Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 11:47am PT
|
Eldo prancers and Cali ball cuppers .
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 01:27pm PT
|
Ah, civil discourse...
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 02:07pm PT
|
However, I think science/ the scientific method is one of the greatest achievements of the human mind, but I would say the same for myth and religion. That you can't understand that is the source of the arrogance I referred to.
If by religion you mean philosophy such as what makes a life well lived or how should communities be organized, or an ability to appreciate the little things in life like art or rock climbing... Then I am on board with that.
If it is an unquestioning belief in some doctrine supposedly handed down from a supernatural being that dictates how life should be lived (and usually means the peons must bow down before the patriarchal elites)... Or deludes people into thinking that their suffering in this life doesn't need ameliorating because they will be rewarded in an afterlife... Yea, I'm arrogant enough to call BS on that.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 02:09pm PT
|
If by religion you mean philosophy such as what makes a life well lived or how should communities be organized, or an ability to appreciate the little things in life like art or rock climbing... Then I am on board with that.
Nicely done.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 02:16pm PT
|
The question is why do humans have preferences for the things they see and why is there such enjoyment in the perception of those things? It is philosophy and myth and religion that bring us closer to any understanding of questions like this, questions that science seems incapable of answering.
Those are good questions. And like you I also wonder what the answers are.
But have philosophy and myth and religion actually answered those questions? And if they haven't - if we don't yet know the answers to those questions - why do you choose the belief that philosophy and myth and religion are bringing us closer to understanding the answers, instead of believing that they're pushing us farther from understanding the answers? Did you just look at the idea that they're pushing us farther from the truth and say "you're wrong"?
Why do you say that science seems incapable of answering those questions? Because science hasn't answered them yet? But neither have myth and philosophy and religion. Why do you create that discrepancy in your beliefs about the effects of myth philosophy religion vs the effects of science in helping us understand those questions? If you don't know the answers, you don't know the answers. Why do you need to say that you do know - that your unsubstantiated belief is true, and my unsubstantiated belief is false? And IMHO, we do all need to say that :-)
Myth, like great poetry and great music and great art, communicates something entirely real that is easily and immediately understood by the observer. These experiences are often enlightening and profoundly moving and the truths they hold are as vital as anything in science.
My suggestion: an art appreciation class.
Your belief about my belief processes is that if I took an art appreciation class I would better understand the value of myth and philosophy and religion in understanding why humans believe and behave the way that we do? How would you know whether or not taking an art appreciation class had "worked" or not - whether or not it had had the "right" effect on my beliefs and behaviors?
Been there done that, along with two years as a philosophy major and four years at a small liberal arts college.
Yeah, you might want to repeat that.
So when Bob took the course of study that you suggested I would benefit from, and it didn't have the effect on his beliefs and behaviors that you think it should have had, your analysis was that he might just need to repeat it, until it does change his beliefs and behaviors.
You've received feedback that has contradicted your beliefs - both that great poetry and great art communicates something that is easily and immediately understood by the observer (it doesn't, for many of us) and that your suggestion of taking an art appreciation class will have the effect you expect that it will (Bob already said it didn't for him). Does that contradictory information have any effect on your beliefs?
Never took it myself
You believe that taking an art appreciation class is what I need to do in order to change my beliefs and behaviors to get closer to the truth, but you don't have any experience actually doing the work of taking an art appreciation class yourself, and observing the effects that it has on your beliefs and behaviors?
Do the proper work and test it without running your mouth.
I think Werner was the one who said that. Not to you though. Funny that. I wonder what course of study might bring us closer to understanding why not.
.. our understanding of (beauty) is found in those who can produce it in the arts and in those who are able to critique it.
I'm not so shallow and ill informed to not understand...
Now we're getting closer to the real human reasons behind our belief processes. Oh those shallow ill informed rubes that can't appreciate or understand beauty. Yes, I'm sure that you're simply marvelous :-)
Best to you.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 04:03pm PT
|
If it is an unquestioning belief in some doctrine supposedly handed down from a supernatural being that dictates how life should be lived (and usually means the peons must bow down before the patriarchal elites)... Or deludes people into thinking that their suffering in this life doesn't need ameliorating because they will be rewarded in an afterlife... Yea, I'm arrogant enough to call BS on that.
Of course the issue is not in regard to those experiences in life of a political or social nature but rather those inevitable tragedies that are grave and constant and inescapable in every life. Ultimately we will all experience these things and the question is how do we do that and the answer is through religion and myth and/or some other method of reconciliation. You don't reconcile a mother to the death of her child by telling her to get with science and it's just the circle of life... there is in atheism very often a distinct lack of empathy that precludes any real sympathy for the human condition. So I'll reciprocate the accusation of BS.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
|
Mark...if your post was directed at me...it was a take on Russ calling Eldo climbers prancers....mine was made in jest.
I also looked back and saw that you haven't called out Werner on incessant name-calling...way to keep it real.
:-)
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
|
Anyone educated and trained enough in the school of life can see the weaknesses in Paul's phrasings but who, on this lazy solstice under the sun, has the want or energy to respond to them?
But if it works for Paul and his kind, and they are not impinging on our way of life, who really cares what they think.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 04:46pm PT
|
Anyone educated and trained enough in the school of life can see the weaknesses in Paul's phrasings but who, on this lazy solstice under the sun, has the want or energy to respond to them?
Once again an interesting and thoughtful argument from the science side.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 05:08pm PT
|
"You don't reconcile a mother to the death of her child by telling her to get with science and it's just the circle of life...
Have you lost a child, do you have children and what "science person" do you know has said that??
There is in atheism very often a distinct lack of empathy that precludes any real sympathy for the human condition. So I'll reciprocate the accusation of BS.
Could you please give real world examples.
A very weak opinion.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 05:08pm PT
|
But that short repartee, Paul, did raise an interesting point between me and my beach companions... If I am educated and trained a) in science (re what is) and b) in the School of Life (re what matters, what motivates and what works) then what the hell do I need "religion" for? partic now that it is the 21st century, partic any Abrahamic religion as practiced traditionally?
And it's not science our Grieving Mother needs (once again you caricature), it is life strategies, comfort and sympathy in her time of need. Perhaps she could get some of this from her School of Life community. Religion and mythology not needed.
Food for thought. With your Foster's. 😄
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 05:42pm PT
|
Let's remember what we are talking about when we say "science". We are just saying that we believe in the consistency of what we see and experience every day. Science encompasses all of that. Religion falls outside of this -- pretty much by definition. Surely, they (religions) all can't be right?
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 05:49pm PT
|
Perhaps both the widespread embrace of religion throughout the world and Donald Trump's leadership of the most powerful civilization are the present fruits, beneficiaries, and expression of human evolution.
Embrace of religion doesn't necessarily relate to kindness or other ethical behavior. My observation is that most Christians betray Jesus's calls to action all the time and willingly. So, too other religions. The things done in Muhammed's name betray Muhammed's ethics all the time, too.
Donald Trump's leadership is a non-sequitur or restated a ridiculous justaposition of words. He has enough trouble expressing leadership over his own rudderless mind.
Bob, I took your post at it's face and apparently out of context. I do rarely call Werner out. I give him more room because even though he's serious (mostly/maybe/kinda/tongue-in-cheek), he's not mean. He's solid, unprejudicial, inclusive and has your back. Yeah, he is definitely a first rate curmudgeon.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 05:57pm PT
|
" I do rarely call Werner out. I give him more room because even though he's serious (mostly/maybe/kinda/tongue-in-cheek), he's not mean.
You have never called him out as other (cuppers) :-) have not on these threads but feel no restrain to call me out. You might want to ask Cranster, Norton and few others who had the non-pleasure of his attacks.
"He's solid, unprejudicial, inclusive and has your back. Yeah, he is definitely a first rate curmudgeon."
Way to make excuses for his actions. Funny how that works.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 06:04pm PT
|
My impression is that your skin is too thin.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 06:49pm PT
|
"My impression is that your skin is too thin."
Not at all, actually quite thick when it comes to these threads. If you knew me personal level you would know that.
I just find the hypocrisy/double standard a little weird.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 07:11pm PT
|
hypocrisy
a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not : behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel His hypocrisy was finally revealed with the publication of his private letters.; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
Yes, I may be an as#@&%e. Who among us is never hypocritical? Who among us in all instances is perfectly congruent with professed belief? Seems like if we're in the ballpark we're doing pretty good.
So, yeah, technically, I'm a hypocrite; practically, I'm pretty congruent.
Close enough for now. I used to be worse, but I got "bet-uh"...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Cuppers have more fun...
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 08:59pm PT
|
The problem isn't my logic but rather your reading comprehension:
I never said science and religion are mutually exclusive.
I never said that those not believing in religion are not capable of understanding beauty.
It is those of a scientific bent on this thread who are continually declaring the fallibility of religious belief.
You imagine a stereotype when you make the statement above.
I'm an atheist .
But I'm not so shallow and ill informed to not understand the value of religion and faith and mythological ideas that still speak to us in a powerful manner and I certainly have more respect for those of faith than the arrogance of those in science who have no idea of the value
Right, you said religion brings us closer to the understanding of your questions (about human preferences and desire) but science seems incapable of answering. That distinction is what I called mutually exclusive. It is such logic that I disagree with because science can and does address those questions and any explanation would be just as valid as religious explanation.
You did make the stereotype by labeling a group of people (the science/tech people) and ascribing that strategy to them. That fits the definition of stereotype. I might fit your definition of the science people but I haven't used that strategy.
Religion and science both have value, on that we agree. But when science finds its own errors (like an invalid explanation of nature) it attempts to correct them, peer review. Does religion attempt to correct the crazy stuff in those Bible passages that I quoted for you? I don't think it does and that is one problem I have with religion. If the Pope makes a declaration the faithful are not encouraged to question and disprove it. They are told to believe. I would disparage that, wouldn't you?
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 09:27pm PT
|
Another important problem is the deliberate divisiveness in religion. It is cool that Hinduism does not inherently include that, but unfortunate that crazy humans find a way to use it to divide.
I realize science also can be and is used for diabolical means. But divisiveness a major part of some religions. Science doesn't include that as doctrine. Science questions and does not tell us what to do with the answers. Religion tells us what to believe doesn't it? It tells us what to value. Those are some big problems.
I think it was the smoking duck who said religion was not created by humans. Unless he has talked to God he's engaging in simple blind faith.
thread is moving fast, I don't have time to read all latest comments....
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!