Comments | anatosuchus: For mashugenah

anatosuchus

For mashugenah

Nov 04, 2006 18:07

For those not on xullrae's journal, I have been involved in a lengthy discussion with mashugenah over there. As the original post has now become very buried, and I consider it rude to keep banging on under someone else's journal (and forcing them to watch the car crash), I have attempted to move the discussion here so only those of us concerned need to play with it ( Read more... )

religion, naturalism, god

Comments 13

anatosuchus November 4 2006, 18:10:30 UTC

Since you dislike my language, I'll rephrase the comment just a little:
Your answers suggests one's spiritual side is the capacity to ignore this naturalist approach and add some spurious supernatural cause?

Note that I am retaining the term "naturalist" as it conveys exactly the meaning I require and I reject any accusation of "emotional loading" there:
"naturalism (noun) a philosohical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted" - Oxford English Dictionary ( ... )

mashugenah November 4 2006, 20:25:31 UTC

To be honest, I think I could reply point-by-point by re-quoting myself. Since that's probably not going to satisfy you (as it didn't the first time) let me try a new formulation of the same material, again. Einstein defined stupidity as repeating the same action and expecting a different result, but...

The originating event for any chain of events, circumstances or properties examinable by any method known to mankind cannot be verified. In the absence of demonstrable certainty about the root cause of any event, you have the option of devising an explanation suitable to yourself until further evidence is brought to light. Religion suits some people.

Given that the very premise makes the suggestion untestable and unfalsifiable, I must embrace the potential illusion as though it were reality or cease to function effectively in the universe my mind has created for me.

Yes! Hole in one. It's a choice you're making. QED ( ... )

anatosuchus November 5 2006, 11:58:11 UTC

I think we can agree on your last post: I see no reason why somebody, lacking further information about a certain idea/item/whatever cannot decide to pull something out of his or her ass* as an explanation and believe that. They could even choose to believe something somebody else has made up. That's fine, they are free to carry on. Who am I to stop them?**

Of course, I do think that anyone making such assertions should be keen to point out that they did, indeed, just make them up (which I realise is difficult in the case of the more ancient religions). I also think that it is dangerous when new evidence does come to light which contradicts the original assertion in some way, and the individual is too wedded to the made-up part that they cannot let go. Answers in Genesis anyone?

Finally, I should point out that your last post seems to present a very different argument than your earlier ones do. For example:
"Okay, assume you're a big-brained scientist type, for just a moment. You want to know, say, why certain chemical reactions ( ... )

soulsong November 5 2006, 01:19:26 UTC

*grabs popcorn and soft drink*

I've been on both sides of this argument over the last twenty years. It's a pretty slow grind, especially when the discussion spends 95% of its time ruminating over the meanings of words. Then again, at least it trains the participants to sculpt their points in such a way that they are less 'twistable' by the opposition. This usually results in fewer words being used, which is generally helpful all round. :)

ed_fortune November 5 2006, 13:33:44 UTC

*Gets some nachos, adds to the popcorn*

It does frustrate me that not only do we not seem to have developed common terms when it comes to this debate (despite hundreds of years of careful naval gazing), when the debate pops up, neither side seem willing to use the existing labels and terms for certain beliefs that we have. Instead both sides to stand behind one point of view and throw snowballs at each other.

anatosuchus November 5 2006, 13:44:21 UTC

Umm, did you just say something along the lines of:
"It frustrates me that there is no common terminology."
and
"It annoys me that nobody uses the common terminology we have."

I hope I have misunderstood! Assuming there are commonly held terms you are referring to in your secnond point, can you give some example please? I tend to use the vocabulary I am used to which may mean I am ignoreing certain terms out of ignorance.

ed_fortune November 5 2006, 22:27:56 UTC

Bugger, I seem to have missed out a few paragraphs there ( ... )

Thread 6

(The comment has been removed)

deejake November 5 2006, 04:48:12 UTC

The "fault" in religion is not that people believe, it is that some people manipulate belief to achieve their own aims.

I'd go further and say that one of the faults of religion is that it is so easily manipulatable. The extent to which it can be used to justify the extremes of human behaviour make it in effect superfluous.

anatosuchus November 5 2006, 12:29:42 UTC

As my most recent reply above notes, I have no problem with people believing what they want to believe, even though it strikes me as strange in the extreme, as long as there are no social and political upshots which adversely affect me or the lives of others.

I am curious as to why you think you are a "better person", and whether you feel could not have achieved the same improvement (given I don't know what this improvement actually is) using a philosophy not requiring supernatural underpinnings, such as secular humanism.

ed_fortune November 5 2006, 13:42:12 UTC

One argument could be this:

On some level, that persons believe requires a feeling of connection to 'the greater whole' to work. If they expose elements of the system to deductive reasoning, that feeling goes away, because it's partially based on what they want things to be, not the way it actually is. Or in other words, desirable doublethink. Additional layers of flannel are added to prevent 'ha ha, you're just delusional then'.

To make matters more complex, there's those who are damned sure that there actually is a spiritual connection to the greater whole, but find it frustrating that they can't effectively communicate that connection to others.

(As an aside, have to you seen the new South Park?)

Thread 6

deejake November 5 2006, 05:22:19 UTC

"Modern secular Western society is very bad at this. If you can't put a price tag on it, and itemize it on a spreadsheet, it has no existance?"

I do not agree that this has anything to do with secularism. Furthermore, if there is one country that epitomises this attitude more than any other then surely it is the USA. A country that whilst being founded along secular lines, despite what many of its theists would like to have us believe, is probably the most religious Western society by quite a large margin.

"My line is about an awareness of alternate modes of living, with an emphasis on rejecting pure capitalism as the basis for life."I don't think I know anyone who would come close to suggesting that pure capitalism, or indeed pure socialism for that matter, is a suitable mode of living ( ... )