But while the rest of the world just shakes their head at a small demographic (not even unanimously Christian) - I want to raise the question - why are we only shaking our heads at this religious prophecy and not at every single religious prophecy EVER? why aren't we laughing at belief?
Did we not realize that to believe in anything is equally as ludicrous as believing in the Rapture on May 21, 2011?
Religious belief, and it's justification as a virtue is what keeps people from listening - because believers believe that the challenge of faith in spite of any temptation is their rite of passage into heaven.
In this sense, the very definition that has long justified faith as a virtue is the very one which has come to prove beyond a doubt it's malign nature, just yesterday. The effect of religious belief is to hold, in spite of anything, that your belief is the right one. That's what is taught as righteousness - that faith is a virtue. This idea provides a unique armor for belief that has long held against rational attack.
But yesterday it was demonstrated quite clearly - by the victims of faith who abandoned their own lives - the actual rather than potential effect of belief on reality. And, not for the first time, but in maybe the most flagrant manner ever displayed - we all saw why if your god is telling you that you cannot listen, maybe it's time to jump ship.
NOT listening is NOT good.
The nature of a religious prophecy is such that since they are fueled entirely by belief - they will all be as completely irrelevant, irrational, and insane as the prophecy from yesterday. Their very nature says that they cannot be backed by evidence. And as time goes on, I believe that science will render them less and less compelling still. The lesson to be learned is that if you think that your belief is any more reasonable or relevant than the May 21st Rapture prophecy - you don't understand belief. And if your belief has a prophecy of similar nature, be prepared to defy reason just as the yesterday's victims have.
Yesterday many people were led astray by belief. People left their lives behind. People checked out of reality. Now, what makes them more wrong than anyone? Nothing at all. The only difference between them and anyone who believes is that they got the chance to live up to the prophetic demands of their faith. And if you think that these people simply picked the wrong belief, or chose the wrong reasons for their belief - I ask you; what is it that justifies any person's belief? The belief that we are brought up with depends utterly on the portion of the world and era which we live. There is NO way to decide which god or belief is right, and which god or belief is wrong. Long ago, polytheism was more popular than monotheism. But if we image a person today praying to the gods of a polytheistic religion (Ra, Poseidon, etc.), obviously their beliefs would be looked upon as ridiculous by virtually everyone. But really, those gods have never been disproven - it is only for the superficial fact that they have fallen out of favor that makes them at odds.
The other day my Mom was reading a story to my nephew about Egyptian gods - and she prefaced the story saying that we now know that such gods were false. Damnit Mom! Those gods - like any other gods are equally as credible as any around today! What makes Thor appear less likely than Yahweh? Popularity.
In a lecture someone once asked Richard Dawkins: "What if you're wrong?"
Dawkins responded "...There's no particular reason to pick on the Judeo-Christian God, in which, by the sheerest accident, you happen to have been brought up, and ask me the question 'what if i'm wrong?' What if your wrong about the great juju at the bottom of the sea?"
Why didn't yesterday's prophecy have too great an effect on the world at large? DISBELIEF. What if belief had it's way? What if everyone had just abandoned their societal posts - as that particular belief would have recommended? Theists have always bashed disbelief as something which isolates and disturbs people, and claimed that belief is something which lifts and connects people. Now we have glaring evidence that belief is self-destruction. I think it's reason to celebrate.
I do NOT agree with these statements, but I can appreciate the quality of your work here. It is very commercial and well thought out. I would just be wary of believing that you know anything for certain. You do not like the idea of belief right, but this shows a tremendous amount of self belief, that you are in a sense your own god of your universe, to say for certain that you have captured in your own intelligence absolute, undeniable truth, that we people of faith are ridiculous morons being led astray by nothing other than our own foolishness and tradition. I mean, I'm not a big fan of people blindly following anything, but i just can't jive
ReplyDeletewith all this. I definitely respect your passion, however, I feel that this incident is what happens when people follow "man" and not the god that they believe in. In the very text that this man pulled this stuff from, it clearly states that no man will know the date of the lord's return. I don't say this, to preach at all, but only as proof that this is not a result of true, healthy belief, but the ramblings of a crazy old man who has been wrong time and time again.
Thanks dude. All these type images are very experimental for me.. I dunno..
ReplyDeleteFirst - I do NOT think that belief and faith are stupid! I would go at lengths to say there is no single idea you can have that makes you unintelligent. Singular ideas are superficial items in respect to your true intelligence. Unintelligence, just the same as intelligence, is extremely difficult to define and arguably impossible to quantify. I think that people are simply persuaded into unhealthy behavior by the virtue of faith and become stuck in a self-feeding loop of belief - in which, all new ideas are regarded as temptation or false belief.(See previous week's illustration for something that might better explain my opinion of the difference between misinformation and unintelligence.)
I don't claim that my theological ideals are undeniable - so I don't know if anything i've said requires belief in myself.
However - I do invest heavily in the idea of reality - and that discoveries in reality should be placed on equal footing as the very idea of reality itself. Most of what I hold as true is no more dubious than our state of existence. Not entirely sure about what you mean by 'self-belief'. I think I get what your saying but I don't want to make assumptions..
I get what you saying about the degrees of separation from authenticity from Whats His Names interpretation of that 'date of the lord's return' passage . But even outside of this context - biblical text in general becomes a slippery slope in that it's written and re-written by man. Who is King James? Why did he alter the bible? No doubt, because he had his own interpretation.
And biblical interpretations in general are impossible because there is no criteria by which to decide which passages to take literally and figuratively! And in spite of all of this dilution the bible is still advocated as the true word of god - how is a person supposed to apply a criteria onto which man-made portions are more or less man-made? They can't - it's impossible. So the doctrine of faith remains.
What I mean by the ACTUAL rather than potential effects of faith is this of course in this confusion people are going to get caught up. You can't say; "oh these people were just confused by a bad idea, that's all." of COURSE they were! Because it's only a matter of time until the idea that "faith is virtue" becomes poisonous! thats the POINT! you turn people off from paying attention for long enough and you HAVE to accept that you've fostered a world which creates these effects. If you foster a type of behavior so susceptible to misinterpration - for centuries - you can't say that when someone finally misinterprets, that it's not your fault. You still created the situate that made others prone to critical error.
plus, the original point is that the very thing that justifies belief - that it is based in faith and not supported by evidence - is that which puts all belief on par with belief in the May 21st Rapture. Even as incredible as Harold Camping's idea was - what is it that makes ANY belief less incredible? How could any Abrahamic God be more likely? Even if Camping's hypothesis is directly opposed by the original biblical text, so what? There is an absurd amount of evidence directly opposed to all biblical text, anyway. That's where belief comes to the rescue - upholding faith indefinitely at the expense of any and all analysis.
ReplyDelete"An absurd amount of evidence directly opposed to all biblical text.." I have to start with that. How do you explain away the existence of Jesus, and the claims he made? I mean, I get what you are saying about all the different interpretations and the texts being diluted and then re-diluted, to the point where everything is "just an interpretation", and therefore Camping's prediction/belief has to be just as valid as every other belief. But, I don't agree. There comes a point where a bad translation, and a misguided person are just that. I mean, I could look at the writings of Darwin and say that Darwin advocated the belief that animals can't adapt to their surroundings, and that the idea of evolution is complete fallacy, but that would be foolish because it is completely opposite of the intended message, not to mention it happens all the time right in front of our eyes.
ReplyDeleteAs far as you "invest(ing) heavily in the idea of reality", I don't believe that we, as humans, even know what reality is. This is what I meant by self-belief. Science continues to show us things that we don't understand over and over again. Obviously there are a set of rules which govern the physical world, but in all honesty, we don't even understand our own brains fully, and so how can we think we understand "true reality"? I once read this article about how there is a part of the brain that is used in sensing an "invisible" presence and the study then placed people in a dark room and placed some hat on their head that activated that part of the brain, and the person felt like there were "beings" in the room with them. Now they concluded that this is proof that such notions of a higher being are just constructions of our brain, but also neglect to consider that nearly every function of our brain has a use for something, and that maybe this part of our brain is there because perhaps there is a higher being to sense, idk. I realize this is a tangent, but I mean to point this out only as evidence that reality might not be as cut and dry as some believe it to be. It's like this, if my reality was that I was stuck in a dark cave my entire life, I would know a reality that was completely different than what it is today. Now obviously we are not all stuck in caves, but our understanding is still limited. Sure we know a lot of tricks to our world, and are ever-increasing in our knowledge of the universe, but I don't look at existence of this physical world and say that my limited perception is all that is "real". To me this takes a tremendous amount of self belief to think that what I can sense of this world, and conceptualize of this world, is the only thing that is reality.
Look, I don't want this to come off as anything other than just a discussion, so please don't take offense. I find your ideas intriguing, despite my disagreement, or else I would not have written anything.
I hope everything is well, and look forward to seeing more of your artwork, even if it means you present ideas that are different than my own.
Haha, you are apologizing too much, friend. I appreciate your arguments. They are exciting. If you feel like you need to excuse yourself for being offensive, that's fine - I know how it feels to feel like a jerk for being on the offense - But please don't worry about that here. I expect you to attack my logic full fucking force. I invite you to shatter my ideals if you can. I invite anyone to devastate my world-view for the sake of being rational - because that is the standard I hold to others. I want you to make me cry. Without the possibility of such disrespect, progress is incapacitated.
ReplyDeleteFrom the beginning I understood your point about Camping. He's just a man and making bogus accusations. That's pretty obviously a good point. But part of the reason he seems so bogus is that he's alive today.
Concerning Jesus - there is no evidence for Jesus' existence. That's fine. I don't necessarily expect any. Not everything turns into fossil evidence (this 'wheres the evidence' argument is deployed against evolution in the missing link argument, which is invalid for the same reason) The best testament for the case of jesus is his supposed citation in multiple historical documents. However - the deal breaker for me in this is that he is never cited in any contemporary document during his lifetime. All documentation of a historical Jesus figure occurs much later.
This phenomenon has been mimicked even in modern times. In the 1930's on the island of Vanuatu, there was a cargo cult religion that arose, centered around a messiah named John Frum. I won't go into specifics about the details of the religion - but John Frum is rumoured to have been alive around the 30's, as an island native who one day made promises to the island natives about delivering supplies. The religion is still around today, but there is no evidence and much dispute as to whether John Frum ever actually lived. This is the typical confusion that ensues around massiah figures - even as recently as 70-80 years ago! The point is that no eye-witness or word-of-mouth testament is capable of verifying a phenomenon. I understand that with that mentality you will fall into the habit of writing off ALL word-of-mouth testaments - and if there were a Jesus messiah - there's a small chance he wouldn't have been recorded. But this goes both ways - If you don't consider man's totally confused inaccurate perception, coupled with our innate desire to personify and exaggerate, you'll find yourself falling for every story that people mention.
And yes - that goes to show the fallibility of being human. But that doesn't mean that knowledge is unattainable. Too many people dispute the nature of fact - and I apologize for running through this if you aren't one of those people - but certain things ARE known for sure. Heliocentricity is an inexorable fact - that began as a theory. It is still technically a theory - but it is a fact. The same goes for evolution - utterly inexorable. I understand that we don't know everything - but that's the point of the scientific method; that it places human judgement outside of the process and only attains objective knowledge. Subjectivity doesn't enter into the scientific method - thus, it's not quite the same as a human testament. We don't understand our brains because brains are extremely complicated and we're still working towards it. That there are things we do not know, is no testament to the idea that all knowledge is transient. It just means that things progress.
ReplyDeleteThe whole idea that a phantom sense of the intangible is weird. There's no biological feature that can be understood without considering evolution. Once you understand natural selection you know that many features can occur in spite of redundancies, inefficiencies, or useless tendencies. In natural selection there's a principle called 'unintelligent design' with is basically biological proof that animals evolve with no guiding intelligence - so long as they survive. Survival is the cheif motivator in natural selection - and that means that anything can happen as long as it helps the organism survive better than its peers. It is pretty common knowledge in the science world that our ability to believe is innate - and biology explains this because it is a helpful positive feature in survive. That does not mean, however, that it's right - it only means it had measurable effect on the way we live.
The point is that to disbelieve in inexorable fact is tantamount to disregarding reality. To believe NOTHING, not even simple facts of existence, is to leave the arena of reality. In which case you can offer no contributions and make no assessments whatsoever
Relating this back to the original text - Scientifically speaking, that the only belief required is belief that you are here, in this world, and that you exist. Facts are a packaged deal that come with this reality. The alternative - to be doubt everything - is forfeit.
ReplyDeleteBelief in reality is not on par with theistic belief because of the tie between the laws of reality and its existence. other than that, belief is extraneous, and my point is that it's harmful because there is no way to navigate it sensibly.
I'm not saying that knowledge is unattainable, I just think that sometimes our understanding of absolute facts is warped by our own perceptions, something that we cannot separate from ourselves. I know you are a big music guy, and this being the case, I have to question you about what you believe causes such power behind some music? It's not something tangible, or is it? You know what I'm talking about? Like the kind of umph you get from listening to your favorite riff, or drum solo, I feel like that's something "supernatural" almost, something that isn't really physical, but is definitely a fact. To someone who has never heard
ReplyDeletemusic, such an experience is unknowable, unimaginable, but to someone who loves music, it is VERY REAL, and something musicians strive their whole lives to achieve. I just feel like that's kind of my experience with belief. I mean I personally have seen people healed after being prayed for. People I knew before and after. I have been in churches where miraculous things have happened through the power of prayer, and have been apart of prayer circles where doctors said nothing short of a miracle could solve the problem, and heard from the people involved how, without explanation a miracle occurred. All this is not to build myself up, or spam you with a bunch of facts that you prolly won't believe, but just a relation to the music example I'm sure you can understand. Once again, I appreciate your open-mindedness, and enjoy hearing that people i know do think about something other than the royal wedding or some random gangster rap video. I know I'm probably not going to change your mind here, but I just think that it is worth mentioning that there are examples of supernatural occurrences everyday that are not scientifically explicable, and I think that this is where belief legitimately lies.
I know exactly what you mean. Everyone becomes baffled by the complexity of life at one point or another. It's one of life's invariables. I know what it's like to experience the uncanny, just as all people do, and be overwhelmed by improbability. Probability is a very complex thing to understand, but it has severe implications: That on a long enough timeline - everything will happen. I'm not saying that's the answer to every mind boggling event - but its a hell of a starting point. It's not hard to imagine why people personify, simplify, or make their own answers to that which is stupifying.
ReplyDeleteNo one presumes something like, say, neuroscience, is simple - but when it comes to matters of our mind we all tend to have our own theories on how things go down. Because we experience things first hand but do not necessarily have the tools to understand it objectively. People tend to find proof of god in that we find pleasure in anything at all. Pleasure is not a divine gift, it's simply an evolved trait that moves us in the direction of survival. The concept of beautify is not fully understood biologically, because of the sheer complexity of the subject, but there are many theories that are more than optimal:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/denis_dutton_a_darwinian_theory_of_beauty.html
As for music - music is actually pretty simple and well understood. Music is auditory geometry. Harmony is cause by mathematical relationship between the wavelength of two notes when their phases compliment each other. Dissonance is caused two frequencies being out of phase, and result in a sort of oscilation of pitch. The more out of phase two frequencies are, the faster the oscilation, the less out of phase - the slower - until no oscilation is heard and the two frequencies are at easy with each other. I think you probably understand this much. The more unique frequencies there are in a sound, the less its note is perceivable by our minds. If you slam your forarm down on the low end of a piano - it sounds like someone dropping a sheet of metal onto cement or something. There are harmonies amongst the noise, but your brain cannot identify them. As a singer, i'm sure you know what it's like to be able to pick out the pitch of commonplace noises and sing them.
Rhythm is a very animalistic ability. I don't know for sure, but suspect my cat to have a sense of rhythm. She drinks water in steady rhythmic increments. Coincidently, she usually takes gulps in groups of 5 - I know that she can't count beats in groups of 5, because most humans can't do that, but i do think shes taking random gulps based on her lung capacity, in a tempo. So i think rhythm, or our sense for tempo, comes from out ability to intuitively measure short amounts of time.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to chord progressions - now it get's complicated. I can't tell you how it works because I don't know. But i will say if the answer isn't out there (and i'm pretty sure it is) it will be soon.
I think one day everything will be understood objectively. Yes, everything. The zeitgeist implies that to understand the future you have to exit your intuitive mind, and expect the unimagineable. Arthur C. Clarke said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
That's a fundamental difference in our two outlooks. I think everything is understandable. If you never sit down and literally imagine what insanities you expect the future to bring, you run the risk of writing off anything far fetched - which is a risk because the unexpected is not just a possibility - it's a guarantee. Even the most progressive minds become shocking to future generations.
In many instances i've gone from perplexed to understanding. It's become a trend for me - that I have to trust that sometimes I just can't imagine the answer. But the answers are in fact out there. Many people don't really understand the limits of their ignorance, and say things like "Beer is proof that god loves us and wants us to be happy", when, in actuality, the cause for pleasure is very much biologically definable, and beer is simply a man-made expansion on our sense of evolved taste.
It's not that these people are denying the answers, it's that naturally everyone moves from A to B in the process of attaining knowledge. That you are at A at any point says nothing of your general intelligence - it says you have not moved to B. The reason for why things are the way they are is more important than THAT they are the way they are.
ReplyDeleteA short regression: A good, simple example of our understanding the limits of our ignorance is rolling dice. Everyone has rolled a die. We all subscribe to the laws of physics, which govern it's extremely complicated movements (which take into account its weight, volume, dimensions, trajectory, wind-direction, etc.) that eventually bring it to a stop. We all understand that these factors are finite and understandable, yet we make no attempt to literally understand them. We just trust that they work.
But that we do not truly understand the specifics does not say that there are none - it says they are currently being overlooked. If the knowledge is out there - it is no one's fault but our own that we have not yet sought it out. Saying that something cannot be - because you don't understand it's inner workings - when it is in-fact, and is in-fact understood, is tantamount to saying that because you skipped school the teacher's lesson doesn't exist. Just because a teacher gives a lesson and you are not there to hear it does not mean the lesson never took place.
I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you, that you cannot change my mind. I don't know, LITERALLY exactly what it would take my mind - but I know it would take evidence of a certain caliber to move me from my current state of A, to some potential state of B.
The point of this, for me, is not necessarily to change your mind. Obviously these are grand, abstract ideas that require VOLUMES of thought. I don't expect to convert anyone on the spot. But I have to provide the necessary information to move someone from point A to B, or else it's not going to happen. As i said, a person's subscription to an idea is no testament to that they have denies all other ideas, it just says that maybe they haven't been given the chance. That may be the best you can hope for in an argument - which is fine by me. But if you want to keep shooting at answers - i'll do my best to place them in front of you
GUH i hate to add 4th response but I didn't address your one question
ReplyDeleteThe impact of music comes from a few things. It's accessibility: it is the most intuitive art form in existence. The only art form that literally sits on a geometric grid. A shallow understanding of steady mathematical increments, as i've said, is innate. I think adding to this is that music is sort of acted out in time - it lasts. unlike looking at an image - it has a duration, a continuity. Also, you hear hear the human element to it. A reaction to vocals results in a visceral emotional effect.
I noticed that Steve Streisguth said to me a few times, that he's baffled at the idea of a sketch; that you can create an image or concept, on paper, out of nothing. I usually say "yeah, sure, man" or something, just to be agreeable, but I don't really share that bewilderment with him. i DO however, find it in music. Particularly, at the risk of exposing my ego, at listening to myself playing drums on recording. I'm not implying it's awesome, and that I dazzle myself, haha.
But theres something unique about having a recording of yourself. A physical.. rendering.. of yourself, in sound. It's especially weird with drums because its so faceless. All of your familiar qualities or notions of yourself are wiped out - all thats left is rhythm in space. And the concept of 'pocket' is so, so cool...
I'm not saying there's a MYSTERY SUBSTANCE or MAGIC to music, my implication of that i think everything is understandable is that i strictly reject all mysticism and mystery substance. I have to laugh every time I hear someone talk about 'heart' and 'soul' in music. Anyone who mentions such is projecting their own 3rd party opinions about such music onto the music itself.
Okay, I accept your opinion. You obviously have thought about such things quite a bit and I hope you eventually find all the answers you are looking for. As for me though, I just feel like there is more mystery to our universe than you believe. Perhaps, everything is eventually understandable, I won't argue that, I just think that when it is understood, whatever "it" is, that it will look like something drastically different that what we understand now and include evidence of a higher power/higher order. And yes, I do understand that music in and of itself is VERY mathematical. I haven't researched loads and loads of theory or anything, but I am aware that in its most simplified form music is merely different wavelengths of sound acting in a predetermined pattern and all. But to me there is still something mystical to real, good, music. I like to sing, a lot, but to me the quality of one's voice is ALMOST a non factor in determining the power of a song. I believe it to be about the sincerity of the message, and the emotion conveyed behind the melody and/or harmonies, a response from someone's soul that creates the power in a song. Now, I realize that you probably don't accept the idea of a soul because of a lack of physical proof, and that our brain's function determines whether or not we live or die, but I just don't buy that a person is merely the sum total of their parts. Don't get me wrong, my point here is not to state that there is an element that is unknowable or unfathomable. My point is that I believe that there is an element to all of this that is part of a higher order that we, with our limited knowledge, do not fully understand YET. If this means to you that I just believe in the existence of a bunch of nonsense, or that I am delusional, then I can accept that, but if there has been anything that I have learned in my life it's that man has constantly felt like they've had their mind wrapped around the truth, whether it be a blind allegiance to a lightning hurling, vengeful GOD, or to foolish scientific ideas that are constantly being redefined or re-understood. I just chose to have faith, that's all, and I don't view that as being close-minded, but quite the opposite. This is not because I don't wish to face "reality" or my own mortality, but because it is something that I "feel" is real, not that I can "prove" it to you, or provide you with indisputable evidence. But I know for sure that there are a lot of basic things and events in this world that I could never prove to anyone, like the holocaust or the genocide in rwanda, or even that people exist in Africa. I have never been there, I have never known an African while in Africa, but I take it on faith in what
ReplyDeleteI've been told and experienced and seen, from people who have been there or were born on that continent. To get back to my original objection, though, I don't view this as self destructive. What I view as destructive about belief is the dividing quality it unfortunately takes on, and people's reliance on ideas that are detrimental to social organization. These qualities are present, even in the scientific realm, ESPECIALLY in the scientific realm, so to me, blaming this foolish event on ALL belief, is unjust.
There is a pretty simple reason for why you find music mystically powerful - it's because it evokes emotion. You are attempting to contemplate the literal fabric of perception. I've explained to you what causes music to evoke emotion - but you remain baffled about the very feeling it actually evokes - and rightly so. But by doing this, you are attempting to weigh the reasons that events result in actual stimulation. The truth is - it doesnt matter. Stimulation is constructed by something which could be variable. What is that feeling you receive from good food? Do you understand it? It doesn't matter - it's only a stimulant that you receive which appeals to your mind. Try and think about a bad taste - not the actual food - but the actual STIMULUS you receive from eating some nasty vegetable. What is the substance of that stimulus? Is there any way which the exact stimulus could be found 'good', if duplicated in a foreign brain, accurately? Of course not. Because that feeling doesn't FEEL good. When someone asks you how it is that you don't enjoy the taste of something - they aren't realizing that you don't taste what they taste - you taste something negative and they taste something positive. Think about the actual sensation, the next time you eat something unpleasant, and ask yourself "if someone else experienced this exact sensation that I am experiencing - would they enjoy it?" The answer is no. The essence of the sensation is negative. Try and describe it in words without using associations - you cannot. The stimulus is persuasion. It's arbitrary. All that matters is that it moves you in a direction. Beyond that - it could be anything.
ReplyDeleteIf i lose you at any point - understand that its because we're talking about neuroscience and this shit is complicated. We're discussing extremely abstract ideas about what is the matter of stimulus itself. It might be worth it to point out again, that for every ten million people that claim to love music, there is one person who understands scientifically the stimulus they receive from it. This in turn expands misunderstanding of the subject, because you have HORDES of people out there, spreading the idea that "whoa.. music is just so... cool."
Think about the color green. Not just a green object - but the sensation of green. Try and image only the sensation that your brain represents green WITH. what IS that? Well - it's nothing special really. Its arbitrary. it could be anything.
The point is that as long as you try to provide explanation for something which is known to be arbitrary, and has come a long way, evolutionarily, in it's ability to PERSUADE you beyond all doubt - you're falling into that trap that the very stimulus has become efficient at. Emotion is BLINDING. And that's the point. Emotion was not meant to be understood or doubted. We as humans haven't evolved in the most efficient manner for contemplation. A more efficient species (in terms of intelligence) would be one LESS persuaded by emotion. That way the species could be less inclined to make subjective assessments. Emotion is only meant for survival.
ReplyDeleteGoing out on a limb, i have this idea that what it truly means to be human (as opposed to a less specific homo sapien), and not animal, is that we have to ability to defy emotion and look at things objectively. This is where science comes in - i think science is what makes you human. I think science is what makes us human. If your look at species and analyzing the prime chief difference in what sets them apart - for us, it is the scientific method.
You said earlier that someone could misinterpret Darwinism and somehow "say that Darwin advocated the belief that animals can't adapt to their surroundings, and that the idea of evolution is complete fallacy". It is central to my argument that this is not true. That's the whole point of saying "belief is self destruction", because i'm opposing it with science. You cannot just interpret what Darwin, or any other scientist, theorized. You have to refute it with evidence. Theory doesn't subject itself to interpretation - only proving or disproving. It is exactly my point that for this reason it is superior to belief - and even more - that belief is detrimental.
The only place where theory is placed is equal footing as belief is in the theologic realm. Scientists know better - and more specifically they know that there is no intellectual antagony towards Darwinism, as some theists have implied. If you've ever heard someone say that Darwin was ambivalent, or something along those lines - you've heard it from a source with an agenda, or someone directly influenced by a source with an agenda.
The beauty of science is that it allows dispute and mistake, in turn allowing correction. I don't share with you the idea that people becoming divided is a negative thing. Differentiation is the reason we exist, and it is inevitable. I think everyone would agree, if they had it explained to them the right way, that what they really want and need is for things to survive and thrive. A homogenized society is not necessary and in fact is an impediment in this. Without a "lower percentile" or "bottom of the barrel", there is nothing for progress to act on (a principle of evolution).
All I am saying is that you already seem to have your mind made up that you know for certain what you know, and that because there is no "proof" that you recognize as solid proof against your opinion that you are correct. I just don't accept that I really know for certain anything, that maybe our universe is indeed much more than I can imagine. Your complete faith in the idea that the "power" of music is just another form of stimulation clearly shows this. No, I don't have any physical proof to the contrary and, yes, scientifically all those things you point to are happening, emotional response, wavelengths, and such, but I can't suppose I know that that's all that is going on. You may think this is foolish, of course, but that's just my thinking. What I meant by division being a bad thing, is not the idea that originality is bad. What I meant was the division that is all to present in racial divides, religious militant divides, country divides, etc... the things that make our world a place where you constantly have to watch your back for OTHER PEOPLE! Dissent and varying opinions are good, but division to the point where the people involved derive some feeling of superiority is definitely bad in my opinion. And all I meant was that I feel that you are unjustly criticizing all belief. I mean, to me it's pretty obvious really. You don't have to believe in anything, I don't really care one way or another because it's not up to me. But to suggest that my view on life is self-destructive, that because I believe in something greater than what I can perceive or observe that it is somehow foolishly binding our society, because some people were screwing up their lives off of a crazy old man, isn't fair. At first objection, that is what bothered me, that's all.
ReplyDeleteactually, the lack of proof is what I find most acceptable about theism. If there is a god, why would he make himself observable? That is the single greatest point - the pinnacle of argument - in favor of god. I am not necessarily swayed by a lack of evidence. You said i have faith in the idea that music is definable, and earlier you said something along the lines that I don't believe in a soul because there is no evidence for it. Well, actually, I couldn't care less that there is no evidence to the contrary in either of these - that would be the POINT of god, right? To give us life to test our piety or something.
ReplyDeleteWhat I care about is more of the inversion of those things. This is what you have to consider and be wary of:
First: It is arguably impossible to prove a negative. It is not necessary to prove what is NOT, only what is. If you demand proof of negatives, it means you CANNOT understand if an existence is INDEED natural.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike."
Second: the problem with putting an explanation behind logic and saying "well, we will never know if we are NOT interpreting things correctly" is that supposing there is just 'more to the equation' is not a solution. In the world of problem solving, 2+2=4, and NOT 1+3. I don't believe in a soul, not because there is no evidence for it, but because it is a superfluous answer (2+2=1+3) to the problem of our consciousness - as adequately explained through neurology. And though we don't know everything - we can extrapolate in the safety of probability, that if we've now discovered virtually everything that was once held as unknowable - the trend will continue until we understand everything.
I hope you don't mind that I keep bringing stuff up. as I said, i don't mind, and hopefully you don't either. But i will respond as long as you've raised a question that I have previously considered, and have an answer for. All an argument is, is a talk. That's all - just a friendly talk.
Nah, I gotcha, I'm good for such things. I wasn't meaning to sound offended, just trying to relay why I said something in the first place. I do understand what you are saying, and can appreciate the amount of time and thought you've put into your stance. I definitely understand what you are talking about, I honestly do. Like I said before though, I just feel that when perhaps we "understand everything" if that is in our future even, that we will be understanding something that is "divine" for lack of a better term. That, just because we understand it doesn't make it less fantastic, or awesome, and will include elements like you suggested, however superflous they may seem to our current logic. What I'm meaning to say is that perhaps 1+3 is the ONLY solution, and not merely a simple 4, regardless of what problem solving fundamentals may suggest. It's illogical, I understand that, and probably comes down to the idea that I am beyond arguing with because how can you argue against someone who won't accept the limitations of their own knowledge, and will always be convinced of something that is unknowable, unprovable, and unobservable from a supremely scientific perspective. I view it though, as I am seeing the ideas you present but rejecting them however logical they are, not just because I am being stupid and narrow-minded, but because I am convinced that our knowledge and wisdom as beings that are clearly not omniscient are flawed at the very start. Because we cannot even imagine what is unimaginable to our own self, how can we think that we are grasping everything.
ReplyDeleteOnce again, like I said, I realize that this lies outside the realm of logical debate, and is like smacking your head against the wall, because you are arguing to disprove what you know as a "negative". You could be right, and I could be wrong, I don't believe that to be the case, but either way, it wouldn't really mean anything in the long run for the scenario you present. I would just go through my life abiding by the teachings of Jesus, however "wrong" or meaningless it all may be, believing in a "non-existent" god while still not opposing the advancement of science. And then die like everyone else and have it all end. What I am asking is, supposing I am incorrect in my religious beliefs, where's the harm in someone like me who doesn't have plans on destroying their own life, or anyone else's, because of their beliefs; who seeks to show kindness to everyone regardless of who they are what they believe in? I mean you can argue with me all day long about whether or not there actually is a god, or there isn't. You could throw scientific fact after scientific fact at me, but my essential argument is not to try and prove anything, because I believe that is something that no one can do for anyone else. Ultimately, the person being argued with has to accept what is presented for anything to really change. I just don't see the "self-destruction" in the people I know and love--people who regularly sacrifice their time and money so that families with nothing can have presents for their kids at Christmas, a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner, nice clothing to wear for possible job interviews or for their kids to not have to wear a bunch of old hand-me-downs. People who don't try and shove anything on people, but are just attempting to live out the example set by Jesus, as accounted in the bible, spreading care, and love, and trying to connect with other people, to help them in times of need. To cook food for families who have children caught in hospitals, and don't feel right leaving their child alone at a hospital for an extended period of time. I just don't see this kinda thing as destructive in any way, even if it is following an example of a "fictional character" created by people who had an agenda. I'm not offended, so please don't take my personalization as me taking offense. I personally, though, am someone who has belief, and so that being the case, I am just suggesting that the idea presented in the illustration is a generalization that I can't jive with. I feel like I know who you are, somewhat, and I'm not taking offense to your words, so no worries. And look at the awesome comment list here...haha. Good stuff. haha. Fire AWAY!
ReplyDeleteNow we've come full circle - back to my original issue with belief. We've gone the long way for you to point out that the facts don't matter unless we see a substantial reason for change. I understand you know your family well, and see nothing wrong with belief and so on.
ReplyDeleteBack to what belief puts at stake:
The families who fucked their lives up banking on belief were surely probably as good and kind as any other. This is my gripe; that belief has detrimental effects on good people (hold that thought). This is a reference back to my original point that all belief is equal because of its detachment from all rationality - which you refute on the grounds that Camping is crazy etc.. Don't wanna dwell on this disagreement, so I'll bring some new points to the surface.
Your refutation of Camping's credibility comes from an application of rationality onto biblical text/interpretations/prophecies. I argue that ALL application of rationality onto anything biblical is in direct conflict with the nature of biblical text itself.
The bible is already in direct conflict with scientific fact about it's version of history (age of the earth and the universe, evolution, adam and eve, etc..) but that's not the point. The point is that your progressive stance is not harmonious with the nature of belief. So what's my point? Don't get me wrong - i wouldn't have it any other way - but I don't think you understand that the implication of your application of rationality is that on a subconscious level, you realize the danger of belief - which is by nature not interpretable. It can only exist one way.
Example: People are always citing biblical text as the source of morality. The origin of morality, in actuality, has no necessary ties with anything biblical. The fact that we ignore many biblical moral lessons and sift through, only choosing what we see fit, and saying 'of course not - this passage is not to be taken literally' is a DIRECT result of our sense of rationality and application of logic - and thus a subconscious betrayal of belief!
Gay rights, women's rights, stem cell research, abortion, all require a NEW and LOGICAL standard for ethics which is in conflict with the standard held in abrahamic religion.
If we're sifting through passages claiming which to take literally, what's stopping us from saying so about the immaculate conception, the virgin birth, the resurection, the crucifixion, and EVERY other important passage? I'm starting to sound like a broken record: THERE IS NO CRITERIA. Anyone who applies logic to belief is not understanding the implications of their subscription to rational analysis. I don't advocate the idea that subjects can be black and white, one or the other; but this is one case where the two undermine each other completely.
Concerning tolerance; as i've said - the only true belief is in spite of reason. This doesn't mean i don't appreciate reasonable, progressive theists like yourself; but I cannot accept or tolerate progressive theism because it is an ENABLER for fundamentalists. Take Islam for example. Fundamental Islam advocates that part of the Muslim duty is a physical Jihad. Now, there is a LOT of debate on this subject, but it can be argued almost for certain that the only TRUE form of Islam is one which calls for a global, militant Jihad. In other words; Islam wishes you and I dead. It's just too easy for progressives to slip back into fundamentalist viewpoints when they don't even belong there in the first place!
Back to the thought of detrimental effects on good people - good people of belief don't have to destroy themselves in a flagrant manner for the effects of belief to be felt; only for the entire WORLD to notice. The subtle effect of even mild belief is HUGE. Theodicy, or 'God's Justice' is one thing that I resent about belief - I won't get too into it since i'm working on an illustration on the subject - but I'll just say this: People let God take care of justice because they believe justice will be served in the afterlife. This is an infringement on INVESTMENT IN REALITY which is HUGELY important. I understand that these people do so, obviously, because they aren't worried about what would have if they were wrong. But for those of us don't agree - I wish good people would take more initiative. This siphoning of initiative from reality to the afterlife has a huge effect on our global struggle for good. Granted - I can't wish people of belief to be too vigilant, because then we might have more religions as violent as Islam.
ReplyDeleteYou said Jesus spreads care and love; but care and love is not universally deserved - as in the case of a Jihadist Muslim who wants to kill everyone you know. Probably my biggest objection to the idea of biblical text is that the nature of any sort of text as a behavioral guide is incapacitation of the self. You cannot hold an idea (don't confuse ideas with facts) forever. Ideas become antiquated and lose relevance. The ONLY way for a philosophy to stay relevant is for it to employ pragmatism - and the only way to employ pragmatism is to be YOURSELF. Only LIVING people can decide what's right based whats happening at the moment. The nature of biblical text is to say "no, no, no, fuck that. don't be yourself. listen to ME."
But who is me? How do you know what sources a writing of 'belief' come from? Relying on a 3rd party to supply you with your ideals is like subjecting yourself to infiltration from potentially PUTRID sources. Notice: the totally rational self CANNOT be infiltrated.
Probably no one on this planet can claim to hate homosexuals for real, personal reasons - only reasons derived from a 3rd party. Belief in biblical text makes people PRETEND to be someone they are not because it is demanded. By who? This pretending is then perpetuated by culture. Why do people pretend to hate and be disgusted by homosexuals? Because they're encouraged to be dishonest about their own personalities. A culture of hatred then grows and surrounds the issue and it becomes acceptable to pretend and be dishonest about how you really feel.
What about the sanctity of the embryo? Do people really care so much for embryos? Has anyone ever had a deep personal connection with an embryo? Is anyones best friend a embryo? No. People are encouraged towards dishonesty once again and feel like they need to pretend to care about things they don't actually care about. What if we point out that a mother who desires and abortion was once an embryo herself? Sacrificing a REAL life for an embryo is ridiculously non-sensical, because it equates to sacrificing the POTENTIAL for the ACTUAL.
I think that's everything..
*sacrificing the ACTUAL for the POTENTIAL
ReplyDeleteAlright, that's all for me. Any more than that, and i'll be forcing ideas down your throat. Actually - i've already done that. Haha.
ReplyDeleteUntil next time, Zach; It's been fun. I hope I didn't (I did) come off as overbearing.