Is Atheism Just A Rant Against Religion?

[Legion]

The Blind Watchmaker is quite good though...

Yeah I'd agree with that. It's kind of a toss up for me as to whether "The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watchmaker" is better.

 

Mankey, the point is... "The God Delusion" may not be his best work.

Yea,but if it stinks that bad I will be able to comment on it after reading it. I like to be a pain in the ass even to other antitheists. Free Thought comes first.

Well if that's the case Mankey then I suggest that you read "Life Itself" by Robert Rosen. He was a theoretical biologist who seemed to have a knack for finding conflict. If you want a true challenge then you might check it out. I've spoken with scientists who passionately disagree about some of the things he said.

[Mankey]

The Blind Watchmaker is quite good though...

Yeah I'd agree with that. It's kind of a toss up for me as to whether "The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watchmaker" is better.

 

Mankey, the point is... "The God Delusion" may not be his best work.

Yea,but if it stinks that bad I will be able to comment on it after reading it. I like to be a pain in the ass even to other antitheists. Free Thought comes first.

Well if that's the case Mankey then I suggest that you read "Life Itself" by Robert Rosen. He was a theoretical biologist who seemed to have a knack for finding conflict. If you want a true challenge then you might check it out. I've spoken with scientists who passionately disagree about some of the things he said.

Thanks. It is interesting when scientists disagree. Unfortunately I might not understand everything. We will see.

[Mankey]

He also labours under the misapprehension that he is the 'voice of reason', rather in the way James Randi, who is a stage illusionist, seems the think he can speak to scientific protocols...

These were very much my thoughts about him. He oversimplifies philosophical positions and brushes them with a swipe of the hand - an easy feat when you under-state what's behind it. He really comes across as some sort of philosopher which he is not.

What are you talking about. Got some examples?

 

I dislike their inductive methods, I dislkie their panzer division tactics, and I dislike their prima facie assumption they have some 'higher' grasp of 'the truth'...

It's that very thing that gets him labeled as a fundamentalist. It's like hearing someone who deconverted saying, "The difference between when I was a Christian and now, is that now I actually do have the truth". Truth is far more tricky a business than that, whether you use a Bible or Science.

What about gravity? Is it true that gravity exists? Truth is not a tricky business in all cases. If it were we wouldn't survive such ignorance. Literally.

 

I hope I am not misunderstanding what you are really saying here.

 

I prefer the word fact over the word truth anyways. To me truth is a religious word....like faith is.

[Antlerman]

He also labours under the misapprehension that he is the 'voice of reason', rather in the way James Randi, who is a stage illusionist, seems the think he can speak to scientific protocols...

These were very much my thoughts about him. He oversimplifies philosophical positions and brushes them with a swipe of the hand - an easy feat when you under-state what's behind it. He really comes across as some sort of philosopher which he is not.

What are you talking about. Got some examples?

A friend loaned me a copy of the God Delusion on audio CD’s and I listened to the whole thing driving between work and home over the last several weeks. Though in areas of science he has insights and knowledge, he steps beyond in taking a far more materialist philosophy and criticizes everything that’s not his world-view in much the same manner as the religious do other competing ideas. I don’t care if he states how he sees things, but it comes across as dismissive without given any credit as a possible alternative way of looking at things.

 

Since I don’t have the book in front of me, it’s hard to pull quotes. However, to give credit to him, after listening to it he’s not AS fundamentalist as I first suspected, but he is definitely more towards that end of the scale than I am. That said, he most definitely does have a place in the forum of ideas as he opens discussion up.

 

Of all the chapters of the book, the last one was the best. I am interested in looking into the Selfish Gene and the other one Legion mentioned. I suspect they’re much better.

 

I dislike their inductive methods, I dislkie their panzer division tactics, and I dislike their prima facie assumption they have some 'higher' grasp of 'the truth'...

It's that very thing that gets him labeled as a fundamentalist. It's like hearing someone who deconverted saying, "The difference between when I was a Christian and now, is that now I actually do have the truth". Truth is far more tricky a business than that, whether you use a Bible or Science.

What about gravity? Is it true that gravity exists? Truth is not a tricky business in all cases. If it were we wouldn't survive such ignorance. Literally.

 

I hope I am not misunderstanding what you are really saying here.

 

I prefer the word fact over the word truth anyways. To me truth is a religious word....like faith is.

As a starter you can look at just how broad the word truth is understood: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth I tend to approach truth from a relativist point of view: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

The term often refers to truth relativism, which is the doctrine that there are no absolute truths, i.e., that truth is always relative to some particular frame of reference, such as a language or a culture.

No human is capable of directly interfacing with reality, and therefore has to approach it through their perceptions. No two people will see any one thing exactly the same because no two people process information exactly the same way. The best you can have is an approximation of an agreed upon understanding of it, which is then called “truth”.

 

When you add the complexity of language to a discussion of that “truth”, you now shade and alter that perception even further, especially across cultural boundaries. Hence in science the language used is that of mathematics, which is more emptied of unintended meanings of connotations as in spoken languages.

 

But when you move beyond the world of science and into philosophies such as things like the questions, “What defines moral behavior,” or “What is meaningful,” or “What is beautiful”, or “What is ugly,” or “What is evil”, now “truth” is anything but measurable by any closely agreed upon tool such as mathematics.

 

Often times I hear the retort, “But 2+2 always equals 4, therefore absolutes exist”. Well aside from rudimentary mathematics having little to do with the art from of living in a society, there are also non-absolutes in mathematics, as in my answer to the questions “Any gods” underneath my avatar. I’m fond of Einstein saying, "Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact."

 

To me, paradoxically, the only truth is that there is no truth. The only absolute is there are no absolutes. (Now don’t point out the fallacy of the language, it’s simply a failing of the language, not the concept. It’s like the Liar Paradox, “I am lying now”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox )

 

What I hear in the religious is insistence on there being only one “truth”. I hear the same thing at times from those who have switched religious thinking from Biblical to Scientific. Science is not a religion, but it most certainly can be embraced by some as a religion of “truth”. What I admire about science so much is that everything is an open-ended inquiry. The second it states anything as absolutes, it closes the door to investigation, and becomes a dogmatic religion. Read my current signature below as an example of why science is so powerful.

[Guest Seculi Terminus]

First of all, I just want to start off by thanking the posters of this forum for such insightful essays.

 

I know I'm coming late to the discussion, but I just had a couple questions, mostly pointed toward Antlerman...

 

I really like what you've said about the sociological roots of many of religious people's biases, and I'm trying as hard as I can to believe it, but there just seem to me to be some difficulties. First, to get to the part about the secular father who said denigrating things about women's role in society, it's true that he may not have been religious, but he was hardly a freethinker, either. I know that there are quite a few of people like him out there, but they seem to me to be more like cultural leftovers. Simply put, it's not like he had any kind of secular reasons to say what he said; he was more or less just parroting the ideas he'd been raised with. If he had grown up, instead, in a society that valued open criticism of anything and everything, would it still be likely that he'd have held onto these beliefs? Would he have even gotten them in the first place?

 

Another issue is that while subjugation of women had a strong economic impetus to it, what can be said about homosexuality? From what I understand, the ancient Greeks had no problem with it; it wasn't until Christianity came along, trying to differentiate itself from the culture around it, that it became taboo. In any case, there are still a lot of even moderate Christians, and even some liberals, who openly accept the idea that Christianity is against homosexuality - and if there was an actual, supernatural Jesus, as well as a Christian God, then homosexuality must be wrong.

 

Now, for a lot of these things, it might very well be that they're actually motivated by nonreligious concerns. But should people be given the excuse of God telling them what to do? Wouldn't we all be better off if they didn't have that excuse as a recourse?

 

To help explain my situation, the perspective I am writing from is one of a childhood raised as a Mormon polygamist. Both my parents were converts, and both of them came to their conclusions based on the teachings of the mainstream LDS church. D&C 130 is clearly prescribing polygyny, and they simply reasoned that, if Mormonism is true, then obviously all of it must be true. I know that this is anecdotal and hardly representative of the mainstream population, but I'm getting to that. The point is that because they'd been raised in a culture that literally believed in the supernatural, specifically of the Christian sort, they were eventually led into an abusive brand of fundamentalism, accepting beliefs that they never would have if not for the religious push they received. I can assure you that polygyny was not something either of my parents heard in Sunday school, or elsewhere, and decided to follow along with.

 

Now, the problem that I have is that it's easy to say that someone can have whatever beliefs they want unless they're using them to hurt someone - that it's all right to be whatever religion you want as long as you personally aren't perpetrating some kind of abuse or violence in the name of that religion - but once someone has become a fundamentalist, the damage has been done, and there's little, if anything, that can be done to improve the situation. Even if 90% of religious believers don't become rabid homophobes, is it really wise to allow Christianity as socially acceptable if that other 10% is? What if it's only 1% if Christians that justify their bigotry in the name of religion? In other words, how many people's rights is moderate religion worth? How do you tell moderate or liberal Christians that their nonsense is all right, but not that of the fundamentalist? (And it's all nonsense.)

 

Obviously, religion is probably here to stay, at least in the foreseeable future. But as an ideal, shouldn't we be shooting for the complete secularization of society?

[Mankey]

Antlerman:

A friend loaned me a copy of the God Delusion on audio CD’s and I listened to the whole thing driving between work and home over the last several weeks. Though in areas of science he has insights and knowledge, he steps beyond in taking a far more materialist philosophy and criticizes everything that’s not his world-view in much the same manner as the religious do other competing ideas. I don’t care if he states how he sees things, but it comes across as dismissive without given any credit as a possible alternative way of looking at things.

 

Since I don’t have the book in front of me, it’s hard to pull quotes. However, to give credit to him, after listening to it he’s not AS fundamentalist as I first suspected, but he is definitely more towards that end of the scale than I am. That said, he most definitely does have a place in the forum of ideas as he opens discussion up.

 

Of all the chapters of the book, the last one was the best. I am interested in looking into the Selfish Gene and the other one Legion mentioned. I suspect they’re much better.

Everybody in my anti-religious/antitheist circles makes a big deal about him, but I am not very familiar with Dawkins. I spend most of my time practicing martial arts, working on cars, messing around in my uncles wood/metal shop, and spending time with my girlfriend. She agrees with you here. We sometimes argue -we approach life differently. I am a materialist for now. She is more of an intellectual than I am......but I am catching up to her. She uses philosophy as an apologetic for her superstitious beliefs. New Age crap.

 

I sense that sooner or later superstition leads to problems....that are totally unnecessary.....to me this is totally unfair and unnecessary. But I want to be able to express my perceptions of the problems of superstition in a way that is fair and reasonable. I guess in a way I am holding an antitheist position on a probationary bases. I try to be a Free Thinker first, before anything. From what I have heard from others about Dawkins position on theism I must disagree with some of what I have heard. I guess I have to read Dawkins God delusion to reallly be able to comment. I am not sure that theism in and of itself is as problematic as some other heathens think. Its religions that can be problematic. You can be a theist and not not be sure about Gods plan. You can be a theist who ignores holy books and the naked assertions of others as far as God goes.

 

Thank you kindly for sharing your thoughts on Dawkins Antlerman.

 

Antlerman:

No human is capable of directly interfacing with reality, and therefore has to approach it through their perceptions. No two people will see any one thing exactly the same because no two people process information exactly the same way. The best you can have is an approximation of an agreed upon understanding of it, which is then called “truth”.

 

When you add the complexity of language to a discussion of that “truth”, you now shade and alter that perception even further, especially across cultural boundaries. Hence in science the language used is that of mathematics, which is more emptied of unintended meanings of connotations as in spoken languages.

 

But when you move beyond the world of science and into philosophies such as things like the questions, “What defines moral behavior,” or “What is meaningful,” or “What is beautiful”, or “What is ugly,” or “What is evil”, now “truth” is anything but measurable by any closely agreed upon tool such as mathematics.

 

Often times I hear the retort, “But 2+2 always equals 4, therefore absolutes exist”. Well aside from rudimentary mathematics having little to do with the art from of living in a society, there are also non-absolutes in mathematics, as in my answer to the questions “Any gods” underneath my avatar. I’m fond of Einstein saying, "Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact."

 

To me, paradoxically, the only truth is that there is no truth. The only absolute is there are no absolutes. (Now don’t point out the fallacy of the language, it’s simply a failing of the language, not the concept. It’s like the Liar Paradox, “I am lying now”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox )

 

What I hear in the religious is insistence on there being only one “truth”. I hear the same thing at times from those who have switched religious thinking from Biblical to Scientific. Science is not a religion, but it most certainly can be embraced by some as a religion of “truth”. What I admire about science so much is that everything is an open-ended inquiry. The second it states anything as absolutes, it closes the door to investigation, and becomes a dogmatic religion. Read my current signature below as an example of why science is so powerful.

All we can do is deal with nature as it is now and as we understand it now. Humanity is rewarded by reality ( what ever that really is ) in doing so. The fruits of science prove this. Technology and medicine. Agriculture....etc...

 

Antlerman: :No human is capable of directly interfacing with reality, and therefore has to approach it through their perceptions. No two people will see any one thing exactly the same because no two people process information exactly the same way. The best you can have is an approximation of an agreed upon understanding of it, which is then called “truth”.

I can see how this understanding can be abused by superstitionists. Everything is material. Matter/energy. We know about mater/energy and we can not demonstrate anything else to exist. Thoughts are material. Perception is material. Everything that we can demonstrate to be real is material. Nothing else. The more we understand about the brain the less room there will be for any world view outside of materialism. To posit anything outside of materialism is an argument from ignorance and is there for irrational. Illogical. Anything I might point out from existence exists whether or not I truly understand that thing.

 

Antlerman:

But when you move beyond the world of science and into philosophies such as things like the questions, “What defines moral behavior,” or “What is meaningful,” or “What is beautiful”, or “What is ugly,” or “What is evil”, now “truth” is anything but measurable by any closely agreed upon tool such as mathematics.

Mankeys feel differently about different things, but we are geared similarly enough that we agree on some things more or less. This is in no way an arguement against materialism. Niether does it in any way support the view that there are no absolutes in existence. Existence exists absolutely. Our feelings about things and effects are different based on what exists. Objects exist. Cause and effect exists. To deny that leads to a contradiction.

 

Antlerman:

Often times I hear the retort, “But 2+2 always equals 4, therefore absolutes exist”. Well aside from rudimentary mathematics having little to do with the art from of living in a society, there are also non-absolutes in mathematics, as in my answer to the questions “Any gods” underneath my avatar. I’m fond of Einstein saying, "Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact."

I have no argument here as I lack a proper understanding of what Einstein is saying. I sense truth in what is said here though. However, math can help us in concrete ways. Obviously.

 

Antlerman:

To me, paradoxically, the only truth is that there is no truth. The only absolute is there are no absolutes. (Now don’t point out the fallacy of the language, it’s simply a failing of the language, not the concept. It’s like the Liar Paradox, “I am lying now”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox )

The liars paradox is incoherent as it refers to nothing outside of itself. There is no referent in that statement. Existence is an absolute. If that is so then there can be more absolutes and we must determine what is absolute case by case. Some things are inescapably self evident otherwise we could not survive at all. However we do not have all the answers and we do not grasp all of reality as it really is. Take things case by case and never fear ignorance if we are in a situation where we are ignorant. Never fear competing explanations that are built on what we do know. There is no room for superstition what so ever. Not rationally.

 

Antlerman:

What I hear in the religious is insistence on there being only one “truth”. I hear the same thing at times from those who have switched religious thinking from Biblical to Scientific. Science is not a religion, but it most certainly can be embraced by some as a religion of “truth”. What I admire about science so much is that everything is an open-ended inquiry. The second it states anything as absolutes, it closes the door to investigation, and becomes a dogmatic religion. Read my current signature below as an example of why science is so powerful.

I dislike the word truth as religionists love to equivocate as they do with the word faith.

 

I am going to spend more time in understanding the methods in the mental tools that we have like the scientific method and all the different logics before I really read any philosophers. I would rather build a solid understanding of the mental tools that we have first, before reading much from philosophers past and present. I am very green right now.

 

We have some absolutes and we build on them. Science does. We just do not understand everything as it really is. I will not let superstionists wiggle or dodge.

[Antlerman]

First of all, I just want to start off by thanking the posters of this forum for such insightful essays.

 

I know I'm coming late to the discussion, but I just had a couple questions, mostly pointed toward Antlerman...

Hi and welcome.

 

I really like what you've said about the sociological roots of many of religious people's biases, and I'm trying as hard as I can to believe it, but there just seem to me to be some difficulties. First, to get to the part about the secular father who said denigrating things about women's role in society, it's true that he may not have been religious, but he was hardly a freethinker, either. I know that there are quite a few of people like him out there, but they seem to me to be more like cultural leftovers. Simply put, it's not like he had any kind of secular reasons to say what he said; he was more or less just parroting the ideas he'd been raised with. If he had grown up, instead, in a society that valued open criticism of anything and everything, would it still be likely that he'd have held onto these beliefs? Would he have even gotten them in the first place?

If memory serves me from when I spoke about this, I was referencing my own father. A few things: Today we do live in a culture where criticism of ideas is wide-spread, through our popular media, through education, etc, yet I am never beyond amazed to hear in this day and age voices of young people from 18 years of age to their 40’s referring to women in their lives as “The Wife”, or “The woman.” It makes me want to hurl to hear this. Are we still living in the f*ing dark ages? I have a co-worker who refers to his wife this way all the time. It’s unbelievable to me.

 

Are these “secular” ideals? No. Are they religious ideals? Again, no. They are cultural ideals, ideals that were given rise I believe largely because of reasons of economy, going back to hunter-gatherers. A male dominate society. I say they're not “secular” either, if we’re using the term secular in any sort of philosophical meaning, such as secular humanism, etc. If I said secular before, I’m sure I probably meant more “non-religious”. Where I was speaking of religion adopting these things, it’s taking a “norm” and sanctifying it and empowering it. How convenient and desirable to hear that God agrees with you, especially if you are a man seeking dominance, or even a woman seeking protection! Our economics don’t support this model. That God doesn’t serve this society.

 

As to “Freethinkers”: I wonder if this isn’t a bit of a misnomer. I consider myself independent in thought, yet certainly I recognize that there is tons of programming in how I think that highly influences my perspectives. I am a product of Western culture. No doubt. Even my “freethinking” is a product of living in a post-modernist world. You and I don’t think these thoughts out of nothing. They came out of the French Enlightenment. I like to fancy myself an original thinker, but that’s hardly true. I chuckle to recall the words of the writer of Ecclesiastes, “There is nothing new under the sun.”

 

Another issue is that while subjugation of women had a strong economic impetus to it, what can be said about homosexuality? From what I understand, the ancient Greeks had no problem with it; it wasn't until Christianity came along, trying to differentiate itself from the culture around it, that it became taboo. In any case, there are still a lot of even moderate Christians, and even some liberals, who openly accept the idea that Christianity is against homosexuality - and if there was an actual, supernatural Jesus, as well as a Christian God, then homosexuality must be wrong.

Make no mistake that Christianity was against homosexuality. I can’t agree with “forgiving” readings of the NT to make it more kind towards that act. The OT is full of condemnation on that subject. I see the only way to respond to those criticisms is not to try to “interpret” scripture in a kinder way, but to understand it’s all human ideas, rooted in cultural norms.

 

Now was the condemnation of homosexuality rooted in economics? Honestly I haven't pondered that, but I would off the top of my head say it comes from much the same place as the subjugation of women. Status in a society as a strong male leader might be threatened by what may potentially be viewed as being effeminate. This would be especially severe in a small tribal setting. In a large cosmopolitan setting such as the Greek culture, there is the luxury of wealth that allows for far more diverse behavior to occur. Who cares, as long as he can buy half the city! This then can even become vogue, stylish, a symbol of being well-to-do. Honestly, I’m not well versed in the history of this, but suspect it to be along these lines.

 

Now, for a lot of these things, it might very well be that they're actually motivated by nonreligious concerns. But should people be given the excuse of God telling them what to do? Wouldn't we all be better off if they didn't have that excuse as a recourse?

If they didn’t have religion, they’d have patriotism. Isn’t it interesting how many “Support our Troops” stickers you see with American flags? What, do liberals hate our troops? Of course not, yet it is clear which side of the political aisle that slogan comes from. Nationalism is a powerful alternative religion, as are many others systems of affiliation - such as ethnicity. Get rid of theistic religion, and I guarantee you won’t get rid of the problem.

 

To help explain my situation, the perspective I am writing from is one of a childhood raised as a Mormon polygamist. Both my parents were converts, and both of them came to their conclusions based on the teachings of the mainstream LDS church. D&C 130 is clearly prescribing polygyny, and they simply reasoned that, if Mormonism is true, then obviously all of it must be true. I know that this is anecdotal and hardly representative of the mainstream population, but I'm getting to that. The point is that because they'd been raised in a culture that literally believed in the supernatural, specifically of the Christian sort, they were eventually led into an abusive brand of fundamentalism, accepting beliefs that they never would have if not for the religious push they received. I can assure you that polygyny was not something either of my parents heard in Sunday school, or elsewhere, and decided to follow along with.

I think I touched on this with Vigile in our conversation before. Do people suck in ideas and are influence by a belief system into things that they otherwise would not have come up with on their own? Sure, just look at the Germans who followed the Nazi’s in their sick ideology under the guise of the religion of Nationalism. Again, the danger of ANY belief system in the hands of the power hungry, and the voices of moderation of intellectuals being criticized and silenced. (Do you hear these words? “Those goddamn, liberal intellectual snobs teaching our children in our colleges!”) Zeus help us!

 

Now, the problem that I have is that it's easy to say that someone can have whatever beliefs they want unless they're using them to hurt someone - that it's all right to be whatever religion you want as long as you personally aren't perpetrating some kind of abuse or violence in the name of that religion - but once someone has become a fundamentalist, the damage has been done, and there's little, if anything, that can be done to improve the situation.

Again, we need to voices of moderation to counter the voices of the radical. Those that will become radical because it suits them, will do so no matter what. Ever seen a radical environmentalist?

 

Even if 90% of religious believers don't become rabid homophobes, is it really wise to allow Christianity as socially acceptable if that other 10% is? What if it's only 1% if Christians that justify their bigotry in the name of religion? In other words, how many people's rights is moderate religion worth? How do you tell moderate or liberal Christians that their nonsense is all right, but not that of the fundamentalist? (And it's all nonsense.)

Well, you’re never going to get rid of radicals. It’s a statistical impossibility. Magically target and nuke all the Evangelicals, and in a decade they will be reborn. It’s how societies work. The only hope you have is to influence change in a positive direction, not to eliminate opposing ideas. They will die off on their own, sure as the mountains level out in time. Evolution is the most powerful force in the universe. It’s relentless and changes ideas and societies as well as geology and biology. In my opinion, it’s better to work with something to your advantage, rather than trying to control it.

 

Obviously, religion is probably here to stay, at least in the foreseeable future. But as an ideal, shouldn't we be shooting for the complete secularization of society?

No. This is a huge and interesting question. I was having a discussion with an atheist friend of mine and we both agree that science is not the answer for the new world. It seems a lot of people see it has the answers, but I disagree. There’s more to what makes us tick as humans that rationality. I would say that I do see us dumping notions of supernatural entities that watch over, govern, or otherwise influence us, in favor of more the aesthetic appreciation of nature. That of cultivating the arts, in some sort of humanistic manner that respects and embraces the knowledge learned through the tool of science, yet infused with an aesthetic language of human inspiration in an existential response to the awareness and appreciation of our own existence. Secular? Only in as far as it’s moved beyond superstition.

 

A fascinating consideration.

[Guest Seculi Terminus]

Humm, I see. Thank you for explaining your view more for me and clearing up some misconceptions I had. I'd like to think about it some more, but I think you can consider me converted Although it'll probably take some time for my emotions to catch up. It's very interested; I'm glad I made the effort to read through this thread.

[Guest Seculi Terminus]

Humm, I see. Thank you for explaining your view more for me and clearing up some misconceptions I had. I'd like to think about it some more, but I think you can consider me converted Although it'll probably take some time for my emotions to catch up. It's very interesting; I'm glad I made the effort to read through this thread.

[Legion]

I was having a discussion with an atheist friend of mine and we both agree that science is not the answer for the new world. It seems a lot of people see it has the answers, but I disagree. There’s more to what makes us tick as humans than rationality.

I agree with this. Science, ideally, is in the model building business. Models can allow one to more effectively exert control if one so chooses. However, a model alone does not provide clues as to which direction control should be exerted.

 

The choice of direction is informed by our values. And in my opinion, it should not devolve onto science alone to elucidate values.

 

I’ve heard it said that the challenge for the 21st century will be to rediscover the sacred. Scientists cannot do this alone. Perhaps they should not attempt do this alone. Certainly scientists, being people first, can participate in rediscovering the sacred, but I think it would be asking too much of scientists to leave this important task to them.

[Guest Seculi Terminus]

I was having a discussion with an atheist friend of mine and we both agree that science is not the answer for the new world. It seems a lot of people see it has the answers, but I disagree. There’s more to what makes us tick as humans than rationality.

I agree with this. Science, ideally, is in the model building business. Models can allow one to more effectively exert control if one so chooses. However, a model alone does not provide clues as to which direction control should be exerted.

 

The choice of direction is informed by our values. And in my opinion, it should not devolve onto science alone to elucidate values.

 

I’ve heard it said that the challenge for the 21st century will be to rediscover the sacred. Scientists cannot do this alone. Perhaps they should not attempt do this alone. Certainly scientists, being people first, can participate in rediscovering the sacred, but I think it would be asking too much of scientists to leave this important task to them.

 

Well, what does meaning have to do with science, anyway? Meaning is purely psychological and exists nowhere except inside our own minds. Shouldn't we leave this to the artists? Certainly cognitive science might lend a hand, but asking a physicist what the meaning of life is is like asking what the purpose of color is. The concepts don't even apply to each other.

 

To put it this way, it seems to me that what science deals with is the absolute facts of the world, whereas art (and in at least a few ways I'd suggest religion), that is good art, has to do with the interpretation of the facts we make. The non-existence of life after death, for instance, can either be a wonderful blessing or a curse depending on how you interpret them.

 

*NOTE: Sorry about the double-post; I've been hunting and searching for the 'edit' button, but it seems to have been disabled.

[Mankey]

I was having a discussion with an atheist friend of mine and we both agree that science is not the answer for the new world. It seems a lot of people see it has the answers, but I disagree. There’s more to what makes us tick as humans than rationality.

I agree with this. Science, ideally, is in the model building business. Models can allow one to more effectively exert control if one so chooses. However, a model alone does not provide clues as to which direction control should be exerted.

 

The choice of direction is informed by our values. And in my opinion, it should not devolve onto science alone to elucidate values.

 

I’ve heard it said that the challenge for the 21st century will be to rediscover the sacred. Scientists cannot do this alone. Perhaps they should not attempt do this alone. Certainly scientists, being people first, can participate in rediscovering the sacred, but I think it would be asking too much of scientists to leave this important task to them.

This problem does not in any way change the fact that the only fair way to discriminate is through reason. Humans must discriminate as well as show tolerance. There is no room for irrationalism when we discriminate.....if we want to be fair to all. We have to do our best and being irrational is not doing our best.

 

There is no room for "God says" if we want to be fair.

[Legion]

Well, what does meaning have to do with science, anyway? Meaning is purely psychological and exists nowhere except inside our own minds. Shouldn't we leave this to the artists? Certainly cognitive science might lend a hand, but asking a physicist what the meaning of life is is like asking what the purpose of color is. The concepts don't even apply to each other.

I think I understand you Seculi. I don't think that I would even be tempted to ask a biologist what the meaning of life is. Though I would likely turn to them before I'd go to a physicist.

 

To put it this way, it seems to me that what science deals with is the absolute facts of the world, whereas art (and in at least a few ways I'd suggest religion), that is good art, has to do with the interpretation of the facts we make. The non-existence of life after death, for instance, can either be a wonderful blessing or a curse depending on how you interpret them.

Yeah, much has been said about the division between the sciences and the humanities. I think we need both.

 

*NOTE: Sorry about the double-post; I've been hunting and searching for the 'edit' button, but it seems to have been disabled.

No problem. I believe you'll get an edit button after your 25th post. By the way, welcome to the forums Seculi.

[Legion]

We have to do our best and being irrational is not doing our best.

Perhaps the alternative to being rational is not necessarily being irrational. Maybe it's being aesthetic.

 

Is art rational Mankey?

[Mankey]

We have to do our best and being irrational is not doing our best.

Perhaps the alternative to being rational is not necessarily being irrational. Maybe it's being aesthetic.

 

Is art rational Mankey?

In some ways it can be....but not in all ways. I have no talent or appreciation for art really....so you are asking an ignoramus.

[Legion]

We have to do our best and being irrational is not doing our best.

Perhaps the alternative to being rational is not necessarily being irrational. Maybe it's being aesthetic.

 

Is art rational Mankey?

In some ways it can be....but not in all ways. I have no talent or appreciation for art really....so you are asking an ignoramus.

Well somehow that doesn't bother me. I seem to be more excited by your honesty than anything else.

[Mankey]

We have to do our best and being irrational is not doing our best.

Perhaps the alternative to being rational is not necessarily being irrational. Maybe it's being aesthetic.

 

Is art rational Mankey?

In some ways it can be....but not in all ways. I have no talent or appreciation for art really....so you are asking an ignoramus.

Well somehow that doesn't bother me. I seem to be more excited by your honesty than anything else.

I do not mind being a silly mankey.

[Antlerman]

We have to do our best and being irrational is not doing our best.

Perhaps the alternative to being rational is not necessarily being irrational. Maybe it's being aesthetic.

 

Is art rational Mankey?

 

 

Is this rational? Personally, I find some of the most pleasing art I've seen. Why? I could attempt to describe what I feel in response to it, but it comes from something that transcends simple cognition. What is that? To me it's something primal, something that goes beyond our reasoning. And it seems that that act or response of moving beyond reason, adds a primal spice to living.

[Mankey]

We have to do our best and being irrational is not doing our best.

Perhaps the alternative to being rational is not necessarily being irrational. Maybe it's being aesthetic.

 

Is art rational Mankey?

 

 

Is this rational? Personally, I find some of the most pleasing art I've seen. Why? I could attempt to describe what I feel in response to it, but it comes from something that transcends simple cognition. What is that? To me it's something primal, something that goes beyond our reasoning. And it seems that that act or response of moving beyond reason, adds a primal spice to living.

I like functionality. I like to figure out how things work. Still, ...maybe I am missing out on some things.

[Antlerman]

We have to do our best and being irrational is not doing our best.

Perhaps the alternative to being rational is not necessarily being irrational. Maybe it's being aesthetic.

 

Is art rational Mankey?

 

 

Is this rational? Personally, I find some of the most pleasing art I've seen. Why? I could attempt to describe what I feel in response to it, but it comes from something that transcends simple cognition. What is that? To me it's something primal, something that goes beyond our reasoning. And it seems that that act or response of moving beyond reason, adds a primal spice to living.

I like functionality. I like to figure out how things work. Still, ...maybe I am missing out on some things.

To be certain, there is beauty and power in dissecting the mechanics of a thing, such as understanding how the universe operates. But then there is just breathing it in. That experience can't be touched by reason. Think of it in terms of analyzing the ingredients in a great dish, then there's simply tasting it! If you miss the pleasure of it, you are missing what makes life, life, IMO.

[Legion]

Antlerman, I'm curious.

 

What do you think is the relationship between art and the sacred?

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, I'm curious.

 

What do you think is the relationship between art and the sacred?

Well, now that's a huge question. Boy, I think that could become it's own topic. To me "sacred" defines the ineffible qualities of the experience of living. Of course it is also a word that I would use to elevate certain values to the highest degree. But in regards to art and the sacred, I was say anything that touches deep into you to move you out of yourself to something greater than yourself, to inspire, to pursuade on a deep and visceral level, to connect you to the world around you, to connect you to the universe itself and ultimately to your own self, that is a "sacred" thing. Something that transcends the mundane, defines as the day to day tasks of living. It's something that gives back to itself. It's the creation of life, in a sense.

 

Nothing mystical, but human and part of nature itselfl. A side of nature that science doesn't typically investigate - the nature of beauty. This is what I mean by "primal" beauty.

[Mankey]

"That experience can't be touched by reason. Think of it in terms of anaylizing the ingredients in a great dish, then there's simply tasting it! If you miss the pleasure of it, you are missing what makes life, life, IMO."

 

I wolf my food. Not much time in tasting. hehe. Bad habit. But food does taste good to me. I like to look at some art sometimes, but I prefer nature. I love music. I just don't take time for these things too often.

 

I am forced to concede that reason is not the be all end all of existence. Agreed. People are morons when it comes to certain things sometimes.

[Antlerman]

I am forced to concede that reason is not the be all end all of existence. Agreed. People are morons when it comes to certain things sometimes.

But reason is a powerful tool to be respected, honored, and embraced. Just not at the expense of using it to where you can go from there. There is a saying that the best poetry is where your head is in the clouds, while your feet are firmly on the ground. That to me is what the tools of reason and science does for me. It allows me to be grounded here in knowledge, and from there we can see a splendid universe unfold in our minds and hearts.

 

The reason I can't take the god myth out there, is because it's not grounded in knowledge. It's having my feet in the clouds and having my head up my .... well you catch the difference.

[Legion]

Antlerman, I'm curious.

 

What do you think is the relationship between art and the sacred?

Well, now that's a huge question. Boy, I think that could become it's own topic. To me "sacred" defines the ineffible qualities of the experience of living. Of course it is also a word that I would use to elevate certain values to the highest degree. But in regards to art and the sacred, I was say anything that touches deep into you to move you out of yourself to something greater than yourself, to inspire, to pursuade on a deep and visceral level, to connect you to the world around you, to connect you to the universe itself and ultimately to your own self, that is a "sacred" thing. Something that transcends the mundane, defines as the day to day tasks of living. It's something that gives back to itself. It's the creation of life, in a sense.

 

Nothing mystical, but human and part of nature itselfl. A side of nature that science doesn't typically investigate - the nature of beauty. This is what I mean by "primal" beauty.

Alright! Nicely said. Thank you.