|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Introducing me. There are no gods or supernatural!
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age.
And the increasing push-back from secularists against religious education is an unspoken acknowledgement that atheism is vulnerable if children are not kept away from religion.
[ 15. March 2015, 07:04: Message edited by: Arethosemyfeet ]
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
A justified belief is one that, all things considered, has been arrived (and subsequently retained) at rationally on the basis of methods of acquisition that are acceptable given the limitations on one's time, capacities and abilities, in relation to one's goals. So if I have an epistemically rational belief that I've spent an acceptable amount of time and energy researching and evaluating evidence for a certain proposition, using acceptable procedures in that endeavour, then it's justifiable for me to to have that belief.
That sounds reasonable. I think any definition is going to include a large amount of imprecise terms - 'acceptable' for example - where what is acceptable depends largely on context and subject matter.
I think you're placing a bit too much emphasis on time and energy - in most cases, if we learn something from a reliable source we don't need to check it.
(There's a lot of debate on the subject, as I said. Options range from it's only justified if you've proved it, to no justification is needed, and everything in between.)
J.L. Austin noted in one of his papers that we ask 'why do you believe that?' but 'how do you know that?' If you ask someone why they believe something, you're asking for evidence. If you're asking how they know it, you're asking them to exhibit expertise.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age.
And the increasing push-back from secularists against religious education is an unspoken acknowledgement that atheism is vulnerable if children are not kept away from religion.
Yup. Hugh's line of argument also runs into the buffers of sociology and history. So think of two states that have systematically tried to keep children - and adults for that matter - from "religion." Russia in the Soviet era tried it for 70 years and gave it up as a bad job. If Hugh's right we should be looking at a trend of Russians abandoning religion. Instead, there's been a massive rise in religious interest and practice with the end of the communist era. China went down down the same root and now has the fastest growing Christian (and by some accounts Muslim) communities in the world.
You need a range of disciplines through which to make sense of the world - scientific determinism just doesn't cut it.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age. And why is that; because the instinct to believe our parents etc. is lessened by experience. We can use the opportunities that church schools provide more effectively for the mission of the Church, and in particular the contribution that our church schools can make to spiritual and numerical growth". (Bishop of St Albans, at Church of England Synod)
Personally, I see rather more encouragement towards social involvement. After a doleful period when some parts of the Christian rainbow denigrated the "social gospel", there are now many more messages in favour of engagement with the wider community. That's the more inclusive process.
Here's the New Year message from that same Bishop of St Albans.
So far as declaration of beliefs is concerned, I think most mainstream denominations are rather more in favour a "level paying field". In the face of the genuine challenges of hate crimes, a more general suppression of expression of beliefs, just because some proponents espouse hatred and violence, is not in keeping with the principles of a free and open society.
[ 15. March 2015, 07:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age.
And the increasing push-back from secularists against religious education is an unspoken acknowledgement that atheism is vulnerable if children are not kept away from religion.
It's a bit more than that, isn't it? I thought that it's also to do with preventing private beliefs being disseminated in public schools, i.e. state schools. I'm not an atheist, but I can see the sense in it.
Evidence for the supernatural sounds odd to me; how on earth do you develop a method to acquire that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Incidentally, citing China and the Soviets as examples of secularism seems one-sided to me. One must also cite the US and France as places where religion is kept out of the classroom, in the public sector. Well, there are different historical and political underpinnings in those countries, but I think that they both saw dangers in religious education.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, citing China and the Soviets as examples of secularism seems one-sided to me. One must also cite the US and France as places where religion is kept out of the classroom, in the public sector. Well, there are different historical and political underpinnings in those countries, but I think that they both saw dangers in religious education.
Whilst being spiritually secular, they are still based on belief systems. Indeed, it is strange that modern states, wars, etc are increasingly based on belief systems, and as such attempt (consciously or not) to displace religion/spirituality. Freemasonry, or hermetic spirituality, was prominent in the founding principles of the USA (also France?), as was a belief in free market economy, and the hermetic/economic marriage is one that has led to the corruption of many spiritual aspirations that the original founding fathers had. The "Dangers" of religious education have been replaced by other dangers that are somewhat less visible, and the belief systems being taught are so familiar that most people don't even realise that they are belief systems. I would argue that religious education has the advantage of visibility. "Promises Promises" by David Graeber is interesting in this respect - for anyone in the UK it's available as 10x15 minute podcasts on BBCR4
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Incidentally, citing China and the Soviets as examples of secularism seems one-sided to me. One must also cite the US and France as places where religion is kept out of the classroom, in the public sector. Well, there are different historical and political underpinnings in those countries, but I think that they both saw dangers in religious education.
I was thinking more about the impact of religious influence on ung people and its effect on wider society. Not exposing kids to religious ideas hasn't made Russia and China more secular (the opposite is happening). The US and France is an interesting comparison. Both were influenced by the enlightenment. Looking at the beleifs and practices of gheir citizens (as opposed to public policy) France became more atheistic, the States became more religious.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Itsarumdo. Yeah, good point. In the UK, we're starting to wake up to the idea that teaching about Islam in schools could provide a powerful counterbalance to private radicalism. Basically, we're asking whether it's more dangerous not to have a robust RE syllabus than to leave religious teaching to families and faith groups alone.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jude
Shipmate
# 3033
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy - I guess that I don't believe I'll get cancer, or cirhossis of the liver, or pancreatitis, since I continue to drink alcohol and live perfectly happy.
We live according to our inmost beliefs. I was brought up in Christianity and choose to follow that particular belief system, because it's what I believe. I just can't not believe in God and the saving grace of Jesus.
But in everything other than that, my philosophy is that we know nothing, including whether or not we are capable of knowing anything.
Phyrrhonist me.
--------------------
"...But I always want to know the things one shouldn’t do.”
“So as to do them?” asked her aunt.
“So as to choose,” said Isabel.
Henry James - The Portrait of A Lady
Posts: 233 | From: A town with four parishes | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Itsarumdo. Yeah, good point. In the UK, we're starting to wake up to the idea that teaching about Islam in schools could provide a powerful counterbalance to private radicalism. Basically, we're asking whether it's more dangerous not to have a robust RE syllabus than to leave religious teaching to families and faith groups alone.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age.
And the increasing push-back from secularists against religious education is an unspoken acknowledgement that atheism is vulnerable if children are not kept away from religion.
Yup. Hugh's line of argument also runs into the buffers of sociology and history. So think of two states that have systematically tried to keep children - and adults for that matter - from "religion." Russia in the Soviet era tried it for 70 years and gave it up as a bad job. If Hugh's right we should be looking at a trend of Russians abandoning religion. Instead, there's been a massive rise in religious interest and practice with the end of the communist era. China went down down the same root and now has the fastest growing Christian (and by some accounts Muslim) communities in the world.
You need a range of disciplines through which to make sense of the world - scientific determinism just doesn't cut it.
Almost universally, Homo sapiens is also Homo religiosus …
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that determinism has been rejected in some areas of science?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The increasingly active push to inculcate youngsters with a religious ethos, to encourage the idea that religious belief is rational/normal or even to indoctrinate (creationism, laws/morality which trump national law etc.) is unspoken acknowledgement that religion is vulnerable if not introduced/reinforced from an early age.
And the increasing push-back from secularists against religious education is an unspoken acknowledgement that atheism is vulnerable if children are not kept away from religion.
Humans have evolved to believe that which they are told by authority figures - those that didn't believe got burnt to death, drowned, fell off the cliff, ate the wrong berry etc. before being able to pass their genes to the next generation. Teachers are authority figures who control students' lives in loco parentis and sometimes wear odd gowns and hats. Authority is enhanced by control, by ritual, by secret knowledge and by uniforms - placebos work best when provided by someone who is dressed in a white coat with a badge marked Doctor and I suspect that all the fancy-dress encountered in some religions is more than just a sop to the wearer's need for display. Heck, as a salesman I fully appreciated the power of a well cut and pressed suit.
I fully support the teaching of RE in schools (both in theory and by practice) but it has to be teaching about religions not indoctrination in a religion. Does anyone think that Northern Ireland's troubles were not facilitated by sectarian schooling - albeit as one amongst many inflammatory practices?
In response to Truman White. We can all cherry pick to our hearts content. As I understand it, in the USA, there is a clear correlation between the degree of religious practice (contrary to the 1st and 14th Amendments) within states' schools and the highest incidences of teenage pregnancy, the highest divorce rates, the greatest prison populations per capita and most murders per x of population.
It seems pretty clear that religious power/observance is greatest where humans are fearful, fearful (for themselves and their families) of being poor, fearful of being old, fearful of being ill, fearful of being out of work and hungry. Sometimes it seems that certain religious influences encourage such fears so as to enhance the attraction of Heaven (with the attendant knowledge that the fearful will pay for the assurances that promise "jam tomorrow").
In communist Russia (almost) everyone was guaranteed a minimum quality of life, with the collapse of that protection fear and religion have both (hand-in-hand?) reappeared with many commentators drawing attention to the close ties between the ruling politicians and the Russian Orthodox Church (to the glory, it should be said, of neither).
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
Yes … For some post-Modern humans, the preferred "authority figures" are guys like Rick Dawkins, Christ Hitchens, and so on ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Hugh
I don't think the evolutionary argument stands up. The evidence from social animals and human history is that people both accept and resist the pecking order. Both survival and breeding ambition are at work. I don't think they have anything wider to say about what we believe, other than a challenge to authority can get us hurt.
While there may be second order effects (Boxer's "Comrade Napoleon is always right" comes to mind as a fictional illustration of the fact that some folks are submissive out of a kind of loyalty), the first order effects seem more likely to produce crafty and self-interested acceptance of authority for the time being, rather than conviction that the authority is right.
Nonconformists (like me for example) are often attracted to the picture of Jesus as a challenger of authority, the one who proposes turning established pecking orders upside down ("not so among you"), the one who came to scatter the proud and lift up the lowly.
[ 16. March 2015, 08:54: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Nonconformists (like me for example) are often attracted to the picture of Jesus as a challenger of authority, the one who proposes turning established pecking orders upside down ("not so among you"), the one who came to scatter the proud and lift up the lowly.
Yes - and he got hurt for it, for sure.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
In communist Russia (almost) everyone was guaranteed a minimum quality of life, with the collapse of that protection fear and religion have both (hand-in-hand?) reappeared with many commentators drawing attention to the close ties between the ruling politicians and the Russian Orthodox Church (to the glory, it should be said, of neither).
I guess it is a measure of the vileness of Putin that somebody now dares to uphold the atrocious Communist despotism in Russia, including its horrible attempts to eradicate religion, as anything but utterly reprehensible. Still, even given Putin, this is disgusting.
Anyway, aside from silly hippie naïveté, authority is essential to human life for two simple reasons: First, we are learning animals, that's key to our success. But if you need to learn most of your behaviour, knowledge, etc., then you need a trustworthy teacher. And that is an authority. Second, we are group animals. A single human being is weak, a group of humans acting together can beat every other living entity on this planet (well, if multi-cellular, at least). To coordinate a group into action, in particular into rapid and reactive action, you need a leader. And that is an authority.
There never will be a humanity that does not rely on authority. Authority is essential to our makeup, it is a direct consequence of what makes human beings so successful. You can think about how authority is best organised, but if you think that you can abolish it, then you are a fool.
Speaking of fools, it appears that the Fool has left the building?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
One shake of the pigs bladder and that was it
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Humans have evolved to believe that which they are told by authority figures - those that didn't believe got burnt to death, drowned, fell off the cliff, ate the wrong berry etc. before being able to pass their genes to the next generation.
So?
This is a truism. Saying that some feature ('religious belief') is irrational because it has evolved is just as arbitrary as saying that some feature ('morality') is justified because it has evolved.
All features of human being and behaviour have either evolved or are grounded in capacities that have evolved. That means that humans have evolved to be atheists and religious; humans have evolved to be right-wing and left-wing; humans have evolved to use vaccines and be anti-vaccers.
Any argument that uses evolution to explain an aspect of ideology that the arguer disagrees with, or to justify an aspect of ideology that the arguer agrees with, is vacuous, and a Just-So Story.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The Communist revolution in Russia, and the horrible consequences, always remind me of the couplet from the bowdlerised version of the Red Flag.
"The Working Class can kiss my ass
I've got the foreman's job at last"
And if the "foreman" is a psychopath with absolute power, look out. The most idealistic-sounding principles of justice will not save you.
Here is a bit of a tangent, but since Fool has, apparently, left the building, I thought I might give it some air.
IngoB, where does the prophetic principle fit into your understanding of the essential nature of authority? The OT is, amongst other things, a record of the pronouncements of those who challenged the authority of the kings and priests. "But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream" - to quote one very well known example.
Established human authority may lose its way, become opposed to divine justice. Order can degenerate into oppression. As the book of Amos illustrates, that can happen even in a society which is, formally, theocratic.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Humans have evolved to believe that which they are told by authority figures - those that didn't believe got burnt to death, drowned, fell off the cliff, ate the wrong berry etc. before being able to pass their genes to the next generation.
So?
This is a truism. Saying that some feature ('religious belief') is irrational because it has evolved is just as arbitrary as saying that some feature ('morality') is justified because it has evolved.
All features of human being and behaviour have either evolved or are grounded in capacities that have evolved. That means that humans have evolved to be atheists and religious; humans have evolved to be right-wing and left-wing; humans have evolved to use vaccines and be anti-vaccers.
Any argument that uses evolution to explain an aspect of ideology that the arguer disagrees with, or to justify an aspect of ideology that the arguer agrees with, is vacuous, and a Just-So Story.
I think the position also caricatures the way we learn about danger. Children will listen to their parents about a hot flame but will also test it for themselves at some point. Cliffs - heck - if we needed some authority figure to tell us when we are near a place we might fall off, then the human race would not have evolved past year zero. Drowning - assuming first that we didn't evolve from swimming apes (qv webbed digits and hair growth patterns) if everyone had listened to their elders about the dangers of water, we would never have learned to swim or ventured to sea in tiny boats. Eating the wrong berry - I could say a lot about that - the situation is massively nuanced. Try googling "animal self-medication" or have look at the book "Wild Health". In fact, I would say that our current lack of ability to distinguish poisonous plants from useful ones is the result of generations of authority figures passing on factual garbage to their children, and the children subsequently being confused. In my family, my parents feared every wild growing mushroom as being a "deadly toadstool", and my uncle once grew blackberries and raspberries in his garden, but wouldn't eat them because they were "dirty", and so continued to buy them in shops. If we happened to have grown up in northern Italy, the situation might have been different, and authority knowledge would have been accurate and useful.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
IngoB, where does the prophetic principle fit into your understanding of the essential nature of authority? The OT is, amongst other things, a record of the pronouncements of those who challenged the authority of the kings and priests. "But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream" - to quote one very well known example.
The prophets challenged authority with authority: their own in an instrumental sense, God's in a fundamental sense, and that conveyed by their following in a practical sense. My point is not that authority is always right - in a fallen world this can hardly be expected. My point is that any anti-authoritan stance is just idealistic delusion from the get go. What drives out authority is always other authority, and if authority hides or is diffuse, then that's almost always going to end up worse than it being openly present and concrete. Humans cannot function without authority, it is designed right into their basic modus operandi. If you take it away, they will construct it right back, one way or the other.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I believe in a God who isn't an authority. Who came to us as a Lamb.
We used to have authoritarian teachers. People like Paulo Freire have shown us that it is possible to teach and learn in different ways. Having despotic leaders in our countries was just the way things were, now we have democracy.
These things aren't perfect; they're just a step along the way. But they point to a direction where we need less and less authority.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, we are learning animals, that's key to our success. But if you need to learn most of your behaviour, knowledge, etc., then you need a trustworthy teacher.
A great deal of our learning is through play. Much invention and creativity happens when we ignore what our teachers have told us and the 'received wisdom' of the day.
Sometimes we need trustworthy teachers (I would say that as I am one) but a lot of the time we need to be free to learn through trial and error, intuition, invention and creativity.
My boys were given free reign to play, explore and invent all manner of games on my brother's farm (a very unsafe place, with many sheds, barns, animals and machinery) His other two nephews were watched 100% of the time, by their mother, and warned as to all the dangers - lots of no-go areas, rules and oversight.
Guess which two did well in later life and which two remain unemployed?
[ 16. March 2015, 12:06: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I believe in a God who isn't an authority. Who came to us as a Lamb.
We used to have authoritarian teachers. People like Paulo Freire have shown us that it is possible to teach and learn in different ways. Having despotic leaders in our countries was just the way things were, now we have democracy.
These things aren't perfect; they're just a step along the way. But they point to a direction where we need less and less authority.
There is a marked difference between a teacher who is a genuine "authority" and one who is simply "authoritarian," yes .. ???
And in fact, in these times of ever increasing knowledge (as distinct from wisdom), we rely more and more upon trusted authorities to tell us what's what …
E.g., chemistry students and even professional chemists don't re-invent the periodic table of the elements for themselves, they just use it, and biologists who have never repeated Darwin's travels and studies independently none the less *believe*in* the biological theory of evolution as outlined in "The Origin of Species" … etc. ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
It's an interesting point, because we are increasingly becoming complacent about knowledge and assuming that the edifice of scientific discovery does not have foundations of sand. Scientific theories represent one way to interpret the observational data given a whole cultural and historical baggage of pre-assumptions. I am particularly enjoying reading at the moment a couple of books. One by a doctor who points out that there are huge areas of conincidence between acupuncture theory and modern detailed embryology, and if one looks at either in the light of the other, then it gives a much altered and expanded insight. And another looking at the physics of water, and re-writing both "common wisdom" and science wrt how water behaves in our environment. An unwillingness to challenge the perceived wisdom and its authority would just stifle our culture.
And the point above about authority vs authoritarianism. Authority - as in congruent mastery of a particular subject or skill or trade - is something really important, and we can all learn from that kind of authority - both in detail and in general the mental/emotional/postural state that comes with it. But all that is only of general use if we can then take up some of that into ourselves - through experiencing amd living it. imo this is one aspect of Divine Love in action. Authoritarianism suppresses this...
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Teilhard: And in fact, in these times of ever increasing knowledge (as distinct from wisdom), we rely more and more upon trusted authorities to tell us what's what …
The word 'authority' can have different meanings. By making it mean 'accepting scientific discoveries made by others because it would be too time-consuming to repeat them', I think you've watered it down quite a lot. I doubt that this is the same meaning as when we talk about 'the authority of God'.
Many chemistry students do at least some experiments so that they can discover some things about the Periodic Table for themselves. In principle, they could repeat all the experiments that led to its formation if they wanted to. And every scientific theory can be challenged.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
By making it mean 'accepting scientific discoveries made by others because it would be too time-consuming to repeat them', I think you've watered it down quite a lot. I doubt that this is the same meaning as when we talk about 'the authority of God'.
Authority has a range of related meanings and has done since classical Latin. The broadest sense is someone who has the power to resolve a question. The earliest sense in English is that of a book accepted as reliable information or evidence.
I think it covers a spectrum between 'testimony to facts that could be obtained otherwise' and 'entity able to issue valid commands'.
The authority of God is a rather odd construction. (I think that its earliest uses refer to God as creator.) Usually, the reference is to the Bible or to the Church Fathers as authorities on theology.
quote:
In principle, they could repeat all the experiments that led to its formation if they wanted to. And every scientific theory can be challenged.
It's not so much the ability to repeat all the experiments, as knowing what experiments to repeat.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Hughwillreadme. Alright me ol' China? Speaking of China, one of their leading economists reckons that Christianity is a fundamental reason why the US has such a powerful economy. Christianity isn't seen as a refuge for the fearful - it's what you need if you want to be a prosperous economic super power. The Chinese associate Christianity with progress and innovation. Have a gander at this article from that hotbed of religious propaganda the Economist.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
Fool: If you are looking for a reasoned response as to why people believe, it may be better to start with books on serious philosophy or New Testament scholarship which (at their best) argue from first principles. Religious belief or faith is often a world view which is impossible to dip into piecemeal. The arguments and the beliefs they sustain often make up a whole cloth which covers a wide area including personal experience. However, although this may be very powerful and indeed life transforming for the person involved, it is sometimes the least convincing part of belief for the outsider as it is by necessity a private thing and from the outside at least easily dismissed as a malfunction of the brain or wish fulfilment. Personally speaking, I've found authors like Edward Feser ('The Last Superstition', 'Aquinas' and 'The Philosophy of Mind'), David Bentley Hart ('Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies', 'The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss') and books by Keith Ward and Alistair McGrath very helpful. In terms of Biblical scholarship, I've often enjoyed books by Tom Wright and the late Marcus Borg - especially the one which they co-wrote. I'm not saying they'll convert you, but they will hopefully provoke some thought and at least persuade you that belief in God isn't an intellectual dead end. In particular, the books by Feser and Hart should show that the God of traditional theism (across the religions) is a very different category of reality than other 'gods' and arguments against the latter, are ineffective against the former.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091
|
Posted
Forgive the double post, but I forgot to mention Unapologetic: “Why, despite everything, Christianity can still make surprising emotional sense” by Francis Spufford.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
A brilliant book, and far closer to the messy way in which most Christians believe and live than the propositional approach so beloved of Dawkins.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists and plenty of proof that if it does it has never manifested its self in any way at all beyond the imagination of its adherents.
I recommend C.S. Lewis.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
I recommend C.S. Lewis.
If we're to have a discussion, I would say we need more than that. What particular books or parts of a book would you consider best address the point? What are the most compelling parts of his argument? Give us something to discuss.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
Well, I was technically being a bit broad just as the OP was a bit broad; I think that Lewis' book Miracles is a good one for the supernatural in general, possibly preceded by The Abolition of Man and followed by Mere Christianity. But I also think it depends on the reader which might be most helpful.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
In communist Russia (almost) everyone was guaranteed a minimum quality of life, with the collapse of that protection fear and religion have both (hand-in-hand?) reappeared with many commentators drawing attention to the close ties between the ruling politicians and the Russian Orthodox Church (to the glory, it should be said, of neither).
Oh wow. I was so appreciating your measured reasoned tone about the effects of religion until this paragraph.
Communist Russia perhaps not the counter-example of an atheistic society you want to use. Almost everyone guaranteed a minimum quality of life? Tell that to the 10 million gulag victims.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fool:
I am interested in what makes sensible grown adults believe in the supernatural despite the fact that there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that the supernatural exists
I'm not sure what to make of that, since it's so obviously untrue.
If you said there was no "proof", I could understand that. Likewise, "no compelling evidence", or "not enough evidence", or "insufficiently credible evidence". All those points of view could be argued.
But "not a shred of evidence"? That simply does not describe the real world. No religious experiences, no traditions of mysticism, no reported healings, no apparent answers to prayer, no lives changed as a result of faith, nothing that might plausibly be an encounter with anything supernatural at all?
Is every possible report of any of that excluded from the definition of "evidence"? Why are they not "evidence"? - they may not be sufficient/credible/convincing in many, or even all, cases, but they are facts which, if true, tend to make the existence of 'the supernatural' more likely - and are thus evidence in the ordinary sense of that word. And if they are not "evidence" in the sense you mean, then what would count as "evidence"?
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
For example, to follow up on Eliab's point, eyewitness testimony is as admissible as evidence in a court of law as forensic, ballist, or any other forms of evidence based on controlled measurement. Hearsay in general is not regarded as evidence.
The means of weighing the different kinds of evidence may be different. In general these days, for example, if DNA evidence demonstrates the presence of a suspect at a crime scene, any testimony claiming that the person was somewhere else at the time, providing an alibi, is very likely to be discounted.
In general, there is a therefore a difference between legal evidence and say, a replicable finding from a controlled experiment, which would be a normal scientific standard.
I think what Fool means, when using the term evidence, is replicable findings arising from controlled experiments. Lots of people regard that as an acceptable standard for dismissing, or at least being very sceptical about, supernatural testimony.
[ 17. March 2015, 23:05: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
In communist Russia (almost) everyone was guaranteed a minimum quality of life, with the collapse of that protection fear and religion have both (hand-in-hand?) reappeared with many commentators drawing attention to the close ties between the ruling politicians and the Russian Orthodox Church (to the glory, it should be said, of neither). I guess it is a measure of the vileness of Putin that somebody now dares to uphold the atrocious Communist despotism in Russia, including its horrible attempts to eradicate religion, as anything but utterly reprehensible. Still, even given Putin, this is disgusting.
I made a point – broadly that the more human beings are fearful the more likely they are to seek security in the supernatural. I used Russia as a for instance. I did not laud the Communist regime, merely pointed out that it provided a basic level of security for most of its members and then, when it disappeared religion resurfaced. The two may not even be cause and effect, but the process appears to support my original contention. At no time did I, nor have I, upheld communist despotism and any suggestion that I’ve done so is offensive.
quote:
Anyway, aside from silly hippie naïveté,
A person less overburdened with charity than I might suggest more water? quote:
authority is essential to human life for two simple reasons: First, we are learning animals, that's key to our success. But if you need to learn most of your behaviour, knowledge, etc., then you need a trustworthy teacher. And that is an authority. Second, we are group animals. A single human being is weak, a group of humans acting together can beat every other living entity on this planet (well, if multi-cellular, at least). To coordinate a group into action, in particular into rapid and reactive action, you need a leader. And that is an authority.
There never will be a humanity that does not rely on authority. Authority is essential to our makeup, it is a direct consequence of what makes human beings so successful.
And I’ve suggested something to the contrary? It’s just that I prefer my authority to be based on the scientific process rather than the convoluted attempts of, often very clever, human beings seeking to justify concepts which are based on the erroneous attempts of stone-age ancestors to make sense of their world. Bad authority will tend to produce bad outcomes – perhaps after six thousand years of screwing up the world and its inhabitants it’s time for superstition-based authority to move over and let evidence-based authority have a go – in a few hundred years it’s achieved results (many good and some bad) that superstition could only imagine. quote:
You can think about how authority is best organised, but if you think that you can abolish it, then you are a fool.
Matt 5:22?
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Communist Russia perhaps not the counter-example of an atheistic society you want to use. Almost everyone guaranteed a minimum quality of life? Tell that to the 10 million gulag victims.
The point was neither the communism nor the atheism but the (very) basic food/shelter/health care provision for the majority (I do accept that “almost everyone” was too vague and that large numbers were treated abominably). If a religion-based society could provide a similar degree of security for its members (and one would be looking for much, much more) I suspect that its religious base would either wither or become little more than ceremonial – as it tends to do in most of the world’s more successful economies.
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Hughwillreadme. Alright me ol' China? Speaking of China, one of their leading economists reckons that Christianity is a fundamental reason why the US has such a powerful economy. Christianity isn't seen as a refuge for the fearful - it's what you need if you want to be a prosperous economic super power. The Chinese associate Christianity with progress and innovation. Have a gander at this article from that hotbed of religious propaganda the Economist.
Christianity is a cargo cult?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think what Fool means, when using the term evidence, is replicable findings arising from controlled experiments. Lots of people regard that as an acceptable standard for dismissing, or at least being very sceptical about, supernatural testimony.
And, of course, there would be a very large overlap between what we call "replicable/regular/predictable" with what we call "natural". The "supernatural" is, pretty much, all that stuff which may or may not happen, but if it does happen, isn't replicable and predictable in that way. Almost by definition there's rarely or never going to that sort of evidence for it.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think what Fool means, when using the term evidence, is replicable findings arising from controlled experiments. Lots of people regard that as an acceptable standard for dismissing, or at least being very sceptical about, supernatural testimony.
And, of course, there would be a very large overlap between what we call "replicable/regular/predictable" with what we call "natural". The "supernatural" is, pretty much, all that stuff which may or may not happen, but if it does happen, isn't replicable and predictable in that way. Almost by definition there's rarely or never going to that sort of evidence for it.
Or, in other words (using your words as a springboard here), if we define "evidence" just right, it will perforce eliminate even the possibility of the supernatural. Which as I'm sure you'll agree is all games with words, and not an honest, serious epistemological inquiry.
quote:
Originally posted by Jude:
my philosophy is that we know nothing, including whether or not we are capable of knowing anything.
You're just saying that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
There is a major issue with the word "super-natural" - because it's ALL natural, it's just that some things cannot quite be pinned down in the same way that other things can be.
wrt shamanistic stuff, there's an interesting film "Animal Communicator" on Vimeo - which includes a modern animal communicator and also a few short interviews with bushmen. It is slightly removed as a topic from poltergeists, but the phenomenon (fields of conaciousness as tangible forces) is very related.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think it might be worthwhile to link this article on epistomology at this point. mousethief's point is I think right on the money.
[ 18. March 2015, 07:20: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I believe in a God who isn't an authority. Who came to us as a Lamb.
You can choose to believe what you like, but if you are going to liken God to a Lamb, the only belief culture in which that makes any sense is Christianity, and in Christianity's foundation documents, the Lamb is "slain from the creation of the world", but is also described, paradoxically and not without a hint of "authority", in terms such as "hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!" and "They will make war against the Lamb, but the Lamb will overcome them because he is Lord of lords and King of kings".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I made a point – broadly that the more human beings are fearful the more likely they are to seek security in the supernatural. I used Russia as a for instance. I did not laud the Communist regime, merely pointed out that it provided a basic level of security for most of its members and then, when it disappeared religion resurfaced. The two may not even be cause and effect, but the process appears to support my original contention.
Not cause and effect?
I'll say. Two words: North Korea.
The idea that atheistic communism somehow helps reduce levels of fear is ludicrous. That it reduces overt expressions of theism is obvious. There is no conceivable reason why that has any correlation to the degree of happiness people experience with their lifestyle in a one-party state.
[ 18. March 2015, 09:32: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Athrawes
Ship's parrot
# 9594
|
Posted
Hughwillridme, I would be very interested in where you got the idea that there was less fear and insecurity during the Soviet period. I was in the USSR ( but not Russia itself) both just before the collapse of communism, and after. My impression was the complete opposite of what you have asserted. And the 'guaranteed living standard' only seems to have applied to ethnic Russians. Those who weren't were not guaranteed anything, including a wage, even though they went to work.
Add to that the paranoia of the local and State politicians, the secret police, the informers etc, and there was not a lot of security on show.
--------------------
Explaining why is going to need a moment, since along the way we must take in the Ancient Greeks, the study of birds, witchcraft, 19thC Vaudeville and the history of baseball. Michael Quinion.
Posts: 2966 | From: somewhere with a book shop | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think what Fool means, when using the term evidence, is replicable findings arising from controlled experiments. Lots of people regard that as an acceptable standard for dismissing, or at least being very sceptical about, supernatural testimony.
And, of course, there would be a very large overlap between what we call "replicable/regular/predictable" with what we call "natural". The "supernatural" is, pretty much, all that stuff which may or may not happen, but if it does happen, isn't replicable and predictable in that way. Almost by definition there's rarely or never going to that sort of evidence for it.
Well, the term 'evidence' is very vague, but often has a sense of naturalism attached - scientific and legal evidence, for example. But you can stretch it to refer to subjective stuff, I suppose.
I don't see how you can get the supernatural from the natural, unless something untoward happens. Then you might infer the supernatural - for example, if every cancer patient in the world recovered overnight. But what if one patient recovers? Well, you can make a guess.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
I think there is a more principle objection to be made here than just that there is a bias in what evidence is being admitted. There is a deeper bias concerning what questions may be asked usefully about the world.
Assume your "world" consists of watching a chess board and the matches being played on it. It is a sensible approach to only consider the observable moves on the board as real evidence, and to furthermore consider only such moves as can be confirmed by repeated observations. From this, if you are clever enough, you will be able to reconstruct the rules of chess. Clearly, those are of great significance to this chess world.
Indeed, there may be rare and unpredictable events, like all pieces catastrophically being wiped off the board. This may be due to some accident (somebody bumps into the table on which the chess board is placed) or perhaps other reasons (a player got angry and overturned the board). But we do not really know since we only see what happens on the chess board. It is then not at all an easy question just how far we should go in admitting such occasional observations as evidence. For indeed, people are known to dream up false observations about the board. Admitting too many of them will hinder our quest to find the chess rules, whereas admitting too few will ignore a real part of what can happen on the board. In some sense this is however a technical discussion, more than a principle one.
But we can also look at this chess board in a different way, and ask questions like: Why is there a chess board? Why are there pieces? What is moving these pieces? For what purpose, if there is any purpose? Indeed, we have found "end points" to "games", which we have named "checkmate" - why would these occur, what is the significance of this? Is there a reason why there is always a new "game"? Will these "games" end one day? Is there a reason why sometimes one of the sides seems to progress to "checkmate" much faster than the other? Are there unobserved "players"? Is there a "tournament" going on? Or is it coherent to say that there is no reason why the chess pieces are moving about, is that just a "brute fact"?
It is important to note that none of these questions require any special events. Exactly the same observations of perfectly regular and frequent moves that lead some to propose a set of "chess rules" can be questioned in a different way. The very same evidence - not some special and rare occurrence - can be used to ask rather different questions. Questions that are related to the "chess rules" in a sense - for if there are "chess players", then clearly most of the time they are playing by these "chess rules" - but still not in the same class of questions. We are not asking how the rook may move, we are asking how come that there is a rook, and that it moves. Obviously, special occurrences like a catastrophic wiping off all the figures off the board may be particularly useful in answering this other class of questions. We may struggle to fit this into the "chess rules" we have derived, but it may easily be attributed to an angry "chess player". Nevertheless, such special events are not at all necessary to ask this different class of questions.
I hope the analogy is obvious. We can ask "physics" questions about the world. But we can also ask questions of "philosophy" (in particular "metaphysics") and "religion" about the world. "Supernatural phenomena" may be particularly useful for the latter. But they are not necessary. The very same observations that "physics" deals with afford a different class of question with potentially rather different answers. These different domains of questions and answers do not contradict each other, they are simply different aspects of the same underlying reality. It is a bias concerning the questions that may be asked about the world, rather than primarily a bias concerning the sort of evidence that may be admitted, that separates the "materialist" from the "theist".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
