|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Good religions
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
What is there that we know of that cannot be discovered using the scientific method?
Love
Thank you, however I see that Boogie and PennyS have answered this.
What do you think is the source of the range of feelings and emotions that, in all cultures and languages, have come to be encapsulated in the word 'love' if it is not from the evolved reactions and behaviours of humans?
If you believe it was an input from God, then at what stage in our evolution would this have happened, do you think?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I wonder whether love came into the human language at the same time as God did, at the point when we became conscious of good and evil, and free will choices became our responsibility. Transformation comes from yielding to God's love.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
The eugenics business was a total perversion of what had been the theory put forward by Darwin and Huxley. But what would you argue if you thought you were an alpha and wanted all the goodies for your offspring instead of Tiny Tim and Stephen Hawking? It's nothing to do with the science.
I agree with this. Scienctific theories are bound to lend themselves to the imposition of the already held beliefs, values and preferences of those who learn about and teach them. My point is that, just as you are arguing that altruism "falls out" of the scientific method, so they argued, perfectly plausibly, that eugenics did so. My view is that neither have to do with the science but with the values of the people doing the science. So we have to choose which values we are going to use in educating people.
Pretending that you just do biology and physics and children will learn about sharing, love, respect and consent is just a nonsense, as the pseudo science of Julian Huxley shows. He thought (or at least said he thought) he was just following the science.
SusanDoris seemed to be saying that anything based on values is just opinion and therefore shouldn't be taught to children "as if" true. Even if that is a laudable aim (and I don't think it is) truth is you will be teaching values anyway.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
quote:
What is there that we know of that cannot be discovered using the scientific method?
Love
Thank you, however I see that Boogie and PennyS have answered this.
What do you think is the source of the range of feelings and emotions that, in all cultures and languages, have come to be encapsulated in the word 'love' if it is not from the evolved reactions and behaviours of humans?
If you believe it was an input from God, then at what stage in our evolution would this have happened, do you think?
SusanDoris, asking me questions doesn't prove your case.
You asked what cannot be discovered via the scientific method. I said love. I made ZERO assertions about love other than it cannot be discovered by the scientific method.
Please show me how the scientific method discovers love.
Vague, statements about human evolution just won't cut it I'm afraid. Your assertions about love being the result of human evolution are as non-scientific as the claim that God exists.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
Love
and love is the only thing worth living and dying for.
That is all.
Love is complicated 'tho, isn't it?
Such a mixture of hormones - dopamine, seratonin, oxytocin. Such a mixture of rewards and motivations. So many ways of showing 'love' to friends, family and strangers.
All those biblical words for love, agape, philia etc none of which are straightforward.
"God so loved the world" then caused all living things to need to eat each other to survive (?)
I don't think saying 'God is love' is simple at all.
You entirely miss my point, I didn't say God is love or make any claim other than that love cannot be discovered by the scientific method.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
SusanDoris, asking me questions doesn't prove your case.
No, but an answer, or a suggested one, might help explain more about your point of view and understanding of love and its source. quote:
You asked what cannot be discovered via the scientific method. I said love. I made ZERO assertions about love other than it cannot be discovered by the scientific method.
If you make that claim, then can you give your definition of love so that it can be compared with the explanation about hormones, chemicals, etc which give rise to the human feelings and behaviours which come under the heading 'love'? quote:
Please show me how the scientific method discovers love.
As I understand it the scientific method involves (a) observations - of physical changes,
behaviours, (b) devising tests to see if these observations are consistent and repeated, brain and body function in the way expected when the people being tested think about/see photos of/meet/etc a loved one, (c)
make predictions based on the results, and (d) submit the report to peer review in order for those who disagree to find fault with the procedure, challenge the results, devise better experiments, etc. quote:
Vague, statements about human evolution just won't cut it I'm afraid. Your assertions about love being the result of human evolution are as non-scientific as the claim that God exists.
My personal statements would of course be better explained by an evolutionary biologist, yes, but the TofE is one of the most reliable, best tested
Theories and has endured, with minor alterations and additions, for over 150 years.
You might well at this point say that the Christian religion has lasted for longer, but observations of God/god/s cannot be made, no tests can be done since there are no observations or information with which to start, so no Theory can be produced.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
You might watch Chalmer's TED talk on consciousness to unpick some definitions - there is a difference between observed association and cause. Just like with the brain - just because certain brain areas fire doesn't mean that they cause something. And just like a starter motor turning doesn't cause the car to start - it's the driver who turns the key. Yes - the driver cannot start the car without the starter motor, and there are other factors (battery power, petrol, etc) - but all are useless without a driver. To follow the same analogy - if all that is looked at is mechanically connected to the car, then the driver becomes invisible. Love - yes, we can measure HRV and oxytocin and DHEA etc etc, but they are not the experience. Unless you disagree with Chalmers and say that we are all chemicals and consciousness is an illusion. True - that is one viewpoint - but not one that matches lived experience.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
You might well at this point say that the Christian religion has lasted for longer, but observations of God/god/s cannot be made, no tests can be done since there are no observations or information with which to start, so no Theory can be produced.
Observations of God can be made as much, if not more than, your suggestions as to how love may be observed. When people have joy in their 'hearts' this flows out from them, as does love. When people are transformed by the Holy Spirit, their whole outlook and way of life and way of being is apparent to all who know them. None of this is imagined experience.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
You might well at this point say that the Christian religion has lasted for longer, but observations of God/god/s cannot be made, no tests can be done since there are no observations or information with which to start, so no Theory can be produced.
Observations of God can be made as much, if not more than, your suggestions as to how love may be observed. When people have joy in their 'hearts' this flows out from them, as does love. When people are transformed by the Holy Spirit, their whole outlook and way of life and way of being is apparent to all who know them. None of this is imagined experience.
Susan's view sounds very much like scientism. Edward Feser, for example, defines scientism as the view that "science alone plausibly gives us objective knowledge, and that any metaphysics worthy of consideration can only be that which is implicit in science." He argues that scientism is self-refuting, since it is impossible to prove via the scientific method that only what is discoverable by science is true. He also argues that it is self-fulfilling, in that if you only use science to discover truth, then you will by definition only discover those truths which can be discovered by science. He uses the metaphor of using a metal detector on the beach, and coming to the conclusion that there isn't anything under the sand which isn't made of metal.
All of which has been pointed out many times on these threads....
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
Just to move this on a tad, one of the positive impacts of Christianity (as an example) is in providing the conceptual basis for modern scientific study. Consider the following.
Loren Eisley, writing about Francis Bacon in The Horizon Book of Makers of Modern Thought (p95-96) makes the point that science is an “invented cultural institution.” Modern science emerged in the C17 out of the particular cultural millieu of the Western world. Niall Ferguson (Civilisation loc5977 Kindle) “..all the major seventeenth century breakthroughs in mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology happened in Western Europe.”
Ferguson notes that the “new science” was based on accurate observation, systematic experimentation, and the identification of mathematical relationships. He goes on “The possibilities of mathematics were in turn expanded when Isaac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz introduced, respectively, infinitesimal and differential calculus.” He lists some of the most important scientific C17 breakthroughs including William Gilbert’s description of the magnetic properties of the earth and electricity, the invention of the telescope and its subsequent observations, the foundation of analytical geometry (Descartes) Boyle’s elements and chemical analysis and, Boyle’s law, probability theory (Fermat and Pascal), Newton’s law of universal gravitation and the laws of motion, and the creation of the first true geological maps.
So what's this got to do with the o/p?
Well as Eisley draws out, it was the theistic - in particular the Christian - philosophical worldview that provided the seedbed for the explosion in Western scientific discovery: “it is the Christian world which finally gave birth in a clear, articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself” (Darwin’s Century p62).
And just to make the point clearer, consider also the counterfactual. Christianity is distinguished from pantheistic or animistic religions in that it sees the universe as a natural product of a transcendent Creator’s design. Cultures with a different worldview didn't share the same drive towards scientific study since they didn't share the same confidence that the code of nature’s laws could ever be unveiled and read.
So the modern scientific method is based on certain philosophical assumptions - that the external word is orderly and rational, and that we can trust our minds to grasp it. Neither of these assumptions can be proven by the scientific method. Both have, historically, been heavily influenced by Christian thought.
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I think you're mistaking Christian thought with Aristotlean (which was absorbed into Christianity in the C13) ... ?
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
You might watch Chalmer's TED talk on consciousness to unpick some definitions - there is a difference between observed association and cause. Just like with the brain - just because certain brain areas fire doesn't mean that they cause something.
If parts of the brain show activity, then a stimulus received through one or all of the senses has caused the brain to react.
I googled Chalmer and will read what he has to say asap. quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
You might well at this point say that the Christian religion has lasted for longer, but observations of God/god/s cannot be made, no tests can be done since there are no observations or information with which to start, so no Theory can be produced.
Observations of God can be made as much, if not more than, your suggestions as to how love may be observed.
I shall of course be interested to read what instructions I should follow in order to observe God!!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Observations of God can be made as much, if not more than, your suggestions as to how love may be observed.
I shall of course be interested to read what instructions I should follow in order to observe God!!;
First of all, pray and ask. Then read the New Testament, pray and ask, while following the teaching and example of Jesus. In time, you will see God, and you will know that Christianity is a good religion.
You might also go to a church service, and/or you might engage with Christians through whom you may see God. You must keep an open mind as to how you will see God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
SusanDoris
Can you give your definition of love
Not mine but this about sums it up.
"Love consists in this, that two solitudes protect and touch and greet each other." - Rainer Maria Rilke
quote:
Itsarumdo
Love - yes, we can measure HRV and oxytocin and DHEA etc etc, but they are not the experience.
Exactly, and measuring the release of such chemicals doesn't explain why the release is triggered and why it may be triggered by one person and not by others.
quote:
Susan Doris My personal statements would of course be better explained by an evolutionary biologist, yes, but the TofE is one of the most reliable, best tested
Theories and has endured, with minor alterations and additions, for over 150 years.
The theory of evolution has been around a long time and I've got nothing against it but what's that got to do with your point about love being discoverable by the scientific method? You have not even come close to building a scientific case for love being the result of evolution. Dawkins at least admits he is unable to use science to explain things like morality, but I guess that's what happens when you actually understand science.
quote:
In The God Delusion Richard Dawkins tries to strengthen this claim using his biological expertise, arguing that humans have evolved to be altruistic because it ultimately helps their genes to survive. But in the end, he admits that no firm case can be made concerning the evolutionary basis of morality. He’s just gesturing with his expertise, rather than really applying it to the issue at hand.
Link to article from which quote is drawn
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What good have religions brought to the world? Which ones have produced the most "good"s?
Take any definition of "good" that's reasonably intuitive....
Well one benefit that comes to mind is the spread of literacy. This is very much a legacy of Christianmissionary movements in particular. I seem also to remember a Roman emperor (sadly his name escapes me) who got more than a little annoyed by the success Christians had converting his citizens through the compassion shown through hospital services. To that we may also hazzard the addition of the hospice movement. Much we take for granted today in terms of universal services has its roots in the pioneering activities, not to mention motivations, of people of faith
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Makepiece
Shipmate
# 10454
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
As I understand it the scientific method involves (a) observations - of physical changes,
behaviours, (b) devising tests to see if these observations are consistent and repeated, brain and body function in the way expected when the people being tested think about/see photos of/meet/etc a loved one, (c)
make predictions based on the results, and (d) submit the report to peer review in order for those who disagree to find fault with the procedure, challenge the results, devise better experiments, etc. [/QB]
What you are explaining is that science can explain the physiological impact of love and can maybe even describe how people love. What you can't explain however is 'why' people love. Part of the mystical power of TofE is that it seems to explain the 'why'. "Why do people love?" is answered with "..because love has enabled people to survive". Now in fact the answer in this scenario cannot be observed. You can observe fossils to be sure but you can't observe the emotions that fossils had.
You may reply that the theory has been proven and that as such TofE can fill the gaps but the simple fact is that it does not fill all the gaps. Loving kin could lead to the survival of genes but equally so could competing with kin. In any event loving those that aren't kin, including other species, will not lead to the survival of the individual's genes. In spite of this there are numerous examples of altruism in both humans and other species.
Moreover, TofE, and nothing else in science, to date can explain why something like love originated in the first place. If love enabled its original bearers to survive that does not explain how it originated in them. The standard answer would be that it was it was fortuitous however this answer cannot be observed or tested and in any event I believe that love, though an emotion, also involves 'agency'. Is it an emotion or an act of will? I believe that it is an interaction between the two; between the individual and its environment. If this is correct then the broader statement is that science cannot explain "will".
--------------------
Don't ask for whom the bell tolls...
Posts: 938 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
You can observe fossils to be sure but you can't observe the emotions that fossils had.
It was only recently that everyone was certain soft tissue would not be present in fossils of dinosaurs. Turns out they were wrong. Perhaps emotions will be the next found.
Or perhaps when a lover's touch causes goosebumps, it is merely a Thetan wiggling about.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Moreover, TofE, and nothing else in science, to date can explain why something like love originated in the first place.
There are many 'whys' which we cannot answer. New explanations emerge all the time and these change over time. Science is a process of discovery, not a list of definitive certainties. Much is for practical purposes. The theorists love to push the boundaries to the edge of knowledge and beyond - changing and adapting their theories as they go.
That doesn't mean that the answers to the unexplained 'whys' are theological. It just means they are not yet known.
Love exists - we don't know why - but we know we like it and want people to have more of it!
The problem with the Church (back to the OP!) is that it often tries to sell certainties where there are none. It's so easy and comfortable to buy into certainties, put our prayerful slippers on and forget the questions.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
The problem with the Church (back to the OP!) is that it often tries to sell certainties where there are none. It's so easy and comfortable to buy into certainties, put our prayerful slippers on and forget the questions.
That's something of what worship has done for myself and I'm reasonably happy about that. An over questioning mind can be a burden to some. The big problem that forever dogs the Christian faith is the matter of why a God of Love allows shit to happen, often seeming powerless as opposed to all powerful.
That though is something the Christian practitioner has to live with. If it's a conundrum that screws with one's mind then maybe the best thing to do is just bail out.
I was wondering if secularism could be described as a religion, and if so is it a 'Good' one. I mean you do see a lot of kindness around these days, and practiononers of simply living life do appear to be reasonably happy.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It was only recently that everyone was certain soft tissue would not be present in fossils of dinosaurs. Turns out they were wrong. Perhaps emotions will be the next found.
AIUI an autopsy of someone who died yesterday will not find any emotions. It is extremely unlikely that they will be found in fossils.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
If God is real....
where the word 'if, cannot be replaced with a certainty.
Where, in this life, is there certainty? There are plenty of people who FEEL certain about this or that. But often what they feel certain about flatly contradicts what somebody else feels certain about. So the feeling of certainty is no sure guarantee. There is no certainty in science, as any scientist will tell you. Certainty would seem to be an ideal, but not one ever obtained by humans. An asymptote, perhaps, that we approach but never quite reach.
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
@Suzi. You asked: So how do you account for, for instance, my life-long atheist neighbour whose unstinting helpfulness and kindness has nothing to do with any god, let alone the Christian one.
That's easy m'darlin'. She's made in God's image with an in-built moral compass, shaped by immersion in a culture that's been deeply influenced by Christian values, morality, and principles. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
This seems to be verging on Conspiracy Theory territory. Proof of the existence of something proves it exists. Lack of proof of the existence of something proves it exists. Is your belief at all falsifiable? What evidence, if discovered, would lead you to say, "Well, perhaps I'm wrong"? If any and all evidence can be made to fit into a theory, then it's not a theory at all, it's merely a tautology and tells us nothing about the world.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christianity does not have a bad track record, it has a good one, which has been sullied by some bad people.
Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love-song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing.
Two thousand years of wrong, I submit, is a bad track record.
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
You might watch Chalmer's TED talk on consciousness to unpick some definitions - there is a difference between observed association and cause.
Indeed, and one doesn't need a TED talk to know this. It's the ancient fallacy that has the name post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's all in Hume, all in Hume. What do they teach them in these atheist seminaries?
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
I think you're mistaking Christian thought with Aristotlean (which was absorbed into Christianity in the C13) ... ?
Not east of the Adriatic it wasn't, Bub.
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
What good have religions brought to the world? Which ones have produced the most "good"s?
Take any definition of "good" that's reasonably intuitive....
Well one benefit that comes to mind is the spread of literacy. This is very much a legacy of Christian missionary movements in particular.
This is true in part. But it is also true that literacy among the Russian peasantry was suppressed or at the very least not addressed by the religious, and was ultimately brought about by the Soviets. Religion would seem to be an agent for the spread of literacy not by virtue of its being religion, but by virtue of its being a system that seeks converts. As did Sovietism, as did Protestantism in its early days, another time of greatly expanding literacy.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Christianity does not have a bad track record, it has a good one, which has been sullied by some bad people.
Yet with the woes of sin and strife
The world has suffered long;
Beneath the angel-strain have rolled
Two thousand years of wrong;
And man, at war with man, hears not
The love-song which they bring;
O hush the noise, ye men of strife,
And hear the angels sing.
Two thousand years of wrong, I submit, is a bad track record.
Two thousand years of good influence, I submit, is a good track record. Wars will happen, usually with the human failings of a desire for power, self-interests, and/or racism as the cause on one side, defence on the other. Are both sides equally bad, whatever their religion?
Peace on Earth! Goodwill to all men!
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's the ancient fallacy that has the name post hoc ergo propter hoc. It's all in Hume, all in Hume.
Actually Hume thinks that there isn't any difference between cause and observed association. Causes are just observed associations that we've observed sufficiently often that we think we won't observe anything else.
--------------------
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
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
First of all, pray and ask. Then read the New Testament, pray and ask, while following the teaching and example of Jesus. In time, you will see God, and you will know that Christianity is a good religion.
At this point we shall have to agree to disagree. However, I think I would agree that the moderate, laid back CofE is the least worst.
quote:
You might also go to a church service, and/or you might engage with Christians through whom you may see God.
The former I did for a large part of my life, the latter I shall of course be doing when I visit the nunnery in Feb. quote:
You must keep an open mind as to how you will see God.
I will of course listen carefully to all that is said, but I have not ever, since becoming completely atheist, heard anything at all which would change my mind.
But I never tire of reading and joining in here.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Evangeline
Thank you for your post. As I have just written to Raptor Eye, we will have to agree to disagree about whether the emotions, feelings etc
labelled love can be better explained by evolutionary biology or some God. To choose the latter involves the need to explain the why, what and wherefor of the creator of said god, but I'm not asking that here.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
This would be far more creative as a discussion if we could actually talk about the question raised in the OP, rather than this constant and utterly tedious sidetrack.
The subjects for discussion which occur to me, under the banner of the thread title are these:
- what would constitute a good religion?
- is it the same thing as a good faith?
- does one religion or another embody more/all of the characteristics of a good religion?
- what are the best and worst characteristics of Christianity/particular denominations?
- is it possible to make a meaningful statement about any or all of these questions from within a religion?
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It was only recently that everyone was certain soft tissue would not be present in fossils of dinosaurs. Turns out they were wrong. Perhaps emotions will be the next found.
AIUI an autopsy of someone who died yesterday will not find any emotions. It is extremely unlikely that they will be found in fossils.
Moo
Wasn't meant in any seriousness.
I find the We don't understand something so it must be magical or divine to be a silly argument. Not that I'm arguing that whatever phenomenon cannot be divine, but that our lack of understanding/explanation isn't any sort of proof or indication.
Neither, of course, is our understanding of something any proof that it wasn't divinely created.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
- what would constitute a good religion?
- is it the same thing as a good faith?
- does one religion or another embody more/all of the characteristics of a good religion?
- what are the best and worst characteristics of Christianity/particular denominations?
- is it possible to make a meaningful statement about any or all of these questions from within a religion?
To me, it depends on what we mean by 'good'. And good for whom?
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
- what would constitute a good religion?
- is it the same thing as a good faith?
- does one religion or another embody more/all of the characteristics of a good religion?
- what are the best and worst characteristics of Christianity/particular denominations?
- is it possible to make a meaningful statement about any or all of these questions from within a religion?
To me, it depends on what we mean by 'good'. And good for whom?
That's at least as good a question. It depends, of course, on the religion it is based. By that I mean, a religion whose god is worshipped as the creator seems to me to be likely to be better for non-adherents than one whose god is seen as separate from creation, because the former religion gives its adherents the duty to revere creation as the product of its god, meaning that the effect on non-adherents must, logically at least, be positive as an expression of love of the creator god.
Without that link between that which is outside the religion and the god it worships, a religion is unlikely to be positive in its effect on the wider world, because it would legitimate indifference, or even hostility, to that world.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Evangeline
Thank you for your post. As I have just written to Raptor Eye, we will have to agree to disagree about whether the emotions, feelings etc
labelled love can be better explained by evolutionary biology or some God. To choose the latter involves the need to explain the why, what and wherefor of the creator of said god, but I'm not asking that here.
You refuse to engage with the points being discussed and instead invent what you think somebody is arguing and argue against that.
I am not arguing that emotions are explained by God, not at all. What I am saying is that love cannot be discovered by the scientific method-I said this in direct response to your question earlier about what cannot be discovered by the scientific method. That's a huge difference in argument there, and you must acknowledge that you haven't proven (I'd say can't prove) that emotions are the result of evolutionary biology.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
You refuse to engage with the points being discussed ...
That is incorrect. I read posts and respond to them as best I can. I do not 'refuse to engage' and am sorry that it might appear that way. The word 'love' has so many meanings; in a discussion involving it though I try to keep to its scientific-type meaning. quote:
...and instead invent what you think somebody is arguing and argue against that.
I'm sorry that is how it appears to you, but I assure you I'm no good at inventing arguments! quote:
I am not arguing that emotions are explained by God, not at all. What I am saying is that love cannot be discovered by the scientific method-I said this in direct response to your question earlier about what cannot be discovered by the scientific method. That's a huge difference in argument there, and you must acknowledge that you haven't proven (I'd say can't prove) that emotions are the result of evolutionary biology.
But in order to say that a human emotion cannot be discovered by the scientific method, it would be necessary to have a precise description of it, or the aspect of it in question, wouldn't it? Otherwise the scientific method has no way of creating a hypothesis for a start.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
quote:
Susan Doris wrote:
The difference between sports and religious beliefs is that the former are clearly evident and need no imagination or faith.
My example was showing a similarity between religion and sport (both of which are tangible), not religious belief and a belief that sport is a good thing, both of which are subjective. But the point is that you need to participate in the tangible to come to an informed opinion on the subjective. You can't stay on the sidelines and really understand what it's all about.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
quote:
Susan Doris wrote:
The difference between sports and religious beliefs is that the former are clearly evident and need no imagination or faith.
My example was showing a similarity between religion and sport (both of which are tangible), not religious belief and a belief that sport is a good thing, both of which are subjective. But the point is that you need to participate in the tangible to come to an informed opinion on the subjective. You can't stay on the sidelines and really understand what it's all about.
Your post really set me thinking – thank you! Yes, I see what you mean I think.
Both religions and sports have adherents, books, biographies, uniforms, leaders, venues, equipment, rituals, rules rights and wrongs, histories, etc. Sport, however, does not have any God/god/s anywhere in the background, or at its base, which necessitates faith only.
As far as participation goes, I was (as you may know) a believer in God for a large part of my life, although I was never taught to believe that biblical stories were true … if I was, I did not accept it!
My visit to the nunnery in February will not change my mind, but it will be most interesting to converse with those who are so wholly involved.
[ 22. December 2015, 16:44: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
SusanDoris, all I can suggest is that you read some intelligent atheist philosophy because what you are espousing is an extremely impoverished form of scientism, it's just not academically tenable.
This article by atheist philosopher John Gay may be a start. A couple of pertinent quotes are below
"Myths can't be verified or falsified in the way theories can be. But they can be more or less truthful to human experience, and I've no doubt that some of the ancient myths we inherit from religion are far more truthful than the stories the modern world tells about itself." and
"The idea that science can enable us to live without myths is one of these silly modern stories. There's nothing in science that says the world can be finally understood by the human mind.
and
"Because it's a human invention, science - just like religion - will always be used for all kinds of purposes, good and bad. Unbelievers in religion who think science can save the world are possessed by a fantasy that's far more childish than any myth. The idea that humans will rise from the dead may be incredible, but no more so than the notion that "humanity" can use science to remake the world."
All the best.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Evangeline--
Thank you so much for linking to that great article!
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
SusanDoris, all I can suggest is that you read some intelligent atheist philosophy because what you are espousing is an extremely impoverished form of scientism, it's just not academically tenable.
Thank you for the link to the interesting article. It is of course ridiculous to think that humans can live without stories, myths, legends, or fiction of any kind. I was a bookworm all my life until the time I had to change to talking books and braille. Interestingly, though, having to slow down the speed of reading has made for a more thorough reading.
The more stories we read, the more we can learn about life, people, rights and wrongs, etc etc. I’m not sure that I entirely agree with the quote: quote:
Myths can't be verified or falsified in the way theories can be.
since available facts about the past are always increasing, but , yes, of course they represent human experience from which history should learn!
I do not know who believes that Science can ‘enable us to live without myths’ – he does not say where this idea comes from. He also talks of unbelievers who think that Science can save the world or re-make it – well, if there are such people, I think he should quote them!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
