The Gamer's Quarter

[dessgeega]

[internisus]

wtf dhex? what exactly is your definition of spirituality? i'm probably a bit looser with it than most, but i'd basically call it emotion that's directed towards something bigger than people, intuitively invoking knowledge; I don't think that's too far from a popular definition. Would you mind more elaborately explaining the principle problem with the Bjork song example?

I mean, it doesn't eliminate spirituality; it embodies it! I don't understand how you could think otherwise. So what would you call spirituality that doesn't involve the supernatural?

[dhex]

ok, enough picking on wiccans. (i will sub daniel pinchbeck from now on)

[Dracko]

Islamo-Buddhism is pretty sweet.
_________________
"This is the most fun I've ever had without being drenched in the blood of my enemies!"

[GSL]

Wanking metaphysical: Because like, wow, man, nature is, like, wow.

[Perseus]

[OtakupunkX]

I had an arguement with my mom this morning about creationism.

I hate talking to her about this kind of thing, because I am an agnostic and she, along with the rest of my family/most of the people in my town are Southern Baptists.

Basically, the arguement started when my sister was talking about how people lived longer in the Old Testament era and I said something about how the measurement of time was probably different then. I then stated that, as an example, if Christian God really did make the Earth in 7 days as Creationists say he did, who's to say that he did it in literally 7 days, and also how do you know that 7 days in God's eyes are the same as 7 days in our eyes?

My mom got pissed because I was doubting the Bible, which is exactly why I don't talk to her about anything but my job and whichever girl is currently using me at the moment.


Also, Perseus, all I have to say is good luck and I really agree with the whole "organization" idea.
_________________

[dhex]

discussions about the spirit are difficult even with the best of intentions.

emotions run hot, beliefs run deep (or sometimes not deep enough).
_________________

[Dracko]

[Perseus]

Hoo boy. Sorry for calling you a fuck-face, Dracko! I was ah, pretty drunk when I posted that! No hard feelings, I hope. Well that's the last time I post about religion while drunk! Ha!

Oh, so there is such a thing as Islamo-Buddhism. Here I was thinking you just linked the two together for no good reason. Well, that's pretty interesting! I won't deny that Islam's got some interesting philosophical ideas, particularly in the fringe sects like Sufism, which came out of a strange synthesis between Islam and Persian culture (and is regarded by most orthodox muslims as being so radical that it's practically un-Islamic), or the Bahai sect (also Persian!).

Oh and ah, just to put things in a clearer perspective, I live in Singapore, which is a secular society and thus quite safe to live in, but I come from an Islamic country. I'm not actually SURE that they'd enforce the "apostacy is punishable by death" law (I'm guessing they wouldn't because human rights groups would condemn them, which in turn might affect tourism and the economy and so forth), but really who wants to take that kind of chance? Not me!

As for discussing religious issues with parents (or relatives, or religious friends), I learnt quite early on that it's best not to push it too far. I mean, they're not going to change their views, you know you're not going to change yours, so all that's going to happen is that one (or both) of you is (are) going to get pissed off. Plus, if they're religious, they're probably going to be profoundly distressed at the idea that you're going to hell if you're atheist or agnostic or just of a different faith from them. Best thing to do, I've found, is just to go along with whatever they say and keep your real views to yourself.

It's a pretty cowardly intellectual stance, though, and ultimately quite an unsatisfying one. Which is why I've been thinking about that "Atheist/Agnostic Group" thing- just as a way to stake out a position and try to make people understand that being areligious is a valid theological viewpoint. Of course, the danger is that such a group might well end up turning into a group of Dawkins-esque firebrands. I actually agree with a lot of what that man says, but I don't see any other outcome from what he's doing other than him just pissing a whole lot of religious people off.

[Lockeownzj00]

Aw. Can't believe I missed all this!

Well, to answer the initial question: I can understand the initial confusion, but you don't see humanities complete dominance of all other species and the Earth as evidence for why intelligence is a favorable evolutionary trait? I mean, there alone you have the fairly simple direct observation to answer that question.

This doesn't also imply that this intelligence was itself intelligently divined, however. The brain, though byzantine, is still as you say other human processes are: a series of chemical reactions.

On religion: I view it as an anachronism. As the world enters the 21st and perhaps even the 22nd century, I believe religion necessarily has to become a relic of the past. Its essence is opposed to everything humanity has come to laud about its existence--namely, logic, reason, and progress. Religion and magical thinking is based entirely on perfunctory thinking that is so easily taken apart its almost a joke. While I may concede that religion served a purpose at one time, I won't concede that it does now. We, as a species, officially know better.

I totally disagree with the moral relativism that exists now that dictates that all ideas are basically on the same plane, though. Some ideas and sets of concepts more faithfully represent reality than others, we know this. Religious ideas are unhealthy for humanity and society in pretty much every way, and even if it's not "every," they outweigh the pros. Religious logic alone is precluding stem cell research and causing men to tear themselves to bits in allegedly holy crusades. If this isn't reason enough to villify religion and call for its long-needed vanquishing, I don't know what is. Now, is that an effective method? Not at all, really, unfortunately. But that's a separate debate.

I'm with Dracko in the sense that until "evidence" theoretically arose, such beliefs are obviously social and cultural constructs and nothing more. The burden of proof is on the atheists, and it would technically be up to the religious to "prove" their side. It's pretty funny that socially, it's the other way around.

Also, I don't think this even lends an inch to the religious dside of the debate, though, as I am positive no such evidence will ever arise. Perhaps it's hubris, but I'm fairly certain a hundred years and two hundred years from now there'll still be nothing.

here's my orig. contribution:

As I see it, humanity is finite, and it obviously views life from this lens. In most cases, this works well: relationships begin and end, wars begin and end, businesses begin and end. But do they, really? When a person says a friendship "ended," in reality, its merely changed states. When a building is "destroyed," it's actually turned into rubble. Things change states, they never disappear--this is actually a fundamental tenet of science, but we rarely make the connection.

So following this logic, I postulate that the universe--existence--is infite. Stars explode, planets form, nebulae party all night long, but existence never 'ceases' to be. As humans, we want to view a beginning and end, because that's the crux of the human condition: death. But consider this--

Suppose we were to take a nice big rock into space. Let's make it a blue rock for kicks. So this blue rock is floating in space. And then, we break it into pieces. More metaphor, but bear with me--now the fragments are drifting listlessly outside of Earth's orbit. Now, after this, we kill every single living thing on Earth except you. Does the rock--do the rocks still exist? Of course they do. I doubt there's a person who'd say they don't. They will float on indefinitely and maybe collide with a bunch of shit.

Now, let's assume that human beings are the only sentient beings here for sake of argument. Now, we kill you. There is nothing living or intelligent left in the universe. Do the rocks still exist? We've already agreed that things persist even if we're not there (at least a sane person does), so why wouldn't it? It's very, very difficult and painful for our minds to grasp and we get a sense of ego-death when we think about it, but I think this leads us to the most logical conclusion: the universe is and always will be. I think even Hawking stipulates that time and space are like a moebius strip.

So it is that essentially any idea with even a shred of religious logic in it fails and is useless.

[Perseus]

The idea that religion will somehow fade away in the next few hundred years, battered under the onslaught of scientific rationalism, is foolishly optimistic. You're forgetting an important fact here- human beings have a near-pathological need to make sense of the world around them, which nearly always leads them to the path of believing in something greater than them that bestows upon them a purpose.

Until the day where humanity comes to terms with the fact that the world is an unbelievably complex place, one that cannot be reduced to simplistic Manichean terms, that there's no afterlife (or if there is, we have no way of knowing anything about it), and that there's no big daddy up in the sky judging us all based on arbitrary and often contradictory moral standards, we won't see religion going away anytime soon.

It pleases people greatly that they can justify their actions using a system of morals that they believe to be derived from non-human, and therefore infallible, sources. I see it as immense cowardice, but it does seem, psychologically, to lead folks to live slightly more happy lives than people like me, who agonize over our actions, and the ethical principles we hold, because we know that the buck stops at us.

In fact, I very much suspect that religion is a side-effect of evolution. The fact that nearly every single human society that we know of has had some sort of supernatural belief system, one that serves to explain the world around them, leads me to think that such societies are the ones that have survived long enough for us to be able to study them. To take this idea further, I don't think it's so very far-fetched to postulate that the vast majority of humans who have survived through the ages are ones who have been more likely to try and make sense of their world by means of religion, which in turn allows them to function better in the world.

So yeah, that's what I think- humans have evolved to be inclined to believe in the supernatural, and those of who are inclined to disbelieve are very likely "aberrations" who are decidedly in the minority. I've come to this view after realizing that most of the religious folks I know don't seem to have much in terms of deep doubts about the validity of their belief systems, while I haven't been able to accept those ideas in any form at all, even when I was very young. It's led me to think that my brain's wiring must be slightly different from theirs.

Moving back to the idea of getting rid of religion, the way I see it, unless we can give the majority a non-religious belief system that's compelling enough for them to abandon their existing beliefs, the status quo is not going to change. The last guy to realize this was Marx, but his system has been, thus far, a complete failure, and for good reason. It's probably far too cynical to expect your political philosophy to supplant religious belief in people, and going down that road seems to lead to rampant nationalism, which isn't a very good thing either! I've met quite a few exchange students from China- many of them are atheist/agnostic, but they're also fanatical about their country and HATE AMERICA to the point of ludicrousness.

[Lockeownzj00]

I agree with what you're saying, Perseus. I alluded to it briefly, and perhaps should have been more clear: I said it "has" to. That is, if humanity is to finally grow out of its shell. If we approach anything near Level 1 on the Kardashev scale (and I'm really not just being bromidic here, I think it's a useful reference point), we just won't function if we have religion. Now--do I think it's realistic? I'm not sure. I think if religion doesn't disappear, we will end up killing ourselves anyway. So basically, if humanity survives this next century or two, it will have necessarily rid itself of religion.

[dhex]

[internisus]

[Perseus]

[internisus]

fiction is magic !

[Perseus]

You read Grant Morrison and/or Alan Moore, don't you?

[dhex]

[Perseus]

[dhex]

i believe in believing in inalieable rights.

i've never read that book.

the "where do rights come" question is far more important - and far less obvious - than it seems at face value.
_________________

[Dracko]

[Lockeownzj00]

[Perseus]

[dhex]

this is where this gets fun (read: maddening)

if marriage is a basic "right" but rights are imaginary, where does that leave you?

if morals are imaginary, how do you oppose rape beyond "oh, i don't like it and it hurts someone and that's bad?"

even legal culture is not nearly as top down as you might think. (because i'm balls deep in a gun policy project, i would point to florida's "stand your ground" laws, the proliferation of CCW laws since 1980, etc, and some choice quotes from cops and lawmakers on this particular issue.)
_________________

[kirkjerk]

My favorite author for this kind of stuff is Daniel Dannett. I helped the guy w/ his email at my university job in the mid-90s, but didn't realize how much I liked his work 'til much later.

Anyway, his books "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" and "Consciousness Explained" I think help deal with this kind of issue.

I think most people's model of consciousness is way over blown; frankly, most of us react, not act, most of the time, with consciousness kind of the story of our self we make up after the fact.

As for the evolutionary standpoint... well, intelligence is expensive, evolutionary speaking, I think a species has to some get away from the plateau of "clever animal" and onto this one place where a brain starts paying for itself from a support kind of view.

And in the long run, there's no definite answer that our intelligence is the "best" idea; I think ants outweigh us in a sheer biomass frame of reference, and there's a good chance will outlive us as a species...

[internisus]

I have a hardcover of Dennett's Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon and will be reading it shortly. He's great.