Respect for Religion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-12-2012, 10:20 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
(20-12-2012 09:34 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Pissing contests of who is less wrong become comical, and would be comical, if not for the very real harm it causes.

Matt

Y'know what?

I would love to see a debate between apologists from different faiths called "Who Is Less Wrong". That would, indeed, be comical.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
20-12-2012, 10:28 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
(20-12-2012 09:34 PM)Ghost Wrote:  As for more wrong, say the question is 2+2= and the answers are: Q, a ham sandwich, Bob, I need to pee and 300 000 000. Is there somehow value in being less wrong?
Yes, there is value in being less wrong. If you got polio, you'd be screwed for life. Because the likelihood of discovering the polio vaccine would be so small, you'd probably never see it in your lifetime. You'd be told to take in account Q, a ham sandwich, Bob, I need to pee and 300 000 000 and many many other answers to the question of 'how do I fix this polio'.

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
20-12-2012, 10:31 PM (This post was last modified: 20-12-2012 10:38 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Respect for Religion
(20-12-2012 08:54 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:It's not necessary to have it be apart of the culture at all.

No. It isn't. Nobody ever said it was.

No trait is necessary. That's the genius of evolution. The traits that stick around are merely adaptive. Some become maladaptive and are simply circling the proverbial bowl on the way down.

But as I said before, life isn't about finding the one true way; the one trait that will work for everyone, in every situation, for all time, because that notion is a white whale. Anyone who has ever thought that they can find it, or worse, that they've captured it, has hurt others.

I mentioned it before but it bears repeating. The eugenicists felt that some traits didn't have to be in the species at all. Like retardation, or blackness, or non-Aryanness. We all know the result of their efforts. Suffering.

Does this mean hands off? Of course not. Competition is an integral part of evolution. Sometimes the lion gets the kill, sometimes the hyena, sometimes the leopard. But the leopards never line all of the lions up and execute them. That sort of behaviour, the exact type that most of the humans on this planet (the Annihilators) have been engaged in for 5 000 years, threatens everything. The emptied oceans, the strip mined hills, the toxic waste dumps, the freed carbon, the warming planet; all the consequence of an imbalance; where one species dominates and subjugates the rest. That is to be resisted if our species is to survive. Similarly, we cannot allow one culture to dominate, subjugate, assimilate or terminate any other culture. We need the balance of limited competition. Or we're just as doomed.

Laughat Again you are confusing me for some kind of advocate for imperalism. Then equate war with subjugation, which isn't always the case, and unethical economic practices with the end of humanity. Sorry that doesn't prove anything.

I never even mentioned one culture eradicating another as well. What I will say is that I'm fine with any culture, just as long as their actions are not contrary to the happiness, or the health of others.

Lets say they have some religious tradition, or cultural tradition that is contrary to the happiness or health of others then you just have to adapt the custom to not be that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
(20-12-2012 08:54 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:Socially constructed realities exist but do not make those people
correct. For it's nature that we measure our thoughts against not the
society. Facts are not voted into existence. [Image: smartass.gif]

You forget what George EP Box said. All models are wrong. Some are useful.

No one is correct. We cannot be. Because the only way we can interact with the world is through abstraction. This is Plato's great genius. All of our interactions with the world are mediated and we cannot interact with the world but through some system of mediation.

But some models are useful. Western medicine for example. Or rocket science. Or electronics. Or existentialism. Or meditation. Even conversing with the ancestors in the trees. We fall victim to ideological illusion when we mistake these fingers for the moon. Because they are not. You don't look at "H2O" and say, "See, that right there, that's water right there on the screen." Because it is not. It tells us a lot about water but it is not water itself. So it is with every single thought in your head.

We do not measure our thoughts against nature. Our thoughts themselves are merely our version of reality. This is not some metaphysical metaphor, it is biological fact.

Facts are very much voted into existence. This doesn't mean that there is zero link between what we consider to be true and that which exists objectively (assuming that it exists at all). It means that it is a relationship, a tenuous, mutable and at times arbitrary one. No one has it right. Right is the great lie. People simply manage to create some kind of meaning out of the whole thing.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
You could also say all models vary with a degree of accuracy. I'm sure Box was being playful, but right and wrong are words that tend to describe things in black and white. Just because a model isn't 100% right doesn't mean that it's wrong. It's simply wrong correct with a degree of accuracy.

Nope, abstractions are not needed at all to interact with the world. Many other animals including the entire microbiological world interact with the world with out even needing a brain. Sorry but your requirements do not apply. If I was a still birth I would've still interacted with the world.

I don't think I am mistaking the finger for the moon so to speak, I think you are mistaking any thought for reality.

Right and wrong are both great lies. Derp, if science has taught us anything it's that being correct or incorrect depends on varying degrees of error and correctness.

Yes we do measure our thoughts against nature. It's called science, and whatever that tells us about the world is what we'll have to concede, or provide evidence to the contrary to disprove it.

Cool Science is what seperates facts from fictions.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-12-2012, 10:36 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
(20-12-2012 10:31 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  You could also say all models vary with a degree of accuracy. I'm sure Box was being playful, but right and wrong are words that tend to describe things in black and white. Just because a model isn't 100% right mean that it's wrong. It's simply mostly correct with a degree of error.
Boxes? Models? Are you watching porn again??

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cheapthrillseaker's post
20-12-2012, 10:49 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
(20-12-2012 10:36 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  
(20-12-2012 10:31 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  You could also say all models vary with a degree of accuracy. I'm sure Box was being playful, but right and wrong are words that tend to describe things in black and white. Just because a model isn't 100% right mean that it's wrong. It's simply mostly correct with a degree of error.
Boxes? Models? Are you watching porn again??

That might be a good idea.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
20-12-2012, 11:22 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
(20-12-2012 10:28 PM)cheapthrillseaker Wrote:  
(20-12-2012 09:34 PM)Ghost Wrote:  As for more wrong, say the question is 2+2= and the answers are: Q, a ham sandwich, Bob, I need to pee and 300 000 000. Is there somehow value in being less wrong?
Yes, there is value in being less wrong. If you got polio, you'd be screwed for life. Because the likelihood of discovering the polio vaccine would be so small, you'd probably never see it in your lifetime. You'd be told to take in account Q, a ham sandwich, Bob, I need to pee and 300 000 000 and many many other answers to the question of 'how do I fix this polio'.
I agree. In fact, our accumulation of knowledge is always a journey towards being "less wrong" rather than towards being right.




My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
20-12-2012, 11:35 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
Ok Ghost, let's try it this way...

1. What does it mean to respect religion?

2. What is respecting religion versus respecting the religious?

3. You said that things are not all good or all bad, and I agree with you, but the real question is, what about religion is redeemable? What does it offer? What does religion itself, not the religious, but religion itself contribute to either reducing suck or increasing awesome?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ScienceGeek2587's post
20-12-2012, 11:46 PM
RE: Respect for Religion
Hey, fst.

The frustrating part for me is that I say culturally constructed reality is the case because of neuroscience, because of biology, because of communications theory, because of modeling, because of semiotics, because of philosophers like Plato and offer sources and excerpts for all of them. You say it's not the case b'kuz.

I wasn't accusing you of imperialism. My argument was simple. Cultures are cultures. Domination of one culture over one or more others is a political concern.

Now, to be fair, I don't want to pass the buck entirely to politics, because there are certain memes that have been adopted by Our culture, that promote the domination of other cultures. I would not be sad if those memes were disarticulated and replaced by something that is not ultimately maladaptive. But if a culture possesses those memes, but other cultures neutralise their functional ability to dominate, then the threat is managed.

Important question. How does one measure health and happiness?

Quote:I'm sure Box was being playful...

Oh really? Well, if you think he wasn't making a profound observation about how humans interact with the world around us, he was just being playful, well I guess that just makes the whole thing disappear.

Quote:Nope, abstractions are not needed at all to interact with the world.
Many other animals including the entire microbiological world interact
with the world with out even needing a brain. Sorry but your
requirements do not apply. If I was a still birth I would've still
interacted with the world.

Oh. I must have fallen asleep and missed the part where every other organism on earth suddenly became capable of human cognition and full syntactical language. If only I had directly addressed this point earlier... wait a minute.

Quote:When we speak of "symbolic processes" in the brain or in the mind, we
are referring to our ability to abstract elements of our experience and
to represent them with discrete mental symbols. Other species certainly
possess consciousness in some sense, but as far as we know, they live in
the world simply as it presents itself to them. Presumably, for them
the environment seems very much like a continuum, rather than a place,
like ours, that is divided into the huge number of separate elements to
which we humans give individual names. By separating out its elements in
this way, human beings are able constantly to re-create the world, and
individual aspects of it, in their minds. And what makes this possible
is the ability to form and to manipulate mental symbols that correspond
to elements we perceive in the world within and beyond ourselves.
Members of other species often display high levels of intuitive
reasoning, reacting to stimuli from the environment in quite complex
ways, by only human beings are able arbitrarily to combine and recombine
mental symbols and to ask themselves questions such as "What if?"...



If there is one single aspect of human mental function that is more
closely tied up with symbolic processes than any other, it is surely our
use of language. Language is, indeed, the ultimate symbolic mental
function, and it is virtually impossible to conceive of thought as we
know it in its absence. For words, it is fair to say, function as the
units of human thought, at least as we are aware of it. They are
certainly the medium by which we explain our thoughts to one another
and, as incomparably social creatures, seek to influence what is going
on in one another’s brains.

-Ian Tattersall, from an article published in Scientific American

Quote:Science is what seperates facts from fictions.

Unless, it would seem, that science clearly proves something you find inconvenient. Then, apparently, it can be summarily ignored.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 12:02 AM
RE: Respect for Religion
Hey, Science.

Fair enough.

1 - Well. One gives them respect. You give your mother respect (I would hope). Like that.

2 - One can loathe football and all that it stands for, they can be sickened by the violence, but if they consider football players and football fans complete idiots, then they aren't respecting them. I don't have to like another culture, I don't have to agree with it. Chances are I won't. Because the defining characteristic between their culture and mine is that we see things differently. Sometimes though, I hear about another culture's worldview and I find myself in awe of their radically different ideas. But I would never suggest that we eliminate all sports and play only hacky sack. The diversity is important. For example, baseball is boring as fuck. I'd rather have a doctor perform nut surgery on me by way of my anus. But some people love it (baseball, not the....). More power to em. I might rib em. I might tell them why I think hockey is better (and it is... when they play it... fuck...). But I respect their right to be different and think differently and to see the world differently.

3 - The reason I said what you seem to agree with is because the notion that religion offers nothing is puerile nonsense. I have a friend, a devout Evangelical. Everyone I know thinks that he's cracked out and they would never live that way. But in the same breath, they recognise that he is one of the kindest, funniest, most generous people they have ever known and that his faith, his complete and utter devotion to Christ and the Holy Bible, is an integral part of who he is. Religious organisations have their problems, hands down, already said that. I also said that I don't know how much, or if any of the wisdom bound up in those religions can be extricated from the organisation. But the outright denial of any value is just silly.


Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-12-2012, 12:51 AM (This post was last modified: 21-12-2012 01:54 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Respect for Religion
(20-12-2012 11:46 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, fst.

The frustrating part for me is that I say culturally constructed reality is the case because of neuroscience, because of biology, because of communications theory, because of modeling, because of semiotics, because of philosophers like Plato and offer sources and excerpts for all of them. You say it's not the case b'kuz.

You say it is because of science and then offer only quotes that support your position but no scientific papers. In fact I've failed to see even one link from you.

(20-12-2012 11:46 PM)Ghost Wrote:  I wasn't accusing you of imperialism. My argument was simple. Cultures are cultures. Domination of one culture over one or more others is a political concern.

Now, to be fair, I don't want to pass the buck entirely to politics, because there are certain memes that have been adopted by Our culture, that promote the domination of other cultures. I would not be sad if those memes were disarticulated and replaced by something that is not ultimately maladaptive. But if a culture possesses those memes, but other cultures neutralize their functional ability to dominate, then the threat is managed.

Important question. How does one measure health and happiness?

No I don't think it's the measuring of health and happiness that need to be taken in account here but level of damage done to it that needs to be measured.

(20-12-2012 11:46 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:I'm sure Box was being playful...

Oh really? Well, if you think he wasn't making a profound observation about how humans interact with the world around us, he was just being playful, well I guess that just makes the whole thing disappear.

He stated all models are ‘wrong’, because we cannot precisely simulate every breath of wind, every raindrop, or every worm turning over the soil. But this does not preclude their usefulness as tools to explore the broad consequences of known physical laws. In other words, you are equating a sentiment on simulations as tools for exploring natural phenomena as some kind of support of cultural relativism.



(20-12-2012 11:46 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:Nope, abstractions are not needed at all to interact with the world.
Many other animals including the entire microbiological world interact
with the world with out even needing a brain. Sorry but your
requirements do not apply. If I was a still birth I would've still
interacted with the world.

Oh. I must have fallen asleep and missed the part where every other organism on earth suddenly became capable of human cognition and full syntactical language. If only I had directly addressed this point earlier... wait a minute.

Or missed the part where subjective reality stops, and the objective keeps on going.

Quote:When we speak of "symbolic processes" in the brain or in the mind, we
are referring to our ability to abstract elements of our experience and
to represent them with discrete mental symbols. Other species certainly
possess consciousness in some sense, but as far as we know, they live in
the world simply as it presents itself to them. Presumably, for them
the environment seems very much like a continuum, rather than a place,
like ours, that is divided into the huge number of separate elements to
which we humans give individual names. By separating out its elements in
this way, human beings are able constantly to re-create the world, and
individual aspects of it, in their minds. And what makes this possible
is the ability to form and to manipulate mental symbols that correspond
to elements we perceive in the world within and beyond ourselves.
Members of other species often display high levels of intuitive
reasoning, reacting to stimuli from the environment in quite complex
ways, by only human beings are able arbitrarily to combine and recombine
mental symbols and to ask themselves questions such as "What if?"...



If there is one single aspect of human mental function that is more
closely tied up with symbolic processes than any other, it is surely our
use of language. Language is, indeed, the ultimate symbolic mental
function, and it is virtually impossible to conceive of thought as we
know it in its absence. For words, it is fair to say, function as the
units of human thought, at least as we are aware of it. They are
certainly the medium by which we explain our thoughts to one another
and, as incomparably social creatures, seek to influence what is going
on in one another’s brains.

-Ian Tattersall, from an article published in Scientific American

And this demonstrates nothing. It's a neat way to show the processes that we under go in communication, but doesn't negate the fact that in order to interact with the world all a being needs is to exist in it.

(20-12-2012 11:46 PM)Ghost Wrote:  
Quote:Science is what seperates facts from fictions.

Unless, it would seem, that science clearly proves something you find inconvenient. Then, apparently, it can be summarily ignored.
Actually you accept that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructiv...istemology

Where as I accept that truth is that which we wish to attain as much as possible through the scientific method, matching our ideas to reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

I think we will have to argue over social constructionism vs positivism in a new thread.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: