'm personally inclined to believe the 3rd. When I think this issue through logically, I can't find justification for anything other than Nihilism on the atheistic/anti-religious worldview.
P.S.
I'm still pretty new to philosophy, and am only now having a real chance to engage in intellectual debate. If there are any arguments that I present that are prima facie illogical, I'd love feedback!