Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2017 - 09:28pm PT
|
Lucifer, Son of the Morning Star may have been an ancient king of Babylon: Nebuchadnezzar II or his son, Belshazzar. Christian tradition equates him with Satan. Lots of stuff like this in the Bible I suspect.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 12:06pm PT
|
Sorry for the late response, Dingus.
Among other things, I've been Christmas shopping!
And I wanted to give you a more in-depth response.
You wrote a few days back...
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2515755&msg=3038695#msg3038695
Hey HFCS , I noticed a post of yours over in the Mind thread and I thought the point you made there might have some applicability here.
This is one of Dennett's points as well. One simply can't ignore other fields or frames of reference (e.g., law, the legal system) or (b) language (linguistics, popular usage of terms) and make the case that his analysis or position is complete, comprehensive.
A point or theme you make relative to science v religion is that we humans have outgrown (or should have, will, outgrow) religion. I think Paul R. consistently responds with variations of the 'if there was no god we would have invented her anyway' principle. Me, I see it as both.
To give a recent, specific example: a thread was started about the fire in Ventura. Jody had the nerve to post 'prayers for those in the area.' He was immediately jumped on for this, by some who seem to have a long standing bone to pick with religion; 10b4me, monolith and locker, to name names. I think 'in our prayers, is part and parcel to language and culture and I also think those guys were being as#@&%es. 'In my thoughts' and 'in my prayers' can be parsed to mean the same thing, or not, depending on context.
But the whole exchange serves to highlight just how embedded religion is in our society. Even ardent atheists might utter 'thoughts for those in the area.' But they might also think that phrasing falls short of the sentiment they are trying to deliver, because they won't utter the words of the sentiment they are really trying to convey. Their distaste for religion actually inhibits their ability to communicate effectively.
Paul maintains, rightly imo, that religion is core to language, culture, art, and lots of other things. You seem to resist his points strongly. In light of Dennett's point, quoted above, how do you reconcile this? To me it seems you acknowledge it in one instance and deny it in the other.
Your thoughts? If we dismiss religion do we not dismiss a significant part of who we are and how we think? Isn't that pertinent to the notion of science v religion?
Cheers
DMT
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 12:16pm PT
|
Thoughts...
I've itemized them! I hope you don't mind. To keep ME on track if no one else, lol!
1S ”A point or theme you make relative to science v religion is that we humans have outgrown (or should have, will, outgrow) religion. I think Paul R. consistently responds with variations of the 'if there was no god we would have invented her anyway' principle. Me, I see it as both.”
1R Dingus, I see it as both, too. As eeyonkee pointed out on the other thread, much boils down to language and the words we use. It rather depends on how we’re all conceiving, picturing and defining both “religion” and “God” – a point and principle that I am sure is not lost on you. We both could go on and on and fill pages here re these two subjects but so for sake of not going on and on, I’ll say just a couple things: Re - “religion”, we HAVE outgrown theology (the study of God) and theism (belief in God) especially as practiced traditionally by our ancestors in past times – measured across the many and various demographic stratifications (classes, levels of education, cultures) and levels of organization (individual, group, social). So I am 100% in agreement on this point. Re ”God” - She’s easily conceived in the abstract as “just” a Higher Power, a personification of a Higher Power or else THE Higher Power. Perhaps also simply as a fun synonym for Fate or Fortune (Fortuna or Tyche). I easily conceive Her this way, I can and I often do, and moreover even express it so in company and conversation esp when all present understand that She is abstract, mythologized, personified. There is a big difference though between “God” in this abstract form and “God” as laid out in the Holy Bible and the Church in all their specifics (and then this latter is passed from religious leadership and religious teachers to the congregations (and in past times esp, to the illiterates) as universal truths. Again, about any of this I bet you don’t disagree.
2S ”To give a recent, specific example: a thread was started about the fire in Ventura. Jody had the nerve to post 'prayers for those in the area.' He was immediately jumped on for this, by some who seem to have a long standing bone to pick with religion; 10b4me, monolith and locker, to name names. I think 'in our prayers, is part and parcel to language and culture and I also think those guys were being as#@&%es. 'In my thoughts' and 'in my prayers' can be parsed to mean the same thing, or not, depending on context.”
2R Yeah, getting through the language and through the partisan divisions (which plainly exist and which plainly pre-date us on ST) are briar patches that present a lot of obstacles. And amateur "pastime" or “weekend” participants who obviously do not always come to the field (eg, ST and this thread and its pages) equipped with the same skillsets can certainly make a mess of it, so once again (atop my high horse here, lol) I get what you’re saying 100%.
But there is a silver lining here, imo: all this inefficiency and back n forth and moments of seeming anger, snobbishness, partisan shillery and shrillery, and as#@&%ery, I suspect – I mean it wouldn’t surprise me none – it is probably one of Mother Nature’s innate, evolved, long-standing solutions for pushing us to sort these things out and for getting us ultimately through these briar patches and on to further creative collaboration. In the end when it comes to the battle of ideas, interests and sensibilities among our variants, it is agreement (iow, negotiation) either by conversation or violence. Let us choose conversation and dialogue at least for as long as we can, eh?
To be clear: 'In my thoughts' and 'in my prayers' can be parsed to mean the same thing, or not, depending on context.” Yes, I agree. Then there is the matter that some folk are more literal than others with their words; others more keen on metaphor and figures of speech. So this item adds to the complexities I bet you would agree.
3S ”But the whole exchange serves to highlight just how embedded religion is in our society. Even ardent atheists might utter 'thoughts for those in the area.' But they might also think that phrasing falls short of the sentiment they are trying to deliver, because they won't utter the words of the sentiment they are really trying to convey. Their distaste for religion actually inhibits their ability to communicate effectively.”
3R For sake of brevity, I’m just going to agree here. This is great insight. Plus, I think it gives a reason or two why the “atheist” can be frustrated, if not totally entangled, at times. Religion’s deeply embedded in our culture. Of course it is. Religious language (religious jargon, religious idiom, religious mythology) is deeply embedded in our culture. Yet at their core, as the “atheist” perceives, is falsehood, or a set of falsehoods that are integral to the basic guiding narrative - a set that humanity needs to see through if not shrug off; a set that humanity needs not to settle with or lower to, but, according to a increasing number of people who follow this sort of thing, needs to rise above.
”Their distaste for religion actually inhibits their ability to communicate effectively.” An insight I think I pointed out more than once – probably mostly on that deleted thread of old or other threads of old - is that religion and language grew up together, they evolved together over hundreds of generations and tens of thousands of years. So yes, inability to communicate religion-related subjects (values, morality, meaning and purpose, death and mortality, rules of conduct, hopes and dreams, hopelessness, surrender, etc.) in a non-religious or post-religious context is a challenge and a problem.
4S "Paul maintains, rightly imo, that religion is core to language, culture, art, and lots of other things. You seem to resist his points strongly."
4R Here was the main reason I decided to itemize my response to your post. In order to be clear as I could about these TWO 4S statements. I didn’t want us to misunderstand each other re something so basic I’m sure we are 100 percent in agreement on. I totally agree: “that religion is core to language, culture, art, and lots of other things.”
To remind us both, in pasts posts, I’ve agreed with Paul regarding many of his ideas, povs and sentiments. I’ve also pointed out, perhaps not as much as I could have or should have, that they are disagreements rather than agreements that tend to be emphasized, accentuated, focused on in these threads - and it is probably due to their nature that we do this. And also what I alluded to above as well: the possibility that we as vehicles of these disagreements are perhaps nature’s way, with our limited cognitive abilities and insights, of sorting these ideas out, in these battles of ideas, as a means of progressing to greater understanding and further creative collaboration.
What I resist or demur more than anything, it seems to me this morning at least, probably due to different life raisings and life experiences as much as anything else, as well as different current visions of “what are jobs are” on these threads are just a couple of things: (1) Paul's emphasis on the abuses of tools, technology and knowledge (e.g., in our history or in atheistic countries of old) which he subsumes under Science (almost joyfully, sometimes it seems, despite his protests otherwise); and (2) Paul's caricature of one's support for science or one's belief in science as "scientism". Regarding the last point, someone like me CAN HAVE a belief system (covering “what is” and also “what matters” incl “what motivates” incl “what works” incl “what unifies” - that he turns to for support and life guidance and common ground or community with others - whose basis or foundation is science – without it being a "scientism" by many definitions - just as one can live in a timbered house with a concrete foundation and fairly call it timbered living though a neighbor or two might caricature it as… Concretism!
Believe you me, I am more than happy to express on this thread what I expressed on the Mind thread recently – that an argument, a case, or a coverage of a subject is not complete – at least arguably - till there is a full accounting of contexts (or frames of reference or an assortment of the relevant fields or disciplines) and definitions of terms (terms of art). Taking this into account, I am often taking myself out of one perspective or frame of reference on these threads, putting myself into another or others, and seeing things from that venue and through that lens. To the proposition that that there are myriad points made to this S v R thread often all at once and that there are lots of issues coming and going and getting confused all the time; and not keeping track of them, too, and getting everything confused (conflated, lol) is standard fare here - I bet you would agree. So where, in your view, I’m not considering multiple contexts or perspectives enough on this S v R thread for a full accounting (as with the varieties of “free will” issue on that OTHER thread) please let me know and I’ll try to do so or at least try to clarify my position.
5S "If we dismiss religion do we not dismiss a significant part of who we are and how we think?"
5R Imagine a similar field or practice. Related to religion but different from religion. (And related to philosophy but different from philosophy.) Imagine this field emerging whether sooner or later this century - one that is also rendered in terms of belief, that covers pretty much all areas “religions” as practiced traditionally have – but minus the supernatural (theism). Can you imagine this? At least as a possibility. Can you imagine such a development, such an emergence, gaining in popularity - because of its features and usefulness - to a point that by this century’s end, the word “religion” is no more on the minds and tongues of, say half, of our descendants than the words “astrology” or “theology” are on ours. Can you imagine this?
A recent post by Paul: ”The idea that you see science as a replacement to religion speaks volumes: scientism!” I’ve made the point many times now that I do NOT see science as a point for point “replacement” for religion but apparently to little effect for Paul. Another post by Paul, also the same day, 7 dec 2017: ” Scientism is the belief that science will solve all our problems…” In my judgment, this is where I think Paul gets most of the pushback, either in regards to the caricature or the hyperbole.
Re “scientism" Consider four definitions of "scientism": (1) any science-based belief system; (2) any over-the-top interest for science (cf: “love of science”, “passion for science”); (3) the belief that science replaces religion (Paul R); (4) the belief that quantifications can fully explain anything (Largo). It’s seems to me all are active definitions of “scientism” here at ST and all are in play nowadays. So it is not that surprising that there is misunderstanding and disagreement. I do see a day when the bulk of this is sorted out though.
I can and do imagine a future replacement for religion (as most of us know it) emerging in this century that is everything religion is but minus the supernatural belief, including supernatural theology, and minus the death denial system (developed for that portion of the publics that do not need this in their lives). At other places, Paul posts: Religion can mend human character… Religion can offer solace, consolation, reconciliation, community. I know that I am not the only one here at ST or elsewhere who can imagine other (belief) disciplines likely to emerge in the future that in time will serve for better or worse to fulfill these same needs and wants.
“How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, “This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant?” Instead they say, “No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.” A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths." -Carl Sagan
Further, a religion, old or new, that stressed the intelligibility principle of Nature; that stressed that Nature is intelligible, that therefore we could study it (Her), educate ourselves and train in it, and accordingly develop skillsets including life strategies as means to achieving desired life outcomes "might be able to draw forth reserves" - in life guidance capability and also in shared interests, values, morals, and sense of meaning, purpose and community - "hardly tapped by the conventional faiths." That, I can imagine. That, I think, is on its way to becoming.
Cheers to you and a toast to ever better communications!
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 01:04pm PT
|
Religion/mythology is such an integral part of the human condition it’s hard to set it apart from human cultural development. From the caves at Lascaux to 5th century Athens through to the Renaissance, all western cultures have engaged in religious or mythological belief in which the mythology produces rituals that are then concretized or made actual through artistic production and we can say that mythology is the mother of the arts. That’s why virtually all pre 17th century art, certainly in the west, involves itself to some degree or another with mythological or religious notions. It’s through ritual that meaning is bestowed on those events inevitable to each in our lives, including birth, the abandonment of childhood, love, aging and death. Religion isn’t simply about fear it’s about finding wisdom and living a “good” life, a meaningful life. It’s about pouring meaning into the bitter, the mundane, and the joyful and, finally, recognition of our importance to each other and ourselves. Moral indignation at the lapses of theists is no justification for the disparagement of religion in general, but those lapses are simply the failure of the human condition of which religion itself was developed to mediate. We have to ask ourselves to what degree has the mythological life enhanced the development of human creativity: even the development of the scientific method? Also: how can we read those religious and mythological metaphors in such a way that they allow us the same reconciliation they have allowed in the past even in a world of science? You as an individual may not need such "phony trifles" but billions of others find peace and meaning in religious life and who is anyone to take that away?
Moral indignation at the lapses of theists is no justification for the disparagement of religion in general, but those lapses are simply the failure of the human condition of which religion itself was developed to mediate.
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 02:51pm PT
|
We have to ask ourselves to what degree has the mythological life enhanced the development of human creativity: even the development of the scientific method? Also: how can we read those religious and mythological metaphors in such a way that they allow us the same reconciliation they have allowed in the past even in a world of science? You as an individual may not need such "phony trifles" but billions of others find peace and meaning in religious life and who is anyone to take that away?
Yeah, good point. I would not take that away, not from billions nor from one individual.
Mustn't we also ask ourselves what harm has religion caused? and How can those metaphors be deliberately used to manipulate people? How have they been used to manipulate people? And how have the teachings caused great crises?
Maybe you've already addressed those, sorry if you have, I'm just checking back into this conversation after several months.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 03:18pm PT
|
It's nice (IMO) to have some humanities scholars here on this thread.
I agree. Tends to balance conversations.
|
|
Lennox
climber
in the land of the blind
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 04:03pm PT
|
Circular reasoning.
Moral indignation at the lapses of theists is no justification for the disparagement of religion in general, but those lapses are simply the failure of the human condition of which religion itself was developed to mediate.
The individuals who twist doctrine to their own purposes are not the problem; the problem is in the doctrines that can be twisted by individuals.
Religions look to the past and the divine for their authority. Their doctrines are at once open to interpretation and above reproach.
If enough people support a literal interpretation of the Old Testament, then we live in the world of The Handmaid’s Tale or worse.
In a modern global society, mythologies, including the Judeo-Christian, should be appreciated for their contributions, but their ancient mystical authority needs to be rejected.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 04:27pm PT
|
In a modern global society, mythologies, including the Judeo-Christian, should be appreciated for their contributions, but their ancient mystical authority needs to be rejected.
Their authority is neither ancient nor mystical it is metaphorical. Understanding that metaphorical language as metaphorical and understanding it as largely a manifestation of the human psyche enables its (mythology's) application in contemporary life and its "mystical" aspect remains.
"The starry sky above and the moral law within."
|
|
Lennox
climber
in the land of the blind
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 04:28pm PT
|
Nowadays and by a huge majority, the Swedish do not profess a belief in the deities; any of them. But they still observe the religious holidays of old and a certain respect if not reverence for the religions, just not the literal interpretations nor 'required beliefs.'
I could live with that. I don’t think we need a Maoist erasure of the past.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 04:54pm PT
|
Thanks, Dingus.
I think we're good, I hope you think so, too.
Thanks for reading.
...
Challenging subjects, to be sure.
Merry Christmas, all!
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 05:08pm PT
|
Might I say, I thought the last posts by HFCS and DMT, and the last few posts in general have been a bit of alright, in my opinion.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 05:34pm PT
|
Classic ....
Clueless atheists telling everyone how religion should be and how it should be conducted and that there is no God-authority.
All while they themselves are taking the role of ultimate authority (playing little god) and interpreting everything to their own likes and dislikes.
Mindblowing clueless deluded hypocrites .....
|
|
Lennox
climber
in the land of the blind
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 05:47pm PT
|
Here’s an oldie I like from WandaFuca,
What we need is a climbing guide by an anonymous author, written thousands of years ago, that gives descriptions that don't match experience, that commands you to climb a certain way because it says so, that warns of dire consequences if you do not climb that way or do not perform specified rituals and ablutions before during and after the climb.
Preferably this climbing guide should be written in verse.
It should list millions of sub-deities that were born of another god's magic pudding, etc. It should describe how they hold sway over some insignificant aspect--such as the god of hummocks. It should warn how you must appease any demi-gods whose realms you may encounter on a climb or risk coming back as one of those batsh#t-eating silverfish.
Then you can have arguments in camp with those folks that follow a more "advanced" climbing guide book that tells them what techniques are abominations, but also tells them to love their fellow climbers, but also tells them they'll be hurled into a molten pluton if they commit these abominations, but also tells them that if they have a personal relationship with the guidebook author's son all will be forgiven, they can spend eternity climbing on Olympic Mons, etc., and they'll make it on the wiki climber list and can never be kicked off.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=510922&msg=512456#msg512456
|
|
sempervirens
climber
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 06:00pm PT
|
Their authority is neither ancient nor mystical it is metaphorical.
If it is simply metaphorical and understood as such it would be much less problematic to me. But religion is easily misused because of the authority it claims for itself. It claims to be beyond reproach as lennox says. Religious claims may be understood as metaphorical but religion still aims to control you, you must believe. If its teachings were taken to be literature that is not the same as religion.
Is there religious doctrine that explicitly states it is to be taken metaphorically? Does the doctrine allow for ignoring some of its demands because it is meant as metaphor? There is plenty of doctrine that commands us. What is metaphor and what is literal?
I too live with the Swedish model described by DMT.
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 06:04pm PT
|
I too live with the Swedish model described by DMT.
Does DMT know you're living with her too? And is he okay with it?
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 08:54pm PT
|
If it is simply metaphorical and understood as such it would be much less problematic to me. But religion is easily misused because of the authority it claims for itself. It claims to be beyond reproach as lennox says. Religious claims may be understood as metaphorical but religion still aims to control you, you must believe. If its teachings were taken to be literature that is not the same as religion.
What human endeavor hasn't fallen into misuse? Science? Hardly. Religion's aim isn't control it's reconciliation an idea that seems incomprehensible to too many.
|
|
Lennox
climber
in the land of the blind
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 09:51pm PT
|
Religion's aim . . .
Religion creates cohesion within a group based on shared rituals and beliefs.
One of those beliefs could be that reconciliation, forgiveness of others and seeking forgiveness of oneself, is important. Another important belief in many religions is that it is a path to salvation.
But almost all religions are hierarchical, so it has always been used as a means to control members of the group through the threat of damnation, shunning or death.
The history of monotheism is one of irreconcilable intolerance for and incompatibility with other religions.
edit
And ironically, even though, as in The Life of Pi, one might like the more beautiful fiction of religion as a means of reconciling oneself to death and the unfairness of life, the improbable lies of religion have caused more death and perpetuated more unfairness.
|
|
Bushman
climber
The state of quantum flux
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 10:14pm PT
|
There is a darker side to religion beyond power and control. I will be compelled to tell you about it sometime. In the interim, the repression of women by a patriarchal society is coming to a head. Yes, there is a war on men now by women and rightfully so. A war against sex abuser misogynist men in high places by women who have been groped, defiled, shamed, silenced, and stifled to the very breaking point.
There is a reckoning going on in America today. If you are a man and you are wise, you will step aside and allow true power and nurturing stewardship to prevail. Otherwise you will be screwed, and not in a pleasant manner.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Dec 11, 2017 - 11:24pm PT
|
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!