![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 21 to 45 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2006, at 13:15:50
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Declan, posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:26:12
I read an editorial about the Republican party and the religeous right. The guy was of the opinion that the religeous right has become the tail wagging the dog.
The really funny thing was that the guy writing the editorial was one of the group who first formed the strategy of getting them into the party in the first place.
Irony. I love it.
Posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 21:56:53
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Estella, posted by zazenduck on May 18, 2006, at 11:03:10
> > christian values?
> > how about muslim values
> > or hindu values
> > or athiest values
> > or buddist values
> > ?
> How about them?he seems to think his values are specifically christian. i guess i was wondering whether his values might well be consistent with any other religious belief and hence why does he bother dragging one particular religion into it?
i guess i would have thought that one would be better off articulating ones values in a way that other people can assess them without buying into his variety of religion. i mean... surely not everybody in texas is christian? but maybe professing christianity is a vote winner? i'm fairly surprised at that is all. i would have thought specific policies would be more of a vote winner. and i would have thought it is possible to talk about values without mentioning a religion. i mean there is probably more variability in values from people within a religion than from people between religions. and people who profess certain values... have a way of casting specific acts in line with them even when the majority would disagree...
> > why does he have to drag christianity into it?
> Why not?
i thought politics and religion were supposed to be kept seperate.
i thought that was a western value.
seems i was wrong...
or... maybe it is more in line with England than the US.
because of seperating parliament from the kings rule (where the king was supposed to be divinely appointed by god and parliament was meant to be democratically elected)
i think maybe the idea of seperating church and actual (as opposed to figure head) governance came from there...but could be wrong about all that...
> Well some folk claim humanism is a religion.if you define religion verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry loosely...
> Of course the Kinkster is on record supporting non denominational prayer in the school
er...
what if you don't want to pray at all?i'm used to...
public schools don't have religious rites / rituals.
no prayer.
there may be religious education. parents need to sign a consent form for that. most kids get exemptions.
you might learn about 'what people of different religions believe'. but you learn about it as study of society rather than 'this is the truth'.private schools...
can have a religious element (because people volountarily send their kids to the school)
hence private catholic, anglican, methodist etc schools.
but not public schooling.seperation of church and state...
> You gotta serve somebody ....
do you?
can't you live your life just trying to be a good person?
where there are certain things that 'being a good person' means to you such as:
x
x
xI would have thought there would be more consensus on that than there would be in dragging one particular religon into it.
> Kinky is calling for dewuss*fication (an end to political correctness)
what does he mean by 'political correctness'?
e.g. it is politically incorrect to go around calling out to people of african american descent 'yo n*gger'
it is politically incorrect to make jokes about people with physical disability
it is politically incorrect to grab the *ss of a woman (or man for that matter) in the work place.what does he mean by putting an end to 'political correctness'?
why do people think that is a good thing?
> > and i still don't understand how someone who changed his name to that could be taken terribly seriously...
> If he had been born with that name would you be able to take him seriously? What about his decision to change his name makes it hard for you ?i just wondered if he was a joke candidate.
like the mcgillicudy serious party in nz. (not sure how you spell that). they wanted to outlaw motor vechicles and bring back the horse and cart. stuff like that. they satirised the process basically. i wondered if that was what he was trying to do...
Posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 3:05:21
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 18, 2006, at 21:56:53
i guess i have a personal bias (just like everyone else)
but my bias is that i'm an athiest.
though if pushed...
i'll fall back on agnosticism as the most rational position...
but if by 'god' you mean an agent that is beyond the natural laws yet can affect changes (directly) to what lies within the natural world...
an agent that is all loving (benevolent)
all powerful
then i think that notion is incoherant(a contradiction cannot be the case)
so i guess that makes me an athiest
(if you define god as consciousness then i believe in consciousness so i guess that means i believe in god, if you define god as life then i believe in life so i guess that means i believe in god but you have radically changed the meaning of 'god' in defining him as being numerically identical with those things)
when i see the wars that result from religion...
the hostility...
the fighting (both verbal and physical)
for what?
a notion that is deeply incoherant?sigh.
i have no trouble with learning about what people believe
i have no trouble with learning about what different religions saybut to hear it as truth
to be required to pray...requiring people to pray...
imo it is a personal choice that should be confined to the personal realm. do it at home. do it in churches.
but teaching it as truth?
as facts?i have trouble with taht...
Posted by Declan on May 19, 2006, at 3:28:56
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 3:05:21
People have, I guess, all sorts of ideas about God. Here in new age territory people use the word to mean the unconditioned, taking the idea from the esoteric tradition and Buddhism. I think religions should be benign, inneffective and beleved in (is this a utilitarian argument? I dunno if I like them); in this I am using Burke's idea that in the absence of religion something (worse) will take its place.
Posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Estella, posted by Declan on May 19, 2006, at 3:28:56
er... like science ;-)
i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
spirituality... sure...
but religion...
ugh.
Posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 7:09:17
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
> er... like science ;-)
>
> i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
>.Please be civil. Please do not post anything which might make someone else feel put down. This does not mean I don't like you or that I do not think you are a good person. :)
> spirituality... sure...
>
> but religion...
>
> ugh.see above
For the record I personally am not offended. I think political correctness is something like not ever saying anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere.
Kinky's proposal was for voluntary prayer.
Kinky was defeated for Justice of the Peace of Kerrville. I was mistaken above.
I would not want my children to read some of Kinky's lyrics. I would not want my governor to use that kind of language. I don't think that's political correctness. I think it's common decency. I don't know exactly what the difference is.
Posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 7:22:08
In reply to Re: My bad » zazenduck, posted by AuntieMel on May 18, 2006, at 12:59:19
>
> I don't understand why he doesn't post it, either.
>
> Myself? I *might* not mind the execution of someone if I were convinced he was past redemption - and truly guilty - and the crime was really, really bad and coldhearted.
>
> But I don't think anyone can ever assure me all those things would be true.Yes that's what I thought Kinky was trying to say by saying he was in favor of it if he was sure the guy was guilty etc. It just sounded like such a political answer.. that he was playing the game..but that's what people have to do if they want to win I know.
I wouldn't be able to give someone the death penalty either I don't think. I wouldn't serve on a death penalty jury. And to me that just seems like there is no way for a man to get a jury of his peers when so many refuse to be on death penalty juries.
Posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 8:56:46
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
sorry I asked you to be civil
that may have felt uncivil to you and that was not my intent.
Posted by Declan on May 19, 2006, at 17:55:19
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
Science? Maybe. Like getting in space and stuff? Clearly not making any good psych drugs. OK, OK, what is it that science has done that's so cool? Got rid of leprosy? Not cancer, but what? Can't think (too unhappy) Truly, I prefer the Mass. Gave me lots more comfort. Those quantum mechanics guys are allright, I guess, and maybe the internet.
Here's my kind of church service, from Patrick Leigh Fermor's "Beyond the Wind and the Water". Church in Hungary, Midnight Mass,Easter Sunday, 1932, I think.
"Light filled the great building, new constellations of wicks floated in all the chapels, the Paschal Candle was alight in the choir and unwinking stars tipped the candles that stood as lances along the high alter. Except for the red front pews, the Cathedral, the clergy, the celebrating priesrt and deacons and all their myrmidons were in white. The Archbishop, white and gold now and utterly transformed from his scarlet manifestation as a Cardinal, was enthroned under a blazing canopy and the members of his little court were perched in tiers up the steps. ..........In the front of the aisle, meanwhile, the quasi-martial bravery of the serried magnates--the coloured doublets of silk and brocade and fur, the gold and silver chains, the Hessian boots of blue and crimson and turquoise, the gilt spurs, the kalpaks of bearskin with their diamond clasps, and the high plumes of egrets' and eagles' and cranes' feathers--accorded with the ecclesiastical splendour as aptly as the accoutrements in the Burial of Count Orgaz: and it was the black attire that was most impressive. Those scimitars leaning in the pews, with their gilt and ivory cross hilts and stagily gemmed scabbards--surely they were heirlooms from the Turkish wars? When their owners rose jingling for the Creed, one of the swords fell on the marble with a clatter.
Soon, after an interval of silence, sheaves of organ pipes were thundering and fluting their message of risen Divinity. Scores of voices soared from the choir, Alleluiahs on the wing, the cumulous of incense billowing round the curved acanthus leaves was winding aloft and losing itself in the shadows of the dome.....urged on by a friendly prod, I joined the slow slipstream and soon, as though smoke and sound had wafted us through the doors, we were all outside.
As the enormous moon was only one night after the full, it was almost as bright as day.....Wheels creaked overhead, timbers groaned and a many-tongued and nearly delirious clangour of bells came tumbling into the night; and then, between those bronze impacts, another sound, like insistant clapping, made us all look up. An hour or so before, two storks, tired of their journey from Africa, had alighted on a dishevelled nest under one of the belfries and everyone had watched them settle in..........Woken by the bells and the music, the storks in the town were floating and crossing overhead and looking down on our little string of lights as it turned uphill to the basilica again. The intensity of the moment, the singing and candle flames and incense, the feeling of spring, the circling birds, the smell of fields, thin shadows and the unreality of the moon over the woods and the silver flood--all these things hallowed the night with a spell of great benificence and power."
Anyway the wars, and politics cleared out that reactionary rabble (as they were called). When I was growing up the grief for the loss of that world was implicit, along with gratitude that we did not have to endure all that.
Declan
Posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2006, at 9:42:23
In reply to Re: WWJVF?, posted by Estella on May 19, 2006, at 6:39:30
> i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
Keeping in mind that the idea here is to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, could you please rephrase that?
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be redirected to Psycho-Babble Administration. They, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2006, at 10:31:29
In reply to Please be Estella » Estella, posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 8:56:46
I don't think that warrants an apology.
I don't think you asked Estella to be civil in a way that would be uncivil here. Although, perhaps because of the smiley, I thought you were probably joking and/or being a bit sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek...something...I don't know...I just couldn't tell. Limitations of the medium...
But anyway....thanks, even if you did say 'sorry' for posting that, 'cause I felt put down by the post. I want Estella to be Estella, too, but ther are limits, at Babble anyway.....
Well, at least now I know my beliefs may be seen as incoherant by others. Guess that'll have to be okay. I can live with that.
Posted by zazenduck on May 20, 2006, at 19:09:28
In reply to Re: Please be Estella » zazenduck, posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2006, at 10:31:29
> I don't think that warrants an apology.
>
> I don't think you asked Estella to be civil in a way that would be uncivil here. Although, perhaps because of the smiley, I thought you were probably joking and/or being a bit sarcastic, tongue-in-cheek...something...I don't know...I just couldn't tell. Limitations of the medium...
>The smiley was a no hard feelings kind of smiley:)
I just would have rephrased myself and said I think this violates the civility rules rather than saying please be civil. I've just always thought the Please be civil seemed like a judgement on the poster rather than the post. And I didn't want Estella to be blocked again. So I guess it was sympathy too. Sometimes if someone else says something before Bob arrives he lets it go it seems like. Or the person says sorry and rephrases and it's resolved.
> But anyway....thanks, even if you did say 'sorry' for posting that, 'cause I felt put down by the post. I want Estella to be Estella, too, but ther are limits, at Babble anyway.....
>
Well I obviously don't agree with her and I'm sorry you felt bad when you read it. Thanks for saying thanks :)
Posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:09:58
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Estella, posted by Dr. Bob on May 20, 2006, at 9:42:23
> > i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
>
> Keeping in mind that the idea here is to respect the views of others and to be sensitive to their feelings, could you please rephrase that?
Keeping in mind that estelle too has the right to a view which others should respect.Not withstanding the above, her point could be very solidly argued from a purely factual and logical standpoint.
TJ
Posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 21:43:50
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:09:58
I happen not to agree with Estella's point of view, but it beats me how anyone could find it hurtful. I don't agree with it because I think we are dangerous primates who need religion to keep us in line. We can't expect too much of ourselves and religion is quite good enough.
UNLESS, we are really talking about national differences here and by religion is understood fundamentalist religion, naturally including US fundamentalist religion. I've no idea why people feel put down and would be the worst person to ask since I've never got on with them. But if it is important for people to be liked and they feel they aren't, this might be a point of sensitivity. For the record I have no religious opinions worth mentioning.....mine are purely aesthetic.
Posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:54:27
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » teejay, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 21:43:50
> I don't agree with it because I think we are dangerous primates who need religion to keep us in line.
I think you are confusing two issues here. Almost all religions broadly contain the same moral guidlines and those I'm fully in favour of; its the God issues and the way this 'supreme being' supposedly should be worshiped which creates much of the angst around the world.
My personal opinion is that often religion is merely an excuse to hide behind and the real reason wars are fought is to do with power, money or land.
TJ (who was brought up VERY religious but is now an atheist)
Posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 22:29:34
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Declan, posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:54:27
TJ, you are staying up very late again. Humans? What can you do with them? I *suppose* I'm an atheist. But like that curved universe thing?.......I always want to ask what is beyond the wall. If the universe doesn't just go on forever it must have a boundary, right? I'm so confused, and my knowledge of quantum mechaics comes from talking to my 18yo son, but it seems to me that science and religion are not that much different, especially with church services the way they are these days.
Declan
Posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 23:36:28
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » teejay, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 22:29:34
Hiya Declan.....
yeah i'm pretty much always up late, I'm not good at mornings but good at late nights.
I see where you are coming from regarding the curved universe, but the human mind cannot grasp infinity. Time will go on long after you and I are 'worm food' but the concept that the world was here millions of years before you and I were born or will be here millions of years after we are dead is hard to grasp, but its a fact all the same.
Not quite sure how the concept of time tallies with how we actually got here though.
Do you know what convinced me that God didnt exist? Well if God made the heavens, the earth and us, then how come the earth would arguably be better off without us if we were his last (and hence finest) creation? Doesnt make sense does it?
nite declan
TJ
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 0:36:20
In reply to Re: WWJVF? » Estella, posted by zazenduck on May 19, 2006, at 7:09:17
> > i like to think the world would be a better place without religion...
> .Please be civil.
my preference...
would be that if people do feel offended... to say something like 'i felt a little offended (or a lot offended) when you said xxx'.
if you weren't offended, but think others might be then you could say 'i'm concerned others might feel offended if they were to read you saying xxx'.see...
that gives people the chance to put things right.
while 'please be civil' primes them for a blocking...regarding the rephrase...
yeah i was stating my opinion. i wasn't knocking religion. i wasn't making a statement about religion being *bad* I was making a statement about how I think the world could be better... (I thought it was a positive statement... i thought it would be okay). but i didn't really mean to say 'i like to think the world would be a better place without religion' because i don't really like to think it it is more that i think the world would be a better place without religion.
what do i mean by religion?
i mean established religion as opposed to personal spirituality.
and it is what i believe.
i'm sure christians believe the world would be a better place if everyone were christian and the muslims believe the world would be a better place if everyone were muslim etc.is it uncivil to say so?
i don't really see how...
if people disagree i am up for a discussion (i think that would be interesting which is why i said what i did)i believe the world would be a better place if people appealed to natural rather than supernatural explanations.
i believe the world would be a better place if people appreciated that morality and values are seperable from established religion in the sense that you can have either one without the other and having one doesn't make it more probable that you will have the other.
i believe the world would be a better place if people appreciated that there are other reasons for acting morally in accordance with values than 'god will reward us in the next life' or 'god will punish us in the next life' or 'because god said we should / shouldn't'.maybe the trouble is in trying to differentiate between religion and culture? i think the world profits from cultural diversity it is just the established religious movements that i'm not sure profit the world particularly... but that is just my opinion of course and i'm sure the majority of the world doesn't agree with me...
> I think political correctness is something like not ever saying anything that could possibly offend anyone anywhere.oh. are people campaigning for that sense of political correctness?
> Kinky's proposal was for voluntary prayer.:-)
beats involountary prayer IMO> I would not want my children to read some of Kinky's lyrics. I would not want my governor to use that kind of language. I don't think that's political correctness. I think it's common decency. I don't know exactly what the difference is.
ah. some people don't think there is a difference...
i guess there may be a difference between lyrics / language in one setting...
and lyrics / language in another.
i can swear with the best of them...
but not in front of children
not at work
there is such a thing as appropriateness...
but yeah i think i hear what you are saying...
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 0:53:02
In reply to Re: Please be Estella » zazenduck, posted by 10derHeart on May 20, 2006, at 10:31:29
> 'cause I felt put down by the post.
i'm sorry you felt put down by my post.
i didn't mean for you to feel that way.> ther are limits, at Babble anyway.....
i'm not sure how that hit up against the limits...
having a little trouble here...
> Well, at least now I know my beliefs may be seen as incoherant by others. Guess that'll have to be okay. I can live with that.incoherance is a formal property.
that is the way i see it yes.
though when pushed i'll back down to agnosticism
- that should clue you in that it is very arguable indeed whether the formal property of incoherance is there or not ;-)the argument for incoherance is also known as the problem from evil. i'll reconstruct...
1) God is all powerful (can do anything)
2) God is all loving / kind / good / benevolent.
(you grant those by definition)
3) There are instances of evil.
That shouldn't be controversial for those inclined to christianity. For those not inclined to christianity I might need to argue for this a little. Some of my favourite examples:
NATURAL EVIL - We can haggle over whether these count as 'evil' but just consider some destructive acts of nature. Consider the Tsunami. Consider whatever natural disaster you like.
MORAL EVIL - Murder, rape, etc etc.
Those things happen and those are the things I mean by 'evil'.Now in the face of those things...
EITHER god chooses not to prevent them (so he is not all loving, kind, good).
OR god cannot prevent them (so he is not all powerful).So the notion is you must either limit gods power or his goodness for the notion to be coherant.
The problem of evil (which I prefer to consider an argument for incoherance) has been around for centuries... As such there have been a number of defensed (known as theodicies) trying to render the concept of god coherant in the face of the existence of natural and moral evil. i'll try a couple...
THE FREE WILL THEODICY
1) Free will is a great good indeed and so cost benefit analysis shows that we are better off with free will even though some people use their free will to do evil.
My response is - surely the existence of natural evil doesn't depend on human free will. Regarding moral evil either god COULD NOT give us free will but restrict the range of it to harming oneself or god CHOSE NOT to. This once again entails that either he is not 1 or he is not 2 or both.
THE CHARACTER BUILDING THEODICY
Natural and moral evil is necessary for us to build character.
My response is EITHER god could not make it such that we didn't need to suffer evil to build character OR he chose not to make it such.
Hence he is not 1 or he is not 2 or both.
But this has been debated for centuries.
Please don't take it personally that I think that concept of god is incoherant...
Apparantly general relativity and quantum mechanics are similarly incoherant when you put them side by side...
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:04:41
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by teejay on May 20, 2006, at 21:09:58
> Keeping in mind that estelle too has the right to a view which others should respect.thanks tj
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:12:03
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » teejay, posted by Declan on May 20, 2006, at 21:43:50
> I happen not to agree with Estella's point of view,
good :-)
> but it beats me how anyone could find it hurtful.
yeah beats me too... don't get me wrong i'm sorry when people feel hurt in response to my posts i didn't mean to hurt anyone by my comment... but i guess i am having a little trouble seeing why people find it hurtful...
> I don't agree with it because I think we are dangerous primates who need religion to keep us in line.
ah...
there was this fear that without religion people would disintigrate back to a life where things are 'nasty brutish and short' because there would be no incentive for morality without the threat / incentive of punishment / reward from a creator god...
but that has simply turned out not to be the case...
athiests manage to conduct themselves about as well as people from a variety of religions with respect to contracts and promises and so on and so forth... at least... to the best of my knowledge. i don't see any correlation between membership of an established religion and empecable moral behaviour.
i've just started reading this book "Passions Within Reasons: The Strategic Role of the Emotions". It is great :-) Has been fairly influential. He talks about the evolution of cooperative behaviour and about how emotions are important for moral behaviour and about how moral behaviour... if that which promotes cooperation. because basically... we do a lot better by cooperating than we would do on our own... and so evolution can select for altruism. i can't hope to summarise at this point. but i reccomend having a look...
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:28:16
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Declan, posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:12:03
an amazon review:Dennett's take on religion will seem polemical to some, but it's very nearly the opposite. Rather, it posits that Religion, as a sub-realm of anthropology, can be viewed as a natural phenomenon -- rather like language, custom, emotion, espression, etc. -- and as such should not be off-limits to the methods of science. He takes issue with Gould's "magisteria", in which Science illuminates the inert and Religion the 'transcendent' (or whatever it's supposed to do that Science cannot). In some sense, his analysis is very much in line with the evolutionary psychology movement, wherein the Mind is viewed as the product of evolution and human activity a product of the Mind. It's a materialist view, but, as Dennett painstakingly shows, It Works for an enormous variety of phenomena; why, of all artifacts and actions, should human religious practice be shrouded from the light of scientific inquiry?
The central thesis of Dennett's book is *not* some warmed-over pastiche about how religion improves our fitness -- a point he makes with pinpoint clarity and that many commentators on evolution (and his book specifically) managed to miss. In a recent talk, he asked the simple question "how does the common cold improve our fitness?" The answer is simple: it doesn't. Rather, for IT to survive, it needs a fresh set of susceptible hosts; all that matters is that it increases its *own* fitness and reproductive success. We are a vessel for its transmission, and that is all we are, from its perspective.
"Dennett's Dangerous Idea" suggests that religion, suitably defined (and this is a difficult issue to which much of the book is devoted) spreads not because it makes us stronger, faster or more cohesive -- its track record on the last is clearly mixed -- but because it hijacks us for its own propagation. This idea is subtle, akin to Dawkins' memes. Dennett backs it up in spades, and you'll simply have to read the book to take in his bravura performance. Which you should. It's terrific: sprawling yet closely argued, entertaining, brimming with 'the telling detail' and writerly vim.
He is controversial...
But he does get one thinking (if only to disagree).
He has turned to 'popular philosophy' rather (hence philosophers increasingly turn up their nose) but he has done so much serious work too that he can get away with it ;-)
Posted by Declan on May 21, 2006, at 2:35:40
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » Declan, posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:12:03
It is no doubt true that atheists are as good as anyone else; they could well be better. In the transition from a religiously based society to a different one, the habits of thought associated with religion can be grafted onto belief systems without the kinds of safeguards religion normally offers. I see Nazism and Marxism-Leninism in that light. No doubt there have been others. So my fear relates to change, more than any particular ideal. Things can always get worse.
Declan
Posted by Declan on May 21, 2006, at 3:08:50
In reply to Re: please rephrase that, posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 1:28:16
Now you're talking. Not just religion either. The whole planet drumming up business. I don't know about the long withdrawing roar thing. It depends on your time frame. If we're talking of 500 years, yes. But the last 30 must give us pause. It depends on how it all pans out. Imagine a clash of religions and civilizations over oil....like way worse than now.
Posted by Estella on May 21, 2006, at 4:51:33
In reply to The Long Withdrawing Roar » Estella, posted by Declan on May 21, 2006, at 2:35:40
> In the transition from a religiously based society to a different one, the habits of thought associated with religion can be grafted onto belief systems without the kinds of safeguards religion normally offers.
Ah. Sure.
There is good thinking and bad thinking from within religion and from without...
What 'safeguards' does religion offer?Could this be met in alternative ways (laws and social norms)?
I guess what I struggle with when it comes to established religion... Is that some people take religion to be beyond science and beyond critique. But critique is an important tool for keeping checks and safeguards in place. And science... Well I'd sooner trust a scientist telling me the flight was going to go okay than someone who said god told them so...
I guess another thing that is hard...
Is history of opression.
People were killed because the church disagreed.
Everything revolves around the earth (including the sun). Apparantly that was biblical. To say otherwise was to put your life in danger.
The church set the research agenda for a number of years...Medieval philosophers worried about such things as 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin' where the debate was around whether there was any limit (do angels take up space or not)?
Witch burnings...
But you can similarly look to the history of science (medicine and psychiatry and psychology in particular) for some fairly horrific things...
Maybe it is about mystery...
I don't know.
But I feel frightened when established religion has a lot of power / sets the agenda.
Because people tend not to question religion. Because religion is thought to be beyond question 'what can we mere mortals hope to understand about the mysterious ways of god' and so forth.
justifying values aside from religion...
so many interpretations of the bible are possible.
for example...
there is something in the new testament about men (presumably women too) not judging each other. god is supposed to be the judge of man.
(how does that fit with capital punishment)
there is also stuff about turning the other cheek.
(how does that fit with capital punishment. or war)
one can argue most anything from the bible.
so how much does that help?
ones interpretation of the bible...
how about justifying that?or how about just articulating values etc without reference to religion.
i'm not sure what religion buys you...
not sure at all...
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.