tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.comments2009-10-24T21:57:52.723-03:00Working towards something that makes sense.Myronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comBlogger132125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-89586876308072631652009-10-24T21:57:52.723-03:002009-10-24T21:57:52.723-03:00Also, I was afraid of dying at first, but then I u...Also, I was afraid of dying at first, but then I understood that even though I will die, what I do won't. History will go on, and my part in it will still be there, for as long as anything exists. I don't much like the "if we're honest" part, because it implies that anyone who doesn't scream in soul-searching terror at the thought of death is in denial, which I don't think is always the case. Sometimes, maybe, but often not.Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-21761332706340969882009-10-24T21:51:50.523-03:002009-10-24T21:51:50.523-03:00Hey Paladin. It's been a while, but I think I&...Hey Paladin. It's been a while, but I think I'm going to try to get back into blogging, in a very limited way, and you ask good questions, so let's see if I can answer.<br /><br />1. Why are we afraid of death?<br /><br />My answer: Because those who weren't really afraid of death were more likely to die before reproducing. The more you care about preserving your own life, the more likely it is you will do so. Preserving your fingernails or your hair, which will grow back naturally, is a different matter. However, many people are very distraught if they lose all of their hair, or someone were to rip out their fingernails so that they'd never grow back, and they'd look like a bit of a freak and have the potential of social exclusion as a result. Human beings don't do well with social exclusion.<br /><br />2. Sure, it's possible that when you die you don't really die because you have an immortal soul. I see no evidence that this is the case, though. What I do see is that everyone has a strong reason to <i>believe</i> that they have an immortal soul, regardless of whether this is true or not, because fear is unpleasant. This is similar to how people find all kinds of reasons to justify unethical behaviour after they've done something wrong, because guilt is unpleasant. Just because people want to believe something, about themselves to escape negative emotions doesn't make it true, and those things that people really want to believe should be viewed with particular skepticism. A belief which allows you to escape from "terror-ridden despair" should be examined very carefully, and really strong evidence provided before you conclude that you've found the truth.Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-17338359451812127902009-04-05T21:34:00.000-03:002009-04-05T21:34:00.000-03:00It might take a silly and dogmatic theist to menti...It might take a silly and dogmatic theist to mention this, but: have you pondered *why* this "terror of being obliterated" is so strong in his heart, and--if we're honest--in the heart of every human person?<BR/><BR/>Methinks, when you (sincerely and kindly enough) offer alternate ways of saying, "no, you'll have made a difference, no matter how small", you're begging two questions:<BR/><BR/>1) Could this "existential terror" not be in his heart because oblivion is contrary to our nature? (Honestly: who screams in soul-searching terror when we get our nails clipped, or when we use the restroom? Things which are in keeping with our nature don't usually bring forth this sort of terror-ridden despair...)<BR/><BR/>2) Is it not possible to entertain everything you've said, re: "impact in the world", and still have immortality of the soul, as well?paladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097301774804069480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-35521836807101763732009-04-02T23:35:00.000-03:002009-04-02T23:35:00.000-03:00You are welcome. :DShort of home schooling your ki...You are welcome. :D<BR/><BR/>Short of home schooling your kid and locking them in the basement, I think its impossible for them not to learn to question my beliefs whether I want them to or not. I certainly would not do this. I want my kids to be independent and I want them to be able to fend for themselves in the real world.<BR/><BR/>I cannot imagine an atheist teaching their kids that "intelligent design" might hold water. Because they firmly believe in the truth of evolution, they are going to teach the reasoning that supports evolution. Obviously, there are issues which they consider open to debate and in the context of those issues, my children will be taught critical thinking skills.Charlenenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-60737018247616467702009-04-01T20:42:00.000-03:002009-04-01T20:42:00.000-03:00Hi Charlene. Thanks for stopping by! :)I actually ...Hi Charlene. Thanks for stopping by! :)<BR/><BR/>I actually don't have a problem with people teaching their children what they believe - as you say, that's to be expected. My post was expressing the "strong atheist" viewpoint on indoctrination, and presenting a counterpoint suggesting that the "let kids figure things out for themselves" approach might not be appropriate.<BR/><BR/>The truth is (and I think some people miss this), whether you try to let your children choose freely or not, whether you believe they should be allowed to reach their own conclusions or not, every person believes some things, and will express those opinions without even trying. Personally, I think it's important to give children a solid grounding in what you think, but also prepare them to question what you've taught them and explore for themselves. I get a little concerned when people suggest that that questioning process should be short-circuited in the interest of "proper formation" or something similar, because I've talked to enough people now who were not given a choice or exposed to alternative viewpoints, and ended up feeling betrayed and lied to when they began to question what they were indoctrinated with. But beyond that I think it's fine to give kids whatever starting point the parents think is best.Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-84997745125024581162009-04-01T20:00:00.000-03:002009-04-01T20:00:00.000-03:00Very nice blog.People teach religion to their chil...Very nice blog.<BR/><BR/>People teach religion to their children, because they believe that religion themselves. As a parent, its your job to teach your children your values and to provide the best tools for having an effective life. I don't think any sane person can reasonably envision a parent doing otherwise. While some extreme measures such as home schooling can be cause for alarm, children certainly will over the course of time question what their parents have taught them.charlenenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-91534571768455627772009-01-09T18:43:00.000-04:002009-01-09T18:43:00.000-04:00Phooey... all the good posts get out up when I don...Phooey... all the good posts get out up when I don't have any time!<BR/><BR/>I'm currently drowning in preparations for finals week (my students are likewise drowning, I'm sure), but one quick comment:<BR/><BR/>There's a difference between physical "causes" creating an "impulse" or "inclination" in us, versus those "causes" being direct *explanations* for this-or-that action. I think of some of the research into hypnosis (I don't have the citation handy--sorry!), where people who were given post-hypnotic suggestions certainly felt the *impulse* to do the suggested action, but some resisted the impulse (while others performed it). As such, the end result really couldn't be explained fully by the observable factors that were "poured into the mix"... since the same starting conditions yielded different results.<BR/><BR/>It'd be accurate to say that there is a very high apparent correlation between thus-and-so brain activity (or other chemical phenomenon) and a human thought, decision, action, etc.; but--as the old statistics saying goes--correlation does not imply causality. If an immaterial soul were acting within that body and triggering such biochemical phenomena as *effects*, there's be no easy way to verify or deny that. (And re: predictability, I think back to Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" series, where such prediction could only be done reliably with arbitrarily *large* populations; I don't exactly know about *that*, but it certainly does seem more likely to predict the movement of a "herd" than to predict how a given person will react to this-or-thus stimulus...)paladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097301774804069480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-77663437386633953072009-01-08T13:42:00.000-04:002009-01-08T13:42:00.000-04:00Well now that's pretty freakin' cool! List a guy's...Well now that's pretty freakin' cool! List a guy's book on the right hand side of your screen, and get him to drop by your blog. Who'd 'a thunk it? I think Thank God for Evolution is now moving to the top of my list... :)<BR/><BR/>The question I have, though, is whether our will is truly free, or just appears to be so for all practical intents and purposes within our daily lives. If our mind works like a machine, and physics works like a machine (so the inputs to our mind are predetermined) then the choices we will have available and the scenarios we will run in our heads, the drives that compete for supremacy and the strength of each of those drives at any given time, and ultimately which choice we will make, is predetermined as well.<BR/><BR/>I can only speculate about the existence or non-existence of "true" free will, and I agree we have apparent free will for all intents and purposes. What I wonder, though, is about how that integrates with the idea that "God has a plan for us all" and "everything happens for a reason", which some people seem to hold in addition to a belief in free will. To me, it seems like it has to be one or the other. Either we have free will, and so can mess with the plan of any God (unless of course that God is willing to intervene constantly and probably visibly to keep things on track, effectively taking away our free will by divine intervention) or God has a grand divine plan of which we are all a part.<BR/><BR/>Personally, if I had to choose, I'd like to hope that God has a plan. Because I'm rather ignorant, and I'd think if we as human beings have the ability to screw things up as we see fit, we're very likely to mess everything up quite spectacularly.<BR/><BR/>Hey Michael, if you come back and read this, aside from Thank God for Evolution, which books have you found particularly informative, and/or which ones have helped to form your current viewpoint the most? I'm the sort who is interested in the results of science and the implications for our world, and I think the idea of a God and the results of science are in principle compatible and complimentary (which is why your book is on my list), but I don't have a science background, so I often find myself wishing I had a deeper understanding of the topics I read about. Any recommendations?<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for posting!Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-44464873886447712992009-01-08T12:08:00.000-04:002009-01-08T12:08:00.000-04:00Myron,I like your line of thought, however, there ...Myron,<BR/><BR/>I like your line of thought, however, there is also another way to think about 'free will'. Here's how I talk about it briefly, on page 151 of my book, <I>Thank God for Evolution</I> (Viking: 2008):<BR/>_________________________________________<BR/><BR/>Our neocortex, or new mammalian brain (highly developed in primates and dolphins; meagerly expressed in rabbits and tree sloths)...provides two powerful functional advantages over the reptilian and paleomammalian parts of our brain.<BR/><BR/>First, there is the scenario-building function. “If I do X, then Y might happen.” Scenario building and imaginative testing make it possible for actions to be “selected” within the brain. Thus actions can be tested safely within the mind before one actually makes a choice that is tested (and selected) by the world at large. As philosopher Karl Popper noted, “Ideas die in our stead.” Scenario building has obvious advantages, but the downside is that the process can be emotionally draining—that is, when we remain in a state of indecisiveness. And even after we make a decision and take action, so long as we keep wondering whether we may have made the wrong choice, scenario building is no comfort. Thus, a by-product of evolutionary advance is that the new mammalian brain generates an internal source of stress capable of magnifying the external stresses that the world sends our way.<BR/><BR/>Second, one has to choose between competing drives. As Paul R. Lawrence and Nitin Nohria hypothesize in their 2002 book, <I>Driven</I>, the imperative of having to choose between multiple, independent drives is what gives birth to free will. An understanding of evolutionary brain science thus demonstrates, far more compellingly than can any philosophical treatise of the past, that free will is real--very real. Big-brained mammals have the capacity to consider alternatives and thus choose among the oft en-competing reptilian and paleomammalian drives. For example, imagine that you are an elk or an antelope. Do you choose to go down to that succulent patch of grass near the thicket, or do you stay in the open where you can easily spot approaching predators but where the food is less appealing? (Competing reptilian drives: sustenance versus safety) Do you try to sneak a copulation with a female in the herd, even though that would put you at risk of injury by the big-antlered male who has claimed all the females for himself? (Competing reptilian drives: sex versus safety). Social mammals have additional drives that complicate their choices. <BR/><BR/>Imagine you are a monkey and that you are a member of a large monkey troop. Exploring on your own, you come upon a luscious patch of ripe fruit. Do you call out to your comrades to join in the feast, or do you decide to eat your fill in silence—and risk being caught as a defector? (Competing reptilian and mammalian drives: sustenance versus status)<BR/><BR/>Humans living in a world co-created by symbolic language face additional dilemmas unique to our species: Do I keep my sexual infidelity a secret and thus risk being found out and living in fear of being found out, or do I confess to my spouse and risk being shamed, shunned, or divorced?<BR/>_________________________________________<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>~ Michael<BR/><BR/><I>TGFE</I> BOOK DESCRIPTION<BR/>http://thankgodforevolution.com/book<BR/><BR/>NOBEL LAUREATES/OTHER ESTEEMED SCIENTISTS<BR/>http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1460<BR/><BR/>RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND CONGREGANTS<BR/>http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1532<BR/><BR/>FOR THE NON-RELIGIOUS AND ANTI-RELIGIOUS<BR/>http://thankgodforevolution.com/node/1531Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-64232927402465156312009-01-04T22:02:00.000-04:002009-01-04T22:02:00.000-04:00Hi Brian!Yeah, I'm alive. I've actually spent all ...Hi Brian!<BR/><BR/>Yeah, I'm alive. I've actually spent all day discussing this post on the forum I frequent. Some intelligent guys over there (I like Vynn and particularly Mooby). If you'd like to check it out, it's <A HREF="http://isgodimaginary.com/forum/index.php/topic,24336.0.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. (You can view it as a guest without creating an account or anything).<BR/><BR/>I've learned that the argument I'm making here is a modified version of Laplace's demon, and spent some time discussing how stochastic ideas about the universe affect the concepts I've presented (and the idea of free will). I'm such a geek...Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-19293322017914609292009-01-04T21:48:00.000-04:002009-01-04T21:48:00.000-04:00He's alive! Woo-hoo! :)I'll give your post some ...He's alive! Woo-hoo! :)<BR/><BR/>I'll give your post some thought, and get back to you ASAP. BTW: thanks again for consuming so many of your blog's electrons in posting my "proof"; I've finally broken down, started my own <A HREF="http://paladinforchrist.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">blog</A>, and saved my main "blabbering" for over there. Mind you, I'll still "haunt" your blog as frequently as I can! :)<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/>Brianpaladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097301774804069480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-55472299611121809662009-01-04T12:40:00.000-04:002009-01-04T12:40:00.000-04:00And yes, I know, on thinking about this further, I...And yes, I know, on thinking about this further, I'm assuming it is possible to completely model the human mind, which is circular since I'm assuming what I'm trying to demonstrate.<BR/><BR/>But still, the evidence is mounting that more and more of what we do and how we think is predictable or understandable...<BR/><BR/>Also, if something I do is by free will, then by definition it doesn't have a physical explanation. But our chemical motivation system is fairly well understood (and there are drugs available to fool with it). So what we want to happen is already explainable by a physical process within our brains - opiates are released, which is our body's way of reinforcing some things as "good". If we can do that not just with behaviours, but with concepts that run through our heads (which I think we probably can - it feels pretty good to suddenly realize you've got a cool idea, for example, even though this only involves something that's going on in your head, and we have emotional responses to thinking about doing things in the future or having done things in the past, as well as actually doing them) then what we want (what determines our intentions) is already explainable physically.Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-442289190942798312008-12-18T20:50:00.000-04:002008-12-18T20:50:00.000-04:00it seems to this 72 year old 48 years married roma...it seems to this 72 year old 48 years married roman catholic that allowing gray into the moral equation has created more problems then solutions. i base my moral decisons upon the moral mindset of the age in which they were created and act accodingly. if you examine carfully the 10 commandments as promulgated in judaism vs the various christion religions , there is a commonality and also a difference. the use of gray to obfuscate the absolutes of black and white has created the psychiatric and psychological problems of modern times. if we believe in black and white judgements absolutely, we do not suffer anxiety attacks. if we have to look for the gray in our actions, therein creates the anxiety.the decisions we have to make create the guilt complexes we may suffer.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-80526479263983860622008-11-25T14:33:00.000-04:002008-11-25T14:33:00.000-04:00"Well... I'd have to disagree with the idea that t..."<I>Well... I'd have to disagree with the idea that the secularization of *anything* is a good thing;</I>"<BR/><BR/>paladin, <BR/>I don't see how you disagree with me. My point was that secularization of education is at least partially responsible for the flourishing of destructive kinds of religious fundamentalism (which are bad things).<BR/><BR/>"<I>and "fundamentalism" can be largely in the eyes of the beholder, after all, and the very word can be reduced to a mere epithet used to demonize those with whom we disagree.</I>"<BR/><BR/>I don't have a problem with fundamentalism as long as it is not destructive to the rest of humanity.vainjanglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04460871307887761775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-50745268476921272162008-11-21T18:58:00.000-04:002008-11-21T18:58:00.000-04:00Hi, Myron!You wrote, in reply to my post:Now, you ...Hi, Myron!<BR/><BR/>You wrote, in reply to my post:<BR/><BR/><I>Now, you want one theocracy, under your religion. Which is natural, because you believe it's true, so what you're advocating is (from your perspective) a government by the truth, for the truth. And if only everyone agreed with you about what the truth was, you could have it :)</I><BR/><BR/>:) Guilty as charged! I'd offer one correction: it is certainly "my" religion insofar as it's the religion held by me; but I do want to make it quite clear that I don't think it's worthwhile simply because I hold it! If you like, I believe that God revealed Himself fully to humanity in the Person of Jesus Christ, and that the Church founded on Him is the custodian of all salvific truth; and I am one of the lowly and sinful heirs to that treasure.<BR/><BR/><I>Since they don't, what do we do? Would you advocate forcing others to believe as you do?</I><BR/><BR/>Absolutely not. I am called to be a child of my Father in Heaven, and <B>*He*</B> doesn't force anyone to believe in Him--even though He'd have every right to do so (unlike me). He honors the freedom of will of His children--through which both true love and true disobedience can spring. I can do no less... though I would say that a Christian government would certainly be entitled to suppress that which was destructive--through exhortation, rebuke, and even civil law, if necessary. (Consider that the FDA does so, even today; why is there no universal outcry against the "censorship" of cyanide-laced Tylenol, or salmonella-contaminated spinach? If the spiritual is truly "real", then it stands to reason that laws against spiritual dangers can rightfully be enforced, as well--regardless of one's emotional reaction to that state of affairs.)<BR/><BR/><I>The problem with taking that position is that the majority, who disagree with you about what the truth is, would then percieve you as a threat. And if you're willing to use force against the majority, they will be equally willing to use force against you, and your group will be annhialated. Knowing this, you can't sensibly advocate for theocracy.</I><BR/><BR/>I can't advocate for a *compulsory* Theocracy (in the absolute sense), right. But the spiritual dangers which I describe need not be derived from Christian revelation; they can be derived directly from the natural moral law (along with prohibitions against murder, rape, etc.). No imposition of Christian-specific law (i.e. Canon Law, in the case of the Catholic Church) would be involved; and, in fact, the Church expressly <B>forbids</B> the use of force (or any type of coercion) in "converting" others (though it'd really be "taking a prisoner of war", rather than "converting").<BR/><BR/><I>In an ideal world, we would all have unbiased access to objective reality, and only the insane would disagree about the truth. Since God (if he exists) didn't see fit to create such a world (where, by the way, theocracy would be the obvious way to go if God exists) it seems to me God doesn't want a theocracy, and you'd best not second-guess Him :)</I><BR/><BR/>:) Cute. But one point is misrepresented, in that train of thought: God will not force reality on those who willingly choose to become insane (or to set in motion forces/events which will result in their insanity). Also, Divine Revelation tells us that God considers the *lack* of a Theocracy to be an aberration--and He will not let that aberration go on indefinitely.<BR/><BR/><I>Standard response: The world isn't what God wants, the world has evil in it because of Satan/Man's sin.</I><BR/><BR/>Mostly true. There's a distinction between the "perfect Will of God" (i.e. what God actively wills) and the "permissive Will of God" (i.e. what God does not will, but which He tolerates for whatever reason(s)). God certainly allowed sin to come into the world, though He certainly didn't "will" that positively (in the philosophical sense) to happen.<BR/><BR/><I>Standard response to the response: But God, being all powerful, allowed that evil to exist, knew that some men/angels would sin, and create the world we see around us. Therefore, God wanted precisely this world (which is how people can still talk about things ultimately going according to God's plan), although we can't know why for sure.</I><BR/><BR/>Also true. I suppose you could use the somewhat cliched, but true, slogan: "God writes straight with crooked lines." Metaphors abound for this idea--some more useful that others, but all of them expressing the fact that God is still in control, and that there is no evil from which God cannot draw even greater good. One metaphor of note is the story of a little girl watching her father weave an intricate tapestry; but she was watching from the back-side of the tapestry, where she saw nothing but a gnarled mess of knots, dangling strings, and a mish-mash of clashing colours. When she complained about the ugliness (and expressed dismay that her father was making such a poor product), the father smiled, and turned the tapestry around (revealing the front of the tapestry) to show her a veritable panorama of balanced colour, lovely texture, and delicate, artistic beauty. Just so, since we look at God's plan from "the back-side of eternity", as such; we can't see how every colour, no matter how troubling it might look on its own, fits into the overall pattern and has an integral part in the beauty and perfection of the final product.<BR/><BR/><I>Would you have deviated from the standard argument?</I><BR/><BR/>I hope not! :)<BR/><BR/><I> Because by the standard argument theocracy doesn't hold up.</I><BR/><BR/>I hope I've shown how that isn't true; God would certainly be more pleased with a Theocracy which honors the reality of His Truth, but His love for us (and our freedom) leads Him to weave even the dark strands of our sin (which He would not have chosen for Himself) into a final "plan" that fits into His master work.<BR/><BR/><I>Re: The importance of religion is its truth, not it's utility: My position is that in a "Good" world (where the behaviours God considers good have positive effects, which is the world I believe we live in), truth and (extremely long term) utility point to the same actions.</I><BR/><BR/>Hm. Unless you're willing to include, in your definition of utility, "that which serves to accomplish God's Will", I think you'd have a terribly difficult time proving your assertion. Utilitarianism, so-called, treats humans like any other "things", by definition; humans are measured by the scale of usefulness (i.e. "utility") to others--and that crushes the intrinsic worth of a human person completely to dust. If, for the sake of granting an incalculable amount of health and pleasure to a vast multitude, a small (and otherwise apparently unproductive, unhappy, and "worthless") child must die, then utilitarianism swings the executioner's axe with nary a moment's hesitation. The utilitarian, when faced with a terrorist who threatens to destroy millions of people with a nuclear weapon if the utilitarian refuses to rape the terrorist's ex-girlfriend, would sadly set to the task of violating the woman--the needs of the many vastly outweighing the needs of the few, or the one (with apologies to Gene Roddenberry).<BR/><BR/>You might suggest that such conduct is unimaginable, even in a utilitarian. If so, I would ask whether the given person would refrain *because* of his utilitarianism, or because of something else? If it's the "something else" which leads him not to let good ends justify evil means, then isn't it that "something else" which we should consider as the guiding force of morality, and let utilitarianism go on its way?<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/>Brian<BR/><BR/>P.S. I hope this comes out right, but: it's *so* nice to talk to someone with a long attention span! :)paladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097301774804069480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-18939573473023501762008-11-21T16:16:00.000-04:002008-11-21T16:16:00.000-04:00Christianity proposes morals quite far removed fro...<I>Christianity proposes morals quite far removed from its secular opponents...</I><BR/><BR/>In practice, perhaps. In principle, not at all, because both religious and secular ethics are attempting to derive ethics from the objective truth. Demonstrate that "abortion is a horrible idea" is true objectively and you win, whether your frame of reference is secular or religious.Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-25637389258265447662008-11-21T16:07:00.000-04:002008-11-21T16:07:00.000-04:00:) Would I completely destroy your trust in me if ...<I>:) Would I completely destroy your trust in me if I said "yes"?</I><BR/><BR/>No, that was the answer I expected. You're not stupid, if you hadn't seen that implication of your position, I would have been surprised :)<BR/><BR/>Now, you want one theocracy, under your religion. Which is natural, because you believe it's true, so what you're advocating is (from your perspective) a government by the truth, for the truth. And if only everyone agreed with you about what the truth was, you could have it :)<BR/><BR/>Since they don't, what do we do? Would you advocate forcing others to believe as you do? The problem with taking that position is that the majority, who disagree with you about what the truth is, would then percieve you as a threat. And if you're willing to use force against the majority, they will be equally willing to use force against you, and your group will be annhialated. Knowing this, you can't sensibly advocate for theocracy.<BR/><BR/>In an ideal world, we would all have unbiased access to objective reality, and only the insane would disagree about the truth. Since God (if he exists) didn't see fit to create such a world (where, by the way, theocracy would be the obvious way to go if God exists) it seems to me God doesn't want a theocracy, and you'd best not second-guess Him :)<BR/><BR/>Standard response: The world isn't what God wants, the world has evil in it because of Satan/Man's sin.<BR/><BR/>Standard response to the response: But God, being all powerful, allowed that evil to exist, knew that some men/angels would sin, and create the world we see around us. Therefore, God wanted precisely this world (which is how people can still talk about things ultimately going according to God's plan), although we can't know why for sure.<BR/><BR/>Would you have deviated from the standard argument? Because by the standard argument theocracy doesn't hold up.<BR/><BR/>Re: The importance of religion is its truth, not it's utility: My position is that in a "Good" world (where the behaviours God considers good have positive effects, which is the world I believe we live in), truth and (extremely long term) utility point to the same actions.Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-14058068272933009052008-11-21T15:36:00.000-04:002008-11-21T15:36:00.000-04:00Hi, Myron!You wrote, re: my post:[Brian]"fundament...Hi, Myron!<BR/><BR/>You wrote, re: my post:<BR/><BR/><I>[Brian]<BR/>"fundamentalism" can be largely in the eyes of the beholder, after all, and the very word can be reduced to a mere epithet used to demonize those with whom we disagree.<BR/><BR/>[Myron]<BR/>It can be, but that was not my intention.</I><BR/><BR/>Sorry... I shouldv'e been more specific; I was replying to Kevin, in that particular comment (and to his specific references to "religious fundamentalism").<BR/><BR/><I>By fundamentalist, I mean someone who reads the bible, has a certain interpretation of it, and believes totally that that interpretation is the one true way to view the text, and will not hear of anything else.</I><BR/><BR/>Okay... though, for the record, I've known many Christians (myself included) who *didn't* fit that definition, and yet were labelled "fundamentalist" by someone who happened to be further to the left on the socio-political spectrum. The crime? The Christian had the audacity to assume that objective (and universal!) religious and moral truth existed <B>at all</B>, and were actually <B>knowable</B> through Divine Revelation! There are extremists on both sides of the theism belief spectrum, after all...<BR/><BR/><I>Agreeing that numbers have validity and are not mere playthings is like agreeing that the bible has value and is not merely a bunch of stories made up for kicks.</I><BR/><BR/>Somewhat, yes... but I was talking about the *actual* applicability of numbers--not just someone "shoehorning in" some otherwise objectively useless numbers... like displaying a hideous painting in order not to offend Great Aunt Helga, who gave it to us as a wedding gift; or like an uncle reluctantly hiring a deadbeat nephew out of a sense of pity or family obligation. :) Even stories that are made up for kicks can be useful, in the sense that you mean. Very few things *can't* be useful in that manner, in my experience. That has nothing especially to do with the objective reality of the thing(s) in question...<BR/><BR/><I> But you can still (I'm assuming?) agree that there is legitimate debate about what some parts of the bible mean.</I><BR/><BR/>Definitely--and the Bible itself confirms that! "[...] our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you: as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." (2 Peter 3:15-16) Some parts of the Bible are easily understood with minimal aid; other parts are extremely obscure.<BR/><BR/><I>Math is a bad analogy here, because any mathematical theorem can be proven conclusively if you assume a few basic axoims.</I><BR/><BR/>Just for the record: my analogy was using the *applicability* of math, and its relation to the physical world; it wasn't using the truth/falsity of this or that theorem, etc.<BR/><BR/><I>A history fundamentalist would say that what's in a particular book is absolutely true, and there is no possibility it might have errors or inaccuracies, or be misinterpreted somehow by the expert historians who have summarized and interpreted it for you. I'm guessing you are not a history fundamentalist in the sense I intended fundamentalist to mean.</I><BR/><BR/>:) You're correct in your assumption. I would only add that "fundamentalist" has been used in a much less narrow sense that you seem to be using it. (Kevin seemed to be veering a bit into the "pejorative" use of that word, and that set my mental alarms clanging.)<BR/><BR/><I>[Brian]<BR/>I'd have to disagree with the idea that the secularization of *anything* is a good thing<BR/><BR/>[Myron]<BR/>What about governance? Would you like to see the world ruled by theocracies?</I><BR/><BR/>:) Would I completely destroy your trust in me if I said "yes"?<BR/><BR/>More specifically, I'd like the world to be ruled by ONE Theocracy, not many; and I'd like that Theocracy to be under the Kingship of the King of Kings (see <A HREF="http://www.drbo.org/chapter/73019.htm" REL="nofollow">the Book of Revelation</A> for details, if you don't mind wading through lots of apocalyptic imagery--a perfect example of what we discussed above, re: "difficult to understand"). But I assume you don't mean that.<BR/><BR/>In short: I would have no problem with a theocracy, provided that it was the *right* one (i.e. in harmony with reality). I'm not a "democracy at all costs" person.<BR/><BR/><I>Any religion, if it wants to succeed, has to propose a set of morals that make some sense in the physical world as well as within the context of beliefs about the supernatural.</I><BR/><BR/>I'd agree, on your key points. I'd argue, however, that many religions "succeed" by appealing to the passions of its followers, and not to their sense of self-restraint. The ancient fertility cults come to mind...<BR/><BR/>More importantly, though: my main point is that the real importance of any religion is its *truth*, above and beyond any emotional appeal, utility, or self-consistency (which is necessary, but not sufficient). The most attractive and self-consistent religion in the world won't be of much ultimate use, if it isn't actually *true*. "If Christ be not risen again, then your faith is in vain. [...] If our hope in Christ is in this life only, then we are the most pitiable of fools." (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:14,19)<BR/><BR/><I>So it is likely that religion can provide a structure for teaching morality which would benefit society, while proposing morals not that different from their secular counterparts.</I><BR/><BR/>Hm. I could only wish that were so... but the widespread secular tolerance, acceptance, and even promotion of abortion, contraception, homosexual activity, euthanasia, and other grave evils leads me to believe that Christianity proposes morals quite far <B>removed</B> from its secular opponents...<BR/><BR/>I didn't mean to derail your main discussion (which is an interesting one), though; carry on!<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/>Brianpaladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097301774804069480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-24678630778792629832008-11-20T23:59:00.000-04:002008-11-20T23:59:00.000-04:00"fundamentalism" can be largely in the eyes of the...<I>"fundamentalism" can be largely in the eyes of the beholder, after all, and the very word can be reduced to a mere epithet used to demonize those with whom we disagree.</I><BR/><BR/>It can be, but that was not my intention. By fundamentalist, I mean someone who reads the bible, has a certain interpretation of it, and believes totally that that interpretation is the one true way to view the text, and will not hear of anything else.<BR/><BR/>Agreeing that numbers have validity and are not mere playthings is like agreeing that the bible has value and is not merely a bunch of stories made up for kicks. But you can still (I'm assuming?) agree that there is legitimate debate about what some parts of the bible mean. Math is a bad analogy here, because any mathematical theorem can be proven conclusively if you assume a few basic axoims. Your history analogy is more accurate, because it is possible to believe certain things to be historical facts, and yet acknowledge the possibility that any particular interpretation of history may be biased by the views of the people writing the history books, or the historians or translators who converted them from one language to another. History is written by the victors, after all :)<BR/><BR/>A history fundamentalist would say that what's in a particular book is absolutely true, and there is no possibility it might have errors or inaccuracies, or be misinterpreted somehow by the expert historians who have summarized and interpreted it for you. I'm guessing you are not a history fundamentalist in the sense I intended fundamentalist to mean.<BR/><BR/><I>I'd have to disagree with the idea that the secularization of *anything* is a good thing</I><BR/><BR/>What about governance? Would you like to see the world ruled by theocracies?<BR/><BR/>As for your moral anarchy theory, that is precisely the angle I was attempting to get across - religious moral teaching brings order, around a set of moral concepts very similar to secular morals. <BR/><BR/>Any religion, if it wants to succeed, has to propose a set of morals that make some sense in the physical world as well as within the context of beliefs about the supernatural. So it is likely that religion can provide a structure for teaching morality which would benefit society, while proposing morals not that different from their secular counterparts. It brings order around a set of morals that makes at least the amount of basic sense required for the religion to propagate.Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-23759896273615220602008-11-20T13:39:00.000-04:002008-11-20T13:39:00.000-04:00Well... I'd have to disagree with the idea that th...Well... I'd have to disagree with the idea that the secularization of *anything* is a good thing; and "fundamentalism" can be largely in the eyes of the beholder, after all, and the very word can be reduced to a mere epithet used to demonize those with whom we disagree.<BR/><BR/>For example: I could easily be called a "mathematical fundamentalist" for assuming, quite totally, that numbers have application to physical reality (i.e. they're not simply play-things... though they're certainly amusing! :) ). I could also be called an "historical fundamentalist" for assuming that many of those stories in the history books (such as the existence of George Washington, the Battle of Gettysburg, etc.) were all real events that happened to real people, despite the fact that I'm completely helpless to prove such by empirical experiment.<BR/><BR/>I'd also gently suggest that--in addition to any isolated cases of people growing in ethical character because of it--secularization very often paves the way for moral anarchy, as well. That simply makes sense: if there is no clear reason to believe in moral absolutes (i.e. you regress to what is merely expedient, pragmatic, approved by the current majority of voters, decreed by the current regime, etc.), then there's no clear reason to constrain yourself to ethical behavior, and you let your passions run wild (usually with disastrous results).<BR/><BR/>In Christ,<BR/>Brianpaladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097301774804069480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-85845945000915518342008-11-20T10:42:00.000-04:002008-11-20T10:42:00.000-04:00Thank you for quoting me in full :)Thank you for quoting me in full :)QuestionMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02139610649716681088noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-2429535748904508812008-11-19T16:35:00.000-04:002008-11-19T16:35:00.000-04:00I agree. And I further propose that diverse relig...I agree. <BR/><BR/>And I further propose that diverse religious views and theologies should be taught more in our public institutions in order to combat destructive practices resulting from religious fundamentalism. I think, by secularizing and removing religion from our schools, we've allowed religion to flourish outside of the intellectual realm. So we shouldn't be surprised that there are fundamentalists acting destructively and irrationally based on their religion. I think the obvious solution, since people practice religion whether atheists like it or not, is to reintroduce theology in schools with an emphasis on how to think about religion rather than strict "indoctrination".<BR/><BR/>Also, as you noted, mythology can convey great truth. Many "liberal" Christians view much of the Bible as mythology, yet they still find great meaning worth believing in. For example, <A HREF="http://www.theopedia.com/Rudolf_Karl_Bultmann" REL="nofollow">the Christian theologian Rudolf Bultmann worked to "demythologize" the New Testament message.</A>vainjanglerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04460871307887761775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-88487377651502732282008-11-19T13:24:00.000-04:002008-11-19T13:24:00.000-04:00Very interesting angle on the idea, using Fairy Ta...Very interesting angle on the idea, using Fairy Tales! (G.K. Chesterton would <A HREF="http://www.surlalunefairytales.com/introduction/gkchesterton.html" REL="nofollow">heartily approve!</A> :) )paladinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17097301774804069480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-16370576737138222122008-11-16T14:24:00.000-04:002008-11-16T14:24:00.000-04:00Hey, sorry Sarah, this sat in my inbox for a while...Hey, sorry Sarah, this sat in my inbox for a while - I thought I had clicked "publish", but I just logged in today and it was still sitting there unpublished.<BR/><BR/>My comments on this post will be available next weekend.Myronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11734754018546873245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7399217057737190875.post-54157549660309045632008-11-14T19:35:00.000-04:002008-11-14T19:35:00.000-04:00Interesting observations there Myron.TwOInteresting observations there Myron.<BR/><BR/>TwOAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com