BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 06:01 PM

Bill "and...well...as to "God expects us to treat all His creation with respect." That has been debated VERY hotly as to implication when reading the part of the Bible that says "...have dominion over..."...and there are some pretty bad examples of 'respect' going on these days"

I certainly agree there's some very bad 'respect' for nature these days. Sale Kirkpatrick (the Conquest of Paradise) has argued that European civilisation has in fact been degrading nature for over a thousand years. He suggests in his book that it is essential that children coming into their teens develop a bond with, or respect for, nature in order for their character to mature properly. But I'm going off on a tangent here even though I agree with him.

The obvious answer to your observation is that from what we know of God, we would expect 'dominion' to mean having management of something. That management in turn should reflect an awareness of the propietor's rights. To put it another way - imagine someone lends you his car and tells you you can use it for all your daily needs, but that it ultimately remains his car. I think it's easy to imagine what his reaction would be if we were to hand it back with the bumper smashed in, a big dent on the side, bald tyres and the gas tank empty. Not very respectful management, I think!

A 'good' person would look after the car carefully while using it both in acknowledgement of the fact that it was only on loan and out of respect for his friend. even if his friend gave it to him I think respect for the friend alone would prevent him from maltreating it.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 06:41 PM

Nick, my point is that given the extremely high natural rate of embryos failing to survive, it is not reasonable to regard them in the same light as a born human. Embryos have no brain, no cognition, no pain receptors, in fact, very little to distinguish them from other fleshly parts of the mother's body. Even the fact that an embryo contains DNA from two individuals is not a unique circumstance, as there are people who have two sets of DNA in their cells (chimaerism), as a result of fetal absorbtion of a fraternal twin. I have read that research is now suggesting this is more common than previously thought.

I see an embryo as a potential baby, but I do not regard it in the same light as I do a born baby (or late term fetus), which has grown, developed a brain, and reacts to its environment. Embryos are a common product of unprotected human sexual intercourse. They seldom survive, which is a good thing or there's be sixty billion of us instead of six. Ridding oneself of an inconveniently timed embryo seems like common sense to me.

Other mammals have different methods of controlling fertility and thus population. Most large mammals are only capable of conceiving at one point in a year. Some small animals adsorb already viable foetuses if environmental conditions (overpopulation, food scarcity, etc.) make it unlikely they would survive. Mammals which have large litters will let one or more die by not feeding or abandoning the weakest. Humans have a multiplicity of weak embryos, most of which will not survive to term.

It is only now, with the understanding of human reproduction science has given us, that people like yourself have become so adamant about saving the embryonic. In Biblical times, a woman's foetus was not regarded as very important, worth only a small fine by law if destroyed as a byproduct of conflict. The church, for centuries, did not worry a lot about early abortions, and had varying views on the actual time of 'ensoulment'. It was only when a child was about to be born that any religious sentiment really crept in, at which point, of course, the woman was considered only a 'vessel' for the new soul, and often as not, if possible in a difficult birth, the child was saved and the mother let die.

Even the most adamntly opposed to abortion do not react emotionally to an early known miscarriage as they would to a stillborn or to an infant death (unless other circumstances, such as infertility affect their thinking). On some level they understand that it is not so important.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 07:09 PM

14:37 17 January 2008
NewScientist.com news service
Andy Coghlan


A cloned human embryo has been produced for the first time from a man's skin cell, raising the prospect that such embryos could be made to provide stem cells tailored to any patient.

Only one cloned human embryo has been made before, reported by a team at Newcastle University, UK, in 2005. But it was made by cloning human embryonic stem cells that are not routinely available from patients, and so would not be practical.

The embryo newly created from a skin cell potentially gets round this problem. The ultimate aim is to make temporary embryos from which human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) could be extracted – these are the cells in embryos from which all tissues of the body originate. ...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 07:37 PM

Nickhere...even those who agree with you as to the scriptural source of the "dominion" quote have differences about its interpretation. Some wish to allow almost unlimited hunting and fishing, while others want to allow 'only the minimum required to sustain life' ...which has led to unusual stances...such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), with often contradictory rules of behavior and various defenses of vegetarianism. Some will not eat animals for supposed health reasons, some for perceived religious reasons (Jainism) and some simply because of what a friend of mine once called 'BBES'....Big Brown Eyes Syndrome.

I am absolutely confident that many who oppose ALL abortion begin emotionally with the equivalent of BBES, then adopt religious concepts to justify their stance and avoid it seeming arbitrary.
Now...please understand, I am not accusing anyone of dishonesty or outright Gerrymandering of the conscience in this. Most are sincere and feel they have made a perfectly natural connection - but it IS difficult for many of us to see the causal factors in our own motivations. (We might admit it regarding choosing the color to paint the kitchen, but not about 'serious' matters.)

I'm not sure the above is the best I could do to make my point...which is: Since there ARE such wide divergences in opinion and perceived justification FOR opinion, we must allow some pretty broad tolerances in law for consideration of issues of marriage customs, sexual preferences, abortion etc. This will upset those who feel the need for simple, tidy, one-rule-fits-all answers to complex questions, but true fairness requires something like that....and yes, I do know some problems in determining which situations can be treated as I propose...... it really ain't easy.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: bobad
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 07:44 PM

Referring to an embryo as a child or human being is more than a little specious. This rhetorical device is commonly used by self righteous deists in an attempt to inflame the debate surrounding abortion affording them license to hurl accusations of "murderer" and "baby killer" at women who are seeking an abortion. To anyone who has even a basic knowledge of biology it is quite evident that an embryo is a potential human being, in fact, from a strictly zoological term of reference an embryo is a parasite ie. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 07:51 PM

Of relevant interest, a recent experiment has demonstrated that individual experience of the taste and bouquet of wine can be re-defined by changing the price-tag seen on the bottle.

A post concerning this phenomenon can be found here on the MOAB, and the original article can be found here at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 08:09 PM

What! Evidence of subjectivity which is dependent on wishful thinking? Mercy's sakes...who woulda thunk it?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 09:03 PM

I am not quite sure, but it seems like you are saying that human life has no special value, and that the worth of each life should be judged on a case-by-case basis. That still leaves me wondering what criteria you'd use to judge each case.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Jan 08 - 10:58 PM

Kind of a delicate linguistic line I walk, hmmm? Every answer to such questions depends on careful regard for the relativity of the circumstances.
In everyday interface with other people, I DO treat other lives as valuble and deserving of care and consideration, but this does not mean that I see some intrinsic value to 'life' itself in relation to the Universe as a whole. If we are, as we seem to be, a complex, temporary hiccup in the state of one small planet in one average galaxy in one tiny corner of an unimaginably huge cosmos....then what does it mean to ascribe 'special value' to our minimal impact on it all?
But from our biased viewpoint, we are quite important, and we (individually & collectively) **impart** value to individual lives according to subjective views of what is worthwhile. How else can we explain a history which includes Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer...and Ghengis Khan and Adolph Hitler?

Now..in order to 'judge' some individual case, it again depends on the relative importance of the circumstance and the ...again... subjective view of what is involved. If presented with a situation where you must choose to lose some lives in order save others...how do you proceed? They had to do that on the Titantic...are women & children 'intrinsically' more valuble than ...say...a doctor? *shrug* I hope I am never faced with such a choice.
   Climbers on Mt. Everest regularly have to decide whether to risk several lives trying to rescue someone who is injured or out of oxygen in a precarious situation.
   In the same way, doctors have to decide when to try to save a baby at risk of the mother's life....or vice-versa. Often, their best advice runs counter to the wishes of the family.

So...what criteria do I use? What can I say? **IT DEPENDS!!** 20 years ago, my wife & I had to face that....we were trying to have another child, when amniocentesis revealed a condition in which the baby seldom survives to birth...and we were at 20 weeks! Even our doctor was opposed to abortion, but he offered no hope of successful outcome. You think we didn't agonize over what to do? I'll tell you this much...we did NOT apply some pre-digested standard worked out by some group claiming absolute knowlege of what was 'right'. And I'd never dream to tell someone else how to decide something like that, even if it was different from my own opinion.

In essence, that's what I mean by case-by-case....there are no absolute rules. There are sometimes laws which attempt to codify general attitudes, but some seem, as in Roe V Wade, to treat it like a game in which "if we get more votes, we can override their position, because WE have right on our side!"
The whole point of Roe V Wade was to allow those most affected, like my wife & I, to decide our own situation as best we could and NOT make it a rubber-stamp ruling based on some vague notion that it followed a subjective interpretation of some arcane religious text.

....well, you asked. I'm sorry if my answer is not specific enough, but I flatly don't KNOW any universal rule that covers all the stuff we fallible little beings can contrive to burden ourselves with.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 10:54 AM

...denying a woman an abortiion would be as unreasonable as denying her laxatives if she were constipated... - exactly. It IS as unreasonable - to those of us who think of a pregnancy as being a woman's body part.

identical twins do not share the exact DNA - Yes, they do, the exact same, nuclear and mitochondrial. They have different fingerprints because fingerprints are not 100% genetic. Neither is personality, which is why they consider themselves, and are, distinct people. There is a case right now in the news somewhere about a woman who slept with identical twins and now cannot say, and neither can the DNA tests, which is the father of her child.

Cells from adults are not "a possible potential human being in the same way a sperm cell" because sperm are haploid, and cannot be technologically made into humans, but ass cheek cells (or any other except red blood cells, which are enucleate in humans) are diploid and CAN be cloned into a full human. So masturbation isn't murder - but cleaning out your fingernails is. If "potential" people are people, that is.

And science doesnt "fail" to address morality - it has nothing to do with it. It is intelligence that makes science and makes (or should make!) morality. What the Nazis did was horrible - but if they collected good data, their science wasn't "bad" -Note that they didn't, in most cases - but if they had, which would be worse - not using the data because of how they were collected, or using them despite how they were gathered?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 11:15 AM

IT would be an interesting experiment to track the lives of a set of test cases who had somehow been indoctrinated or persuaded to adhere to various moral codes or precepts int heir decision making process, as an examination of the consequences. I suppose a simulation set up could be done, wherein the subjects faced comparable situations which sought to emulate the behaviors of real-life consequences, and had to decide their courses of action based on different mores.

It has not, as far as I know, been done, and a simulation of this sort owuld only capture a fraction of the actual variables each individual faces as he moves his past into his present and contemplates his possible futures in every moment of a day. It should be obvious, I think, that to boil such a confluence of dynamic variables into a short list of rules is not going to acheive any absolute map of right choice, even when such rules help the individual find workable solutions.

I do believe that living along principles based on observations about the hierarchy of good consequences is a positive choicein the individual life. People often estimate the psychological damage of making choices which harm others, for example, because those consequences are not immediately visible; but the pattern of them is worth learning. The use of such principles, however, is successful as a pragmatic exercise. Choosing not to accumulate a lot of crimes in one's life is desireable not for purely moral reasons but because life becomes more difficult when you have to be secretive, for example. SOme people learn this slowly.

It is also important to realize that different rewards motivate different people; some people value power more than their own natural affinities, for example. Aberrated as this may be, it is a fact about the members of our kind. There me be general directions of "good" and "bad" but there is no catalog or map that applies to all beings.

Attributing such principles to an external Entity with absolute power over your fate in detail is, to me, an absurdity barely worth considering seriously.


A




A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 05:55 PM

But if you could do that, and you believed in forgiveness, then you could do anything that popped into your mind. No matter what damage it might do to other people, once you performed your dastardly act, you could simply beg for forgiveness, assume the external Entity bestowed it on you, and you're off on another wild adventure.

                   Most of the people I know who go to church are that way, though their adventures are usually boring and only bring financial gain to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 06:14 PM

Whereas, Riginslinger, if you don't believe in any higher authority, you whatever dastardly deed that you want, without having to beg forgiveness--you just eliminate the middleman--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 06:20 PM

No, you can't, because you are responsible for your own actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:00 PM

BillD--Thanks for the wonderful , and personal answer, it was so engrossing that I forgot the question;-) To a great degree, I think our differences are only semantic.

Everyone makes choices--even when they decide to make no choice, or they defer to the judgement of another, be it friend, family, church, or government. I believe we have the both the right and obligation to make our own choices--

I believe in everything that empowers us to make choices, and I'm against everything that tries to take them away from us--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 07:15 PM

"I believe in everything that empowers us to make choices, and I'm against everything that tries to take them away from us--"


                  You mean like Dr. James Dobson or the Pope, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:12 PM

Among others--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:15 PM

Riginslinger--RE: The other smarmy remark--who would you be responsible to?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:17 PM

Incidentally, I think Dobson is as big a jerk as Richard Dawkins--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:34 PM

"Riginslinger--RE: The other smarmy remark--who would you be responsible to?"


                      Myself!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 08:48 PM

Sorry--I should clarify--The reason I've mentioned Dawkins is that people know that I don't like him-I think he's obnoxious and egocentric--in that way, he is a jerk--I also think that Dobson is obnoxious and egocentric, and in that way he is a jerk.   

Though I disagree with some of the things that Dawkins says, and think that he could say the things that I agree with in a much more positive way, I do think he is honest in what he says.
Not so the other guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 09:05 PM

It all gets confusing if you stay with it long enough, at least it does for me. I know those kinds of guys can get to be a pain in the ass sometimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 09:07 PM

That is a truly cozy arrangement--it even beats out nepotism--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 10:52 PM

One thing I keep in mind is, whoever it is, they've always got a book to sell--and the more controversy they create, the more they sell. That's the world we live in.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jan 08 - 11:28 PM

Yes, there's always that.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 12:14 AM

Being responsible to yourself is the closest any of us are going to come to Godhood in this life, so I think it behooves us to practice as much as possible.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:24 PM

*Sigh* I'm going to have to write a book, I can already tell... yikes! And one should be responsible to one's loved ones as well as to one's self, no? And to one's community? And to those upon whom one depends?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:36 PM

"No, you can't, because you are responsible for your own actions"

Forgiveness and responsibility...

I guess everyone is responsible for their own actions, except perhaps the insane and children up to acertain age who lack what is commonly called 'sense'.

From what you are saying it appears that you think Christians see 'forgiveness' as a sort of blank check to do what they like. Perhaps you think they shift the blame onto God. That's not so. That's not how Christians see forgiveness (any Christians out there are welcome to comment on my generalisation if they like)

Christian concept of forgiveness explained as best I can:

All things we do to hurt people are sins on two levels: they are sins against that person and since God has commanded us not to hurt each other, they are sins against God (i.e rejecting or going against His plan for creation)

Therefore forgiveness operates on two levels: God can (and does) forgive us for sins committed against Him (all sins fit in this category as we have seen). But He also expects us to 1) be sincere in our apology and have at least a sincere intention not to repeat our mistakes (though being human and weak it's unlikely we'll succeed for long). and 2) to make up / make restitution to the person we've sinned against.

An insincere apology is unlikely to sit well with God, and if you've experience of Him, you'll know what I mean. He's VERY patient but you'll know all the same...!

Part of that sincerity is trying to make up with the injured party, or if that's not possible (because they're too angry or hurt to even talk to you) to make it clear the door is open to them. If I steal from my friend and tell God I'm sorry, God will still expect me to give back the money as soon as I can to show my apology is sincere and to restore harmony. Sometimes it's impossible to make restitution directly, so there are other ways of doing penance: charitable works, self-sacrifice and so on.

God has a funny way of ensuring you do these things properly or you won't find much peace or rest. I don't remember where I saw or heard it, but a phrase I once heard was that every stolen thing cries out to God to be reunited with its rightful owner (I doubt that meant in an actual voice, but in the sense of somehow disrupting the balance or harmony of creation).

The corollory is of course that He expects other people to do the same for us, so it's a win-win situation when everyone pulls their weight. He also commands us to forgive each other and not hold grudges. This is difficult to do sometimes, it depends on what someone has done to you and whether they're even sorry. Prayer comes into place here - you can ask God to help you forgive.

One thing I have realised over the years, one significance of the Lord's prayer "and forgive us our tresspasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". One way fo reading that is we are asking God to match our mercy with His mercy. If we don't forgive people, can we expect God to be lenient with us? Just and fair, yes, as always, but merciful? We must exhibit the quality of mercy in order to expect it.

When we don't forgive people, we carry that around with us like a weight on the shoulders gnawing away at us. It's amazing how when you let go, the weight is immediately lifted off.

So Christian morality demands we be responsible for our actions - 1) sincerely saying sorry 2) accepting the sincere apologies of others as we would expect them to do for us 3) make restitution both to God and person.

Sounds easy, but as we all know in practice, it depends on what people have done! Some grudges are harder to shake off than others. But in my experience, prayer does help a lot in loosening them, and makes it easier for me to approach people I've hurt as well and be truly sorry in the ways outlined above.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 08:42 PM

Unfortunately, the current philosophy of crime seems to be punishing the criminal rather than making restitution to the victim, as older societies do...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 19 Jan 08 - 09:10 PM

Agreed, Mrzzy. There's a much bigger element of revenge (as in victims / victims' families coming along to watch the gruesome spectacle at executions in the US) and in simply sweeping criminals under the carpet - the 'lock them up and throw away the key' approach

Nature v. nuture aside, I believe most kids would grow up ok if they weren't maltreated one way or another by grown-ups (whether through bad example, the kind of self-perpetuating society grown-ups have created etc.,)

So it could be said behind every criminal there's a couple of hundred or more people who've hurt him / her, bullied etc., We all owe a debt to seeing criminals re-integrated into society. That's not to say either criminals aren't responsible for their actions!

Equally importantly the victim needs to be have restitution made. The criminal needs to come to see their victim not as a walking bankomat but as a human being of equal value. I have heard of community 'restorative justice' schemes in the UK whereby a convicted criminal is invited to return something to the community or individual they've hurt. Anybody know more about these?

One thing I'd do right off is end this habit in courts of lawyers making apologies on behalf of their clients. While it's one thing having a lawyer representing you in dealing with the intricacies of the law, if someone can't make an apology themselves, it can't be much of an apology.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:07 AM

MrrZy:

As far as i am concerned full responsibility for self includes responsibility for one's connections, friends, family, lovers, business acquaintances, and even enemies. You cannot make decisions for others (in the sense of forcing your ideas on them) but you can be take as much responsibility as you can for the areas in which you communicate and be willing to take causative action where you can.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:15 AM

I wonder how believers such as yourself, Nick, would describe God if they were not allowed in any way to anthropomorphize him?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 02:52 AM

An interesting point, Amos--it occurs to me, often, that a lot of perceived differences come from the fact that one group of people is uncomfortable with the metaphors that another group of people use to describe the same things.

When Nickere talks about bringing people to God, it makes people like Mrzzy bristle, and when she talks about making people confront reality, some of the rest of us get a bit bent--we never get any farther than that, though, and I really believe that, to a much greater degree that is clear, we are often referencing the same things--albeit with very different metaphors.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: autolycus
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 06:08 AM

iQuote - Bill - "Having an "open mind" in this context is just a euphemism for "not questioning". A **TRULY** open mind always considers all possibilities, and in doing so sees the weaknesses in assertions about metaphysical claims" Unquote

To see the weaknesses in assertions is to do something from a particular point of view. A point of view which itself seems not to be in question. I'd like to know why that point of view, here called 'an open mind', is not in question. And how open it can be if it is already in a judicial (judging others) mode from the start.




Quote -
i it requires some effort to break out of it and look for other kinds of evidence and realities beyond the mere five senses. Unquote


I think there's a bit of a premature move away from the senses, when people still haven't learnt the full use of them.

The refinder of my practice - Gestalt by Fritz perls - said he wanted people to 'lose their mind and come to their senses.' So I can rhink someone is angry with me because my beliefs orexperience or both are constantly trumping my senses, where if I heard better, for example, I may discover my belief is in error.

Quote -
i Reality is defined by demonstration - if it can't be demonstrated, it probably isn't real. But if it can be, then it is. Not my definition - just reality! Unquote

I can think of rather a lot of things that I think are real and I wouldn't know how to demonstrate.

And I don't believe I'm alone.


Mind you, i rather like Scrates's line,

"All I know is I don't know anything."

Peace, I love that Cherokee tale. Tho' I do like the Gestalt way of handling conflicts within the person.

Ivor

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 10:00 AM

"From what you are saying it appears that you think Christians see 'forgiveness' as a sort of blank check to do what they like."


                   Yeah, Nick, if every case, that's the way I've seen them use it.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 10:42 AM

"And one should be responsible to one's loved ones as well as to one's self, no? And to one's community? And to those upon whom one depends?"


                   One would have to be responisble to himself, before he could be responsible to all them other scissorbills.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 12:51 PM

"To see the weaknesses in assertions is to do something from a particular point of view. A point of view which itself seems not to be in question. I'd like to know why that point of view, here called 'an open mind', is not in question. And how open it can be if it is already in a judicial (judging others) mode from the start."

autolycus: This is among the hardest points to clarify in these discussions. What you have done is to first characterize my statement as if it were merely one in a list of subjective opinions about how to approach issues.
   It is not easy to explain why it is merely an attempt to do a meta-analysis of the very logical/linguistic structure of arguments in general. It in no way disproves any particular conclusions, but merely analyzes how well they manage to be both internally consistent and how well they avoid certain common rhetorical errors.

It is possible, thus, to state a true conclusion, yet use quite slippery and invalid premises to get to it. In the same way, doubtful claims can 'seem' to be supported if one is careless about the structure of the premises.

All I am trying to do is link the idea of a **TRULY** open mind to the attempt to see why metaphysical claims, as a class, can usually be shown to involve some sort of error of one of the types described in the link above.....most commonly assuming certain facts within the structure OF the claim.

This whole process, if done as neutrally as possible, both understands the historical & cultural pressures to accept many forms of metaphysics, and recognizes why they can ONLY be 'believed' and not 'proven'.
   To me, this leads to a basic attitude of scepticism and formal, philosophical 'doubt', while continuing to be 'open' to any form of new ways to look at things.

As I said elsewhere, this is why certain claims ARE called 'belief', and why I type long, tedious disclaimers when I see what appear to be attempts to move 'beliefs' into a stronger position than they 'logically' deserve.

Now...have I totally muddied an attempt to clarify? *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 01:11 PM

Reality is, fundamentally, a function of agreement about perception.

There is a threshold of material reality. Disagree with buildings or gravity and you can put your survival at risk.

There are a LOT of propositions which have fewer subscribers than material reality constructs have. Any proposition having to do with consequences, for example, or future events can be considered   risky in proportion to the degree it tries to extrapolate variables. Weathermen run into this all the time.

But in terms of material reality, demonstration to others with experience or measurement is pretty much the gold standard of evidence.

When you start penetrating the Wonderland of human psychology, or spirituality, while it is still true that agreement is a core index of reality, the territory gets nebulous, volatile, not to say miasmic, riddled with opinions, and colored strongly by the individual creatuve will. So common denominators and demonstrable phenomena are harder to come by.

Most psychologists who have spent any time counseling will have their own ideas about common denominators, but it is still pretty much a jungle out there, a metaphor augmented by the myriad of jungly superstitions and witchdoctors involved.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 01:32 PM

"Open Mindedness" is sometimes a dubious value. As a musician, I find the creative process really favors closed mindeness--which is to say, finding useful devices like Travis-picking, for instance and eliminating all the extraneous possibilities--Bill's kind of "open mindedness" would be counterproductive, because it would require me to return to a neutral position and consider a lot of things that aren't very useful--

And, I bring up Travis-picking here because its definition and validity are as hotly contested at Mudcat as the idea of God--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 01:57 PM

This is not a comment on the most recent philosophical musings (interesting as they are), but something like a consideration of belief opposing non-belief.

There is never an equal ground from which to begin any discussions regarding the existence of a god. Those who don't believe in a god are unconcerned about the metaphysical consequences of their unbelief. They (we, I) don't expect to end up in hell, or outer darkness, or tormented by our separation from godly light, or to be denied eternity, because of atheism. The religious expect the worst.

Our concerns are more likely to be ensuring that believers act within reason when promoting their supernaturalism, and that they do not infringe destructively on our reality by insisting on adherence by all to those parts of their beliefs which include science denial, oppression of individuals or groups, or insisting on their morality being the only morality. These are important concerns, and all have solutions that are social or political in nature - within the realm of human capability.

But the true and kindly minded believer in god must feel particularly anxious and unhappy about those who don't believe, especially if they like or love the individual unbeliever, since their expectation is that atheism leads to an un-necessarily permanent death or worse, or to eternal torture. These would be horrifying prospects, if real, so I can entirely understand, for example, that a truly religious parent seeing their atheist child 'on the road to perdition' must feel tragically devastated.

So to those who really, truly, heartily believe in a judging deity, I am sorry when atheism close to home gives you pain. While I would much prefer you were able to see behind the curtain, or note the lack of imperial glad-rags, or otherwise, of course, see things my way, I can actually see why you feel you must so adamantly defend your faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 03:51 PM

Extending from what Bee said back in to the philosophical musings department, there is one school of thought that argues that all experience is a byproduct of belief, perhaps beginning with "I am" and extending through more and more complex and intersecting and self-counteracting beliefs such as "I am in space", "Time is", "I am in a body", "I am a body" "I am male/female", "Force is overwhelming" "Space is infinite", "I must be ___ in order to survive" and so on and on. By this theory each of these spheres of reality is a postulated construct which engenders experience, and which of course compounds and complexifies as the granularity decreases and the sheer number of such postulated certainties increases and becomes internally inconsistent.

While this is not a theory in the sense that material science approaches theories, there could be a counter argument that material science is climbing up this pyramid from the most solid bottom layer (and thus the most heavily agreed-upon fabric of coincident beliefs) toward the layers that might differentiate between consciousness and structure.

Just more food for reflection.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 03:55 PM

The problem with your position, Bee, as reasonable as it seems to you, is that, you make an amazing number assumptions about what "believers" believe that are neither universally, nor even broadly true.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: TheSnail
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 04:25 PM

Amos

and which of course compounds and complexifies as the granularity decreases and the sheer number of such postulated certainties increases and becomes internally inconsistent.

Well. Of course. Who could possibly disagree?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 06:14 PM

A little bit like Professor Irwin Corey, isn't he, Snail?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 07:11 PM

Well, it's perfectly obvious. The density and persistency of shared experience decreases as the degree of untrammeled consciousness increases and the number of simultaneous beliefs decreases. The density vector approaches zero as the consciousness factor approaches infinity. Symptotically or asymptotically I cannot say for sure.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 07:56 PM

Amos,

you didn't by any chance use this

Lingo-maker


while coming up with those last two posts? ;-)) Just joking!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 07:57 PM

Bee... who was it said that the optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears that is true?

Amos - symptomatically, perhaps (*BG*)?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 08:06 PM

M.Ted said: "The problem with your position, Bee, as reasonable as it seems to you, is that, you make an amazing number assumptions about what "believers" believe that are neither universally, nor even broadly true."

I would appreciate it if you would enumerate that 'amazing number of assumptions', rather than making a blanket accusation of this sort.

I am not speaking from a vacuum, after all, having been a Christian for many years. I doubt I have ever stated anything about 'believers' as being universally true, other than the fact that they profess to be believers in a supernatural entity.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 08:12 PM

I certainly did not; I said what I did in complete, uncompromising seriosoity....
:)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 20 Jan 08 - 08:13 PM

And,

400!!!