elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Apr 19, 2006 16:56:05 GMT 1
I'm afraid I disagree with lots of the points made:
AIDS in Africa: first of all, it's NOT the "direct result of the catholic church's stubborn stance on contraception". As you corrected yourself later, it's a number of factors. There is also that terrible myth, born in African tribes, that if you sleep with a virgin, you are cured from AIDs. Now thats nothing to do with the Church. In fact, i would go as far as to say that it's our laid-back, hmmm-better-not-meddle-with-other-people's-beliefs-in-case-we-offend-anyone-attitude, that that myth wasn't extinguished a long time ago.
Secondly, there's more to it than the Church and abstinence. That of drug companies, and their own corruptedness. They are not part of organised religion, in fact the very opposite. They are "tolerant" of beliefs, accept other people's views and still manage to devastate the world's poorest countries by their greed.
I think the point about scientific advances IS a little off-point, notably because it's not just the vocal strength of religious fanatics that oppose cloning. There are many forms of opposition: hippies are one.
I think that organised religion has created wars, killed lots of people and done several terrible things, but I think that it DID stem from the intolerance of others, including those of agnostic views. The intolerance of religious groups is pushed to the limelight, but by doing so, we ARE being intolerant ourselves. We say that we don't like it, and that, to me is intolerance.
My point is, you can't expect everyone to like everything, because we are all different. Therefore, i think we need to rethink what we like to have as "morals"... and what we see as acts of hypocrisy.
I think it's a mistake to look back on history with a 21st century perspective, with our "morals" and try and pick out what religion did good and what it did bad. History is all about the way power circulated, and i think religion and science were just part of that power.. It seems now, that science has that power, but it doesnt make it right.
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Apr 19, 2006 17:43:48 GMT 1
To answer Alex's point:
yes i'm not sure i know what i meant by "believe"... I think I was referring to something that keeps people alive. It's a bit morbid, but why do we keep ourselves alive?
Everyone needs something..
|
|
|
Post by pinkegokane on Apr 19, 2006 23:43:15 GMT 1
i stay alive for selfish reasons: i enjoy life and want to keep on enjoying it, whatever it takes. i suppose that's what i believe in. but it's a very loose rule to live by, and quite a fragile one. i can't say i've ever truly lost faith in life's ability to get better, eventually.
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Apr 20, 2006 18:16:39 GMT 1
elaine, you say you disagree, but the way i see it is that you are just rephrasing some of what i was trying to say...
fact: targeting organised religion will not change the world overnight.
but i think that these religions play a role, even by your own reckoning, in preventing the world from taking a step in the right direction.
there is a clear moral dilemma in what should be tolerated and what shouldn't be in this world, but as far as i am concerned, religion is far from being positive - individual spirituality is a different matter, however, and i'm not referring to that here. i don't think tolerating something that is clearly bad is the right step to take - as you point out in your AIDS comment on some african beliefs of the curing of AIDS
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Apr 20, 2006 22:03:41 GMT 1
hmmm, I am just positing the possibility that perhaps we need religion to function as a society. like it or not, most Western scientists between 1AD and about 18th century were all christians (lets leave China and their inventions/intellectual ability out of this for second), so, in fact... it was religion that propelled Western rational thought forward. Yes, it was infact lots of the Enlightenment rationality that destroyed religion in Europe, but the foundations for that were built on Christianity.
When you say something is "clearly bad", where do you get that from? Where do you get your morals from? hmmm, maybe religion, just a thought. So, why should some beliefs (like the African one) be "wrong", and others be "ok"? there's things like female genital mutilation which still goes on in parts of subsaharan Africa... is that "wrong"? maybe, by Western standards, but did you know that it was practised here in England up until the end of the 19th century, as a "cure" for nymphomania? Now this is an example of science pertaining to do something beneficial, but the result,(as we look back), is that it was terrible, wrong, and shouldnt be done anymore.
I think the question of whether organised religion is positive or not is a bit like saying, is science positive?
Furthermore, I can think of plenty of reasons why science/technology etc... has ruined the world. So, to use religion as a source of blame is a bit shortsighted.
Religion, like science, has control... it is a channel through which power can function, for good or bad. It's like Nietzsche said, it's beyond good and evil. It's a social force, which doesn't really have a right/wrong, but it is still incredibly necessary.
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Apr 21, 2006 17:21:02 GMT 1
again, i feel you're kind of proving yourself wrong in a sense - history should be there to learn from, and learn we do... religion is something we should learn from...
i get my morals from everywhere around me - weighing up what the actions i perceive to be hurtful and think to my self, this is wrong.... you can look at various philosophers' ideas on this - maybe it's an inbuilt universal human rationality, maybe it's something else, because some people clearly don't see the "bad" in situations like others... my articulacy may be lacking in areas, but surely you can get the drift of what i'm saying without picking up on that?
if i use an example, it's one example and i'm not therefore suddenly defending the way others do things around the world and singling out this one instance... why do you think i'm defending science by attacking religion?? the world may evolve beyond science and morals can be improved upon accordingly... as i said before, the old-fashioned power base of religion is only one aspect of the world that is wrong, but it happens to be the aspect that i am picking up on
it goes back to forcing your beliefs on others, ie religion, in a sense... the whole female genital mutilation thing was a belief and maybe it is pain levels that need to be measured, perhaps both physically and mentally... the thing is that some people's morals seem to concentrate on pleasuring the few - and rejecting the needy, which in the day and age, like it or not, includes many african states-->zimbabwe being the obvious one that the press feed to us - and others take a wider scope - looking at bentham and mill and their greatest happiness for the greatest number ideas
i havn't read beyond good and evil, i plan to use the library when i get back to uni
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Apr 22, 2006 15:59:48 GMT 1
I may sound like I'm being really awkward/postmodern etc.. BUT, history ISN'T progress. We think we understand a lot, we look back on history and say "oh, how wrong they were, we should learn from their mistakes". Equally, we might look and say "oh, that was good, let's use that."
But my point is, this is just our modern perspective, it doesn't equate to knowledge or truth.
Then again, you ay you don't have absolute morals, (I don't think I do either), because you've picked them up, used your rational human brain. But you say that forcing beliefs on others is wrong. Is it always wrong? Surely it's only wrong if they have the wrong idea about life. If Christians were actually right about God creating the world, that we should read the Bible etc, then they are right to force the "truth" upon us.
What is comes down to, is that you can't tolerate religion, but then you condemn them for not tolerating other things such as condoms/other religions.
We cannot possibly be neutral, because we are humans. That is, we can never agree. And the way I see it, is that different religions exist for a reason, because of the power they contain and can disperse. But other things also exist, such as democracy, communism, science, etc... Who are we to judge which is "better" or "worse"? We cannot, because we are not the neutral overlord that is able to separate modernist perceptions from an overarching time-spanning observation.
In that, I don't think I'm proving myself wrong, or that I'm agreeing with what you have previously said.
ps: the female genital mutilation thing was to point out the affinity and proximity between science and "belief" - that science believed it to be a cure, and that African beliefs also thought it to be good for you. I still think that such strong faith-beliefs can be placed in science, and that it is also, in sorts, an "organised religion" and capable of the power-wielding that you accuse religion of.
pps: and not just science either, communism and capitalism... etc. Therefore, I suggest that it is a bit naive to point to one aspect of power (religion) without considering the others, which, in my opinion, cannot really be separated from the bigger, incorporated problem of human nature in general.
I don't particularly like Nietzsche, (did you read the Antichrist), but I think he is perceptive when he talks about "will to power". It does seem pessimistic and dark, but maybe it's the truth....?
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Apr 22, 2006 22:30:09 GMT 1
i didn't really say it equated to knowledge or truth - we're not even talking about knowledge or truth, in any case i'm sceptical on knowledge and truth with being an atheist and that
some of the things you accuse me of are things you are also guilty of yourself on this subject "Surely it's only wrong if they have the wrong idea about life"
i think the fact that we don't in fact know anything for sure is what narks me when it comes to people forcibly preaching their beliefs around
the way i see it is there are two types of people in the world, people who fear god and people who fear death - but this doesn't correspond to how people vote, whether they agree with science/democracy/planning permission of their neighbour's extension - all that is mixed, and always will be....
y'know, i don't have all my thoughts completely in place on this subject, so i'm learning all the time, but one thing i believe at the moment is that actions can be judged as right and wrong based on how they have affected people in the past..... i strongly believe in a "live and let live society" and dislike the way others don't on that particular issue
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Apr 23, 2006 0:20:38 GMT 1
I think I was trying to make the point that people who whole-heartedly believe in their religions, DO think they are right (that's the point), so to forcibly preach their beliefs around, isn't wrong at all. If they are right, then they SHOULD definitely preach the "TRUTH".
Ok, so WE, personally, don't know anything for sure, but THEY do. They thoroughly believe that their belief is FOR SURE with plenty of evidence, and nothing else is true. That's where the contention lies, within the difference between people who can "see" the evidence and those who can't.
I would like it if you would expand on the two types of people thing. Fearing God, or fearing death? Christians fall into which category, which do you fall into?
Also, I don't think I have completed my own ideology either (to be honest, I am skeptical about ever finishing...), so I like these discussions, because it forces me to really explore my own arguments.
And I am intolerant (like everyone else), but I am always striving to see it from a more encompassing worldview (arrogant, or not..)
But I am still finding it hard to accept your notion of a judgement, (to judge right and wrong on past experiences?), because it still requires a very modernist retrospective attitude. You can never relive completely the past, and therefore, can never grasp it completely. History of the winners? Did you know they had concentration camps in England for Jews? My point is, that it's hard to judge the past properly, because we cannot fully experience it (only rely on accounts, second-hand experience, possibly our own but not always), and therefore we may be liable to misjudge.
I'm interested in the "live and let live society" thing, what do you mean by it?
ps: have you ever read Foucault? He says a lot of good things about "history of the present" and i have nicked loads of his ideas in past posts.
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Apr 23, 2006 14:19:23 GMT 1
on the fear of god and fear of death thing, i fear death - as a result of not fearing god in a sense - because i don't believe that a god will delieve me to an afterlife, that my body, along with my mind, will decompose when i die --> i think that other atheists, and maybe even those who have some spirituality but are not directly connected with a religion, would feel the same way, in varying extents... those who fear god do so because most mainstream religions use the notion of a divinity to offer what is a kind of hope, but also restriction, in that doing as god says, supposedly through priests - or what-have-you, will bring you a place in another life or heaven.... this is something that i'd thought about before readin much on the subject but i have discovered that nietzsche seems to have a similar idea on this - he tries to promote his recurring life theory, which i don't believe - but i don't think he would have either, as a way of making people focus on real life and away from this heavenly state that comes form doing as religions instruct
ok, true, distant history - and even recent history - may have been butchered out of all recognition by various media outlets and historical authors, but some of it we can see for ourselves... take the example of the vietnam war, in terms of historical butchery, and the role of henry kissinger was praised at the time and for many years after - he was given the nobel peace prize in '71 i believe and when i brought the subject up my parents were under the impression that he deserved this accolade... recently however, information has been released directly contradicting his angelic role in peace - for a start the war went on for another 3 years or so after he received the award... not very peaceful, then... and he contradicted warnings from the supreme court to pull troops out of vietnam by in fact sending more over - to spread the war into neighbouring cambodia... you may know this already - i'm just backing up your point that history deceives, but those in power know that things like this are going on in the world and therefore they should be the ones who stop it seeing as the average joe is fed bullshit by the media... it is the world leaders who maybe ahve to sort out their morals, and religious leaders fall into this category, for me
on the idea of live and let live, i'm kind of getting at libertarianism - live your own life and let others live their lives in the way they see fit (this is often the argument for drug use, but i'm taking a broader line than that)... if your actions infringe on another person's freedom of action, choice or thought, then law should stand against this... it is kind of getting at the idea of treating others only as you would like to be treated yourself, standing in other people's shoes and that, which are probably unrealistic in this world of political cover ups in the media
no, i havn't read foucault - i'll research into his/her writing, what is it about?
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Apr 23, 2006 17:46:20 GMT 1
Foucault basically initated New Historicism (like Nietzsche and existentialism), it wasnt that he coined the term, and then followed it, he started the thinking behind that movement. He wanted to get past the idea that history is this long continuous progress of mankind, that the consciousness of past and present thinkers was equal, unchanging, and assimiliative. He uses examples such as, in sexuality, homosexuality being a constructed word from the 19th century, but not meaning the same now as it did then (to distinguish it from perversion, and sodomy).
I like him, because he seems to talk in terms of power and knowledge, and how they inform discourses (historical documents and narratives) in both past and present. He argues that, for instance, we shouldnt really analyse texts on a language basis, but on a basis of how power functions within it. hmmm, a bit abstract i know, and i am terrible at explaning it.
Another way to put it: Chomsky and him had a debate in 1979 or something. Chomsky contended that there is human nature, which can be used for good or bad (not too clear on this), and the way to move forward in political justice is to discover the universal language and structures inherent to humankind. Foucault just avoided the question of whether human nature actaully existed, asking instead "how has the concept of human nature functioned in our society?"
Basically, he avoids universal truths, just historicises concepts like "human nature" at specific locations/times. He doesnt think we can totally understand human society, as a whole, just as bits.
Anyway, back to what i think...
with the libertarianism outlook, there are problems. what if, i thought pain was my pleasure, that I enjoyed pain inflicted upon me. With your line of thinking, i would inflict pain on other people, because i think it would be what they want. Ok, so maybe you would argue that you should, instead, leave people alone. But what if people wanted pain inflicted upon them? I think we are getting into dangerous territory, because people differ in what they think is the way they should live, treat others, and treat themselves. I don't think it would work... not everybody would be happy... and what is happiness? The subjectiveness of all of this complicates matters. I think maybe we, in western society, may have similar ideas, but not the whole world.
In this, i think religion has done well. it has managed to unite parts of the world in ways that nothing else could.
i dont think christians fear god. i think they fear death, which is why they turn to god for reassurance. i think we all fear death, becuase it is the unknown... and therefore we might "make up" scenarios that make the inevitablility of human mortality more bearable. In some cases, that is what i think religion is: a chance to deal with our own puny existence in a way to make it meaningful. But the point is, I'm not sure. It still could be the truth, the fact that there was a Creator and we have a purpose that was assigned by something much higher than humans. Anyway, Christians defintely do not fear God, they love him, He's their friend. (maybe Muslims too, but i'm more hazy on islam). and they say they dont fear death either, becuase god will look after them. its a great safety mat they have, but that doesnt mean it cant be true.
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Apr 25, 2006 19:06:41 GMT 1
i know there can be definite problems at a glance with libertarianism, but in a live and let live society, there would in theory be a peaceful world in which people wouldn't be afraid and therefore hit out at people... as far as the self-harmers are concerned, i think the notion of self-harm probably comes in part from the overall depression from all the violence and shit in the world, amongst other things of course
i know people differ in the way they think you should live, but that is what i'm getting at by promoting libertarianism... if everybody felt like they could trust each other and not feel threatened then there would idealistically be a phasing out of modes of existence that are essentially to threaten others, because that is what non-libertarians are doing in essence... threatening people - sometimes perhaps because they feel threatened themselves... and this overall feeling is what needs to be eradicated
we'll have to agree to disagree on the FoG and FoD thing
on what you say lastly; about the idea of the possible truth involved in worshipping an unknown entity, this was what i was getting at before - that what religion preaches cannot ever be proved to have any truth, or any falsehood by that reckoning.... so to throw all the eggs in the religion basket seems ridiculous for me....
on that note, i'll going back to science and defend it's principles - which are born from ideas of probability from experimenting - and science welcomes constant change... scientists are always striving to improve their theories, whereas religion just says their's is so and nobody can say otherwise
did you see the palestine/israel documentary at biko's cafe last nite? i love going to those documentary showings - very illuminating.... i didn't know anything of the oppression in that area beforehand... or anything about america's involvement either...
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Apr 26, 2006 0:55:33 GMT 1
(this is out of context cause i havent read this thread and it's moved on but still...) Yes, it was infact lots of the Enlightenment rationality that destroyed religion in Europe, but the foundations for that were built on Christianity. Whoa, whoa there. Christianity often persecuted Rational thought and activly discouraged it from its foundations in Europe from the 4rd century onwards until at LEAST the mid 16th century if not later. Galileo: "I have proof that we are in a heliocentric system" Pope,etc: "WRONG GOD THINKS WE ARE SPECIAL I WILL LOCK YOU UP NOW. the sun revolves around us because God created the universe for us" Erm...Really? rational thought was inspired by Christianity? Perhaps only in the sense that people wanted to find truth outside of Dogmatism. Christianity actively discouraged scientific thought since it was considered ungodly. I think that you're a bit unfair here as well. Why should science have to have the burden of proof here? Christianity has done more than its fair share to 'purify' people, and 'convert'. Hell, they don't need a reason, God's on their side, right? Just because science has made mistakes, like mutilation and blood letting, at least it is based on some sort of empirical proof. blood letting would lower blood pressure and therefore would often relieve headaches (if you didn't die...!) Religion however, is not beyond good and evil, since without relgion the concept of good and evil would not exist. If science had come to be the only thing we knew and God had never come up as a concept, etc. everything we did would be said to be behaviouralist. There would be be notions of punishable deeds, but not necessarily bad acts. Since killing somebody is something that prevents somebody else from functioning and continuing their life, it is an act that could be punished. However Religion is control. "if you do what we don't want you to do, and even if you don't care that we'll put you on a rack and hang you, you will suffer for eternity and nothing you can do will prevent that unless you do what you're told. Since we know God's wishes, you have to listen to us" Religion is emotional control, since it doesn't need to be physical to prevent people from doing things (a thousand years ago, perhaps at least). Science is definitely positive. Application of science is, and can be negative, but knowledge is certainly the one thing that we should aspire to. Since God didn't want us to have it, why not try and get it? The only human nature that is truly wonderful is imagination and the desire to learn and understand.
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Apr 26, 2006 11:44:11 GMT 1
what he said ^^^^
specifically on the behaviousalist thing... which seems to connect with live and let live theory --> if you're not letting live then you should be punished
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Apr 26, 2006 13:21:57 GMT 1
I stand by my initial statement, though perhaps it was too crude. Galileo and Newton (and many others were christians). So, there's a point, christians can search for knowledge, they dont just sit back and blindly watch the world go by. The point about "burden of proof" for science... the difference is that christians and other religious people still see the bible/koran etc... AS empirical proof. There's a difference of perspective. So, in that case, there is empirical evidence for religion, and this is always what science is based on - the difference is purely in the eye of the person viewing the evidence. Morals: i think i already agreed that I, personally, dont really have absolute morals. I think i get them from behaviouralist things... but what i'm saying is, that it doesnt always work in practice. we are speaking from a very middle class english perspective - about really extreme issues. But, for example, people differ in what they see as "good behaviour" and punishable deeds... this is leading towards libertarianism. england is rich and powerful, and therefore has a lot of choice... people can seem to make their happiness by choosing the right option. its different elsewhere. do you think everyone would be happy if they just let everyone live? people want more than that to life... dont you think that money seems to be the source of many problems? and how can that fit in the libertarianism thing.. give everyone money? thats just a bit unfeasible. You say religion is emotional control, but what about science and ITS emotional control... i could say you've been brainwashed by science's supposedly "righteous" and forward-thinking manifesto (i wont because i dont think its true). but there is this tendency to see it in such crude terms: science good/religions bad... or vice versa.. science is everywhere! so is religion. they BOTH control us, we cannot escape from them, and they dont necessarily contradict all the time. And who said that God didnt want us to have knowledge? Find that in the bible, the koran or anywhere for me, because no religious person i know would say that God said that. Ok, let's assess the supposition that science is neutral. hmmm, i say. It is, itself controlled by loads of factors, the government, the media, drug companies, funding... etc... So, I'm not sure you can say it's always striving for new theories, and for the betterment of human nature. It is often used for debilitating reasons, personal agendas... and as a method to control the population (MMR scandal - was all about money) Indie-schimindie - oh yes! i went to the documentary on monday, it was ace. weird, because i had always thought of israel as the bad guys, even though i knew next to nothing about it. did you stay for the discussion? it was the best part i thought. one guy put forward israel's position for jews after the holocaust, how they WERE being defensive just after WWII... but it doesnt really justify anything. I DID know about the US funding israel loads, thats why i think i thought israel were the oppressors.. and the point about terrorism was very apt. How do you think your libertarianism thing would work out there? Do you think everyone seeks the same thing? do you think that israel seeks peace? or power? or money? or control? do you think they are only doing what they are doing, because of other bad things happening to them? I'm not sure at all, but I do see how people do want different things for "happiness"... and i think that happiness for some, means hurt for others. (even in our own lives)
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Apr 26, 2006 13:39:27 GMT 1
ps: do you really believe that people only hit out when people hit them? or threatne them? or when they generally experience a negative response from other people? I'm not entirely sure. I think we shall never really know, but it kind of rings of Rousseau's argument against the evils and corrupting effect of civilisation:
"man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains"
he said that human nature is essentially good, and pure, but all the evils come from civilisation (like frankenstein's creature)..
but anyway, if this is what is at the root of libertarianism, then religion isnt to blame, the whole of civilisation is: including science/media/politics
|
|
|
Post by Ben on Apr 27, 2006 1:34:29 GMT 1
I stand by my initial statement, though perhaps it was too crude. Galileo and Newton (and many others were christians). True, but that also influenced their works in the wrong direction. They weren't searching for the truth, they were searching for God. Einstein's famous quote of "God doesn't play dice" lead him on a merry chase because he couldn't accept random phenomena at the very molecular level. Religion and Science diverge as Science progresses. And that's the difference; science changes whereas religion is completely stuck. Mathematics is a counter-example, though. Mathematics has proven many things true before they were observed. Einstein's theory of Relativity was not known to be true until a star was observed with Gravitational lensing. So, indeed, perspective is not always needed in science, although i grant you much of science is based on experimental data. and pointless. Money only has value if there is an imbalance. If everybody has the same amount, they have net nothing. Equilibrium is unstable, since as soon as you want something you have to buy it from somebody who has it. Thus some people will have more or less of certain things, and some things are more valuable, etc etc. And thus you just delay the problem by devaluing money. Science *is* forward thinking since it is completely pragmatic. (okay, not completely, since there are some things that you can't argue about even if they're not necessarily true). That's the difference, as mentioned above. Religion is so dogmatic that it cannot progress, and that is where contention stems from. Much of what the Bible has said has been disproven by Science, and yet Religion cannot adapt these changes into their belief system. When something in science is disproven, things become reevaulated in light of the new answer. In religion, they just get *dismissed*. I think that is one of the problems I have with religion as a whole. Right until proven wrong, and then not wrong, but ignorant. One contradiction implies that one of them is wrong. If something is believed factual by both and there is a contradiction in them both being true, then one must be false. Simple logic. 6 days/6.5 billion years. Hmm That was the reason God banished Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden. Eve ate the apple from the tree of life, and God ejected them, since eating from the tree of knowledge would give them the power of a God. In principle, anyway. So God punished them for desiring life and knowledge. I agree, what you said is true, but that is scientists and not science. Human nature wants money, and if you get money for lying about whether or not smoking causes cancer, you may indeed do it. In a way, science has its own moral set. Do you look for the true answer, or the most convenient one for you to live with? I'm tired.
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on Apr 28, 2006 19:01:35 GMT 1
on the libertarian thing, there would - it could be said - be far greater equality~greater parity, for me, doesn't automatically mean communism and devaluation of property~as a reachable target in the world if the superpowers weren't so oppressive as we have seen with vietnam, iraq, palestine, etc --> that is what needs to be addressed before libertarianism could possibly be implemented... i look at the media in it's indoctrinating tendancies - as well as politics and religion - when thinking about this - osama bin laden was a freedom fighter in the 80s when it suited america but now he's a terrorist...
you ridicule the middle class english perspective but it is the middle class who are those that can be educated on this and are likely to have reasonable power and intelligence to do something about it
on israel i reckon it is the usa pulling the strings anyway - there seem to be plenty of sound-minded folk in israel committed as much as most other sound-minded folk to the prospect of peace - it is the wealthy, controlling few in america who are dominating the proceedings through media, religion, politics, etc
i'm too tired at the min - i may pick this up later on... i just think that the ills - largely usa-based - in the current world are what threaten people and have created this self-defence-before-you-are-attacked mentality, maybe the world is too complex to be able to change to my ideals of positive social interaction --> y'know, i used to be a definite realist but now i believe in ideals
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on Apr 30, 2006 11:29:16 GMT 1
It seems like we've moved away from the organised religion thing, towards the USA.. and their wrong doings. I don't know as much about this, though american politics does interest me a lot, but i get quite confused a lot of the time.
Anyway, on the libertarian thing, i was talking to a friend who put it this way to me. It was initiated by John Locke, no? Him reasserting Hobbesian principles of the 'state of nature' being the original state of mankind (one without society) whereby there is ultimate death and destruction, everyone dying a violent death. The only way out of this is to commit to a social contract, MAKE a society with rules and order. Now the one thing keeping that society together is the common fear that, without it, we would all die a violent death (return to the state of nature). There is no common source of happiness, only the common source of fear. Therefore, Locke asserted that since the social contract (and therefore the state/government) was man-made, created by humans, then it had no right to take possession of any of man's property, whether that be taxes, his labour or his actual physical body.
I guess, this is where libertarianism began. Saying that everyone should be free to do what ever they like with their own property and their own bodies (as long as it doesnt infringe on the property/bodies of others, at least without consent).
But, if you look at the practical implications of initiating such a state, it doesnt seem to work. Nozick's minimal state - no taxes/no services/ no one HAS to do anything, no one HAS to go to school... etc. It all seems a bit right wing to me, (not wanting to point political fingers). But the point is, can you see how this would work? does human mentality work like this? Maybe.... i'm not sure. Poor people might not ever get out of this poverty cycle...
To the US defence attitude, do you think that's anything to do with religion? I can kind of see how top political actors use 'God on their side' to instil their doctrines of fear into the american population. But i dont think thats the FAULT of religion... it's against what most fundamental christians believe, and so they wouldnt side with Bush.
I wasnt ridiculing the middle class english perspective, but dont you think that its just ONE perspective on whats wrong with the world? ask someone somewhere else, and they will say something different, plus different solutions. So, who are we to say, that what we think should be done... SHOULD be done.
Back to science and religion... I think that to fight one against the other, is to put them both on the same plane of disciplinary usefulness, which is not accurate (maybe i instigated this before, if so, i'm sorry..). They both serve different purposes, both necessary (i think), but when they start encroaching on each other, is where it gets difficult.
Religion pertains to describe why we are here.. science explains "how". But now science is beginning to assume it knows the reasons "why" through inference, which i'm not sure is the original aim of science... which is why they now begin to segregate human thought. But i think, there is much to be understood in science, (example- consciousness), so, before it attempts to explain "why", it should encompass all of these "unknowns".
I think also, with the contradiction issue, I came up with a theory with christians that posited since God was able to do anythign, he was also able to break the law of contradiction, ie... appear contradictory but still true. hmm, just a thought. do we know everything? no, i dont think so. So, can we definitely rule out contradictions? and other such man-made concepts? hmmmm
Religion is just like science, it reevaluates its ideas, when things get discovered... its the same i think. compare christianity now to 1500 years ago. very different, becuase society/knowledge changes.
Ok, that's enough for now. I am beginning to move away from idealism (i used to have great plans for the world when i was younger), becuase the more i read, the more i read that criticises those thinkers... I can now see that it is possible to oppose almost every critical theorist,whether political/philosophical or theological, and that doesnt instil me with confidence.
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on May 2, 2006 18:37:02 GMT 1
to be honest i've only touched the surface of libertarianism myself, but - going off your description - i'd stilltalk in favour of it... you say that poor people would be trapped in a vicious cycle, well maybe - it cannot be certain without being tried - but could it not also lead to a meritocracy, where people get out of it what they put into it? where it turns out that the poorest are the ones who can't be arsed/have no ability as a result of not being arsed? and is this not fair? i don't know, i'm stipulating.
i know it is often not directly religion that is the root of negative actions and events in the world, but it is religion that is acting as a mask for these events quite often and i believe the wrong-doers can only be unmasked by taking away this protective layer of religion that they have wrapped themselves in...
on the middle class thing again, you have a point - but it can barely be the fault of the average joe middle class bod that the media feed us with what they want to be our concerns in the world --> live 8 for example... didn't that only happen because ethiopia (ie. their gov't) went out and waged war as soon as they had the funds from live aid?
i heard recently that catholicism was changing its approach to the afterlife; that now there is no heaven or indeed hell, but instead various layers of quality of afterlife, or something similar to that - i don't remember exactly... for me this suggests a possible movement with the times and all that, but if they are changing and admitting a misjudgement of the will/intentions of god then surely this piles on the pressure that the whole thing is substantially flawed form the foundations up?
of course, there is an answer to everything - a mish mash of opinion all over the world, but that doesn't mean we should become despondant about everything...
|
|
|
Post by Ben on May 2, 2006 23:37:40 GMT 1
nor, indeed, dependant upon anything. i find it difficult to accept things that are told to me. Why i'm a mathematician, perhaps?
How many children still grab stinging nettles after being told they will hurt? almost every single one. our own perceptions should be what we go off, even if the advice is benign. I find it very difficult to take somebody seriously if they do not have their own opinions, formed from their own experiences. which is, in general, why i religion bash (it's quite fun too though). word of god? nah, not for me..
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on May 5, 2006 10:53:27 GMT 1
i'm not sure that "religious people" don't have their own opinions. I think this is a contentious issue, because they've formed their own opinions from their own experiences too, just like you. just like everyone. it's just those experiences have been different or they formed different opinions from them. maybe you have just one perception of religion, because from my experience, christians dont just accept what they're told.. they look at the evidence, etc.. just like when you're maths teacher showed you cos/sin/tan for the first time...
where did you hear the catholicism thing from? because that sounds to me, very unlikely. but i am ready to be proved wrong.
i get the point about apathy in the libertarian state, it may occur in all classes, and maybe all are to blame.. but, really, who is to blame? becuase if the state doesnt provide what is needed for peoeple, then it shoudlnt be there. so, if the state doesnt work, it shoudl go.
blame blame blame. its very easy to blame people, beucase they can be pointed at, accused, and perhaps even prosecuted. but I would instead point to blaming concepts, and the state mentality. its not the middle class people's fault, its not Bush's fault, it's not Sharon's fault. its a conglomerate of power, ideas, and situations. yes, that doesnt really provide us with much hope in trying to solve it, but i dont think getting rid of certain people, or blaming them at least, helps either.
i'm not sure what else to say.. maybe i'll return later...
|
|
|
Post by Ben on May 5, 2006 17:03:24 GMT 1
still, the church may finally be changing its view on contraception. which may either imply that the church does have a brain attached to that dogma, or that they're reluctantly giving in to the pressure of the people, which removes divine right.
The thing about sin/cos/tan though is that it is a definition. It is defined to be the ratio of two sides with respect to an angle. Whereas religion is a set of moral procedures (at the heart of it, won't you agree?), and hence are subject to subjectivity. I'd like to see the idiot who argues that sin 0 != 0 or cos 0 != 1
|
|
indie_schmindie
Part of My Generation
"blue jeans and moonbeams"
Posts: 369
|
Post by indie_schmindie on May 5, 2006 17:52:25 GMT 1
i heard the catholicism thing from a fairly unreliable source to be honest, so i can't really back it up at all... however it may be true - i just didn't put it that well because i can't remember exactly what the guy who told me about it said... could be searched for via t'interweb i spose...
|
|
elaine
When I Argue I See Shapes
Mitsy the Magnificent
Posts: 605
|
Post by elaine on May 6, 2006 14:06:32 GMT 1
Does the Bible say anything about contraception? I'm not sure, and the Catholic Church (imho) doesnt always do what the bible says.. the rituals etc arent in there, its more tradition, and since condoms werent invented when the Roman church was, its not in the tradition. So, i guess thats why they didnt really know what to do with it at first... but there's a difference between protestant and catholic views of contraception. i think, (i maybe wrong) but protestants have no problem with it. but the point is, i dont think its as simple as you say.
with the maths point, this is where i would say that maths is one of those things which has been manmade, to fulfil a set of systems, and findings that people have made in the universe. i would hesitate to say its completely universal, eternal and was there all along... maths is all we know, becuase its been ingrained into us, but it doesnt mean thats all there is to explain the world... ie. maybe theres another non-human/not-yet-discovered discipline that overrules maths. pure speculation, but maths does fit OUR interpretation of the world.. doesnt mean its right.
|
|