|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 07/28/2006 : 10:21:00 [Permalink]
|
Another way to try to explain my defense of progressive believers: Did anyone ever see that episode of Star Trek the Next Generation where there is a Q who wants to commit suicide, and the other Q are trying to stop him? In that episode, the Q (the one played by John de Lancie) lets some humans see the Q Continuum. However, because human minds cannot conceive of the literal Q, they can only experience it as a physical manifestation of a metaphorical Q Continuum that is as close to the literal reality as the human mind can get. (Sort of like if we created a virtual Schrodinger's Cat in order to explain Quantum physics to students.)
I think that episode of Star Trek is useful is explaining how progressive believers are both skeptics (if not strict agnostics) and believers at the same time. My friend Kate identifies as Catholic, but she admits that she does think “it”(the supernatural) is anything like what Christianity literally describes. She simply thinks that is one legitimate way to attempt to grasp it. She acknowledges that other worldviews, including Dawkins's and my Humanism, are also legitimate views, since the true “it” isn't understandable. It is only something that is vaguely, but powerfully, sensed. Some people accept words like “supernatural” for trying to talk about it, and others reject such words. But unfortunately, language is inadequate for communicating all thoughts. Otherwise we would not need the arts.
Dawkin's teapot as false comparison:
Dawkins likes to use that example of the teapot existing in the earth's orbit to perceive believers as foolish, but it is a false comparison to progressive believers' worldviews. The teapot has no connection to morality and the meaning of life. It is a totally isolated and mundane claim, which notions of the spiritual are not.
Edited: Oops - the suicide Q episode was on Voyager, not the Next Generation, and had nothing to do with the episode where humans get to view a metaphorical recreation of the Q Continuum. My mistake. I realize this might mean I lose all credibility with hard core SF geeks, and I hang my head in shame over it.  |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/28/2006 10:39:24 |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 10:46:14 [Permalink]
|
You ignore a couple of paragraphs and simply make a statement without any attempt at a reasoning process. "Progressive believers do not 'reject reality.'"
This is what I'm talking about. I know you see many of my questions and statements as missing the point, because you do not address them.
No, not everyone is MLK, but there is no reason to assume that superstition caused him to do what he did, right or wrong, in fact, he probably chose his religion based on how he saw the world and himself rather than vice versa.
He no more "needed" superstition than a smoker "needs" cigarettes.
Superstition was probably used as a method to oppress black people, and he (and others, he was mostly following in front of other people) used the organization of the church to make it something else. Had nothing to do with anyone's supernatural powers. Had it been any other kind of social organization that black people were allowed to congregate about, it would have happened there. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 10:50:20 [Permalink]
|
This kind of discussion always moves into other things in life that have vague definitions, such as art and love.
Since those things have vague definitions, then that makes everything else with vague definitions, like gods valid. Bullshit.
Define love, and we can run it through our science tester. Everything else is gooey bullshit. Nice, gooey bullshit for some maybe, but gooey bullshit. Art is no different. Yes, we appreciate things that we find hard to explain. That doesn't mean that it can't be explained, nor does it require a supernatural explanation. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 10:53:12 [Permalink]
|
| That fixes the link, thanks, Dave. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 11:25:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You ignore a couple of paragraphs and simply make a statement without any attempt at a reasoning process. "Progressive believers do not 'reject reality.'"
You are one to talk about ignoring paragraphs.
quote:
This is what I'm talking about. I know you see many of my questions and statements as missing the point, because you do not address them.
No, I don't address them the way you expect because your questions and statements miss the point. If I were to simply answer them in a straightforward manner as you expect, we would merely be engaging in a purely logical analysis of religious belief. The point that you are missing – that I have repeatedly tried to explain through my own explanations, stories, metaphors, and quoting of Jacques Barzun, is that a progressive religious worldview is intended to be subjective, intended to be perspective, not objective, and as such, it does not have parts that can be analyzed and refuted.
quote:
He no more "needed" superstition than a smoker "needs" cigarettes.
I wrote “maybe MLK did need to believe in supernatural things to do what he did” In context, “what he did” refers to his humanitarian work as a civil rights activist and Reverend. Are you claiming that MLK's religious beliefs didn't contribute at all to his motivations to do those acts? Also, I wrote “maybe”, as in: this is too complex to say for certain. However, I think it is reasonable to say that when we look at the whole of humanitarian acts done under the name of religious inspiration, we had to admit that some types of religious beliefs play at least a partial role in inspiring moral codes and behaviors that benefit the human condition, just as some types of religious beliefs play at least a partial role in inspiring moral codes and behaviors that devastate the human condition. Dawkins only acknowledges the latter, and actively denies the former, spitting in the faces of his own moral/social/political allies!
quote:
Superstition was probably used as a method to oppress black people, and he (and others, he was mostly following in front of other people) used the organization of the church to make it something else. Had nothing to do with anyone's supernatural powers. Had it been any other kind of social organization that black people were allowed to congregate about, it would have happened there.
What you say here is part of the puzzle, just as the abuse and domination of the Middle East by powerful Western nations is part of the puzzle of why there are Muslim terrorists. But belief is also part of the puzzle. Dawkins makes the mistake of idolating religious belief, criticizing only it as the ultimate “root” of many social-political ills. Yes, I know, the title was posed as a question, “The root of all evil?”, but if you watch the show it is pretty damn clear that Dawkins is giving his answer.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/28/2006 11:26:55 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 11:38:27 [Permalink]
|
Everything you say misses the point. You want the point to be that everything that's vague, fuzzy and feels good is something that people need and shouldn't be analyzed. Much like drug abuse or overeating or gambling too much.
I agree that religion is not the root of all evil, it's only a symptom of a deeper problem. A problem that we all have to some degree. We think we need things that we don't in order to have or increase our self-worth. Self-worth is something that's irrelevant, unless we think we don't have it.
It's sort of funny to me that people are making a huge deal out of suicide bombers. A terrible thing, for sure, and we need to figure out how to stop it. But they do far less damage than less criticized methods of murder, done by people who Marf describes as "progressive."
In fact, these people are often honored just as much as people honor suicide bombers. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 11:41:12 [Permalink]
|
The root of all evil is human, as we created the idea. I see no evidence that evil extends past humanity and must conclude that it is not a universal concept.
And since evil requires perspective, without defining which persective of evil is correct there is no way of determining a root cause.
The most evil people in my book are the a-holes responsable for the removal of Eagle brand Nacho-thins from store shelves. They get me hooked and then take them away, the bastards. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 11:45:02 [Permalink]
|
I can see that you are trying very hard to understand what I'm saying, and breaking out of your algorithmic, purely logical way of thinking. That's awesome, Gorgo!
quote:
Since those things have vague definitions, then that makes everything else with vague definitions, like gods valid. Bullshit.
That is not what I said. I made a comparison. You have just simplified what I said into being something I did not say at all. Strawman.
In this statement, you have implied that love and art art valid. You have also admitted that they have vague definitions. (Well, it was more than just vague definitions, but OK, we'll go with that for now.) So why are art and love legit? Explain it to me scientifically.
quote:
Define love, and we can run it through our science tester.
You're going to have to explain that one a little more clearly.
Also, may I point out that I was talking about my love for my husband - a very specific, personal experience. Religion, from a progressive stance, is highly dependent on the specific, personal experience of the individual. The conclusions of the individual are not extended to everyone else (they don't claim their conclusions are facts.) But I guess you missed that point too.
quote:
Everything else is gooey bullshit. Nice, gooey bullshit for some maybe, but gooey bullshit. Art is no different. Yes, we appreciate things that we find hard to explain. That doesn't mean that it can't be explained,
So really sophisticated art criticism is equal to the experience the critic has while viewing the art? I guess we don't need the actual art, we can just have visual artists explain the images they might have created, and we'll have musicians explain the songs they would have composed and played, and that will be sufficient.
By the way, I really love your terminology: gooey bullshit. It truly illustrates how well you grasped the essence of Jacques Barzun's "fusing form and contents into an individual whole" and "prolonged incitement to finesse". You should be a poet.
quote:
nor does it require a supernatural explanation.
I never claimed it required a supernatural explanation. If I had, I wouldn't be an atheist myself, would I? Though I think it might require a supernatural explanation for some, depending on what our understanding of supernatural is. That word in-of-itself is a word with a vague definition, which was one of my many points that you have missed missed and missed. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 11:56:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It's sort of funny to me that people are making a huge deal out of suicide bombers. A terrible thing, for sure, and we need to figure out how to stop it. But they do far less damage than less criticized methods of murder, done by people who Marf describes as "progressive."
What are you talking about? I have been talking about progressive religion this entire time. Progressive religious beliefs and worldviews. What are these other methods of murder you speak of? Our shitty economic and political systems? I'll agree that way more people are dying from other preventable things than suicide bombing, and perhaps too much emphasis is put on those evils, but unless you are blaming religious beliefs in general for these others evils (such as the great disparity between rich and poor, and the apathy of most people to bother understanding and doing anything about it) you are not actually disagreeing with me about anything.
Exactly who do you think I am defining and describing as progressive believers anyway? Do you think I use it as a catch-all term for any religious person who isn't a fundamentalist? I personally think most people don't think deeply about their worldview at all, and if we want to argue that such lack of intellectual curiosity and apathy is part of the world's problems, I'd agree. But liberal Christian activists are most definitely part of the solution. They are thinking people who are taking action based on their strong moral convictions, and their moral conviction are based on reason and compassion. I'm not saying their beliefs should be heralded, though their actions should be. I'm only saying that their beliefs should respected, politely debated when consenting individuals with different beliefs are interested in such a conversation, but not be criticized as intellectually inferior, irrational, or immoral, which antagonistic atheists like Dawkins have charged. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/28/2006 11:58:29 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 11:59:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In this statement, you have implied that love and art art valid. You have also admitted that they have vague definitions. (Well, it was more than just vague definitions, but OK, we'll go with that for now.) So why are art and love legit? Explain it to me scientifically.
Define your terms and your claims about them in a way that can be tested.
Your responses seem to be just ways to keep yourself from actually thinking about the subject. I'm trying to respond as though I don't think that's what you're doing, but I still wonder. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 12:07:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What are you talking about?
Well, even I don't know sometimes. I was evidently just ruminating. Sam Harris and Dawkins are the ones really that make a big deal about the damage that fundamentalists do like suicide bombing, etc.
It's progressive believers that supported the attacks on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, for instance. "Progressive" believers, until you define them better, do all kinds of destructive things. Much more destructive than fundamentalists, I'd wager. I'd rather have someone kill a few people suicidally and be done with them than have them carpet bomb my city and keep going back the way "progressive believers" did in both Gulf Wars, and bomb my country for 78 days the way they did in Yugoslavia.
Amish people never bombed anyone. Well, they have some pretty nasty horse bombs. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 15:26:08 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: quote:
Define your terms and your claims about them in a way that can be tested.
What? I asked you why "love" and "art" are legit despite the fact that they have vague definitions. I asked this because you implied that they were legit and could be explained as thus scientifically, but that this was not true of religious beliefs. So I was asking you to please demonstrate the scientific legitimacy of art and love.
Of course there are scientific explanations developing to explain religious belief. Evolutionary psychologists began studying it a couple decades ago. A progressive believer wouldn't deny any scientific evidence for a naturalistic explanation for religious belief. But that same believer might still believe that God intended it or designed it to work that way. The Rationlists exclaim, "But that claim isn't falsifiable, and therefore isn't scientific, and yet it is a claim about reality, and so it is irrational and false." All the while missing the point that the progressive theist would not impose their belief in God on anyone else, nor would they claim to know the mind of that God, exactly because they understand that that belief itself is subjective and personal. But they still believe because they can't help it. Their intuition is telling them that there is a God - whatever that means - they don't have a clear idea of it themselves, but they use the word "God" because it is the best vocabularly available to explain what they mean. They look at the world and all they've experienced and they feel the presence of God.
quote:
Your responses seem to be just ways to keep yourself from actually thinking about the subject. I'm trying to respond as though I don't think that's what you're doing, but I still wonder.
While I appreciate your honesty, I still find this to be a rather asinine statement.
I've already gone through a Rationalist stage, Gorgo. I came to Rationalist conclusions years ago, and lived with them - albeit with some uncertainty - for years. But I always had a strange nagging sensation that something was not quite right about it. Something about it smacked of the kind of arrogance and group-think that I saw in fundamentalists. Not that Rationalism itself is a bad philosophy, but that it becomes bad when a person is certain it is the correct philosophy. There is an intellectually subtle difference between having beliefs one is certain of, and having beliefs one is not certain of, but it is an important difference. It was because I kept thinking and reading different opinions on the subject of religious belief that my opinions changed. Just because I don't think the same things as you, and come to all the same conclusions as you, doesn't mean I'm avoiding thinking. I keep quoting Barzun because when I read his book "The Culture We Deserve" he articulated all these things that I had thought but hadn't figured out a way to explain yet. I noticed you haven't commented at all to any of those paragraphs.
quote:
It's progressive believers that supported the attacks on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, for instance. "Progressive" believers, until you define them better, do all kinds of destructive things. Much more destructive than fundamentalists, I'd wager. I'd rather have someone kill a few people suicidally and be done with them than have them carpet bomb my city and keep going back the way "progressive believers" did in both Gulf Wars, and bomb my country for 78 days the way they did in Yugoslavia.
You have ventured into politics and have totally changed the subject, Gorgo. Politics is one of the softest of the soft sciences. You could have a pro-Iraq-war neo-conservative and a Leftist pacifist who have the same core values and goals for humanity in mind, and both be rational, intelligent, educated people, and yet they would viciously argue with each other over the best policies to achieve those common goals. That's politics, not religion.
As for the Amish, no, they don't bomb anyone because they've thrown off modern technology. However, they are inbred and avoid modern medical tehcnology, and they do suffer from that as do their children who have no choice in the matter. They also do not do anything to permanently stop pedophiles and other perpetrators of violence from repeat offenses. I don't have a problem with the Amish going on the way they do only because they leave the rest of society alone, but don't imply that the world would have so much less suffering if everyone lived like the Amish. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/28/2006 15:27:31 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 17:12:08 [Permalink]
|
"They can't help it?" They are victims of Jesus? Bullshit, dear lady. They've created their beliefs, and they have vague, gooey feelings about the world that they like to hug but come from a genuine rejection of life and themselves as being worthy of that life on its own terms without embellishment.
It's okay you think it might be asinine. It's okay you think I'm some kind of anti-gooey feeling nut. I'm not against religious people. I do not knock on doors and get in people's faces. This is a discussion forum for discussing facts and opinions. I have an opinion, based on years of observation and questioning myself and other people. I have been a theist, a New Ager. I have respect for people who are still stuck in that mode of thinking. I have modes of thinking that I'm still stuck in for that matter. What I say about theists is not an insult.
Don't imply the world would be much better if we were
all "progressive" theists.
I am not better because I'm not a theist. I do not think I know everything because I state my opinion. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 07/28/2006 17:24:40 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 17:41:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
"They can't help it?" They are victims of Jesus? Bullshit, dear lady. They've created their beliefs, and they have vague, gooey feelings about the world that they like to hug but come from a genuine rejection of life and themselves as being worthy of that life on its own terms without embellishment.
It's astounds me, the arrogant, condescending statements that bleed from your keyboard. Do you not see that you are psychoanalyizing all people who have any kind of claimed belief in anything spiritual or supernatural what-so-ever? That you are making assumptions based on your own subjective perspective, not science, not logic, but your own bias, your feelings, your value judgements against religious beliefs?
And dear lady? Isn't that a bit of throw-back? Why don't you just go whole hog and call me "girlie" or "toots"? Can I call you grandpa? Nevermind. 
quote:
Don't imply the world would be much better if we were all "progressive" theists.
Oh, did I? If I were implying that, wouldn't it make more sense for me to be a progressive theist? I think the world would be much better without self-righteousness, group-think, and the divisiveness cause by such things. I think those are part of what makes fundamentalism so dangerous. Some atheists, particularly those involved in movements and subcultures where they can re-enforce each other's beliefs through community, blame the divisiveness and insanity of religion all on a lack of purely Rational thinking. Because they emphasize that alone, they can start to slip into a sort of atheistic self righteousness and group-think, and then people like Dawkins go and shoot the Secular Movement right in the damn foot by aliking Humanism's philosophical and political allies - the moderate or progressive believers - to fundies.
It is the equivalent to a peace activist bombing a military base, or an environmental activist sobotaging trees so that employees of lumber companies get badly injured in that it hurts the very cause it attempts to promote for public acceptance. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 07/28/2006 17:55:08 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
