Actually, when you put it like that, it does sound kinda persuasive....Quote:
Originally Posted by shahsaab1
Printable View
Actually, when you put it like that, it does sound kinda persuasive....Quote:
Originally Posted by shahsaab1
It seems the same as ever. Still, argument is one thing I do not wish to engage in. God can only be perceived in complete peace. God is infinite peace, power, bliss and knowledge. This is not meant for argument, but just to present the idea and for discussion perhaps. The goal of argument is to win, while another loses - but my position is that "all are one." If I have made anyone feel as though they lost, then I did lose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
But conflict and competition are not the only way to communicate. ;) As you know, I am sure. We can discuss and that is more facilitating to thought, I would reason, as arguments in general tend to become emotional, since they are usually based on defense of one's ego.
About Christianity, there is some good, and some bad. Dogmatic thinking is bad, but that goes for atheists as well as religionists. And religion is not necessarily dogmatic. It's just become sort of attached that way, based on the words and deeds of many religionists, and by general perception. I strongly agree with Shakyamuni Buddha's position that one should not accept something just because anyone says it, but only if it accords with everything they know to be true - or something like that.
My position is that God is Being, or Infinite Light. What is Being? To me it is that - infinite peace, bliss, the highest principle, infinite intelligence or knowledge. It's not bound, however, to any religion or dogma or ritual. It's the infinite life force or energy. So the question is, does an infinite life force, energy, exist?
The issue I would raise to everyone, if they remain skeptical, is this: what are we? We come from the earth. The earth comes from stars - star dust, is the common word. Anyhow - matter is energy and energy is matter. So I would ask - is it not true therefore that we are light? This is the reasoning that led me to my current idea that all is light. The only intelligence is perhaps our own conscious actions, in that our intelligence is higher than plant, animal, or bacterial intelligence. And yet if we came from light, and if we are in fact light, then must it be true that we are the highest intelligence? But there is no human who has the highest intelligence. Just as light follows the laws of physics, so do we humans, those of us who wish, follow the laws of the moral or spiritual realm; the highest law of which is the infinite intelligence, bliss, power and peace which is God.
[edit- by the question "must it be true that we are the highest intelligence?" I am referring to the idea that there is nothing higher than us.]
Sorry, but I find this approach heavily ironic. Hard, scientific evidence "seems kinda impossible", but no evidence whatsoever of an invisible being creating the entire universe to populate less than 0.000000000000000000001% of it is believable.Quote:
Originally Posted by shahsaab1
Funny how the creator left no footprints.
and we're back at the beginning again.. so is any of this really necessary?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
honestly though, there are many respected and eminent scientists, who believe exactly what Shahsaab said there.. and while it is obvious that this line of reasoning provides no proof of some form of creator god, it is also just as obvious that science does NOT provide any proof that there is no creator god/ divine impulse/ whatever you want to call it... being an atheist is all fine and dandy, I would even say I myself am an atheist for the most part, but to say that there is no "God" and to say this is fact is just as absurd as claiming that it is a fact there is a "God"...
as I said many very respected scientists believe that science itself points to the existence of some form of Creator God... this doesn't have to be at all at odds with any of science, with evolution or anything...
the biggest problem with religion is the way people so often try to impose it upon others... to have it thrust into the education system which is far beyond ridiculous.. but to imply that religious belief and spirituality suggest ignorance is just a way of showing one's own ignorance.. and arrogance for that matter...
by the way, great post Nikolai :)
Meh, it's not as if religious people don't preach enough about not knowing happiness or whatever by not believing in their religion - the Catholic church, for instance, preaches that I will burn in hell, so in a sense you are right.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Like I said before though, I don't see anyone ripping on Taoism, and it's no shocker as to why - the same with Buddhism.
Nope besides some hardcore atheists, who think all religion is evil no matter how innocent its outward appearance, the only people who rip on religions like Buddhism and Taoism are members of the big three Abrahamic religions, as belief in anything else is blasphemy.. I am just recalling a University Prof I was friends with that was also Catholic, telling me that the more she learned about Buddhism, the more ridiculous it seemed.. it was all hogwash.. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
Hi shahsaab1 and Mark,
Quote:
i still cant understand how someone can not create all this its kinda like when your in sand and you see foot steps you knew someone was there its the same way how it just seems that when we come to this world someone had to create the universe and all the planets and everything i just dont believe that this was already here for as scientist say 4.6 billion years it seems kinda impossible i think someone had to create it
Doesn't it seem equally impossible that this 'someone' was just sitting around for infinity and then 6000 years ago decided to snap its omnipotent fingers and create a universe with our little planet being the entire focus of its attention? Seems like hope wrapped in ego to me.Quote:
Actually, when you put it like that, it does sound kinda persuasive....
Peace,
Doug
Hi Nikolai,
This sounds like the philosophy of one of my favorite jazz musicians, Sun Ra. Ever heard of him? I would encourage anyone to explore his music and his message. A warning: It takes some patience.Quote:
My position is that God is Being, or Infinite Light. What is Being? To me it is that - infinite peace, bliss, the highest principle, infinite intelligence or knowledge. It's not bound, however, to any religion or dogma or ritual. It's the infinite life force or energy. So the question is, does an infinite life force, energy, exist?
Also, I have received my copy of Living at the Source and read the introduction and the first few pages last night. Swami Vivekananda seems like a very interesting and gentle fellow. I look forward to my reading this weekend.
Cheers,
Doug
One of these days I'm going to develop a font specifically for online forums, called Irony Sans Serif.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Please state which eminent and respected scientists are creationists. Plenty of scientists are theists, but I certainly know of none that would be classed as either respected or eminent who are creationists.
Creationism's biggest proponent, "Dr" Michael Behe admitted under oath that creationism isn't a science, so I really am interested in seeing some details here. I know plenty of other PhD-level scientists who are creationists, but they are laughing stocks rather than respected.
This may give you a clue as to why I do join these "debates".
I don't believe I've said that at any stage, so it isn't an argument for me. I completely disagree on the level of absurdity required, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
That's not the type of god I'm talking about, which should have been abundantly clear all the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Catholics, Anglicans, lots of religions produce scientists who believe in a theistic god, but I have been talking explicitly about young earth creationism.
As to the "many scientists", I'll simply point to the well-known statistic that members of the National Academy of Sciences - where the genuinely respected and eminent scientists hang out - disbelief in theistic god/s is the overwhelming position. Sure, lots of scientists are theists, but they're a small minority of the whole bunch.
Well, it all depends how you class arrogance, I guess, but the type of arrogance which gets on my goat is the kind which claims to have a personal relationship with an antity which created the entire universe and who's going to make people burn eternally because they don't like him.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
Atheists tend not to worry too much about eternity, so I wonder which kind of arrogance is worse, myself.
Each to his/her own.
I'm interested in your vehemence on your stance since I haven't even seen so much as an ad hominem in the thread yet.
Scher and the others are pretty strict about keeping threads on the good side of fair, and not a comment has been forthcoming.
Bingo!Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
If only True Believers would see that obvious fact. Dawkins has no The Buddha Delusion, Sam Harris has not written Why I don't believe in Reincarnation and I'm certain Chris Hitchens has not penned The Dalai Lama Exposed!
Yet again, this seems like insinuation without basis in fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
I know some pretty damned hardcore atheists and I don't know one who even mentions Buddhism. Sure, they - and me - might think it's laughable rubbish, but I know of not a single atheist who writes or agitates against "Eastern Philosophies" like Buddhism.
Our family are regulars at a huge Buddhist temple just down the road from our place and I wouldn't be seen dead - literally! - in a church.
Can you provide some examples of this behaviour actually existing?
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkBastable
Brilliant!
Actually, the Chinese government likes to take stabs at Buddhism, in the Tibetan form (to the complaint of Westerners, but I won't pick a side). Ultimately, the argument seems founded on the same principles - the powers that control the religion are deemed to be out of hand, and they have cracked down (hard) on Falun Gong, which, if I understand is sort cult type thing like the Scientology of China.
But really, you aren't going to see people denying the Buddha, or the existence of LaoZi. You really aren't going to see people calling it delusional, and ultimately, these religions will get very little criticism of the religion, and will just get criticism over the organizations that distribute them.
In a sense though, the difference comes perhaps from a lack of recognition on the part of the believers as being part of an agonistic movement, which ultimately is a Western phenomenon - Western religions, ultimately, are far more text bound, I would argue, than Eastern ones (West here including the Abrahamic Religions) which leads too a more authoritative structure, as apposed to a more open one. Keep in mind, for instance, that the term Hindu actually was coined by Colonists trying to understand the beliefs of the region - it wasn't, in a sense, a religion until it became constructed as one in the colonial period - more of a way of life.
The Hellenizing of these religions then, has not altered them enough to create too big authority wholes - the understanding of the religion is still flowing, and isn't defined - there is no one body controlling everything - no Vatican or whatever, and as a result, there is no real opposition.
Eh, true, perhaps, but I've been called delusional - which is a rather unpleasant thing, people should not say this kind of thing, you know! - for saying little else than what is in parts of the Tao Te Ching. For instance my understanding of God is no different from my understanding of the Tao - in the words of Laozi, it is the source of infinite worlds. Laozi says, how do I know it is true? I look within myself and know it is true. And what he says about the Tao is very similar to what Hindu rishis said about God or transcendental reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I have always been completely fascinated by Doaism. Is the Tao real then? Does it exist? It's called infinite in the Tao Te Ching. I haven't really ever thought of God as anything else than what Laozi describes the Tao as.
I'd have to argue pretty strongly that while the leaders in China are atheistic, the oppression of Falun Gong - Buddhism to a lesser extent - has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with an organisation which recognises an alternative voice to the government and can make huge numbers of people work in unison. The sight of tens of tens of thousands of people doing synchronised anything is anathema to dictators.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I've been intinately involved with Falun Gong members and join their protest outside the Chinese Embassy in Auckland from time to time. They quietly smile at this huge, mad Western man who stands among their silent protest.
One thing - Falun Gong is to Scientology in the way that shark is to a hippo. Scientology is just a scam; Falun Gong is a large, ponderous beast of great power solely because it's big. It is therefore a threat. Pretty bloody stupid all round in my opinion.
:flare:
(Hey, I got to use that flamey thing - because the history of a certain, large Asian country's human rights regarding the Falun Gong is negligibly reported on, but we snuggle up to it through economic necessity appals me, but I won't get into that for fear of the P word!)
Back to.....
....which god was I bashing?
:)
Seriously, if they were all like Vishnu and Buddha (not really a god, but close enough as makes no difference) I wouldn't even bother calling myself an atheist.
Oh, I didn't say they cracked down on them because they were a religion, I merely wanted to point out that they cracked down on them because they were an organized body. - keep in mind, for instance, that there is a protest - as soon as there is a protest, there is an opposition to authority, and, as you put it they are a threat because they are big, and quickly spreading.
But again, the major point is, they are striking the institution, not the actual belief system, though Fulan Gong seems only to be an institution, and not really to be a full blown religion, as it has no great historical significance, or oral or even textual tradition that existed outside of contemporary times. In that sense, it is similar in a sense to Scientology, in that it is annoying, and quickly spreading, except China isn't The US, and their value and hierarchical systems don't tolerate those sorts of disturbances and fluctuations in power.
In truth, I am simply disturbed by how there are always weirdo cults popping up everywhere even today. Hell, as they say, the difference between a cult and a religion is 10 years.
You seem to have missed the first point of Taoism though, from right at the beginning of the text (Section I I believe);Quote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
The Tao that is able to be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that is able to be named is not the eternal name.
The unnameable is the eternal - the naming is the mother of all particular things.
In other words, the fact that you ponder if the Tao is real or not isn't the point - the point is, that the actual way to understand things is to break apart the categorization of all things, which, ultimately, is the exact opposite of Greek and by extension, Western philosophy which, especially after Aristotle, to categorize everything.
Thereby, by denying the name, and denying the actual answer to everything, we are left within the infinite - beyond all relative understanding of the world. If one continues on, for instance, he argues that beauty is only beautiful next to ugliness, etc. etc., thereby, again by denying the binary of categorization and ignoring all comparisons and values.
I think the Tao is closer to what Derrida called an Aporia - at any rate, it is like an infinite Aporia, that is a complete lack of anything - it is similar in a sense to God, but instead, as LaoZi put it, when we name it, we aren't talking about the real thing, only a rationalized perception of it - the real thing is beyond everything - it essentially is nihilistic.
I thought you were one to scoff at anyone who said their belief in the spiritual was an essence beyoned relative understandings of the world. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
But anyway I didn't miss that point. I am well aware of it. And I agree with you about everything. The real thing is beyond everything. The mantra in the Prajna Paramitam Heart Sutra, mentioned as the great mantra, is Om Gate Gate Paragate Parasamgate Bodhi Sva, or Gone, Gone, Gone Beyond, Gone Completely Beyond, All Awakened, So Be It! In other words - beyond everything. I don't agree it is nihilistic, but that's not really an issue.
Can I just say, incidentally, that I have nothing much against any sort of religious belief that falls short of burning people, and I really don't think that religious observance is de facto a bad thing. I don't care how supportable or ludicrous may be the rationale for religious belief, or the lack of it, because it's just what people do, and some of us believe Elvis is alive and who cares?
To me, that is an entirely separate argument to the one about the existence of God. Even if everyone on the planet were a staunch atheist, God would continue to exist if he existed at all. And even if everyone were a committed believer, none of that belief would bring him into being if he didn't exist in the first place.
So - the existence of God has nothing to do with anyone's belief in God, or lack of it.
And that's why the argument is not about what people believe, but about the bases of those beliefs. For an argument for or against the existence of God to be worth anything, it has to work whether or not you believe in him.
I feel out of place jumping into this thread now, but what the hey.
No matter how much it breaks my mothers heart I can not allow myself to believe in something without any credible evidence. I do not believe in magic, so it boggles my mind why people accept an all powerful magical being giving us free will and then no evidence of its existence. I understand that death is scary, but to believe that there is a heaven to hide this fear seems like a horrible thing to do to yourself. I think that religion does bring some good to the world, but it is far outweighed by the atrocities done in its name.
It is exciting and depressing knowing that I only have one life to live. Almost like a constant reminder that I have to do something great before I am no more. Life can be ended at any moment, and I don't want to spend it on my knees.
Oh don't feel out of place at all. That's the only way to enter discussion is jumping in.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSDGreen
For me there's not a fear of death, actually not at all. I do have a small fear about the pain which could go with death. As for death, I am quite sure that life and death are two parts of one coin. Some perhaps believe in heaven to hide the fear of death - I do not. I do not believe in heaven because others have told me they did. They would be foolishness.
My idea of heaven is a mix between Buddhism and Hinduism. I've had experiences which quite enlightening, which led me, in effect, to the understanding that beneath everything is peace and bliss, and also, that beneath all is a transcendental reality. Swami Vivekananda said exactly what I believe, and what I've experienced to be true;
"Herein lies the whole secret of Existence. Waves may roll over the surface and tempest rage, but deep down there is the stratum of infinite calmness, infinite peace, and infinite bliss."
So that is the only thing I know to be true. Why? In my experiences there was a constant thought: this alone is true, never forget. I do not always live completely to the standard ideal of life, and I have to strive in meditation and mindfulness to find peace in my life. Everyone living here on earth lives here on earth. But I also believe - or know, or something in between - that there is at the root something eternal and infinite.
The rest is just the fun of learning.
heaven is just one view of religion.. I can't say the belief that there is some sort of creator god/ divine force/ whatever that got the ball rolling is such a ridiculous belief... for that doesn't at all fly in the face of science, it just is one more way of providing an explanation for how existence began... and in point of fact, science has no explanation as to why things began... as to what caused them to begin when they did, etc.. hence the "oh so" human need for Religion and to a lesser degree philosophy...
but to say that the good religion does in the world is far outweighed by the atrocities... well that may be true of some religions.. but it is also true of science, for the atrocities committed using the inventions of science, the destruction of this world and the environment using the inventions of science, well they far outweigh the good that science has done in this world.. in fact even the supposedly good things science does, have pretty big downsides as well.. modern medicine has done more to contribute to overpopulation than anything in the world...
TheAthiest, Sorry if I came across as being vehement, not what I meant to sound like at all.. anyways in reviewing what you wrote and what was written a little more closely I see no problem with agreeing with you in reference to Young Earth Creationism type religion, which I agree is totally absurd as it flies in the face of all science and reason.. and though I do prefer to stick my tongue out at reason, well sometimes that even becomes a little ridiculous :D
And I also agree that there are pretty much no respected creationism figures in science, at least of that sort of creationism, but many (and I never said most for of course not most, but there are still many) scientists do believe that science itself points to something behind it all, and often are theistic, or at least in a more eastern sense believe there is something infinite and incomprehensible behind it all... somewhere in the recesses of this religious section there's a thread about this and a link to an article by Schroedinger about this very thing that is quite interesting.. or so I found it.. but anyways as I said sorry if I came across as vehement it is not what I meant at all, as I think your insight is often quite valid and thought provoking :)
in regards to criticizing eastern religions/ philosophies/ etc. well that is more personal experience with atheists I know, who ridicule and speak derisively about these things, and as you say you think it is a load of rubbish, well though you don't attack it, some atheists don't hesitate to make that opinion known in my personal experience... I'm not saying many, just maybe a small minority... and to be quite honest the worst people I have found with regards to criticizing buddhism, taoism, etc. are more fundamentalist members of the big three western religions...
anyways enough with that...
JBI, what you say there is all true, but I also think the use of the term nihilism with regards to Taoism, Buddhism, and other such apparently world denying religions/philosophies is more of a western mistake than a reality.. or so is my opinion.. One could find strains of Nihilism, skepticism, relativism, mysticism, contrarianism, ethical intuitionism, naturalist stoicism, primitivism, pluralism, transcendent monism, in Taoism. but to define it as any single one is a misinterpreting what it is in my opinion...
Thanks :) and the same to you (the post above this one)Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
See, this is what it all boils down to. There's no argument here, so there's no idea to argue with believers. They have drunk the Kool-aid, it's all over, they won't explain it and if you question it, it's your ignorance that's the problem, not their unwillingness to explain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
Maybe my post is all out of place in this thread, I haven't read all posts, I started at the beginning and saw Virgil's post, which pretty much confirmed why I don't bother arguing religion.
Religion is an evolutionary trait, I read this article recently, which argued that the more rules and restrictions a particular brand of theism had the more likely it is to survive. Not to say that there isn't a force greater than what we know, something that doesn't need to be explained scientifically, I cringe when I hear people trying to rationalize love, who the f--- cares!? It's great, it's the nutrition of songs, poems and suicide, that's enough for me.
The damage done by religious people is enough for me to see that it's a load of crap spewed by leaders to suppress the masses, and anybody who follows organized religion is part of the problem, as I see it.
And yet you just did, and pretty vehemently, too!Quote:
Originally Posted by hampusforev
:D
Should've been here last month, we did just that - rationalised love. Turns out love can be rational in origin and irrational in application. Life doesn't always turn out how we like.Quote:
Originally Posted by hampusforev
You just need to remember that life is a simple dichotomy - there is either natural or supernatural and love and the universe are either rationally explained or they are not. Nothing gets a free pass - religion, love, telepathy, empathy, hatred, psychics, altruism, UFOs - none of them.
Unless one is agnostic, but I find fence-sitting pretty uncomfortable.
Pretty broad statement,Quote:
Originally Posted by hampusforev
There's an awful lot of evidence that religion is of net benefit to mankind.
You have, however, provided timely proof of internet anti-theism, so thanks for that.
Maybe it is human nature. Advances in science seem to get further when being used for military application. Without religion we may just find different reasons to kill each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
I would agree with this... I would say it is human nature to desire power, wealth, material gain, etc, etc. and to be willing to use any means necessary to reach this.. of course this is not all humans are like this, but as long as even the slimmest minority of people are like this it will always be human nature to seek strife and conflict for gain, religion is just one of the more oft-used excuses to justify atrocities...Quote:
Originally Posted by MSDGreen
It's actually more the case that demand for war material has driven a lot of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSDGreen
Far more wars have started for territorial reasons than sectarian ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by MSDGreen
this is true.. and not to minimize the negative effects religions have had on the world for there have been many.. wars begun with sectarian pretenses quite often have other motives... territorial, resource driven, etc. etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
the demand for cutting edge in technology for war, whether it is just armaments, weaponry, etc, or things with more civilian applications, largely fueled the rapid pace of scientific progress in the 19th and 20th centuries... it's interesting to look at the post-cold war, and post-arms race world of science, it seems quite a bit less militarily driven, but I could be wrong here... and I'm getting way off topic now :p
I think we are in agreement. :banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by islandclimber
And every thing you say confirms exactly what you quote from me. I really couldn't care less what you believe or don't. You're exactly why I don't discuss religion. Rational calculation only knows a short segment of an infinite line. I leave you with a quote from T.S. Eliot:Quote:
Originally Posted by hampusforev
from The WastelandQuote:
What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow
Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,
You cannot say, or guess, for you know only
A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,
And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,
And the dry stone no sound of water.
Wow, Eliot way out of context there! he was talking about the bankruptcy of the realm inhabited by the impotent Fisher King - the unreal city (London, and by extension taken to represent all of Western civilization, especially Europe).
Beyond that, given its context in the poem, I tend to associate that with the dominant sexual frustration (again, referencing the impotence as structural myth that pervades the poem) and the inability to experience the real emotions - the desire to cling to the memory of the Hofgarten, or the desperate longing for a return to the Irish girl - the inability to embrace the Hyacinth girl - to feel real emotion.
In a sense, the Eliot quote is on topic, if you are keeping with the early interpretation of the Waste Land as a world without God, but it does not deal with an Aporia, rather a spiritual, or perhaps sexual emptiness in culture, filled in by meaningless acts, and failed emotions.
The Broken images, in a sense, and the handful of dust are foreshadowing the Madame Sosostris bit, but also the Desert imagery which dominates section III - I can't see how that has to do with rationalizing, though it is a great quote.
Now, if we were to go to Four Quartets, we could probably find more fitting quotes, but none as beautifully written (I think we can thank Pound for that).
Though, I do thank you for the passages - it has been some time since I've visited the Waste Land, and it is still shocking how great that poem is.
No, you're wrong. Absolutely wrong. The Wasteland is a world of spiritual dissolution. You cannot read Eliot without a religious context. Eliot is religious in almost everything he wrote. The sexual acts are empty because they have been stripped of religious significance. Look at all the Biblical language in just that passage I quote. But really I was after highlighting this: "for you know only/A heap of broken images," and the inability of man to see the entire universe of things.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
I disagree - the religious reading has been out of fashion since Allen Tate passed away - the state of affairs that point in the poem has nothing to do with lack of Religious meaning and being unable to grasp the universe, but with being unable to feel real emotions, and the bankruptcy of culture and the loss of the poet's gift. The ruined Russian Aristocrat, for instance, or the Hyacinth girl, or the Sailor singing to his Girl left at home, all point to that. This is 1922 T. S. Eliot, keep in mind, he had not converted yet, or become religious - that happened a little later in his career. This is post-war Eliot we are talking about - though there are religious influences and motifs, the poem is not dominated by a religious conversation in the way that Four Quartets is - it isn't that the oracles of the Waste Land cannot see - that isn't the issue - it is that they see too much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
The actual language comes from Ecclesiastes, not any of the Prophetic books -
The language merely gestures the bankruptcy of the world of Eliot's Waste Land - the unreal city. The poem itself is dominated by traditionally biblical images, but not actually rooted in the same theological discussion as Four Quartets, or Ash Wednesday. The Desert vs Garden, Water vs. Fire function as significant symbols, but not as a religious allegory. Here we are in the desert, which is empty, with no path forward, and no grail searcher to restore the realm. The Fisher King is impotent, as is the land - a Waste Land - the lines that follow your quote, though they gesture to Isaiah, do not use it to imply the lack of clarity in man's search for understanding, but instead focus on the fallen state of the world - the desert the war has sent civilization into.Quote:
12:5 Also when they shall be afraid of
that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree
shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire
shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go
about the streets:
12:6 Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the
golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or
the wheel broken at the cistern.
12:7 Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit
shall return unto God who gave it.
12:8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.
That is why Ezekiel is the dominant prophet in the book, replacing the classical models - this is civilization in exile - civilization in the desert, unable to get back to the garden - all the images point to it - Madame Sosostris, for instance, the fake seer who people seek for advice, who holds nothing but a pack of cards (another reference to the broken images), yet pretends to see the light, or the violated painting of Philomela, or the conversation between the angry woman and her husband? - or the discussion between the people in the bar, running out of time - it's a bankrupt world, an unreal city, surrounded by a dirtied Thames (which becomes Wagner's Rhine, missing its Rhinegold).
Sorry I disagree. The cultural disintegration is a result of spiritual dissolution. Look at the last section of the poem. There is no way you can say this isn't linked to a spiritual theme:
Chapel, bones, c**k crowing, dry bones, and the Hindu spirituality. Sorry but you are way off base.Quote:
A woman drew her long black hair out tight
And fiddled whisper music on those strings
And bats with baby faces in the violet light
Whistled, and beat their wings
And crawled head downward down a blackened wall
And upside down in air were towers
Tolling reminiscent bells, that kept the hours
And voices singing out of empty cisterns and exhausted wells.
In this decayed hole among the mountains
In the faint moonlight, the grass is singing
Over the tumbled graves, about the chapel
There is the empty chapel, only the wind's home.
It has no windows, and the door swings,
Dry bones can harm no one.
Only a **** stood on the rooftree
Co co rico co co rico 392
In a flash of lightning. Then a damp gust
Bringing rain
Ganga was sunken, and the limp leaves
Waited for rain, while the black clouds
Gathered far distant, over Himavant.
The jungle crouched, humped in silence.
Then spoke the thunder
DA
Datta: what have we given? 401
My friend, blood shaking my heart
The awful daring of a moment's surrender
Which an age of prudence can never retract
By this, and this only, we have existed
Which is not to be found in our obituaries
Or in memories draped by the beneficent spider 407
Or under seals broken by the lean solicitor
In our empty rooms
DA
Dayadhvam: I have heard the key
Turn in the door once and turn once only 411
We think of the key, each in his prison
thinking of the key, each confirms a prison
Only at nightfall, aethereal rumours
Revive for a moment a broken Coriolanus
DA
Damyata: The boat responded
Gaily, to the hand expert with sail and oar
The sea was calm, your heart would have responded
Gaily, when invited, beating obedient
To controlling hands
I sat upon the shore
Fishing, with the arid plain behind me 424
Shall I at least set my lands in order?
London Bridge is falling down falling down falling down
Poi s'ascose nel foco che gli affina 427
Quando fiam uti chelidon - O swallow swallow 428
Le Prince d'Aquitaine à la tour abolie 429
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Why then Ile fit you. Hieronymo's mad againe. 431
Datta. Dayadhvam. Damyata. 401
Shantih shantih shantih 433
Um, no I'm not - the setting is in the chapel, where the knight (Percival) undergoes his trials to retrieve the grail, and restore the realm - the girl herself stands in as Blaunchfleur, the maiden to rescue from the destroyed besieged castle. That's what the myth behind that passage is, woven with the Hindu scriptures, to signify the trials of the self in the progression forward - the trials then are transformed, to perhaps be society's, but also the poet's. In the end though, things sort of just die off, don't they - we are left in mid-trial, as the fate of the world, the fate of the grail quest is not known - we only keep going, keep fighting the Waste Land, as the death and destruction within it absorb us.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but you are looking at the trees and not the forest. And you seem to think that a single statement, like the central thesis of an essay, applies to a work of art, and that works of art don't echo and flesh out with multiple layers. Let's just say we disagree.
Oh, it seems I did. But, let's say I recognize the futility of it then :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Well, I suppose one can be philosophical about it. I would argue that love is a choice you make, you have the initial lust, which isn't a choice, and then you choose to go forward from there. But as far as rationalizing it, I just don't give a damn.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Life is simple dichotomy? No, I wouldn't think so, that's a pattern that I think you're trying to impose on it. If you're talking about science, I'm with you there, but as far as rationally explaining everything? Nah, I can sort of leave it to the unknown.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'd say it probably has it's benefits, otherwise it wouldn't survive if you believe in the Darwinian view of the world, spiritually inclined people would die off from all the time they spend praying and ruminating pointless spritual minutia.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
As I see it, people who accept the Bible, or the Qu'ran as either the inspired word of God or the actual word of God are essentially providing the loonies, who base all their decisions on religion, with ammo. Now I'm heading down ominous paths here, I don't want to come across as Hitchens-esque or Dawkins... esque, I think their notion of "the world would be better without spirituality" is retarded. Man I get a headache from this, I can't keep my train of thought from derailing. I'm not anti-theism, I'm just anti group-think, which is basically being anti-human :/
I enjoy reading this thread though some have expressed a disinterest in the same old arguments. I enjoy it because I'm glad some people are thinking big thoughts about big subjects.
Some have expressed an opinion that religion is a way of hoping for a favorable afterlife. I think that is a good part of the reason why religions have been an important part of almost all cultures. In this age of science and (for some) an abundance of life's necessities I think we tend to forget that for most of human history peoples have used religion as a way of ensuring the crops would grow and life could continue. They sought to please greater powers who could give assistance. Another reason for religions is a desire to explain origins; here again science offers a replacement in the theory of evolution.
For myself, science does not adequately explain the origin and difference between the living and the non-living. I still find a need for assistance in my life and the help of a higher power. I find it comforting to know that those whose lives have been filled with suffering and/or cut short, as well as the special people I have known and loved will live again in (as my religion teaches) a better world. The group I am a part of does not believe that atheists, agnostics, Buddists, Catholics or any other believers or non-believers are doomed to burn in hell. Instead we believe all will have the opportunity to know God and live forever in peace, joy, and happiness...in the future.
Have a little sympathy for those who do believe in hell and try to save you from it - they do it out of love though it can be annoying!
I think that this is a very well-balanced, thoughtful post that may well possess some elements of a way to clarify as well as cool down some aspects of the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by aloe
First, a few clarifications:
1) as was pointed out earlier, metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the question of the nature of reality. As was also pointed out, metaphysics is not the exclusive domain of those who allow for a non-material aspect of reality (whether religious or not). Materialists have chosen a metaphysics as well.
2) It is an error to suppose that science can settle the metaphysical question of the nature of reality, even in principle. Science has as its domain the answering of questions relating to how commensurate physical objects interact with each other. Science has nothing to say about objects (if any) that can not be measured. The idea that materialism is somehow sanctioned by science is mistaken and based on a profound misunderstanding of what science does. To argue that materialism is proven because a system designed to create understanding of material objects does not use non-material objects to understand material objects is, by its nature, circular and invalid.
3) Therefore materialism is neither more nor less rational than a metaphysical position that allows for non-material existence. It is merely another position.
Those points being made, Aloe's remark that science does not adequately fill very human needs is extremely cogent.
Science addresses how things act -- not whether these actions should be initiated. To use a graphic example: science can tell us how to create a sword that can cut through a helmet, but not whether humans should go to war.
Aloe points to what I think is an indisputable fact of human nature -- we are not reducible to a deterministic machine, or, at the very minimum, we are not made happy when treated as though we were deterministic machines.
Or, expressed another way, the materialist position that all that matters for human society is the satisfaction of material needs that can be determined by scientific means, is clearly untenable.
Opinions would be a far better description. Clarifications is the term when dealing with empirical matters, and as you note yourself, it's not a subject suited to empiricism.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
I completely disagree, because the logic of the position - in my kind of logic - says the two options are reality or solipsism, but I've said that to you before, so we can just continue to disagree on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Calling materialism a form of metaphysics is like calling Mt Everest a hill.
Sure, they both have their merits, but one side's merits fill a supertanker while the other side can barely fill a Vespa.
You know we disagree on this as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
That's a sweeping statement and no more. Again, agnosticism may have some points, but given science being able to ask most questions we've asked of it, I think demanding that it can not happen is just naive.
That is a truly faith-based position.
Objects that cannot be measured. Physical objects...Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
What, exactly, are pbjects which can't be measured? What is a non-physical object?
If these things exist, they must have some properties. An invisible, immeasurable object/entity/force which has no properties could not, in all honesty, be said to exist at all.
It's the agnostic equivalent of the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Crikey, even my seven year old can see through that.
Once those non-physical objects have some properties, they will be identifiable. 2000 years ago, there were lots of things which were invisible to man but still existed, and over the years, we've learnt a bit about most of them, from gamma-rays to gravity, so if such things as the non-material exists, I again feel it's naive and misleading to suggest that science cannot and will not ever be able to deal with it.
Now, here, I can categoricall note that you're just wrong in your description and stance of materialism. This is something that a materialist ought to be able to articulate, so I'll have a go.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Firstly, it is completely incorrect to suggest that materialism claims any sanction by any branch of science. Materialism simply uses the results and tools of science to conclude that the idea of non-physical forces is absurd and not worth pursuing, thereby developing an alternative and materialistic view to "life, the universe and everything" [Thanks DNA, for that phrase]
Secondly, you've made a statement about how materialists see science. I'd like you to expand on the "profound misunderstanding", because I am a materialist from way back and I talk to plenty, yet not a single person I've ever met who is able to understand materialism sufficiently to describe himself as one has any misunderstandings about science.
I'd vouch for materialists' understanding and usage of science to be misunderstood by non-materialists, so I'm very interested to see you back that up.
Again, a dismissal of a position based on incorrect information. Who argues that materialism is proven? Again, I know of no materialists who would make that claim. "Proven sufficiently to completely disregard non-material forces/entities/objects until one is found." might be fair, but proven? Never.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
I'm sorry to say that you seem to be dissecting a parody of a materialist than the real thing.
I find this interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
Does the fact that I consider love to be a purely material thing, with no basis outside of evolution make the love I have for my wife, children and friends different to yours of anyone else's?
I find that I have precisely the same hopes, dreams, emotions and fears as any theist or Buddhist. The idea that materialism somehow negates or lessens human experience is plain wrong.
Which human needs are not met by science?
Which science has explored the question?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
We've had several thousand years of theocratic-based society and wars haven't exactly gone away.
Coberst raises the very point in his thread on morality in Philosophy right now - go and check it out.
If you could point me to where a scientific enquiry & study has been initiated whether humans should go to war, I'd be grateful, because I don't think it's ever been attempted. Making up a team would be fun - geneticists, biologists, physicists, statisticians and a couple of anthropologists to sort it all out.
It's all very well to demand that science can't do this, but has anyone ever tried to approach it from a scientific view?
What if the answer is "War is good, because it improves the gene pool and will help the survival of the species"?
Maybe you wouldn't really want science to answer those questions, but again, I feel it's wrong to assume it cannot.
How many examples do you need to disprove this theory?Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
In general, I think you're right. I always say that people believe in god/s because they want to, and your statement is a good way of saying that. I don't believe I have a lower happiness or enjoyment of life quotient than anyone else alive. I certainly wouldn't swap with many people. I have a beautiful wife with whom I am emphatically and ecstatically in love with, four amazing kids...... well, three amazing kids and a teenager..... I own and run a couple of businesses and have a lifestyle which is full ans satsfying.
Some people do need to see the fairies at the bottom of the garden, and that's fine.
Not needing to does not require any reduction in quality of life. I'm prety sure my pragmatic, materialistic view of life is an immense benefit to me because I wouldn't be happy deluding myself.
Your "indisputable fact of nature" is again, plain wrong.
Damn, I wish you'd explain that to all the humanists I know. Every one of them is empathic, generous to a fault, happy, contented, family-oriented, anti-war, anti-violence, altrusitic and hardworking. They are people who choose to add value to the planet without needing to either impress a deity or in fear of one.Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardHresko
How untenable is that?