|
|
Being absolutely surejeffryjon
If there's a subject on which you feel absolutely sure about your stance. Is argumentation a waste of time? I'm not saying we should absolutely refuse to state our case, though is there any benefit in repeatedly placing yourself in the line of fire of those who disagree? (especially if they refuse to see you point of view as being just as valid as theirs)
medesignz
If you don't fully believe, then you have no leg to stand on. Your beliefs are what make you capable of withstanding fire from those in the line sights.
jeffryjon
agreed, though is there any sense in deliberately and unnecessarily placing oneself in the line of fire
Bikerman
There are many such subjects. It doesn't mean that argumentation is a waste of time. Take evolution as an example. When someone posts that it didn't/doesn't happen then they are wrong. It isn't a case of a 'viewpoint' being valid - they are just wrong. You might ask why bother refuting it. There are two reasons - firstly it may be possible to persuade them that they are wrong. This doesn't happen often but it has happened at least once to my certain knowledge. Secondly to allow such assertions to remain unchallenged might give the impression, to readers who are undecided, that there is some merit in the assertion.
PS - I am not talking about 'beliefs' here...this is more 'facts'. medesignz
you dont have to be put in the line of fire, but if you are and you believe, you have nothing to worry about. some people will try to hard to convince, and unfortunately, they are usually the one soul they are trying to persuade... themselves. jeffryjon
Good point Ankhanu
Personally, no, there is nothing I'm absolutely sure of... and I don't understand how anyone could be absolutely sure of anything; to be absolutely sure is a sure sign of excessive pride and foolishness.
That said, I'm am quite sure of many things, but that is not to say that debate and, with enough evidence, a change in stance cannot occur. From an external standpoint, I'm with bikerman, there are topics that others might be absolutely sure about that must be challenged by those with evidence on their side. The goal isn't always to convince the offender, so much as to demonstrate to others that person/group's offense. Subjectivity has to take a back seat to objectivity sometimes. medesignz
my pen is blue... I am 100% sure of that... if someone was to try and disuade me that my pen wasnt blue, then I would pose a great argument and prove their foolishness.
Indi
Never.
Of course there is. To everyone involved - you, the people that disagree with you, and interested onlookers. The only way to find out if your beliefs are bulletproof is by placing them in the line of fire. If there are any flaws in your beliefs, they are far more likely to be spotted by an opponent than a supporter. Unless you want to live in ignorance and stupidity, you must want to ensure that your beliefs don't have any flaws. This is the best way to test them. If they turn out flawed, and your opponent's beliefs don't, you should change your mind. If your beliefs are solid, then obviously those who disagree must be wrong. If your beliefs stand up to their onslaught, reasonable opponents should consider them. If your beliefs stand up to their onslaught, but their own beliefs are shown to be flawed, reasonable opponents should change their mind. What happens most often among philosophers is that both ideas get punched through with a few holes, and then both philosophers go back to work trying to improve their beliefs, so they can come back and test them again. (This doesn't happen as often with lay people, because more often than not, one or both sides of a debate between lay people is using beliefs that either science or philosophy has already shown to be flawed.) That's how philosophy, and civilization, advance. On a personal level, the mere act of trying to defend your beliefs is powerful mental exercise. Being afraid to have your beliefs challenged means you don't really believe them.
Well, now, there's a little weasel point in there, because you don't specify whether it's actually true that your belief is as valid as theirs. That's rarely true. If your beliefs really are equally valid, but they refuse to see that they are, then they are unreasonable, and they are not worth even talking to, let alone arguing. To put it bluntly, their idiots. Unless you have nothing better to do, leave them be.* If your beliefs are not equally valid, and they refuse to see them as equally valid, then they're reasonable people, and you should absolutely engage them in debate. * If you have the time, then definitely engage even the unreasonable people in debate. Why? Two reasons. First, there may be onlookers who are not unreasonable, and who are seeking truth, and who would benefit from the debate even if the actual participants won't. Second, a wise person can learn more from a fool's fart than a fool can learn from the wise man's most profound words. Even a broken clock is right twice a day; the other person may be an unreasonable fool, but they might still hit you with a good point. It could happen. jeffryjon
The emphasis here is on repeatedly placing yourself in the line of fire. You would obviously have to do so initially to test whether of not there are flaws in your viewpoint, though eventually we should reach a point where all flaws are ironed out or we realise we were totally wrong. The initial statement dictates that we feel absolutely sure that we are right and unless we're idiots, we should have tested your viewpoint before arriving at that conclusion.
Being a bit tongue in cheek here, but from who's perspective is it 'rarely true' that your point of view is as valid as theirs?
You seem to be saying here that initially it's important to test whether your conclusions are bulletproof and if or once they are, there is no point debating or sharing with someone who's refusing to see the truth - would that be a good summary? medesignz
being a spokesperson for your belief is something different than being a true believer in general. you dont have to act defensive though.
Indi
And when, exactly, would that point be? How would you know that there are no flaws in your viewpoint? Because you haven't found any in a while? Do you think that's really a solid guarantee that there are none at all? i would say that if there are any idiots involved here, it would be anyone that buys into the initial statement's presumption that we can ever be absolutely sure that our beliefs are not wrong. There is no way you can ever be sure, so you should never stop testing them.
What does perspective have to do with anything? An objective fact is an objective fact. Perspective doesn't matter. The vast majority of disagreements are between two viewpoints where one is more valid than the other. That's just true, regardless of perspective. (In fact, some philosophers say that there are NO disagreements where both viewpoints are equally valid. But i think that's a step too far.)
Is that what i "seem" to be saying? ^_^; How peculiar. Because my actual words were that you should "never" stop debating your views. i guess i didn't realize that saying you should "never" stop debating your views "seems" to mean you should stop some time. Fancy that. No, what i said was that you should never stop allowing your views to be challenged. Never. N.E.V.E.R. Clear now? What i said was that if you were debating a topic that has no objective truth, and the other party refused to see that their view point was just as valid as yours, then you shouldn't waste your time debating them (unless you have time to spare). i didn't say you should stop debating your ideas altogether. jeffryjon
ocalhoun
There is no pen. You are currently huddled in the corner of a padded room, wearing a straight-jacket, and everything you are 'absolutely sure' of has only been imagined over the last several years... Including this thread. Arseniy
ocalhoun, don't be so brutal tractating Zontag and other post-structuralists
Every thing looks different to each of us. That is called 'interpretation'. For example, the building with 100 floors is extremely high for me, 'cause *let's say* I was born in Uganda and there's no skyscrapers. And you, *let's say* native New-Yorker, have got used to that size since your childhood, and 100-floor one is small comparing to Empire State Building. You can't be sure in anything, because anything can appear not as you expected it to be. deanhills
One thing I am absolutely sure about is that evolutionists and creationists will never convince one another of their different beliefs. It seems to be an argument that always goes the same way, maybe with a slightly new theme here or there, or someone adding heaps of scientific factoids. I don't see how creationists could ever convince evolutionists that they are wrong and the other way round. Except come up with a good attack or defense, or impress with information they think is new and novel, or just to show their artful gift of the gab and how knowledgeable they think they are (on both sides).
Another thing I am absolutely sure about is that during our life time those of religious persuasion will never be able to find scientific proof that God exists, of the kind that will convince atheists that God does exist, and neither will atheists be able to find conclusive scientific proof that God does not exist. So again, for me there is some futility in this argument between the two about the existence of God as they always seem to be arguing around the same circles with different themes. Indi
That doesn't make both sides equal. It is quite easy for one to be right, and one to be wrong. It is also quite easy for one side's position to be the reasonable and sane one to take, and the other to be for kooks.
You don't? How could you not? Not only is the answer obvious, "evolutionists" repeat it all the time: if creationists come up with a sound scientific hypothesis, back that hypothesis up with evidence, and show that it has more evidence than evolution, "evolutionists" will accept creationism. What would it take to convince creationists that evolution is correct? Nothing, they're kooks, and they're not interested in the truth.
Atheists are not looking for proof that God doesn't exist. They don't need it. You don't need to prove that leprechauns don't exist, you would need to prove that they do. That means that theists need to prove that God exists. But, you don't think that they can, therefore their argument is futile. Not the atheists - the atheists don't even need to make an argument, they win by default. You seem incapable of grasping this concept that when two sides disagree and argue forever, that doesn't mean both sides are equal. It's quite easy for one side to be just dead wrong, and just too stubborn or stupid to admit defeat. They're not going to give up because their jerks, meanwhile the other side isn't going to give up because they have all the evidence and reasoning on their side. So, the fight continues on, not because there is no resolution, but because one side is a bunch of stupid a-holes. Bikerman
The thing is that it isn't even a fight. My only interest in persuading the religious they are wrong is to stop them interfering with me and others. We know what happens when the religiously minded are left unchallenged - we see it now in some regions and history fills in the rest.
In a world of atheists and religious then the atheist can live happily using the golden rule so beloved by Christians - treat others as you would like to be treated. The problem is that many of the religious cannot. Evangelising and prostelytising are part of their faith so they HAVE to bother other people. Furthermore since many of them think that certain moral constraints are a necessary and desirable part of life, they also seek to impose those constraints on the rest of us. Until recently in the UK you could not shop on Sunday. Even today large shops can only open between 10am and 3pm. Imagine the fuss if atheists insisted that Churches should close on Fridays to allow people a break from the spiritual and take some exercise.... jeffryjon
Well it is a fight - if only in argumentation. Coming to the conclusion that God doesn't exist and taking the standpoint that those who conclude God does exist are wrong is just as likely to cause ill feelings as religious people imposing their viewpoint on the non-religious. I'm sure there will be atheists somewhere who'd support the closing down of all religious institutes, teachings and ability to influence others. As stated before, I'm not religious and do believe that religion can leave its followers misguided. For whatever reasons of my own, I do believe in God though those who've never asked me the question may be surprised to find that out. Moral constraints are a necessary part of holding a society together and without them a doomsday of sorts is likely to occur. More likely though, it would result in a new and possibly altered set of moral constraints being invoked before the doomsday occurs. If we open up the meaning of religion and rename it as maybe 'accepted way of living', (leaving the God part out of the equation), then in today's world it may still work, though in yesterday's world, it may have been necessary to create a mass-held belief that the all-seeing eyes are watching everything you do as a means of social control. Without this approach we'd possibly have a much harsher world than we do today. If the atheists are right, it could even be theorized that an atheist made up God as a means of achieving the society we have today. So in today's world, many believe there is no need for an omniscient being, but hold on a minute. Have we replaced the belief in an omniscient being with a real one? Have the cameras (witnesses) of the past been replaced by the cameras (witnesses) of the present. Video cameras, surveillance cameras, heat sensitive cameras, cellphone tracking cameras, bank-card chip tracking cameras and on we go. Do the people promoting these things believe in God or are they just behaving as gods? If as it's possible, these people are atheists, have they not created a situation where other forms of mass-brainwashing and blind acceptance replace the old ones? (and once again, rules that affect others are imposed upon the masses whether they like them or not). So there's today's world, but what about tomorrow's world? Let's work on the possibility that here could be a time when computers and all electronic equipment are rendered useless. This could be caused by a naturally occurring catastrophic event though many could say this is scaremongering so let's look at a more likely event. Mr somebody and his evil friends develop a weapon that knocks out all radio transmissions, computers, cellphones etc as a means of weakening a state over whom they wish to gain the upper hand. The populace of the victimized country, now have no means of mass communication and are left at the mercy of their attackers. Having endured a few decades of depending too much on these forms of interacting, they have lost their community spirit, come to live in a virtual world more than the real one and have little if any idea how to organize themselves into a combined force to repel their new-found enemies. Let's say, with time they succeed but Mr evil and his friends manage to maintain the electronics equipment blockage. There's no longer an all-seeing set of eyes monitoring what the populace say, write or do as they go about their daily business and there are those who take advantage of that situation by deciding once again that the strongest shall survive and prosper. The weak and weakened are once again ruled by gang-leaders as are those who are not yet strong enough to overrule them. Is this yet another repeat of history similar to what we've seen throughout history? Are the problems we've seen and blamed on religions simply the representation of immature individuals getting too much of their own way? Let's look at any school playground and see what we may find. Kid1 - give me your lunch money or else Kid2 - he's bigger than me and I fear kid1 beating me so I give in to his demands Kid3 - no let's go and tell teacher Kid2 - there's no point, as kid1 is the teacher's son and teacher thinks he's a little angel - kid 4 tried that last week kid3 - then I'd better give him my lunch money too kid1 - well this seems to work dandy - let's step up the ante. or kid1 - I'm right and therefore you are wrong kid2 - I disagree kid3 - I agree with kid1 (as it supports my goals at this moment in time) kid2 - I still disagree but will keep quiet (after all, I was punched last week for being too slow at offering up my lunch money) So here's an alleged spiritual inspiration in action - when 2 or more shall gather in the same mind(set) your success is guaranteed was it good (only for the successful) was it against God? (what God) was it something that has already been depicted in religious books? (seem to remember something about stealing away the spoils of your enemies) If left without sufficient challenge will the view of the perpetrators being right to do what they do increase - likely If left for long enough and the gang gets strong enough, will the 'good' become a 'God' (absolute good)? - quite possibly The point is that God (made up or otherwise) has a power that exceeds the individual. Eventually someone who takes the lead (Jesus, Gandhi, Hitler, local bully) - and who learns to recruit a number of weaker counterparts (followers, devotees, gang-members) creates a unity within that group and as long as the unity is held, it will grow. Eventually the leader enters the realms of myth and the belief system evolves (naturally) and gains its own life-force and has its own power (fuelled by its believers). If someone came up with the idea that keeping dogs and training them to be vicious is a must there would be those who followed the idea. Once enough people do, it's possible to have areas where having a vicious dog in every front garden is the norm (even God-given right). We may disagree with the belief, though to argue with it could have the opposite affect of what we desire. I would say, that the best way to remove something that doesn't work is to get those people onside - find things you can agree with (treat others as you would wish to be treated) and build on that point until you find other points in their doctrine that enhance your life (whoops, did I just create another religion). So gods of gold, gods of silver, gods of computer technology, gods of man's interpretation (in some cases religion) - will they rise and will they fall? Undoubtedly. A world with no God will result in a world with God (or a world that destroys itself). That God may or may not be created by man for his own benefit, though it does have power, influence the minds of many and an ability to protect itself enacted and fuelled by its believers - so the best thing (I would say) is to fuel an all-loving, all-caring, all-truthful, all-knowing God and stick with that and that only because it inevitably leads to a cycle of self and sociological improvement. Bikerman
Neither do I agree that it is necessary to bind people together with shared myth. We have seen for several centuries what results and it is not pretty. The society we have today has got better as personal freedoms have increased - that is simply undeniable. Go back into history and you have servants, then slaves, then serfs and feudal control, finally clans and extended family groups. People now have more personal freedoms and less moral constraint than any time in the past and our society is less violent and less unfair than at any time in the past. The notion that some moral bindings are needed to tie a society together is, I believe, profoundly misguided.
I repeat, we live in the least religious times ever and the most peaceful and 'safe' times ever. Very few people in the UK are religious. Do we see mob rule? Bullies and gangs taking over the streets? No more so than we did when everyone went to church on Sunday. In fact we see a reverse correlation. As religion has declined we have seen unprecedented improvements in fairness in society. Race and gender are no longer seen as basically disabilities. We don't think that violence is generally acceptible. We don't believe it is right for one person to control another. We certainly don't believe that women should stay in the kitchen and blacks should do what they are told. That is not because of religion, it is despite religion. .....
Religion was the first attempt of mankind to understand the world around him. It wasn't very successful and eventually we found a better tool - science. Religion is certainly pervasive and it will not die out quickly, much though I might wish otherwise, but the notion that it holds society together, acts as a moral binding agent, stops a terminal decline in society or anything else similar is disproved by the facts. It is a lie spread by priests and evangelists and it always has been. You can take any point in history you like - from the ancient greeks to the present day - and I guarantee that I can show a non-religious society which is at least as peaceful and ethical as any christian, muslim or other theocracy. Which countries in the world have the best human rights records? Scandanavia and Europe in general are close to the top - very secular. Which have the worst? Find one that is secular...I bet you can't. jeffryjon
So we make our own Gods - isn't that exactly what I put forward as a possibility? If we pull away from the God theme and look at ideas (according to atheism God being pretty much that - an idea), Isn't it also true that people come up with ideas - some prove to be very popular regardless of lack of supporting evidence - through time, some of those ideas are enacted and eventually people come to poke holes in them. If the idea is well-founded (even if not perfect) others will seek to defend it and inevitably will be forced to make improvements to the idea. Though it still holds true, with science, aircraft, cars, light bulbs etc that someone had to step out of the comfort zone and risk failure to get enough interest in the idea for the initial action to take place. So now we'll go along with the theory that God was invented by man or men in all the various formats. Flawed undoubtedly as a religion, though religion was generally made by those who followed and in honour of someone or something that was considered to have great worth by enough people for it to occur. So God was invented - a piece of fiction nonetheless - so was the motor vehicle, the light bulb along with scientific awareness. The science of anything invented by man (and talking of those subjects specifically) can only occur after someone fictionalizes a concept and tries to make it a reality. Does that made up God gain its own life? Yes Does the power etc of that made-up God get to exceed the power of any individual who believes in it? Probably, as that God becomes a composite of all who choose to believe. Is that God flawed? Maybe, though the original concepts often fall apart not because they are flawed but because those who follow don't always get a thorough understanding of the mechanisms. That could also be said of many technical instruments the majority use today. So people make God up, empower that creation and it has an effect - a real effect. Later others criticize it from a perspective that has been gained because it has run its course. The popularity of that God falls and those against it claim victory, though maybe its life cycle is complete. Or maybe not, after all did the character depicted as Jesus not state that it says in the writings that Ye are all gods. If so, then another person will realise this is true and create a newer, better improved God who will propel humanity forward to the next stage. Once again it will be seen as perfection until it has been played out long enough for people to see the flaws. Once again, those flaws can only be seen in hindsight after someone or someones take a chance and gets on with things - without the evidence of hindsight. We also have the propaganda of capitalism, communism, facism and other things, and the effect of them is real. So why not the propaganda of an all-encompassing being to which we can all aspire? In the beginning the Lord (which Lord? - who or what was he?) gave light to something or somethings and wey-hey they became a reality. Everything that Lord created was seen as good (by him/her) and so (s)he left them in place. It's a concept that doesn't necessarily conflict with theories of evolution. Did (s)he make all these things in 6 days - maybe - if we're talking about beliefs, give me anyone for 6 days and I could show you someone who believes anything I've programmed them to believe. Almost everything to do with humanity follows the same rules of belief. To convince someone for a minute is relatively easy. Only if that thing is true do I have the guts to tell that person to have a go and as a consequence have them put it to the test. Will they find flaws? - hell yes. Will it still be worth the learning experience - that remains to be proven. The same Lord, apparently said that the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil should not be taken (could this translate as - have a go and see what happens without wasting time thinking about whether something is good or evil - find out for yourself). That's the problem with theorists - they can never know for sure and as a parent or teacher, I would ask myself more about whether the experience will cause long-term damage to the student than concerning myself about whether they will make mistakes. It is because the students were innocents, naive, and would remain as such until they had a go and learned through experience to further their understanding that they had to find out the truth for themselves. Of course through time stories get mystified, mythical - we weren't there at the time and that is an inevitability - this happens in all walks of life - just look at history. We can look at most things in history, religious or otherwise and see the folly of the time, but would we have known it had they not had a go in the first place? Will God be reinvented even if He is destroyed, disassembled, dissolved - of course, even if a supreme atheist made him up, there will be another supreme atheist to raise him back to life and on the story goes and so folows the saying, "I used to be an atheist until I realised I am God". jeffryjon
may find this interesting (or maybe not)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E Bikerman
It is interesting in the dishonesty displayed.
He is trying to assert that secularism was not the intent of the founding fathers and is a new phenomenon for modern times. Completely and entirely dishonest. That same Jefferson he quotes was adamant that the state and religion should be kept distinct. He was absolutely clear about it
Neither was he a Christian in any real sense of the word. A Deist is probably the closest label that can be applied.
Folks like Barton like to bombard people with 'facts' about the past without once stopping to put them in context. The reason that there were churches is that not going to church was unthinkable for many. In these times people were still being harrassed, shunned and even killed if they didn't toe the line and profess belief in God. The founding fathers were actually going way out on a limb in devising the separation between church and state when Christianity was still hugely powerful - and Jefferson, Maddison, Washington, Franklin and Monroe were frequently and bitterly attacked by clerics for their Deist beliefs. Interesting that Barton says nothing of this.... jeffryjon
thought you'd like it - it's the latest bombardment I've received from several sources
Bikerman
It is part of a movement in the US by the Christian right. They don't like the fact that the state doesn't protect their Christian faith at the expense of others, and they wish to see Christianity adopted as a state faith. It is exactly what the constitution was written to avoid happening - and they know it if they have any self-honesty.
I couldn't really care less - if Americans want to live in a theocracy then that is their business. Many of them already do, from what I can see. I have a friend who lives in the bible belt and her life has been made miserable by the religious bigots in her community. Forunately for her she will soon have the resources to move and she is counting the days. As I have said many times, I don't mind what, if any, God people wish to worship. I don't mind if they dress in silly clothes and beat themselves with whips - or whatever else makes them happy. They can starve themselves and do whatever the hell they like - that is their right, and I will defend that right. I DO mind when their nonsense limits my freedoms to do what I want, and I do mind when their children are denied a proper education because of it. jeffryjon
I have a question in point.
Since religion has had such a large impact on mankind over the centuries and as Bikerman states, creates some infringements on the rights of those who don't believe such things today, is it right for children to study the texts of religions alongside the texts of science so they are adequately equipped to compare them and arrive at and independent decision about what, if any of the several schools of thought is right and wrong? Furthering the question, is it right to hold studies of such things as part of the school curriculum? Bikerman
No it isn't. Schools are state organisations, apart from religious schools which are not part of the state. The state is secular not religious - in both the US and the UK, and in most developed countries. The state does not hold any religion and therefore why should state schools teach any particular religion? It IS right for children to study COMPARATIVE religion - but not in science. Studying religion as an alternative to science is a STUPID suggestion put forth by creationists opposed to science. Religion IS NOT SCIENCE and it offers no valid alternatives to established science. If parents wish to indoctrinate their children then, unhappily, they are free to do so. Schools are not the place for such things. deanhills
Bikerman
*sighs*
For the umpteenth time, atheism is not a beliief. How can you teach a lack of belief in Gods? deanhills
Bikerman
I do not disagree - in fact I am certain that I have said the same thing several times in these forums. Certainly comparative religion should be taught in schools, in my opinion.
Atheism isn't a 'thing'. It is a lack of a certain belief. You may as well say that lack of belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn should be taught. Certainly if comparative religion is being taught then a history of atheist thinkers should also be taught. That was not the question, however. The question was whether religion should be taught as an alternative to science so that children could make up their own mind. That is a no-brainer. Of course it shouldn't because it isn't an alternative to science. jeffryjon
Just to verify, I said alongside science - not as an alternative - in my experience science is extremely important.
liljp617
Not to butt in... I think the point would be that religion and science shouldn't be taught "alongside" one another or "compared" to one another. You may not have meant it in such a way, but using those words in the context you did gives the impression the two subjects are valid substitutes or alternatives to each other. And that's not really the case. By all means, I don't think it would hurt for children be educated in both subjects. Just not in the fashion of: "science is over here, religion is over there...we'll teach you about both and then you can make a decision on which you think is more acceptable." That just doesn't seem like an intelligent way to go about things. Again, you probably didn't mean it in this way when you typed up your post, but it's fair to see how a person reading it would assume that's what you meant  jeffryjon
'Butt in' may be the wrong way to describe what you're doing. As far as I'm aware, these forums are intended for input by any member who'd like to contribute (within the rules of course) and I thank you for your commentary. So to respond. 1st, apologies for any misunderstanding created by my post. However, comparison would be part of what I was asking in the context of when science says one thing about a particular subject matter and religion(s) say otherwise. The question was meant to ask whether students should study both, along with considering which (if any) makes more sense and why the students have arrived at that conclusion. Much like the threads in this forum, that would allow the students to introduce additional factors which may not have been taken into account by the students, so they can develop a more thorough understanding of the subjects where opposing/differing viewpoints have arisen. This would include comparison of the historical scientific knowledge at the relevant time compared with historical religious viewpoints held at that same time in the same parts of the world. After all, lack of sufficient exposure to a subject in a wide enough range of environments could cause people to jump to a conclusion as if it were an absolute truth when in fact it was not. As Bikerman stated (or as I understand him to have stated). Religion way back then (whenever it may have emerged) came up with theories about life etc and science superseded religion in its understanding of many (possibly all) of these subjects. In my experience (limited I know), most people spend too little time thinking and of those who spend enough time thinking (or possibly too much), most of them spend too little time observing and experimenting with those observations to see the laws of cause and effect in action. There are many man-made catastrophes in almost every walk of life to verify this, though they're by no means confined to religion. However, with regard to religion, God (as a possible separate subject) and science, the fact 'as I see it' is that most (possibly almost all) problems can be resolved, and if enough observation in enough environments is applied to any subject matter, we can 'iron out the creases' so to speak and do so before things go too far off the track we intended them to take. In my experience of compulsory schooling, (somewhat outdated as I left compulsory schooling almost 30 years ago), the emphasis was on passing exams rather than developing an ongoing capability of becoming a 'scientist of life', which would in my mind include questioning, analysing and if necessary restructuring/remodelling current beliefs, rather than believing what we're told blindly. Due to the impact religion, politics and in more recent times science has had on our experience of life, I am asking whether schooling should include comparative studies from as many different angles as practical, so a student can come to his/her own well-founded conclusion. This may allow us to develop a society where 'con-clued' would be seen more as a best educated guess, rather than a situation where people are reluctant to open their ears to new evidence as it occurs. Bikerman
But you cannot have science teachers dealing with religion. We know what happens. As soon as the biology teacher starts on evolution, the kids of creationists start with the questions. The questions are normally taken from the Answers in Genesis website and are designed to cast doubt on evolution. Any decent biology teacher can, of course, demolish them very quickly, but that takes time out of the curriculum on a distraction. How do I know this? I've seen it lots of times. I've had a biology teacher in tears of frustration because the head teacher refused to support her line that religious questions did not belong in science lessons. She was spending up to half of each lesson debunking numpty creationist crap. Everytime you debunk one lie they find another one. There is no honesty in this - creationists are, by and large, dishonest. They repeat the same discredited stuff over and again. 'There are no transition fossils' they say. So you list 20 or 30 transitional fossils and they move on to the next topic. The next day...'there are no transitional fossils'...and so it goes on. The only place and context for teaching religion is in comparative religious education where the teacher can look at a variety of world religions, the history, the creation myths and the main teachings. To even put it in the same sentence as science is simply wrong. deanhills
Bikerman
I cannot read that to mean anything other than you wish religion to be taught as a rival to scientific theory in order that the students can decide which to follow. That is exactly the same as saying religion should be taught as an alternative to science. Teaching an alternative to science doesn't mean you don't teach science - it means that you teach science, and then you teach another possible explanation for the world. That is wrong, and is EXACTLY what creationists want. They call it 'teach the controversy' and it is a clear and unambiguous attempt to put their crackpot nonsense on the same level of credibility as genuine science. It is totally dishonest and the US juduciary agree absolutely with me in that. Read the Dover Trial - particularly the Judge's summary at the end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District Here's what the Judge thought about the proposal to teach religion alongside science..
He goes on to describe the proponents of 'teach the controversy' as liars. Now, I am NOT saying that you are proposing this - I am saying that the way you have worded it makes it difficult to see what else you could be proposing... In summary, it would be a HUGE mistake to teach religion as an alternative explanation for the world we see around us, because that would allow it to steal some of the rightful credibility that science has earned by being right time after time. To suggest that religion supplies any credible alternative explanation for ANYTHING is wrong - it doesn't. Religion should be taught as we teach history and english literature/art. The history part is obvious - comparing, names dates and events etc. The English Literature/art part would be a critical aesthetic appreciation of the different creation myths and scriptural sources for the different religion - rather like comparing poems or paintings. You wouldn't be teaching that this is actually possibly true, you would be teaching the origins, meanings and symbolism inherent in the myths. jeffryjon
Okay, I can't help what someone else reads into my statements.
There are many faults with religion and the traditions that follow those religions, though it's not true that they were totally wrong in all cases. These things need modifying, updating and sometimes totally rewriting as human understanding increases. It's equally true that some scientific theories still widely believed today have been proven as incorrect. Advanced and wise people are often God-ified (for want of a better word). This happens often among followers and more-so among the followers of followers. I do believe that some of what some of the now religious icons were alleged to have said still holds true. Other things can be very questionable in today's world. I'm not suggesting that religion is or ever could be a challenge to science - and yes it's true that religions often hang onto outdated and disproven ideas longer than science and in most part because they believe it's the word of God, whereas with science we feel much freer to challenge the word of another man. My line of thinking was more along the lines of scientists drew this conclusion, based on these observations at this time in history in this culture - religion as presented to us regarding the same subject had its conclusion drawn at a certain point in history and is sometimes from specific observations offered in a particular religious text. My point is that communications, although widespread amongst certain circles, were generally much more localised in the past. When observations and statements are put into context with the day and location of the time, they possibly held more value than they do today. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west is a phrase many understand today even though we know it's only true from the eye of the viewer - we would still have concerns however if we looked to the east when the sun would normally rise and it appeared to rise from another direction. References to the dust of the earth and the salt of the earth, along with the water of life could if held in context with the understanding of the day still hold an equal value - even in today's science. Religion is categorically not ALL baloney, though it would be true to say that much of it is. ocalhoun
To be fair, most schools already do. A: They are always (in the name of tolerance) saying, "all faiths are equally true" B: Those faiths have contradicting claims. C: This leaves two possibilities: 1) Some are correct, others are wrong. 2) All are false, and therefore have an equal truth value. D: Option 1 can't be correct, since they must all be equally true (A), therefore: E: All are equally true (not true at all, but equally so). A bit convoluted, but logically inescapable as long as A and B are true. medesignz
Has this really got to be about religion rather than philosophy... I said my pen is blue, and no one doubted me...
ocalhoun
Re-posted since it looks like you missed it the first time. The only thing I can be absolutely sure of is that I (some type of sentient being) exist (in some fashion), and I am capable of thought. There is a small, but persistent chance that all other observations are only illusory. (Various scenarios provide for this... I could be crazy, and be making up everything I experience and remember... I could be plugged into a simulator Matrix-style ... I could be a spiritual being experiencing an illusion that I'll one day wake up from ... I could be an AI software program undergoing testing ... et cetera. In most of those scenarios, there might be no way for me to prove (or disprove) that I'm living in an illusion while still inside it.) *edit* Good to get the discussion back on-track though... It's true that this doesn't need to involve religion; that's just an unnecessary complication. jeffryjon
True, though there are other questions about illusion that could be pursued. 1) Is it possible for an illusion to be real as something more than the original illusion? If that illusion was sufficient enough to cause action/inaction by the recipient(s), we could argue that the answer is yes, though the debate would go on for a considerable time. 2) Is it possible for an illusion to affect reality? Definite yes, as the mind and senses can be fooled and if it was believed that the illusion was a reality (beyond being the reality of an illusion), we may choose to react or respond to it and the form of the present time through to the future could be changed from what it would otherwise have been. 3) Is it possible for an illusion to BECOME a reality? Yes. If the answer to an illusion being able to affect reality is 'yes', then an illusion becoming a reality would also have to be a possibility, though the illusion would have to be far more convincing. As such, it is possible that much or all of what man has created as a reality could have originated as illusion and this would then pose the following question. If it's a realistic possibility (however small) that all things invented by man (which includes social structure, material things etc) originated as illusion, then how did that illusion originate? ocalhoun
Well, yes, the illusion must exist... in some fashion. That makes it only a (possibly very small) part of reality, not reality itself though. When you read a novel, the novel is part of reality, and even the story in it is part of reality... The story does not become reality though. I suppose I would define reality as a universe that is NOT being simulated in any way within any larger framework. The widest, most fundamental viewpoint. Indi
You could argue it, i suppose, but it would be a pretty lame argument. It is certainly possible for an illusion to SEEM as real as reality (or at least, something more real than the illusion)... but that doesn't mean it will BE as real. You may not be able to tell the difference, but that means nothing: it's still not as real. Just because you can't tell the difference blindfolded between a recording of an orchestra and a real orchestra, clearly they're not identical, because even though you don't know it, in one case you're surrounded by an orchestra, in the other you just have some speakers around you. Your ignorance of the difference does not make it go away.
Of course it is not possible. The fact that an illusion can affect reality doesn't mean it's possible for one to become reality anymore than the fact that you can affect the path of a care makes it possible for you to run on gasoline. When two things look alike, or affect one another, that doesn't make them the same thing. That should be obvious, i would think. jeffryjon
I didn't question whether it would become the same thing, only that it can become a reality. To be more specific, can an illusion evolve into a reality? Bikerman
It is possible for people to start with an imagining and construct it, but that is hardly the same as an imaginary entity becoming real.
jeffryjon
As such, it could be that the illusion played a crucial part in the process of the reality evolving. If that later proved to be the case, as almost without exception proof is obtained after an event, rather than before it (certainly in the case of a brand new reality), then it would follow that the illusion became a reality. Bikerman
But the initial illusion never becomes real. What you get is a constructed reality which mimics it in some way(s).
jeffryjon
So what I read into this, is you're suggesting that even if a constructed reality mimics an illusion perfectly in detail, the initial illusion was not part of the evolutionary process of the reality which stemmed from the illusion, which did in fact play a crucial role in the reality becoming a reality. i.e. according to how I've read (or misread) your statement, the reality did not be-come from the illusion, nor did the illusion become a reality. Otherwise put, the illusion did not evolve into a reality which perfectly matches the initial illusory depiction. Bikerman
The illusion exists in place X,Y,Z at time t (X,Y,Z can be your mind or whatever).
That entity is non-real. It can never become real because it always pre-dated any reality. You may build something real based on that illusion, but the illusion will always pre-date the construction and therefore the illusion must have a separate existence from the construction. Now, you might say, what about a lump of clay that becomes a sculpture. It had a separate existence and now it has become the sculpture. But it had a real existence which was modified. You cannot modify illusion to make something real, you only make a modified illusion. jeffryjon
Or as one alternative, the illusion, once conceived, takes life in the host mind and is the life force of it becoming a reality. The illusion could possibly be self creating itself. Let's look at the example given in more detail. Reality begins in this case as clay in the ground having no further form than clay in the ground. (reality 1) An additional factor is somehow introduced that the clay, a smaller lump in a bed of mass lump, is to become a sculpted, let's say statue of a man. The illusion then takes hold in the mind of a person and drives that person to find the clay and extract it from the ground. The clay now as a lump of more manageable lump exists separate from its original state (reality 2) The illusion continues to drive the person to begin modelling the lump into the shape of a man until a generalistic representation of a man begins to appear. (reality 3) The illusion continues in the hosts mind until all the finer details have been sculpted and a recognisable figure is created. (reality 4) The illusion continues further to drive the host until the sculpture is hard-baked and the clay is now seen primarily as the sculpture, rather than the material it is made up of - in this case clay (reality 5). As it normally occurs, becoming something takes time to evolve and there is usually a link between the various stages of reality leading up to the present reality. That link, could be the illusion. If so, the illusion could also be the life force that strings the various preceding realities to the existing one. Further to this, it would be the reality that reflected the illusion, rather than the other way around, in which case the illusion is REAL and the material sculpture is just an elusive image appearing as if it is real. In a sense, that would turn the whole concept of reality on it's head. Whether a child growing into being a qualified surgeon, or a website forum developing new concepts such as spendable coins, the origin is just an idea - an illusion - and without the original idea, (in the case of those things invented by man for sure), the reality is unlikely to ever exist. As such, the illusion becomes real over time. Without allowing for the passage of time as part of the process, the world we live in at this very moment must have the ability to instantaneously manifest regardless of whether it simulates the preceding moment or not. Some would call that miraculous. Bikerman
An illusion is a misinterpretation of a true sensory picture. In what way is our man under an illusion?
For the sake of progressing this I'll provide one. The man has previously observed a branch on the ground which, by coincidence, happened, in that light and that configuration, to look just like his brother. That is an illusion. He mistakes what his senses are telling him and consequently misperceives or misidentifies one thing as another. He then thinks to himself - that clay stuff is squidgy and can be moulded, so perhaps I can make a clay brother like this tree brother.
The man may well make real objects that look like it, mimick it, perform the same function or whatever. The illusion has inspired a work of creativity, in that case. The question is...so what? It was widely thought in the 60s that LSD could inspire creativity in a similar way - by messing up the perception of sensory inputs to provide illusions (or 'trips'). In fact it proved not to be the case, but even if it was, the illusion itself is just one element. You need a lot more. The man has to recognise the illusion and want to recreate it, or be inspired by it. He has to have some idea how to do that. He has to have the practical abilities to do it, the available tools, materials and time, and the desire. The real man created the real product of his labours. At no point does the illusion become anything other than a trigger to the thoughts/imaginations of the man which cause him to re-arrange his thoughts in a completely new way and, therefore, create something new.
Finally.....
Nope, I've read it several times and can make nothing of it. The world IS manifest - it is what we perceive. How can anything simulate something without perceiving what it is simulating? I've no real idea what this is trying to say... EDIT actually, kill that last thought. Intelligence/perception is not needed to produce a copy or simulation. Evolution does it all the time.* I still don't see where you are going with it though....  jeffryjon
Okay, maybe it's a misunderstanding due to the two of us having a different interpretation of the word illusion. You've defined yours well enough for me to see where you're coming from. Mine is based on what I learned from the word's origin meaning to mock or mimic something else. Yes it's true that it can give a false/misleading impression, though it can also be a very accurate one. Certainly when I was at school, we were shown that the images from the eyes to the brain are upside-down and the brain learns this in most cases and inverts the images again to more closely represent what light they are receiving - what the brain actually perceives is an inverted set of imagery of which it then makes a mock-up or mimicking of the real light-sensory data that was available. It relies on an illusion based on the belief that an inversion of an inversion is an accurate representation of the original data. This is one of the reasons that we say the eyes can be fooled (even though it's not really the eyes that are fooled).
We deal in imagery at every moment and sometimes the imagery accurately matches the reality of the moment, sometimes not. Equally, we're sometimes dealing with the imagery of a moment passed (accurately or otherwise) and the imagery of a moment to come (accurately or otherwise). Nonetheless, it's all imagery, mimickery, illsusion which may or may not be accurate. Illusion doesn't have to be misleading, it only mocks, mimics. It's true to say that a man can be inspired by the shape of a branch to make a model made of clay that closely resembles his brother. It's also true that many people only understand illusion to mean a misleading or misrepresenting image, though the words origin also allowed for it to be used with reference to the word entertain, which could be factual depiction of something yet to be a reality, an idea etc. Based on this interpretation of the word, what I'm proposing is that the illusion, idea, mock-up, mimic, plan may be an integral part of the process of development. I'm also proposing the possibility that if an illusion exists before the real product (as it sometimes does), then the product is the image of the illusion, not the other way around. As such, the illusion is real. It can and often does play a real part in the evolutionary process and as such much be given credence as a real thing. Love the picture by the way. Bikerman
and so on... Yes, the original etymology comes from the Latin illusionem - to mock, but the word changed meaning sometime in the 14th century and since then it has always meant a deception of perception.
Do dogs have a mental image of things? Who knows. I'm pretty sure that dogs don't fall for most of the illusions that humans do. Their brains don't work like that. If they see a bone they see a bone. If we see a bone we immediately fill in a back-story and the bone can become almost anything. The whole thread went badly out of train a few postings back but I thought I'd see where you went with it. The answer is nowhere - a semantic redefinition and an attempt to over-generalise...I presume you hope to apply this chain of 'logic' to actual evolution? Forget it... jeffryjon
OK words changing their meanings equals a potentially valid criticism, though then the same approach must be accepted for all words - would that not be true? I don't believe that the word changed its meaning, just that the general populace accepted the general usage of it in a more limited way. Most likely, I would think due to lack of education. That is true of many words today, though could potentially lead to dangerous misinterpretations of almost anything.
What if one group of people (let's say a tribe) chose to accept a narrow and limited definition of a word (for whatever reason) and another group or tribe chose to stick with the original meaning? Let's even say that both groups refer to their language as being English. Let's now say that the first tribe,. accepting something which is partially wrong came to be the larger group by far and the second group (in this example) retained the full and true meaning of the words. Would the first group be right in asserting the second group was wrong simply because they were in the majority? That seems to me like saying that if a misunderstanding is allowed to continue long enough, it becomes the truth. Most people, even today, learn by mimicking their peers and simultaneously tend to mix with their own peer groups. This has led to many asserting something as true and later asserting the same thing is not true - neither assertions were made based on research or holistic education. Moreso, if grammar and casting spell originated as occult practices (presumably to gain some power over the uninitiated), wouldn't it also make sense to have the uninitiated understand words in a way that suited those who would manipulate them? A typical example of this would be the word 'propaganda' which strongly infers deception, but originated from propagate (to grow, develop), which may be, though is not necessarily a deception. I sense I may be challenged here on the grounds that if a sufficient number of people choose to use a word in such and such a way, I should automatically follow. I'm sure an atheist couldn't agree with that. Now for the thread going off track. At which point? Certainly much more than a few postings back as almost every thread on this forum does. (Just an observation - no judgement). I suggest (and only suggest), that if we choose to keep threads on track, which can be somewhat difficult in long threads and due to other factors which may drive forum members to post something rather than nothing. we may be assisted in doing so if the subject box of any reply or quote was auto-filled with the title or initial writings of the original post. Bikerman
That is one for the suggestions board - it would have to be done globally so Steve would be the chappy....by all means suggest it.
As far as the rest - the change of meaning isn't actually that important to this argument - I just generally don't engage in topics where it is going on because it goes nowhere. The basic thesis - that imaginary or non-material entities become real - is true in a limited sense for a particular species - us. Only in a limited sense - in that the entity that is the thought or plan or idea, does not 'become' the thing that is made. It drives the production of it, but it doesn't and cannot become it. It is almost an interesting debate in that it is close to the Platonic 'caves' analogy, but that is subtely different. In that world then ONLY the ideas exist. Everything material is simply a pale immitation - a shadow cast on the wall. The world of 'forms' (that is Platos word for what you were groping for) is the highest reality. The material world is just a distorted changing reflection of that higher reality. A lot to answer for, that has. The 1500 years of stagnation, superstition, double-think and retreat from philosophy and science can be laid firmly, if not entirely, at the door of Plato and his blasted cave. jeffryjon
Brilliant - nearly fell off my chair in laughter - thanks Chris.
So Plato - in a sense - lived for 1500 years - wonder who was guilty of shouting "Long live Plato!!!" Of course, a thread can go off track anyway (presuming the original intent was for it to be linear). though I'm quite happy to forward the suggestion. Just to save me the time and trouble of searching, where do I find Mr Steve Chappy? Bikerman
Just put a quick summary in the forum below - steve will read it.
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vf-9.html medesignz
Can I just say, there was no pen!
The pen only existed in this conversation and therefore didnt exist at all! BUT, it did exist, until you knew it didnt... MIND FREAK! !edit! You either all imagined the same pen, or had an image of a unique pen!  Bikerman
I'm not quite sure what pen this is, and I can't be bothered to trawl back just now, so I'll wish you a long and happy relationship with your imaginary pen. Keep the faith and who knows...one day you might be able to write with it and compose a memorial for all those other things once imagined anod now gone....
Extreme semanticism is not necessary. The fact that you don't believe the word changed it's meaning is neither here nor there since the fact that renders it so is ther fact that it has changed its meaning. You can use a dictionary. You read books. Find anyone using the word 'illusion' to mean what you say....I'll be fascinated to see any.... The reason that scientific papers are written in language which most people find too difficult to deal with is precisely to avoid the sort of mis-communication you mention. That is where maths comes in. Words can only ever be crude analogues - a consentual hazy notion of the thing referenced which means different things to different people but is a sufficiently distinctive thing to justify a word. Mathematics avoids nearly all such ambiguity and vagueness. jeffryjon
Ah - Mathematics - a wonderful way of expression - avoids misinterpretation - at least as long as everyone accurately understands what all the symbols represent - your point is valid - as are most points you make - except in that, as far as the forum threads I've read on this site, I haven't seen anyone go to adequate lengths to adequately define what each and every word they're using means in such a way that it cannot be interpreted in more than one way. Yes, sentence structure helps to a point, though we do find different readers interpreting the same statement in different ways. As such, we all fall victim to the same problem.
Maybe we can only overcome the problem by introducing a dictionary of Nomenclature to the forum, (though we'd all have to commit to this and I'm sure there would be extensive debate even on this subject). If there's an easier way guaranteed to overcome this issue, please let me know. Indi
Well then, you haven't been around that long. i'm a big fan of clarifying definitions, and have - in the past - given clear definitions of dozens of problem words (faith, religion, god, atheism, etc.). Just recently i gave clear definitions for envy, jealousy and covetousness.
You'd think it would be that easy, but it's not. Take the word "atheism" for example. It has been defined repeatedly. The definition has been justified linguistically, semantically, historically, logically, mathematically (set theory) and by virtue of common usage. Yet i guarantee you that within the next couple of weeks, someone else will misuse it. And, i can also guarantee you that it will probably be the same damn people who have been told over and over and over and over. Clarification is a noble goal, but it's an uphill battle when you're dealing with people who want to be obtuse, because the only way they can make their beliefs seems reasonable is when the definitions are so vague that they can mean whatever they need them to. jeffryjon
Yes noble. The best solution is not necessarily easy. I put forward an idea based on 'maybe'. It's likely, even with firm and accurate definitions that there will still be people who misunderstand/misinterpret a word, especially when that same word can be used in different ways. My idea based on 'maybe' was to offer an alternative approach , which appears (to me) to offer us an opportunity to refer to something on which we can agree when using words. No more or less. Related topics
|
