Skip to main content

Topic: The Awesomesauce with Religion (Read 114181 times)

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
The Awesomesauce with Religion
I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference? :)
  • Last Edit: 2014-02-20, 18:13:52 by Frenzie

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #500

Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.

Much to ersi's chagrin, I would agree with these statements!

 ersi 's chagrin :irked:



Of course, where he sees failure and incompetence, I see intellectual honesty and honest effort...
[...]
Modern science is -much as was religion before it- a sopa de pedra. Some people can't accept that!

You mean they are both on a par and it's okay to have no progress? How detestably pomo of you!

Actually I know what you mean. You just carelessly jump around the pot here and there without commitment, imagining you are contributing to the soup whereas in truth you only annoy the cooks. And you call it life as it's meant to be.


An example: The basis of statistical reasoning can't be frequentism. Nor subjective Beyesianism. But objective Beyesianism makes sense...

What on earth is "statistical reasoning"? If you mean probability theories, then statistics is the basis of one kind of probability, whereas the logical entailment based on the definitions of causality and implications is a whole different kind.

By saying "statistical reasoning" you seem to mean the first kind (statistical probability, i.e. the more it happens, the more true/real it is), whereas when you contrast "subjective and objective" and say "objective makes sense" then you must mean the logical kind of probability, because what on earth could "subjective statistics" even mean in the first place in order to make sense or not? What a mess you are.

Both theories have their distinct usage. Statistical theory of probability has its use to test how a theory or policy works out in everyday life, but in order to test it, you have to devise the theory in the first place. The devising is based on the logical probability, not on statistical.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #501
The problem with the Bible is that it's hard to see its point.

There's no problem at all with the Bible.
The Old Testament simply forget it and the New Testament you simply put a priest explaining what it means to the faithful people in the Church.
Just a bit at the time and once a week it's enough, they'll get the point.

You must decide either you want to be part of those that listens or those who speaks, institutional religion being a multilevel kind of thing but where DIY has no place.
The theologian foundation for my words can be found at the very source, Jesus Christ words. He told Peter go and make my Church. You get to God through the Words of the Bishop of Rome, there's no short cut.

Philosophy, no matter how much appealing it can be, it's not Religion and religion it's about To Serve not to discuss.
There are however gradients in serving, not everyone knees the same way... :)
A matter of attitude.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #502

There's no problem at all with the Bible.
The Old Testament simply forget it and the New Testament you simply put a priest explaining what it means to the faithful people in the Church.
Just a bit at the time and once a week it's enough, they'll get the point.

You must decide either you want to be part of those that listens or those who speaks, institutional religion being a multilevel kind of thing but where DIY has no place.

This is all fine and dandy when you have the priest and the church to do all the work for you, but what if you don't have them? You evidently have no idea how some power can take an aspect or a whole branch of society and cut it off abruptly so that it never recovers, like Soviets did with the church, and like Western governments are doing right now with the institution of marriage. In such a situation, people are on their own to make sense of things according to their individual ability. No priest or church or social worker will be there to help. Lucky if you still have your mother to DIY for you.

I have already understood that Old and New Testament propound different concepts of God and, different from fundie evangelicals, it's impossible to justify any rules or practices based on the law of Moses. Everything relevant to Christians is found in the New Testament. But there has been literally nobody to tell me this. I had to figure it out on my own. I figured out on my own that, different from the way that all the sects and denominations would have it, Jesus didn't condemn outsiders, unbaptised gentiles and pagans. Jesus condemned only one group: The leaders of his own religion. Thus Jesus taught self-criticism, not criticism. Which church and what priest will tell you this? Not one! You have to figure it out on your own.


The theologian foundation for my words can be found at the very source, Jesus Christ words. He told Peter go and make my Church. You get to God through the Words of the Bishop of Rome, there's no short cut.

This is totally open to interpretation. It can be seen as a general exhortation for everyone to emulate Peter's example and make their own church...


Philosophy, no matter how much appealing it can be, it's not Religion and religion it's about To Serve not to discuss.
There are however gradients in serving, not everyone knees the same way... :)

How about a religious philosophy, complete with the concepts of spirit, God, and eschatology coherently tied together so as to make sense of the purpose of service-mindedness and keep the focus on worship?

Eastern religions are not appealing only because they are philosophical, but because they are more internally varied than Catholicism. They have their fundies and they have their philosophical spiritual leaders devoid of any dogmatism. And the philosophies are not only to build models of ontology and epistemology just for the fun of it, but for practical purposes to make sense of meditation, prayer, worship, for spiritual motivation and for spiritual goal. With anything of these missing, of course it would not work. But with all these in place, it should be evident that all this is not merely a matter of discussion, but of practice.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #503
I have already understood that Old and New Testament propound different concepts of God and, different from fundie evangelicals, it's impossible to justify any rules or practices based on the law of Moses. Everything relevant to Christians is found in the New Testament. But there has been literally nobody to tell me this.

I have to email the Pope complaining about that, where are all the Missionaries? Not only one to be sent to the Baltics? :)
Jesus condemned only one group: The leaders of his own religion.

He was Jew...

There's a second group however, the "sellers at the temple". That's the only time you see Jesus Christ actually using violence, shouting and kicking them away, that's extremely meaningful and shall not be ever forgotten.
Obviously He kicks away soul destroying materialism and consumerism and He admits as perfectly legiitim the usage of violence for that.

Since violence it's contradictory with His message, the episode has been interpreted as a certain condescension to Jesus's human side and weakness. Wrong interpretation and future times will show it.
This is totally open to interpretation. It can be seen as a general exhortation for everyone to emulate Peter's example and make their own church...

By the contrary, it's totally closed to any pretension of interpretation, to Peter and only Peter He said such words, Peter the first of Popes.
How about a religious philosophy, complete with the concepts of spirit, God, and eschatology coherently tied together so as to make sense of the purpose of service-mindedness and keep the focus on worship?

That's Catholicism, just expressed in different ways so different level of people can understand.

Quote from: ersi
You evidently have no idea how some power can take an aspect or a whole branch of society and cut it off abruptly so that it never recovers, like Soviets did with the church, and like Western governments are doing right now with the institution of marriage. In such a situation, people are on their own to make sense of things according to their individual ability. No priest or church or social worker will be there to help. Lucky if you still have your mother to DIY for you.

Course I have idea about what it is.
That's why, when teaching to people that God can be known for true by means of reason solely, the Catechism also states that because not everybody is able to do it, and there are many times Historical conditionings that prevents it, then Faith also...

Yes I'm lucky and I'm lucky because I belong.
A matter of attitude.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #504
But with all these in place, it should be evident that all this is not merely a matter of discussion, but of practice.

You're absolutely right.
How praxis can be so important it's a mystery to me but it is totally true.
A matter of attitude.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #505
As a wee laddie in the Sunday School in my local parish kirk, I discovered in a hall some beautiful coloured copies of paintings of  Jesus in different situations. Having thought of him as meek and mild I was at first puzzled at the one on the cleansing of the Temple. However even at such an young age, I came to realise there was a place for righteous anger.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #506
As a wee laddie in the Sunday School in my local parish kirk, I discovered in a hall some beautiful coloured copies of paintings of  Jesus in different situations. Having thought of him as meek and mild I was at first puzzled at the one on the cleansing of the Temple. However even at such an young age, I came to realise there was a place for righteous anger.

Is he agreeing with me??
:irked: :devil: :lol:
  • Last Edit: 2014-08-10, 18:29:45 by Belfrager
A matter of attitude.

  • rjhowie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #507
You big fearty bypassing me directly.  :D
"Quit you like men:be strong"

  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #508
Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.


Yeah-okay-fine, but at the end of the day it is science that gets the work done.  It does it faster and more efficiently than we ever could before and that frees up more time for people to do the things they need or want to do for themselves and their families, i.e. it promotes happiness.  Call science every idiotic thing that pops into your head, but it still gets the job done and has brought mankind out of the dark.  Understanding how every little thing in the universe and on this planet works allows us to make progress in the most efficient and conscientiousness way we can for the betterment of all people.  Science does not wait for fusty thinking people like you to debate what it should or shouldn't do and what definitions to work with.  At it's core science is a field of discovery which is a natural freedom allowed to all of us--ever tried it as a kid?  Science is the future and best hope for mankind and it doesn't take a genius to see that that is true, your intuition alone should tell you that.  If you don't like the way way science conducts its business or structures itself, then come up with something reasonably better that won't bring science and progress to a screeching halt (there could be another Nobel in it for you).   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #509

Modern science does not have any solid metaphysical foundation. Materialistic science has very loose and inconsistent definitions of fact and truth.

Yeah-okay-fine, but at the end of the day it is science that gets the work done.  It does it faster and more efficiently than we ever could before and that frees up more time for people to do the things they need or want to do for themselves and their families, i.e. it promotes happiness. 

What work? Done in what sense? Frees up more time? The actual experience is precisely the opposite. People are either working on multiple jobs at the same time, with no time for families or themselves, or they are unemployed, with no money for family or themselves.

Two things that need explaining here.

1. How do you always arrive at conclusions that run squarely against easily observable facts of life?
2. What is "science" as per you?

Just one more example how illogical you are:

At it's core science is a field of discovery which is a natural freedom allowed to all of us--ever tried it as a kid?  Science is the future...

How do "tried it as a kid" and "the future" fit together? How does "science" fit in there rather than "life" or "eternity" or "Jehovah"? You are so full of propagandistic nonsense that there's no head or tails to it. For a few moments I managed to bring you to some rational tracks, but every time you revert, you get worse. Evidently rational thinking does no good to you.

  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #510
What work? Done in what sense? Frees up more time? The actual experience is precisely the opposite. People are either working on multiple jobs at the same time, with no time for families or themselves, or they are unemployed, with no money for family or themselves.

Science also unequivocally shows that people need sufficient rest and cool-down time. Not that you need science for that, but it's just the classic it depends on what you do with it scenario. We have the technology. The rest is politics.

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #511

Science also unequivocally shows that people need sufficient rest and cool-down time. Not that you need science for that...

Of course you don't need science for that. Science can show it to you only if you have the spare time on vacation to read the book where you find the science that can show it to you. Except that you already got the vacation without any science in the first place.


  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #512
tell me more about no one need science in the first place when in vacation ?

without scientia aka knowledge , aint nobody   know vacation areas, tourists spot , etc .



  • jseaton2311
  • [*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #513
How do "tried it as a kid" and "the future" fit together? How does "science" fit in there rather than "life" or "eternity" or "Jehovah"? You are so full of propagandistic nonsense that there's no head or tails to it.


What propaganda?  My entire life of earth has been one long rapid fire experience of new and exciting scientific discoveries or do you not recognize experience as meaningful grounds on which to form an opinion--probably not.  Practically everything you touch is related to science in some way, so regardless of your opinion, it is indispensable to you. 

If I had spent my life analyzing to death everything I saw, heard or read then I'm fairly certain I would not have enjoyed my life nearly as much as I have (so far), by doing it in less abyss-like depth.  That is not to say that others couldn't get equal pleasure out of life by doing just that--it's simply not my cup of tea.  More to the point however, if the entire world worked according to your standards of analyzation, we would still be furiously debating between candles and the light bulb. 

You must explain to me though, how is it that you know for a fact that science is not being done in the most effective and efficient way possible despite the flaws you see.  Have you tested your way and proven through experimentation that your way produces better results, and furthermore, do you now have the popular opinion of the majority of scientists on earth to back you up?  Science doesn't work like your phantom-Nobel-prize-winning-quantum-gravity-theory theory, despite what the physicist who was politely humoring you might have said.   :knight:  :cheers:
James J

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #514

...do you not recognize experience as meaningful grounds on which to form an opinion.

Sure I recognise it. It's just outlandish how you think everybody should have the same experience. It's like thinking that everybody should grow up in the same place and be raised by the same parents.


If I had spent my life analyzing to death everything I saw, heard or read then I'm fairly certain I would not have enjoyed my life nearly as much as I have...

Okay, so enjoyment is important to you, and analysis is unimportant. How do you manage to call your view science? Is science enjoyment? Where are you getting such stupidities? To me it's evident that it's lack of your analytical skills that does this.


You must explain to me though, how is it that you know for a fact that science is not being done in the most effective and efficient way possible despite the flaws you see.

I analysed the situation and that's how I see the flaws I see. You self-admittedly didn't analyse. The funny thing here is that my conclusions are scientific, based on analysis and open premises, whereas your conclusions are just incoherent emotional nonsense. You are giving science an undeservedly bad name.

It's hard to be more ridiculously self-contradictory than you already are, but I'm sure you can do better. Carry on.

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #515
I don't understand why science is being presented as some form of antagonistic thing relating religion.
Assuming that people wants to identify science with rational mind meaning logical deductive processes, then it's contrary it's the intuitive mind.

That's something worthy of being discussed - reason versus intuition, science and religion have nothing of contradictory.
A matter of attitude.

  • Barulheira
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #516
That's right. Science and religion don't have to clash - unless somebody wants them to.
When theologians pretend to teach science, and when scientists pretend to teach religion, then the problem arises.
(P.S.: I really mean pretend.)

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #517
@Belfrager
For people who are used to think in dichotomies, emotion versus intellect handily translates into religion versus science, imagination versus reason, etc. It's very hard to get out of this trap. For example even you have it occasionally hard to accept that religion can be so much a thing of the mind, intellect, and reason, as it seems to be to me :) For you religion is properly more of a heart and intuition thing. I definitely agree on intuition, it's just that we very likely perceive intuition differently.

Overantagonising is a general problem. Antagonising tends to put opposites on a par, but opposites are not always symmetrical. For example pretty much everybody conceives of good and evil as opposite substances, instead of a gradation where good is the only substance and evil simply the lack of that substance. This continuum point of view is perfectly tenable at a closer look. Goodness accepts, builds, invites, and is welcomed. Evil rejects, destroys, shuns and is suspect. Therefore Evil cannot be a self-contained substance, because it always needs something else that is being rejected, destroyed, shunned, opposed to, etc. whereas Good can be conceived as union or harmony of everything, hence self-sufficient and inherently stable. Good and evil are conceptual opposites, but not symmetrical. It's a flaw to see them in an overly antagonising way so that they seem symmetrical opposites.

Every human has emotion, intellect, and intuition to some degrees and to see these things as opposites that exclude each other is a false dichotomy. Religion and science are also both psychologically present in everyone of us, and conceptually partly overlapping. It's a false dichotomy to see them as exclusive of each other.

But it gets really tricky and outright funny when someone overemotional is scientistic and talks about his position as if the only possible rational way of life where philosophy and religion cannot have any place. Here we have, in addition to false dichotomy, also false definitions. To label emotions "reason", and materialist philosophy or militant atheism "science" is an obvious case of mislabelling, and when we observe divisive false equivocations such as atheism=rationality=science=good and religion=blind emotionality=anti-science=evil, then we observe the propaganda mechanism doing its job.

I readily believe that JS's emotional attitude plays out as slick social competence in his daily life, but this won't change the fact that his typed expression stands no logical scrutiny. He's like an ID evangelist who learned the wrong material and now blindly spreads the gospel.

My experience with the ID thing is that there's no support for it on its own terms. Support for it can be conjectured only in the name of some imagined greater cause, other than itself, because it has zero logical, rational, scientific basis of its own. (Just like Frenzie managed to justify Sam Harris once upon a time: Sam may have no philosophical or logical merit, but since his Great Mission is to smear religions, he is still a Good Guy.)

  • Barulheira
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #518
There is no thread about ID in these forums (yet). :left: :insane: :no:

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #519

Science are not good or bad , it is a Dead thing .
it cant be Good or Bad .

only Human , that can be good or be bad .
anti-science are not Evil .

that are Clearly ,  Straw man combined with Black or white fallacy .





  • Frenzie
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
  • Administrator
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #520
(Just like Frenzie managed to justify Sam Harris once upon a time: Sam may have no philosophical or logical merit, but since his Great Mission is to smear religions, he is still a Good Guy.)

Did this really just follow a piece of text attacking false dichotomies? Sam Harris is either Good™ or Bad™?  :left:

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #521

Did this really just follow a piece of text attacking false dichotomies? Sam Harris is either Good™ or Bad™?  :left:

Probably it doesn't always appear to be so, but for me people's beliefs, philosophical commitments, life stories, etc. are absolutely distinct from their mundane existence, behaviour of the moment, life situation at hand. In terms of world view, Sam Harris is a mind-control-advocating irrational anti-religious extremist militant fundie. In terms of his personal life, his professional and business relationships, etc. I have no comment. And no interest either. It's best for his own good if he were not too practically committed to his own world view, but rather an insincere propagandist, a hypocrite. Because someone seriously and continuously hoping to puppeteer humanity would be a pretty tough case in person.

Notice how I construed a context where hypocrisy appears good? When people with bad philosophy are hypocrites, i.e. not committed to their philosophy, it's relatively good because it means they are not as bad as their philosophy :)

  • Belfrager
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #522
For example even you have it occasionally hard to accept that religion can be so much a thing of the mind, intellect, and reason, as it seems to be to me  :) For you religion is properly more of a heart and intuition thing.

Not at all. To me organized religion it's above everything a civilizational instrument and therefore some conclusions, that could make sense at an individual level, have no place at the collective sphere.
You identified well a separation but wrongly the terms - for the individual, freedom to reason; for the collective, the security of dogma.

As for the rest, I agree on the distinction between symmetrical and opposite but not sure that the good/evil question can be addressed that way. I usually approach it by the Freedom prism and relegate to second place the ontological problem of it's nature.
A matter of attitude.

  • Sparta
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #523
 :sherlock:
definition of hypocrite = using the benefit of sciences but reject sciences . 

  • ersi
  • [*][*][*][*][*]
Re: The Awesomesauce with Religion
Reply #524

You identified well a separation but wrongly the terms - for the individual, freedom to reason; for the collective, the security of dogma.

True, I overlooked this individual-collective dimension. I always do. That collective thing never worked for me. Heard about collective farms a.k.a. kolkhoz? It's like Animal Farm, only in reality, not in a book...