Marco--I do not believe that you could possibly be a man of religous conviction. A major tenent of most religions is to love and give to your neighbor and fellow man/woman--but the majority of what you espouse embraces hatred, mistrust and destruction.
marc
Religion
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
paul,Paul Tjaden wrote: BTW, there's an interesting article in todays NYT regarding a Darwinian approach to why virtually all human societies have included religion.
Paul
thanks. just downloaded it, not read yet. here's the link. i could post text if requested, but it's very long.
gary
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magaz ... ion.t.html?
garyDevan
And when he tells them to put in their hands, few will.
If they don’t believe in God, what exactly are they afraid of?
...as stated, this is crap.
Atran is Darwinian in his approach, which means he tries to explain behavior by how it might once have solved problems of survival and reproduction for our early ancestors. But it was not clear to him what evolutionary problems might have been solved by religious belief. Religion seemed to use up physical and mental resources without an obvious benefit for survival. Why, he wondered, was religion so pervasive, when it was something that seemed so costly from an evolutionary point of view?
who the hell says so?!
This is different from the scientific assault on religion that has been garnering attention recently, in the form of best-selling books from scientific atheists who see religion as a scourge. In “The God Delusion,” published last year and still on best-seller lists, the Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins concludes that religion is nothing more than a useless, and sometimes dangerous, evolutionary accident. “Religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate byproduct of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful,” Dawkins wrote.
Really?!
Which is the better biological explanation for a belief in God evolutionary adaptation or neurological accident?
...Coloring it as Black and White right at the get go (!)...
Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity? And if scientists are able to explain God, what then? Is explaining religion the same thing as explaining it away? Are the nonbelievers right, and is religion at its core an empty undertaking, a misdirection, a vestigial artifact of a primitive mind? Or are the believers right, and does the fact that we have the mental capacities for discerning God suggest that it was God who put them there?
this is all i've read so far, but it bothers me. perhaps this is just part of the 'tease'. you know -"is what you're serving your children for dinner tonight going to kill them? tune in at 11:00!"
it makes somewhat extreme characterizations of what a debate may(or may not) be about, setting up a purposeful literary tension that i find suspicious and probably manipulative. it's an oft used style in current writing and media and i've gotten a bit tired of trying to wade through stuff only to find out that it's mostly just a rechurning of mostly nothing new.
'don't know, but i find it off puttin myself.
(this is still a discussion, with opinions and dissagreement not taken personally - right?)
If they don’t believe in God, what exactly are they afraid of?
...as stated, this is crap.
Atran is Darwinian in his approach, which means he tries to explain behavior by how it might once have solved problems of survival and reproduction for our early ancestors. But it was not clear to him what evolutionary problems might have been solved by religious belief. Religion seemed to use up physical and mental resources without an obvious benefit for survival. Why, he wondered, was religion so pervasive, when it was something that seemed so costly from an evolutionary point of view?
who the hell says so?!
This is different from the scientific assault on religion that has been garnering attention recently, in the form of best-selling books from scientific atheists who see religion as a scourge. In “The God Delusion,” published last year and still on best-seller lists, the Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins concludes that religion is nothing more than a useless, and sometimes dangerous, evolutionary accident. “Religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate byproduct of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful,” Dawkins wrote.
Really?!
Which is the better biological explanation for a belief in God evolutionary adaptation or neurological accident?
...Coloring it as Black and White right at the get go (!)...
Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity? And if scientists are able to explain God, what then? Is explaining religion the same thing as explaining it away? Are the nonbelievers right, and is religion at its core an empty undertaking, a misdirection, a vestigial artifact of a primitive mind? Or are the believers right, and does the fact that we have the mental capacities for discerning God suggest that it was God who put them there?
this is all i've read so far, but it bothers me. perhaps this is just part of the 'tease'. you know -"is what you're serving your children for dinner tonight going to kill them? tune in at 11:00!"
it makes somewhat extreme characterizations of what a debate may(or may not) be about, setting up a purposeful literary tension that i find suspicious and probably manipulative. it's an oft used style in current writing and media and i've gotten a bit tired of trying to wade through stuff only to find out that it's mostly just a rechurning of mostly nothing new.
'don't know, but i find it off puttin myself.
(this is still a discussion, with opinions and dissagreement not taken personally - right?)
garyDevan
in respect of the sincerity and personal honesty you've brought:Paul Tjaden wrote:... I do think I understand where Gary is coming from regarding his thoughts that some of these more elusive theories delve into the possibility of there being an "entity " involved that goes beyond natural laws and physics. Am I getting this right , Gary?
Paul
how about this.
i'd pretty much say that i'm an atheist - 'i don't believe in god' or 'a god'. but as soon as i say that, i realize i don't really know what That means (!) it's mostly a statement that's framed by opposition or in contrast or to differentiate from the idea of 'believing in god', and really that's about all it says. it still requires one to define what the idea of 'god' or 'no god' actually means, before you can say you don't believe in it. saying that you don't believe what someone else believes can be accurate, useful, and non malicious - but individually, you're still in the same place as before you said it.
stating that one does not believe in god, in a real sense, is just as absolute a statement as saying that one Believes in (a)god. no? both positions require a degree of (unconscious) intellectual arrogance and assuredness that are virtually impossible to defend.
so that's Why the statement, "i acknowledge the primacy of the question", but the most honest, intellectually rigorous, and defensible (for me personally) answer i can be satisfied with is to "not define an answer". but that's not saying that i don't find it to be the most difficult answer to try to hold on to. but not being able to get a solid grip on it - that's the point(!) you can't grip what you can't grasp. so if you quit reaching, it won't be so slippery! sounds like a lot of "blah", "blah", "blah" -i realize.
think of it in terms of looking at an impressionistic painting - the paintings that look beautiful and that capture so much feeling. one is always drawn to approach them more and more closely, but if you get beyond a certain distance, there are no edges to anything, just a bunch of paint splotches, and whereas you thought you would see more clearly, the picture sort of disappears and you actually see less.
which is why that statement, "i think that the pragmatic, *antiphilosophical* thing (in theoretical physics) has played itself out" -from that string theory physicist, struck me as relevant. sometimes drawing divisions between things or around things, drawing lines too brightly, merely satisfies our insecurities and comfort at having nice sharp lines around things, or placed neatly and securely in a secure box. ?
now, that took a Hell of a lot of effort for me to try to put down in a way that i hoped would be understood. 'doesn't mean that it won't seem like gobbledy-goop!
you heard the one about the agnostic, dyslexic insomniac who ... oh yeah, you have heard it.
Gary
garyDevan
here's another curve ball. all That said still leaves the idea of being 'spiritual' unaddressed - and i ain't going to (too damn hard!).
i will say this. there have been a couple of people i've had dealings with, adult women, coworker/friends of my wife, raised in the deepest cultural and religious traditions of the black churches, women i have a lot of respect for. they know nothing of my 'beliefs', but they've said to my wife that they felt i was a spiritual person - and i took an immense satisfaction from hearing that... go figure.
i will say this. there have been a couple of people i've had dealings with, adult women, coworker/friends of my wife, raised in the deepest cultural and religious traditions of the black churches, women i have a lot of respect for. they know nothing of my 'beliefs', but they've said to my wife that they felt i was a spiritual person - and i took an immense satisfaction from hearing that... go figure.
garyDevan
here's another curve ball. all That said still leaves the idea of being 'spiritual' unaddressed - and i ain't going to (too damn hard!).
i will say this. there have been a couple of people i've had dealings with, adult women, coworker/friends of my wife, raised in the deepest cultural and religious traditions of the black churches, women i have a lot of respect for. they know nothing of my 'beliefs', but they've said to my wife that they felt i was a spiritual person - and i took an immense satisfaction from hearing that... go figure.
probably because of all the people who think i'm an asshole - HAH! (pee wee herman-esque)
i will say this. there have been a couple of people i've had dealings with, adult women, coworker/friends of my wife, raised in the deepest cultural and religious traditions of the black churches, women i have a lot of respect for. they know nothing of my 'beliefs', but they've said to my wife that they felt i was a spiritual person - and i took an immense satisfaction from hearing that... go figure.
probably because of all the people who think i'm an asshole - HAH! (pee wee herman-esque)
garyDevan
-
Paul Tjaden
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 10:28 pm
Damn both Paul and Gary to a nonexistent hell for posting an 11 page article I couldn't pull myself away from no matter how much else I have to do.
I was first surprised at Gary's strong negative reaction to it - but then I got to his the line about a firm belief in God being just as intellectually arrogant as a firm non belief in God. That's a very intellectually honest point, one that an artist is more capable of making than a scientist.
I read the article as a scientist, and the problem of the value of God and morality has plagued me for a long time. I can't believe in religion: it's too contradictory, clouds (even forbids) the thinking, lacks explanitory power. But I still find it very seductive, and I don't know why. Perhaps because in a complex, uncaring world it offers warmth and simplicity....but the pull seems deeper and more ingrained than that: hence the fascination with an evolutionary explanation.
So Gary: the scientific viewpoint MUST be intellectually arrogant in order to function. If you allow yourself to say some things can't be explained with current scientific understanding, you've accepted defeat and have no ability to push forward. We HAVE to believe in reductionist principles or there's no bedrock to build upon.
Go back and reread the paragraphs preceding the religion as a costly from an evolutionary standpoint. They are talking about animalistic belief in water sprites and the like. Do you really think they are there? If not, they are a false belief with no benefit. Mental resources are being used up keeping track of non-existent spirits. Step this up to include modern religion. If you reread the story from a basic building blocks perspective you'll see it's very logically tight, including the places where the different camps disagree. You also have to appreciate that people who come from this basic building block type of world (Such as Dawkins) will carry their reductionist intellectual arrogance into public statements. If you can step from the holistic into the reductionist world, the sweeping statements they make are refreshing rather than jarring.
To me religion is like a good novel: I can enjoy it and find it fascinating, but I can't take it as real. Just because it's not real doesn't mean it's worthless...dare I say books are good for the spirit? You can even model your life after the example of a good book: the danger comes in taking it literally. Or as the whole and only truth.
I have to leave a thought from Richard Feynman before going to bed (should be going back to work, but too late for that now).
"I'd rather live with doubt than certainites that may be false."
Was he doubting the non-existence of God as well? I don't know.
I was first surprised at Gary's strong negative reaction to it - but then I got to his the line about a firm belief in God being just as intellectually arrogant as a firm non belief in God. That's a very intellectually honest point, one that an artist is more capable of making than a scientist.
I read the article as a scientist, and the problem of the value of God and morality has plagued me for a long time. I can't believe in religion: it's too contradictory, clouds (even forbids) the thinking, lacks explanitory power. But I still find it very seductive, and I don't know why. Perhaps because in a complex, uncaring world it offers warmth and simplicity....but the pull seems deeper and more ingrained than that: hence the fascination with an evolutionary explanation.
So Gary: the scientific viewpoint MUST be intellectually arrogant in order to function. If you allow yourself to say some things can't be explained with current scientific understanding, you've accepted defeat and have no ability to push forward. We HAVE to believe in reductionist principles or there's no bedrock to build upon.
Go back and reread the paragraphs preceding the religion as a costly from an evolutionary standpoint. They are talking about animalistic belief in water sprites and the like. Do you really think they are there? If not, they are a false belief with no benefit. Mental resources are being used up keeping track of non-existent spirits. Step this up to include modern religion. If you reread the story from a basic building blocks perspective you'll see it's very logically tight, including the places where the different camps disagree. You also have to appreciate that people who come from this basic building block type of world (Such as Dawkins) will carry their reductionist intellectual arrogance into public statements. If you can step from the holistic into the reductionist world, the sweeping statements they make are refreshing rather than jarring.
To me religion is like a good novel: I can enjoy it and find it fascinating, but I can't take it as real. Just because it's not real doesn't mean it's worthless...dare I say books are good for the spirit? You can even model your life after the example of a good book: the danger comes in taking it literally. Or as the whole and only truth.
I have to leave a thought from Richard Feynman before going to bed (should be going back to work, but too late for that now).
"I'd rather live with doubt than certainites that may be false."
Was he doubting the non-existence of God as well? I don't know.
Brian Vant-Hull
Nothing wrong with certainty in the unprovable. People do it all the time. I may not be able to absolutely disprove the existence of a deity. But neither can I absolutely disprove the existence of leprechauns. Doesn't mean I'm agnostic on the subject. Ask a religious friend if he's agnostic about Zeus (as long as he's not an ancient Roman).
I found the article fascinating. I've long wondered about the Darwinian aspects of religion, but more from a competition among religions perspective. I don't think, though, that belief in the demonstrably false is necessarily evolutionarily disadvantageous. It may merely be neutral. There are lots of traits that don't confer advantage.
Oh, and Brian, don't you have a dissertation to finish? Get back to work!
I found the article fascinating. I've long wondered about the Darwinian aspects of religion, but more from a competition among religions perspective. I don't think, though, that belief in the demonstrably false is necessarily evolutionarily disadvantageous. It may merely be neutral. There are lots of traits that don't confer advantage.
Oh, and Brian, don't you have a dissertation to finish? Get back to work!
David Bodner
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
I'm steering clear of this one--but here's an interesting link to "defend in the name of God" for consideration:
http://www.gunsaint.com/030228.asp
marc
http://www.gunsaint.com/030228.asp
marc
Great Googly-moo!
brian, i realize that yours were considered musings and deserve a thoughtful response - but my ears are still ringing from last night, so there may be a delay.
dave, leprechauns eh? i'm gonna have to find the properly sized and sharpened blade to properly cut into you dude. 
marc, you gotta scale up from grenades to at least IED'S with remote detonation devices 
dave, leprechauns eh? i'm gonna have to find the properly sized and sharpened blade to properly cut into you dude.
marc, you gotta scale up from grenades to at least IED'S with remote detonation devices
garyDevan
well dave, the first thing that strikes me is: what would a persons inherent need/benefit/gain/evolutionary advantage(disadvantage?) be in disproving the existence of either god Or leprechauns?(other than to win a 'bar bet')dbodner wrote: I may not be able to absolutely disprove the existence of a deity. But neither can I absolutely disprove the existence of leprechauns.
i'm intending to be neither facetious, frivolously argumentative, intentionally diversionary, nor guilefully artful (i think i covered everything).
but, you know, you just might not like the question. on the other hand, in a discussion on a topic such as this, for me, there's no winning or losing to be had. so this question is not about attempting that either.
i did, i realize, find your post somewhat -probably unintentionally, but still- dismissive in some aspects, so i guess i would take issue with that.
i'd add also that, it doesn't strike me that i've really gotten my perspective communicated properly, to some large degree. but i wouldn't consider it good form if one used That statement to simple knock the ball back into my court.
...
garyDevan
Gee Gary, I'm actually mostly interested in where you were friday night, but that would be willfully veering off the thread, so I guess I'll go back to religion.
The benefit in disproving God is that it may remove a potentially confusing layer that hides reality. That's my main problem with religion. But this is only a hypothetical benefit...it may be that belief in certain non-existent things confers benefit (I'm assuming religion doesn't describe reality, because if it does, the benefit is too obvious for discussion - assuming you happen to pick the right belief system out of the myriads).
I don't think there's a physical object called my 'credit rating', nor do I think it is necessarily an accurate representation of how trustworthy I am, but it's a nice, simplifying tool that if used correctly allows me to buy a sofa. If used correctly religion might help society function, hence it confers a group survival advantage.
The debate among evolutionists is whether it's an advantage or a useless side product of something else. The fact that some people may consider it an innapropriate question is what makes it so much fun.
I don't know about leprechauns. For some reason when I get involved in conversations they keep popping up. It vexes me.
The benefit in disproving God is that it may remove a potentially confusing layer that hides reality. That's my main problem with religion. But this is only a hypothetical benefit...it may be that belief in certain non-existent things confers benefit (I'm assuming religion doesn't describe reality, because if it does, the benefit is too obvious for discussion - assuming you happen to pick the right belief system out of the myriads).
I don't think there's a physical object called my 'credit rating', nor do I think it is necessarily an accurate representation of how trustworthy I am, but it's a nice, simplifying tool that if used correctly allows me to buy a sofa. If used correctly religion might help society function, hence it confers a group survival advantage.
The debate among evolutionists is whether it's an advantage or a useless side product of something else. The fact that some people may consider it an innapropriate question is what makes it so much fun.
I don't know about leprechauns. For some reason when I get involved in conversations they keep popping up. It vexes me.
Brian Vant-Hull
brianvh wrote: I don't know about leprechauns. For some reason when I get involved in conversations they keep popping up. It vexes me.
additional comprehension delays are likely to be experienced again throughout the day due to expected late arrivals of various brain regions on account of unscheduled maintenance. they can however be seen circling overhead !
garyDevan
science is science. it's an intelellectual discipline, a construct to allow man to accumulate knowledge and understanding without man himself getting in the way and mucking things up. and yet everyone dies alone.
science doesn't care whether there is such a thing as god. if science were to prove that god didn't exist- it would be fine with that. if science were to prove that god did exist- it would be fine with that. and a man dies alone.
all that other stuff about mans nature, the stuff that science has been constructed to exclude so as to insulate itself from corruption, that stuff is fine with science also. it doesn't deny it and that stuff actually becomes part of what science is capable of studying (i.e. the new york times article which i haven't read yet). still dying alone here, you too right?
the impact science has on society and the impact society has on science falls into the realm of politics and will have it's own unending and evolving important debates and questions to be adressed. dying alone? asked and answered.
we all ask and answer our own questions to our own satifaction. ultimately it's a private conversation that we engage in with ourselves only. we can choose to incorporate what we can gather from science and from the society of men as we are able and as we choose to. but, it's still a party of one.
one can know what one knows. but one of those things is more certain than any of the others. that there are limits to what a man or mankind will ever know. take that one to the grave (alone).
if mankind ever came to know and understand everything that there was to know - he would then have become, what is generally acknowledged to be, god him/herself. then he might not have to die - only way i can see around that dying alone thing.
we all come at the god thing from the perspectives of society and of science and of the individual. they all require different types and qualities of answers. it's not that they're not entertwined, it's that it helps that one realizes which part of the conversation one is addressing at any given time.
the trinity according to:
science doesn't care whether there is such a thing as god. if science were to prove that god didn't exist- it would be fine with that. if science were to prove that god did exist- it would be fine with that. and a man dies alone.
all that other stuff about mans nature, the stuff that science has been constructed to exclude so as to insulate itself from corruption, that stuff is fine with science also. it doesn't deny it and that stuff actually becomes part of what science is capable of studying (i.e. the new york times article which i haven't read yet). still dying alone here, you too right?
the impact science has on society and the impact society has on science falls into the realm of politics and will have it's own unending and evolving important debates and questions to be adressed. dying alone? asked and answered.
we all ask and answer our own questions to our own satifaction. ultimately it's a private conversation that we engage in with ourselves only. we can choose to incorporate what we can gather from science and from the society of men as we are able and as we choose to. but, it's still a party of one.
one can know what one knows. but one of those things is more certain than any of the others. that there are limits to what a man or mankind will ever know. take that one to the grave (alone).
if mankind ever came to know and understand everything that there was to know - he would then have become, what is generally acknowledged to be, god him/herself. then he might not have to die - only way i can see around that dying alone thing.
we all come at the god thing from the perspectives of society and of science and of the individual. they all require different types and qualities of answers. it's not that they're not entertwined, it's that it helps that one realizes which part of the conversation one is addressing at any given time.
the trinity according to:
garyDevan
or, put another way but saying pretty much the same thing:
here's one you've heard:
guys looking for his wallet under a street light . when offered assistance by a passerby who asks exactly where the wallet was lost, he replies that it was somewhere down the street but that the light was better here.
think of all which has been discussed (or specifically, a man using science to determine gods existence/nonexistence) with this as a metaphor. don't try to tighten down on the metaphor, try doing the opposite.
here's a starting point: the extent to which mankind would have to go to shine the light of science on all the dimensions of the universe that he's currently aware of as well as those which he is not aware of, but suspects exists - and then beyond.
tell me, if at the end of your musings you don't end up somewhere in the neighborhood of arrogance, maybe near the corner of silliness and hubris, knocking on the door of humour, ready to worship in the church of da blues. LORDY, PRAISE JESUS! Can I Get An AHEM?!
p.s. that's perhaps how I would describe the edge of infinity (reception starting to fade a bit i'd suppose ) .
here's one you've heard:
guys looking for his wallet under a street light . when offered assistance by a passerby who asks exactly where the wallet was lost, he replies that it was somewhere down the street but that the light was better here.
think of all which has been discussed (or specifically, a man using science to determine gods existence/nonexistence) with this as a metaphor. don't try to tighten down on the metaphor, try doing the opposite.
here's a starting point: the extent to which mankind would have to go to shine the light of science on all the dimensions of the universe that he's currently aware of as well as those which he is not aware of, but suspects exists - and then beyond.
tell me, if at the end of your musings you don't end up somewhere in the neighborhood of arrogance, maybe near the corner of silliness and hubris, knocking on the door of humour, ready to worship in the church of da blues. LORDY, PRAISE JESUS! Can I Get An AHEM?!
p.s. that's perhaps how I would describe the edge of infinity (reception starting to fade a bit i'd suppose
) .garyDevan
) with an arrogance hangover 
ANDPaul Tjaden wrote:Sorry, I kinda let this thread go for a day or two. I felt God Damn spirituall yesterday watching the base of this cumulous cloud rushing at me like I was falling UP!!!!!
I think the answer to all of life's mysteries is more air time in "kick ass" conditions. Paul
first draft, how many words is that?Paul and marco and garyD pretty much wrote:
can hangliding save your soul or perhaps at least attenuate hell?
a standard admonishment is to "enjoy your brief stay on this earth....
there's always the chance one may be burning in Hell for a long long time".
but, as an optimistic hang glider pilot sort - what requires more optimism than 'jumping' off a cliff?
talk about tempting fate!
one immediately thinks of all the possible airtime - fires? hot air rising? got to be thermals right?
being a hanglider pilot in hell - hmmm, wouldn't those thermals be awesome!
Ahhh, but there would BE no hangliding in hell, regardless of the devilish enjoyment it provides here.
after all, what greater suffering for a HG pilot then to be able to see the thermals from the fires of Hell,
and NEVER be able to soar in them. just imagine NO HGing forever.
greater suffering? how about getting 'addicted' to flying but every other time one goes out
it's crossing or great at the site you're not at or too strong or too light or it dies as soon as you get to launch.
No hangliding in hell? it would seem a dull throb compared to that anguish!
But it's a devilish sport, as I felt nearly spirituall yesterday,
watching the base of this cumulous cloud rushing at me like I was falling UP!!!!
let me know the next time you see the devil.
maybe he'd be willing to make a deal for extended time in purgatory.
that should be right about at cloud base right?
for now, I think the answer to all of life's mysteries may be more air time in "kick ass" conditions.
garyDevan
Not sure there's an evolutionary advantage either way. So bar bet sounds about right.deveil wrote:
well dave, the first thing that strikes me is: what would a persons inherent need/benefit/gain/evolutionary advantage(disadvantage?) be in disproving the existence of either god Or leprechauns?(other than to win a 'bar bet')
It probably was, in the most respectful way possible. My point is that we give much more deference to certain myths than to others. There are hundreds of deities out there that most of us dismiss out of hand. We don't bother disproving their existence, even if we could. We simply dismiss them as being the products of people's imagination. But which myths do we dismiss and which ones get at least a modicum of deference? That depends mostly on geography (and hence on which religious traditions we've been exposed to). But I aimed my comment more at the self-described agnostics than the believers or on-the-fence types.deveil wrote: i did, i realize, find your post somewhat -probably unintentionally, but still- dismissive in some aspects, so i guess i would take issue with that.
David Bodner
Somewhere back there in the string of posts, I think I finally understood why the evolution/religion article hacked you off so much, Gary. It probably would be appropriate to quote e.e. cummings "I heard the learned astronomer" at this point, but since I only know the synopsis I'll go somewhere else.
Could I summarize your thoughts (but using happiness instead of religion to relieve some cultural baggage) as "Can't I just go off and be happy without the pin-headed scientists coming along and ruining the whole experience by trying to explain the biochemical basis of happiness? Isn't being happy wonderful enough to justify itself without somebody tryng to pick it apart into pieces? Some things can't be 'explained' in a clinical fashion, only experienced."
I totally agree. I'll occasionally take a perverse pleasure in trying to figure out a purely functional meaning of happiness, but except for the chemically imbalanced it's a pointless exercise. The fact that people can be brought out of depression by drugs means happiness may ultimately have a biochemical base, but most of the meaning is irretrievably lost by looking at it that way.
I think it's possible to have both worlds: try thinking about sex clinically - it's frankly disgusting. Then just let yourself go and enjoy the experience...the two ways of looking at the same thing don't have to interfere.
Could I summarize your thoughts (but using happiness instead of religion to relieve some cultural baggage) as "Can't I just go off and be happy without the pin-headed scientists coming along and ruining the whole experience by trying to explain the biochemical basis of happiness? Isn't being happy wonderful enough to justify itself without somebody tryng to pick it apart into pieces? Some things can't be 'explained' in a clinical fashion, only experienced."
I totally agree. I'll occasionally take a perverse pleasure in trying to figure out a purely functional meaning of happiness, but except for the chemically imbalanced it's a pointless exercise. The fact that people can be brought out of depression by drugs means happiness may ultimately have a biochemical base, but most of the meaning is irretrievably lost by looking at it that way.
I think it's possible to have both worlds: try thinking about sex clinically - it's frankly disgusting. Then just let yourself go and enjoy the experience...the two ways of looking at the same thing don't have to interfere.
Brian Vant-Hull
Somewhere back there in the string of posts, I think I finally understood why the evolution/religion article hacked you off so much, Gary.
....dude, i never read the article! it was the introduction, as quoted, by the author that i found Annoying.
It probably would be appropriate to quote e.e. cummings "I heard the learned astronomer" at this point, but since I only know the synopsis I'll go somewhere else.
Could I summarize your thoughts (but using happiness instead of religion to relieve some cultural baggage) as "Can't I just go off and be happy without the pin-headed scientists coming along and ruining the whole experience by trying to explain the biochemical basis of happiness? Isn't being happy wonderful enough to justify itself without somebody tryng to pick it apart into pieces?
....no! wrong wrong wrong
Some things can't be 'explained'
....start There and then Stop!
only experienced."
...nope, nothing to do with experiential - more in the conceptual realm.
I totally agree. I'll occasionally take a perverse pleasure in trying to figure out a purely functional meaning of happiness, but except for the chemically imbalanced it's a pointless exercise. The fact that people can be brought out of depression by drugs means happiness may ultimately have a biochemical base, but most of the meaning is irretrievably lost by looking at it that way.
...whole nother ballgame, but an interesting one.
I think it's possible to have both worlds: try thinking about sex clinically - it's frankly disgusting. Then just let yourself go and enjoy the experience...the two ways of looking at the same thing don't have to interfere.
...just remember to erase the browser history
this was a sort of thrown together answer, as i just logged on after your post.
Dave, thanks. (we're cool, right?)
....dude, i never read the article! it was the introduction, as quoted, by the author that i found Annoying.
It probably would be appropriate to quote e.e. cummings "I heard the learned astronomer" at this point, but since I only know the synopsis I'll go somewhere else.
Could I summarize your thoughts (but using happiness instead of religion to relieve some cultural baggage) as "Can't I just go off and be happy without the pin-headed scientists coming along and ruining the whole experience by trying to explain the biochemical basis of happiness? Isn't being happy wonderful enough to justify itself without somebody tryng to pick it apart into pieces?
....no! wrong wrong wrong
Some things can't be 'explained'
....start There and then Stop!
only experienced."
...nope, nothing to do with experiential - more in the conceptual realm.
I totally agree. I'll occasionally take a perverse pleasure in trying to figure out a purely functional meaning of happiness, but except for the chemically imbalanced it's a pointless exercise. The fact that people can be brought out of depression by drugs means happiness may ultimately have a biochemical base, but most of the meaning is irretrievably lost by looking at it that way.
...whole nother ballgame, but an interesting one.
I think it's possible to have both worlds: try thinking about sex clinically - it's frankly disgusting. Then just let yourself go and enjoy the experience...the two ways of looking at the same thing don't have to interfere.
...just remember to erase the browser history
that's at the personal level. when after you get done reading any and everything and hashing things out with whoever, whenever. it's the conversation one has with ones self. and it's not something one 'recieves' it's something one arrives at, if you will. and it has only limited pertinence to discussions about societal and scientific inquiries, discussions etc.the most satisfying answer for me is to stop asking myself the question. acknowledge the primacy of the question, just not try to define an answer...not neccessarily the easiest thing to do.
and'i believe' - if one Really wants to step to the edge of that abyss, i'd say you're doing well if, when you've gazed to the brink of your sanity(mileage may differ, depending on life stages) -you decide to laugh and appreciate the echo... and then check it out for a good launch and lz.
those are really the best ways i can express the idea. the best answer to some questions is to accept that they inherently can't be answered in a definitive fashion - which doesn't mean one doesn't keep pondering the question and turning it over in ones mind. from that comes literature. you may have been on to something when you referred to good novels.the extent to which mankind would have to go - and then beyond.
tell me, if at the end of your musings you don't end up somewhere in the neighborhood of arrogance, maybe near the corner of silliness and hubris, knocking on the door of humour.
this was a sort of thrown together answer, as i just logged on after your post.
Dave, thanks. (we're cool, right?)
garyDevan
Ahem! (Been travelling and I'm coming late to this party.) Paul and I have spoken on this topic at his home. I agree in general about the historically pernicious effects of religion and have no strong opinion about god. I was a religion major in college (studied Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, mysticism, varieties of Jewish and Christian thought, primitive religion, Old Testament - in Hebrew, New Testament - in Greek) - basically de-programming from being raised Baptist by devout and sincere parents whose truly Christian values I deeply respect. Decided I was satisfied with that much investment of time and brainpower in that subject and went on to other things. As you may know, I do belong to a church (Episcopalian - gay bishop!), although I don't attend often. My religion is four-part harmony, organ music, "smells and bells". It's a great cultural heritage; you don't have to buy into the "fairy tale" to enjoy it any more than you have to believe in fighting sword duels on points of honor to enjoy grand opera. One point on hell: not much detail on that in the Bible. Most of what people think they "know" about hell is from John Milton's "Pilgrim's Progress". I disapprove of religious expressions that are based on guilt and fear; I approve of those that emphasize love and kindness, the continuity among living things in the natural world. There is more there than we can perceive with our most obvious senses. Some people seem to be more sensitive to and interested in these "paranormal" things; I've decided for now to stick to things that I can understand. W.C. Fields famously was found by a friend reading a Bible, which surprised the friend, given field's irreligious lifestyle. Fields was dying, said he was "looking for loopholes". People just don't like the idea that an individual life ENDS, so they keep looking for alternative answers. But what is it we tell children dying of leukemia: the quality of a life is not measured by its length. I think this is what Jesus meant when he talked about "eternal life" - the word he used doesn't necessarily mean "never-ending life"... - Hugh
the only satisfaction to be had from such an 'answer' is that it's really the only answer to be had.
and (ironically?), at it's core, is exactly the very same kind of 'acceptance' in the unknowable (and resultant 'freedom') that an 'honest' (but virtually all) religion is trying to take you to (!) and maybe that's what being spiritual means - 'don't know, just occurred to me.
...and i only really articulated this stuff for myself just now...
but, i'd still say i was an atheist. go figure.
and maybe somewhere in the confusion of that is where i had dave nervous about exactly where it was that i would eventually 'come down' ? don't know. maybe.
and (ironically?), at it's core, is exactly the very same kind of 'acceptance' in the unknowable (and resultant 'freedom') that an 'honest' (but virtually all) religion is trying to take you to (!) and maybe that's what being spiritual means - 'don't know, just occurred to me.
...and i only really articulated this stuff for myself just now...
but, i'd still say i was an atheist. go figure.
and maybe somewhere in the confusion of that is where i had dave nervous about exactly where it was that i would eventually 'come down' ? don't know. maybe.
garyDevan