The worst thing ever.

Originally posted by josephw
As the story goes, God will fix everything! In his time of course.

So switch off your brain in droves people. Someone gets sick, well, let's not go against God and CURE them - let them die - God will solve it.

Sorry, but people like you, people which will rationalise the most horrible things in the name of God strike me as being sick, apathetic individuals, who really need to find out first-hand exactly what their messiah did for them.

Originally posted by josephw
If anything ever happened....

It'd be God's will. Especially if he/she died a horrible, painful death.

Right?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
It'd be God's will. Especially if he/she died a horrible, painful death.

Right?

Have you taken a dose of be-really-obnoxious pills today?
As you know I'm not one to come in and support christians, but the reality of religious belief is that it provides help and support and comfort to many people. Call them crazy if you like, but my dealings with christians - I work at a Catholic school - are that they're just people like you and me.
Their beliefs don't quite gell at times and may not make sense at times - but that's true of everyone. Even the greats of science have had their delusional beliefs. Newton is a nice case in point.
But so what? It gets them through the day.
My objection is where this becomes an issue beyond how they live their lives - creationism in schools is an example of this - but that's not what we're on about here ...

Originally posted by amannion
Have you taken a dose of be-really-obnoxious pills today?
As you know I'm not one to come in and support christians, but the reality of religious belief is that it provides help and support and comfort to many people. Call them crazy if you like, but my dealings with christians - I work at a Catholic school - are that they're just people like you and me.
...[text shortened]... creationism in schools is an example of this - but that's not what we're on about here ...

Hey man,

I've got no issues at all with Christians per se, but when they try to come across all superior it's time for a cutting down.

I'm trying to put across the point to this guy that "goddunit" is just not an acceptable excuse. If people need to be shocked into getting off their jacksie and asking a few questions, so be it.

He can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Hey man,

I've got no issues at all with Christians per se, but when they try to come across all superior it's time for a cutting down.

I'm trying to put across the point to this guy that "goddunit" is just not an acceptable excuse. If people need to be shocked into getting off their jacksie and asking a few questions, so be it.

He can't have it both ways.

Fair enough, but be aware that for some people - many people - it just doesn't matter to them. 'Goddunit' is good enough - holes and errors and inconsistencies be damned.
Let's face it, in the everday grind of life, it really doesn't matter that much.
Mind you, trying to fob off the 'goddunit' stuff as science - that pisses me off no end.

Originally posted by amannion
Fair enough, but be aware that for some people - many people - it just doesn't matter to them. 'Goddunit' is good enough - holes and errors and inconsistencies be damned.
Let's face it, in the everday grind of life, it really doesn't matter that much.
Mind you, trying to fob off the 'goddunit' stuff as science - that pisses me off no end.

Mind you, trying to fob off the 'goddunit' stuff as science - that pisses me off no end.

Likewise.


I'm not trying to be deliberately mean to anyone, but it seems like it's going to take a huge shock to the system for some of these guys to look hard at their beliefs and apply reason to what they think.

As for the Newton thing, I tend to think it's unfair to hold him up as a person who's work and personal beliefs were contradictory. Newton lived in a very different world to the one we do now - and he certainly didn't see things in the way we do now.

Originally posted by amannion
Fair enough, but be aware that for some people - many people - it just doesn't matter to them. 'Goddunit' is good enough - holes and errors and inconsistencies be damned.
Let's face it, in the everday grind of life, it really doesn't matter that much.
Mind you, trying to fob off the 'goddunit' stuff as science - that pisses me off no end.

'Goddunit' is good enough - holes and errors and inconsistencies be damned.

On the other hand, I have known people who were spoon-fed the “Goddunit” stuff who found it quite devastating when the “holes and errors and inconsistencies” caused the whole edifice to crumble in times of crisis.

I think that religious expression can be a profound and therapeutic (in the full sense of the word) aesthetic response to the mysteries and vagaries of human existence (full sense of the word “aesthetic” there too). It has no business—you and Scotty and I are agreed—fobbing itself off in the realm of scientific knowledge. But for all those whose “faith” sustains them in tough times, there are also those whose “faith” crumbles because it has been presented as something it cannot be—whereas, had it been presented as what it can be, it might have been therapeutic and even empowering in crisis.

Unfortunately, those for whom “Goddunit” is enough to sustain them often condemn those who demand more —or require less, but require substantiability—from their religious viewpoint. I am, in my weird way, a “religionist.” And I find tragic the failures of religion that occur because it “over-reaches” itself.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]'Goddunit' is good enough - holes and errors and inconsistencies be damned.

On the other hand, I have known people who were spoon-fed the “Goddunit” stuff who found it quite devastating when the “holes and errors and inconsistencies” caused the whole edifice to crumble in times of crisis.

I think that religious expression can be a profound and t ...[text shortened]... ist.” And I find tragic the failures of religion that occur because it “over-reaches” itself.[/b]

I just wishthat people wouldn 't accept "goddunnit" as an explanation for anything, but instead went out and tried to find the true answer. If people did that, and had that attitude, imagine how many more diseases we could have cures for by now, how many more needless deaths could have been prevented, and how much suffering could be alleviated.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I just wishthat people wouldn 't accept "goddunnit" as an explanation for anything, but instead went out and tried to find the true answer. If people did that, and had that attitude, imagine how many more diseases we could have cures for by now, how many more needless deaths could have been prevented, and how much suffering could be alleviated.

In a recent post, I said that one of the errors is to assume that what is unknown is unknowable. I have also been saying that religion is more akin to Beethoven than to biology. I really think that religion has very little explanatory value—except perhaps as symbolized and mythologized metaphysics (but then, I don’t indulge in too much metaphysics either)—but it can have aesthetic value; and aesthetics is as important to how I live my life as reason is. By aesthetics, I mean broadly whatever has to do with harmony and beauty in our lives—with living a life of eudaimonia. But aesthetics ought not to trump reason.

Until you find a cure for death, people will live with the existential fact of being aware of their own impending death, and the impending death of those whom they love. Now you’re in the realm of philosophy and religion. I don’t fear death, though I do not believe in an individual “afterlife.” Buddhism deals with the mental turmoil that comes from grasping and craving; Buddhism is a philosophy and a psychology and a (non-theistic) religion.

I’m not a theist—I’m a monist (who thanks you for the phrase “the totality that has no edge”!!); that “perennial philosophy” can be found expressed in all the major religions, including Christianity. Unfortunately, people confuse valid myth, as such, with history; metaphor, allegory and symbol with facticity.

Somewhere, I have the suspicion that someone is persecuting somebody else because they think that Mozart is “true,” and therefore Ravi Shankar is “false”...

Originally posted by vistesd
In a recent post, I said that one of the errors is to assume that what is unknown is unknowable. I have also been saying that religion is more akin to Beethoven than to biology. I really think that religion has very little explanatory value—except perhaps as symbolized and mythologized metaphysics (but then, I don’t indulge in too much metaphysics either)— ...[text shortened]... somebody else because they think that Mozart is “true,” and therefore Ravi Shankar is “false”...

Haha, nice post vistesd!

I’m a monist (who thanks you for the phrase “the totality that has no edge”!!)

No problem!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Haha, nice post vistesd!

[b]I’m a monist (who thanks you for the phrase “the totality that has no edge”!!)

No problem![/b]

Thank you. I’ve been using that phrase without proper attribution, and thought I ought to at least say thanks. That is probably my whole metaphysics—to assert that notion of a totality (the “one without a second,” in religious terms), as opposed to any ultimate duality in which there is a “God” as a separate being from the rest of it. All that discussion about time-space dimensionality was immensely helpful. To speak of a being that exists outside of dimensionality seems incoherent to me. And, ultimately, to speak of “more than one”—besides being un-parsimonious—means that there can be no relationship at all between them, or else you can define a new totality (which thought I think I got from you, too).

And since the “grammar” of our consciousness is bound by dimensionality as well, anything that would transcend that is ultimately ineffable anyway. On the other hand, just because something transcends our conceptual grammar, does not mean that it lies beyond the natural cosmos/order (that is, it does not require the assumption of a “supernatural” category). In religious terms, the attempt to dogmatize the metaphors we use to allude to the ineffable as descriptions is a form of idolatry. So the path that any religious expression needs to trod to remain valid, in my view, is between (a) such idolatry on the one hand, and (b) assuming that what is unknown must remain unknowable (which leads to all sorts of “god of the gaps” problems, and rejection of science) on the other. That seems to be a narrow path.

Whenever I use the “G-word,” I am referring to that totality of all being, besides which nothing is, whether we can ultimately comprehend all of it or not (and a scientist qua scientist would be derelict and remiss in assuming that we cannot). And even if the totality is ultimately comprehensible, that does not preclude a sense of awe and wonder (which, for Abraham Joshua Heschel—one of my guides here—is the basis for all religious expression).

Basically, I tell people that—whatever religious paradigm I happen to be speaking in at the time (since I cross those boundaries readily)—if they just think “Zen” (and not even Zen Buddhism), they’ll have me pretty well pegged.

Originally posted by vistesd
Thank you. I’ve been using that phrase without proper attribution, and thought I ought to at least say thanks. That is probably my whole metaphysics—to assert that notion of a totality (the “one without a second,” in religious terms), as opposed to any ultimate duality in which there is a “God” as a separate being from the rest of it. All that discussion ...[text shortened]... if they just think “Zen” (and not even Zen Buddhism), they’ll have me pretty well pegged.

I'm in constant wonder of the universe. The more I learn about it, the more questions we ask, and the more knowledge we gain, the more I feel wonder about the universe.

However, for me, the universe is wonderful enough in itself - it requires nothing to be attributed to, though. I do not attribute the sorting of sand grains on a beach to an individual, yet I frequently walk along the beach thinking "this is neat".

Originally posted by scottishinnz
I'm in constant wonder of the universe. The more I learn about it, the more questions we ask, and the more knowledge we gain, the more I feel wonder about the universe.

However, for me, the universe is wonderful enough in itself - it requires nothing to be attributed to, though. I do not attribute the sorting of sand grains on a beach to an individual, yet I frequently walk along the beach thinking "this is neat".

Yes. Adding knowledge does not defeat the sense of wonder.

I do not know if we are a “privileged” species in the sense that nothing in the universe transcends our ability to know. I suspect that we are not—but that doesn’t matter, and shouldn’t preclude the effort. We never really know our limits, in that sense, until we exceed them. Suppose you had said, with respect to your karate, “Well, you know, I can only reach such-and-such a level, so I won’t attempt more.” (I do tai chi: my wife says she thinks it’s my best “spiritual” practice. She’s probably right....)

‘Night, Scott. Be well.

Originally posted by vistesd
Yes. Adding knowledge does not defeat the sense of wonder.

I do not know if we are a “privileged” species in the sense that nothing in the universe transcends our ability to know. I suspect that we are not—but that doesn’t matter, and shouldn’t preclude the effort. We never really know our limits, in that sense, until we exceed them. Suppose you had s ...[text shortened]... thinks it’s my best “spiritual” practice. She’s probably right....)

‘Night, Scott. Be well.

I try never to have limits with my Karate. Faster, faster, harder, harder!!!

We call karate "therapy in motion", probably the same as your Tai chi!

Originally posted by amannion
It's not about deserving or otherwise.
The reality of life is that suffering exists.
We spend our lives avoiding it or dealing with it. Some of us do better at this than others. Some forms of suffering are worse of course.
For me, the worst type of suffering I can imagine would be the loss of one of my children. I can't imagine how I might cope. But my w g, your label - atheist, christian, jew, buddhist, mulsim, whatever - doesn't really matter.

There is truth in what you say, however, for those who are of faith the worst fate is the second death, not the first. Also, when those of faith suffer in our present world or when they die physically it is sad, however, there is still hope for them in the mind of a believer. The Bible says that the suffering of our present world is negligable compared to the life that awaits us. For example, I mentioned that I lost a loved one who suffered greatly before they died. However, they were a believer as I am and I was with them when they passed. Just before they passed their entire countanence changed despite being in a coma for several days. Their eyes opened as if they were beholding something of great beauty and a they seemed to be at total peace with themself. Then they breathed their last breath. So when I think of all of their suffering and their death, this memory of them being at peace and entering God's rest always trumps that later pain of watching them pass.