Ancient Hebrew Cosmology

Quote

Finally, you have never addressed my question of giving me a specific example (just one will do) of science basing reason on reason

Yes I did you just didn't understand it.  The scientific method hinges on the validity of inductive reasoning yet there exists no argument for the validity of inductive reasoning that is not itself based on inductive reasoning.  The problem of induction is an outstanding problem in the philosophy of science.  Popper "solved" this problem by discarding inductive logic altogether but is broader theory of falsificationism did not prevail.  So do you have a deductive argument for the validity of inductive logic?

I understood it. You are not understanding what I am asking for. I am not asking for your little semantics. I am not asking for your little logical proofs (which by your own argument are invalid by the way but I have been nice enough to not point that out because I am enjoying this). I am asking for a single example, a theory, law, or field of study, in science which you can conclusively demonstrate to be circular while not contradicting your own logic.

lelord the problem with your whole argument is this: I say science is based on reason (aka logic). You ask for a justification. I say logic/reason are based on observation. You say there is no justification for logic other than it being logically justified (justifying itself as it were). I say logic is based on proof which you will than question the justification for. However, we will eventually arise into two problems. Firstly, circular definition (which you seem to have a problem distinguishing from circular reasoning). Due to our limited number of words eventually I will have to define a word which will define itself and will cause you to cry victory. However, that is not the case as our language is limited. What will happen, though, before we reach that point (and actually I fear you have already done it) is that you will state that logic is invalid. Your whole argument on why logic is invalid is logical is it not? If it were not logical than you would be talking entirely in non sequiturs and our conversation would have not have gotten this far. How can your logical argument hold up if logic is invalid? Does that not invalidate your logic if logic being valid is based on logic?

Your giving me a headache, which I assume is your purpose here. You just said that newtons laws of gravitation and the laws of thermodynamics are circular.

No I didn't. 

Why does that not invalidate your argument.

Because I didn't state nor imply that.

Also you are not listening to me. I am not saying science is based on reason justified by reason. Science is based on observing the universe and explaining the observation. Why is that circular?

Scientific theories and laws are based on inductive logic, i.e. a limited number of observations (however many) are generalised to the universal case.  That is inductive logic.  Do you understand inferential statistics as they are ussed in scientific research?  Something is sampled from a population, the sample is tested and the results are inferred to the entire population and statistical tests (e.g. t-test, ANOVA) is used to determine if the observed results is likely to be due to chance.  That is the essence of scientfic experimentation.  Not every bat in the world has been dissected, the behaviour of every ant colony hasn't observed, every piece of iron hasn't been melted.  Only samples have yet we have generalised the observed results to the entire universe of bats, ant colinies and pieces of iron.  Limited observation leading to universal generalisations.  That is inductive reasoning yet there exists no deductive argument for the validity of inductive reasoning.  The only arguments for inductive reasoning are themselves inductive so they fail.  We accept the validity of inductive reasoning without any deductive argument that it is valid.  If the reliability of reason and inductive logic can be accepted without justification why not also the reliability of the Bible within the YEC worldview.

Also, you still are stating that science and the scientific method are circular without giving an example of anything (a single field of study, theory, law, anything really) which is circular. You cannot claim science is circular, ignore evidence to which it is not, than not give any evidence that it is. You are merely stating points which I have refuted mainly that the reason science uses is circular. However, as I have stated science observes phenomena than explains it. How is that circular.

You don't understand the argument.  The scientfic method can't be used to demonstrate that the scientfic method is sound -- that would be circular reasoning.  If you merely cite examples of well-established scientific theories and laws to "prove" the validity of the scientfic method then you are implicitly using inductive logic.  The problem with that is that there is no justification for the soundness of indfuctive logic that is not question begging.  That is the problem of induction.

EDIT: I think I know your game...you want me to say science is not based on reason but rather observation. This is not true. Science is based on observation and explanation. As soon as the explanation stops explaining the observations, the explanation is changed. Reason (I've been assuming you mean logical reasoning whenever you say logic) if there because science can be proven. Reason is based on proof which science has. Reason is not based on reason.

There is no game.  I am giving you real problems in the philosophy of science which you appear to be entirely unfamiliar with and also unable to understand.  Science is based on reason and observation, that isn't the issue.  The point is that there is no justification for the belief in the soundness of reason which doesn't turn out to be circular.  That applies to reason in general, i.e. deductive and inductive logic.  But inductive logic -- which is especially foundational to the scientfic method -- is beset by special problems of its own.  There is simply no justification for the process of induction, i.e. the process of generalising to an entire set of things on the basis of having observed only a subset of them.  That is the so-called problem of induction.  Capisce?

I understood it. You are not understanding what I am asking for. I am not asking for your little semantics. I am not asking for your little logical proofs (which by your own argument are invalid by the way but I have been nice enough to not point that out because I am enjoying this). I am asking for a single example, a theory, law, or field of study, in science which you can conclusively demonstrate to be circular while not contradicting your own logic.

You don't understand the argument.  No one has argued that the theories and laws of science are circular.  The argument is that the epistemic foundations of the scientfic method are unjustified not circular -- unjustified.  The argument is that attempts to provide justification are circular.  I repeat for the nth time.  There exists no justification for the foundational role of reason/logic in science.  Furthermore there is the problem of induction specifically in relation to inductive reasoning which is central to the scientfic methods.  There are no "little semantics" you just have no clue about the philosophy of science.

Also, it is not my argument that logic is flawed such that I can't use it here.  The issue is justification for the claim of the epistemic power of reason and logic.  If I don't believe that logic and reasoning are universally capable of revealing truth that does not amount to an argument that logic and reasoning are entirely flawed in every respect.  Try and address what I am actually putting to you rather strawman arguments which you are inventing and attributing to me.

Thirdly, give me an alternate view of the many laws which near as hell perfectly describe the real world? P = mv (momentum) F = ma (force) V = IR (voltage, current, resistance). The real world does have laws, that is what makes the real world different than a fantasy novel. The laws can be, and have been, demonstrated over and over again.

No one is trying to refute F=ma or V=IR or any other law.  You missed the point.  The point is that mathematics is a human invention that is employed to describe the behaviour of the physical world in the same way that natural language is used to describe the world.

Fourthly, what is the difference between what you call ordered regularity and what the rest of the world calls the laws of physics.

The laws of physics are human inventions that have been devised to describe the ordered regularity.  The ordered regularity exists independently of human observation and attempts to understand it.  The laws of physics exist only in human minds and books.  The laws of physics aren't the ordered regularity of the physical world, they describe the ordered regularity of the physical world.  The word "cat" isn't an actual instance of Felis silvestris catus, it is a human linguistic description of that thing.  Saying the word "cat" isn't an instance of Felis silvestris catus is not saying that cats don't exist.

Fifthly, when have the laws of physics as we know them today ever been falsified?

Who said that they were falsified?  That is besides the point.  The arguments I put concern the limits of the underlying methodology that produced those laws.

Sixthly, your attempt at a gish gallop is quite juvenile.

Had to look that up.  Don't care about that.  Address the arguments.

Finally, you have never addressed my question of giving me a specific example (just one will do) of science basing reason on reason

The foundations of scientific method: reason in general and inductive reasoning in particular have no justification.  On what grounds can I generalise to an entire set based on observation of a relatively small subset.  That is the problem of induction.  Further, what is reason for reason, what is its justification.  That is real issue.  On what grounds is the belief in the power of reason justified?  Offering me specific examples of the power of reason doesn't help because you fall into the trap of relying on a type of reasoning, i.e. inductive reasoning.  On what grounds is the belief that limited observation of a subset of members justifies generalisation to the entire set?

lelord the problem with your whole argument is this: I say science is based on reason (aka logic). You ask for a justification. I say logic/reason are based on observation. You say there is no justification for logic other than it being logically justified (justifying itself as it were). I say logic is based on proof which you will than question the justification for. However, we will eventually arise into two problems. Firstly, circular definition (which you seem to have a problem distinguishing from circular reasoning). Due to our limited number of words eventually I will have to define a word which will define itself and will cause you to cry victory. However, that is not the case as our language is limited. What will happen, though, before we reach that point (and actually I fear you have already done it) is that you will state that logic is invalid. Your whole argument on why logic is invalid is logical is it not? If it were not logical than you would be talking entirely in non sequiturs and our conversation would have not have gotten this far. How can your logical argument hold up if logic is invalid? Does that not invalidate your logic if logic being valid is based on logic?

No, it is not my claim or any YECs claim that "logic is invalid".  Your statement "Logic is based on proof" is a tautology, it is the same as saying "logic is based on logic".  Proof is another word for deductive validity and deductive validity is a  property of logical arguments.  The argument here is not that "logic is invalid" it is "how are logic and reason justified as the foundations of the scientfic method?"  Remember a YEC will readily admit that (s)he can accept something on faith so the foundational issues of the scientfic method are not problematic for the YEC.  The YEC can happily say "there is no logic for the justification of logic", "there is no reason for the justification of reason" and "there is no deductive argument for inductive logic".  It is my contention that logic is valid but ultimately not founded in logic.  Justifying logic, reasoning and induction become problems for you because you claim that you don't accept anything on faith and that all your beliefs are based on reason.  YECs don't share that belief so there is no problem for them.   You have no reason for relying on reason and that contradicts your claim that all of your beliefs are based in reason.  You are in the position of self-contradiction.  You claim that your beliefs are based on reason but you have no reason for basing all your beliefs in reason.  If you try and justify your reliance in reason you produce a circular argument.  You want to say that creationists rely on faith but you don't.  That is self-contradictory.  In the absence of a justification for reason you have a faith in reason.  The YEC readily admits that (s)he has a (qualified) faith in reason alongside a faith in the truth of the Bible.

Quote from: John Davis on July 31, 2013, 06:07:50 AM

Yes but science uses circular logic as well:

Quote

If an object, such as empiricism, exists solely in the mind (or at the very most through action), and our only tool we use to verify it is said tool then we have verified an axiom with itself.

No matter what you take as your root axioms you will end up with a functioning worldview. That is the key. In the end there are axioms in science as simple as "The Bible Is True" that we must take on faith.

Even granting the two are axioms, they are not equal. Having 'faith' that the sun will come up tomorrow as it has in a pattern for thousands of years is not the same as having faith that a number of unverifiable, falsified, absurd, and yes, self contradictory stories written thousands of years ago by various sources.

Science's axiom is 'reality does not contradict itself'

The bible does contradict itself.

Science contradicts itself. It may, in fact, be impossible to describe the universe in such a way that does not have a contradiction.  Of course they are not equal, they are useful for different things.

Quote from: John Davis on July 31, 2013, 06:07:50 AM

Yes but science uses circular logic as well:

Quote

If an object, such as empiricism, exists solely in the mind (or at the very most through action), and our only tool we use to verify it is said tool then we have verified an axiom with itself.

No matter what you take as your root axioms you will end up with a functioning worldview. That is the key. In the end there are axioms in science as simple as "The Bible Is True" that we must take on faith.

What proof do you have that empiricism exists solely in the mind?

 the "circular logic" of science has been proven time and time again whereas the circular logic of the bible is, by definition, circular and cannot be proven therefore the two do not merit the same level of scrutiny or debate.

Raising the logic of the bible to the same level as the logic of science (circular logic versus proven logic) implies that if science is false then the bible must be true.

EDIT: Additionally, not all science is gathered from empiricism. A good deal of it are derived from mathematical proofs and concepts which cannot be experienced in the way that empiricism describes and also flow in an entirely logical manner. In fact, most of the empirical evidence we have (like for example the observation that gravity causes two masses to accelerate to each other) can be mathematically verified and could have been verified without any observation.

No, science does not flow in an entirely logical manner. For example, induction has no logical basis and is by far the most widely used scientific tool.

Empiricism is an abstract concept and as such can only exist in the mind or through another representation. You can't hold empiricism.

The circular logic of the bible has been proven time and time again to a far greater piece of society and its history than science. It is no wonder it has such a staying power and drive throughout the history of mankind. The idea that science somehow damns biblical truth which in essence it compliments it is naive.

No one claimed the logic of the bible was at the same level as the logic of science, if such a statement actually means anything.

EDIT: the bible and science are not necessarily mutually exclusive

Quote from: hewholikespie on July 31, 2013, 09:15:22 AM

Quote from: John Davis on July 31, 2013, 06:07:50 AM

Yes but science uses circular logic as well:

Quote

If an object, such as empiricism, exists solely in the mind (or at the very most through action), and our only tool we use to verify it is said tool then we have verified an axiom with itself.

No matter what you take as your root axioms you will end up with a functioning worldview. That is the key. In the end there are axioms in science as simple as "The Bible Is True" that we must take on faith.

Even granting the two are axioms, they are not equal. Having 'faith' that the sun will come up tomorrow as it has in a pattern for thousands of years is not the same as having faith that a number of unverifiable, falsified, absurd, and yes, self contradictory stories written thousands of years ago by various sources.

Science's axiom is 'reality does not contradict itself'

The bible does contradict itself.

Science contradicts itself. It may, in fact, be impossible to describe the universe in such a way that does not have a contradiction.  Of course they are not equal, they are useful for different things.

I said -Reality- does not contradict itself. This is not the same as science never contradicting itself.

However, you state that science contradicts itself. What are some key examples of it doing so?

Quote from: therationalist56 on August 01, 2013, 01:11:01 AM

lelord the problem with your whole argument is this: I say science is based on reason (aka logic). You ask for a justification. I say logic/reason are based on observation. You say there is no justification for logic other than it being logically justified (justifying itself as it were). I say logic is based on proof which you will than question the justification for. However, we will eventually arise into two problems. Firstly, circular definition (which you seem to have a problem distinguishing from circular reasoning). Due to our limited number of words eventually I will have to define a word which will define itself and will cause you to cry victory. However, that is not the case as our language is limited. What will happen, though, before we reach that point (and actually I fear you have already done it) is that you will state that logic is invalid. Your whole argument on why logic is invalid is logical is it not? If it were not logical than you would be talking entirely in non sequiturs and our conversation would have not have gotten this far. How can your logical argument hold up if logic is invalid? Does that not invalidate your logic if logic being valid is based on logic?

No, it is not my claim or any YECs claim that "logic is invalid".  Your statement "Logic is based on proof" is a tautology, it is the same as saying "logic is based on logic".  Proof is another word for deductive validity and deductive validity is a  property of logical arguments.  The argument here is not that "logic is invalid" it is "how are logic and reason justified as the foundations of the scientfic method?"  Remember a YEC will readily admit that (s)he can accept something on faith so the foundational issues of the scientfic method are not problematic for the YEC.  The YEC can happily say "there is no logic for the justification of logic", "there is no reason for the justification of reason" and "there is no deductive argument for inductive logic".  It is my contention that logic is valid but ultimately not founded in logic.  Justifying logic, reasoning and induction become problems for you because you claim that you don't accept anything on faith and that all your beliefs are based on reason.  YECs don't share that belief so there is no problem for them.   You have no reason for relying on reason and that contradicts your claim that all of your beliefs are based in reason.  You are in the position of self-contradiction.  You claim that your beliefs are based on reason but you have no reason for basing all your beliefs in reason.  If you try and justify your reliance in reason you produce a circular argument.  You want to say that creationists rely on faith but you don't.  That is self-contradictory.  In the absence of a justification for reason you have a faith in reason.  The YEC readily admits that (s)he has a (qualified) faith in reason alongside a faith in the truth of the Bible.

You are using circular definition in place of circular reasoning. Just because a word eventually defines itself does not make it invalid. And I do not base my claims on reason I use observations that I have made and that others have made to justify reason. Proof is observation. When I say proof I mean reality, I mean what can be observed and what can be seen. When I can see/observe/gain evidence/gain proof of something than my logic is justified and holds water. If I go about claiming a simple logical statement like I see smoke then there must be fire, I must demonstrate fire underneath the smoke or my logic does not follow and is unjustified. Logic can only be justified if there is proof/observation/evidence to back it up, not if it is logical simply because it is logical. Also, you claim you cannot use proponents of something to disprove something (using theories of the scientific method to prove its false)...why not? I am not seeing the circularity there. I am seeing evidence against something. You are making a claim based on no evidence, only based on logic which by your own claim makes it invalid.

EDIT: Assume you are right for a second. Logic is based on logic, reason on reason, and the circular definition of logic becomes circular reasoning...science still would have produced amazing things. When has reasoning based on faith cured millions of disease or brought about a new commuter? Science gets results and it does not matter what the justification for its methods are because the results are there.

Religious experience and Religion in general have plenty of results. They are just to a different end.  A computer is going to do very little in making the soul or mind of a man healthy. Religion has for thousands of years stabilized turbulent and poisonous worldviews and has increased the value of living by an immeasurable amount.

Religious experience and Religion in general have plenty of results. They are just to a different end.  A computer is going to do very little in making the soul or mind of a man healthy. Religion has for thousands of years stabilized turbulent and poisonous worldviews and has increased the value of living by an immeasurable amount.

Observation would suggest it has not done so, what with all the sectarian strife and the 'value of living' decreasing during times of increased religious control, and once again improving during times of personal freedom and intellectual enlightenment.

Or would you argue that Religiously run Pakistan is a great and wonderful place to be right now?

Religious experience and Religion in general have plenty of results. They are just to a different end.  A computer is going to do very little in making the soul or mind of a man healthy. Religion has for thousands of years stabilized turbulent and poisonous worldviews and has increased the value of living by an immeasurable amount.

Religion has also caused wars, genocide, various forms of discrimination, as well as shun the secular and attempt to halt scientific progress.  Religion may help the soul, if there is such a thing in a person, but it doesn't necessarily do anything for the mind.

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 10:40:37 AM

Religious experience and Religion in general have plenty of results. They are just to a different end.  A computer is going to do very little in making the soul or mind of a man healthy. Religion has for thousands of years stabilized turbulent and poisonous worldviews and has increased the value of living by an immeasurable amount.

Observation would suggest it has not done so, what with all the sectarian strife and the 'value of living' decreasing during times of increased religious control, and once again improving during times of personal freedom and intellectual enlightenment.

Religion didn't gain power because it was useless to the people.

Or would you argue that Religiously run Pakistan is a great and wonderful place to be right now?

Depends on your worldview.

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 10:40:37 AM

Religious experience and Religion in general have plenty of results. They are just to a different end.  A computer is going to do very little in making the soul or mind of a man healthy. Religion has for thousands of years stabilized turbulent and poisonous worldviews and has increased the value of living by an immeasurable amount.

Religion has also caused wars, genocide, various forms of discrimination, as well as shun the secular and attempt to halt scientific progress.  Religion may help the soul, if there is such a thing in a person, but it doesn't necessarily do anything for the mind.

Man has caused wars, genocide, discrimination, and bigotry. You can see just as easily the scientific side bigoting the religious as the religious to the scientific.  Likewise for war and genocide. It is easy to blame religion but in the end it is Nobility and power (or lust for power), of one type or another, that is to blame for bigotry, genocide, discrimination and war.

Conversion is a singular event that reorders ones view of life into a new mold that resolves issues with their state in their environment. Without a conversion event or a reframing of reality in a religious context the sick mind stays sick.

Religious experience and Religion in general have plenty of results. They are just to a different end.  A computer is going to do very little in making the soul or mind of a man healthy. Religion has for thousands of years stabilized turbulent and poisonous worldviews and has increased the value of living by an immeasurable amount.

Really now?  The driving forces of war are usually land, politics, or religion.  Generally speaking religious wars go something like, Believe as I believe or I and everyone else that believes like me will come and raze your city to the ground.  How is that stabilizing a poisonous worldview? 

Or what about when slavery was being abolished in the U.S. and slave owners turned to their bibles to claim slaves as protected under freedom of religion?  Slavery isn't a poisonous, turbulent worldview? 

What about Hitler and his army's justification of killing everyone who wasn't perceived to be perfect?  To quote Mein Kampf:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

Man has caused wars, genocide, discrimination, and bigotry.

In the name of religion, land, and politics.

You can see just as easily the scientific side bigoting the religious as the religious to the scientific.  Likewise for war and genocide.

Last I checked there hasn't been a war fought primarily over religion and irreligion, mostly just two religions, a religious side committing crimes against humanity, or land, or politics.

It is easy to blame religion but in the end it is Nobility and power (or lust for power), of one type or another, that is to blame for bigotry, genocide, discrimination and war.

Partially true, but in wars the soldier don't care about power.  In religious wars they care that they're right and the other guys are false god worshiping heathens who they've been told to get rid of.  The power hungry may start the war, but the religious footsoldiers fight it in the name of their religion.

Conversion is a singular event that reorders ones view of life into a new mold that resolves issues with their state in their environment. Without a conversion event or a reframing of reality in a religious context the sick mind stays sick.

I wouldn't call Morgan Freeman a mentally ill individual.  He hasn't had a conversion or reframing event, he's said at least once he's not a man of god, yet he seems like a rather nice, sane guy.

If religion was just organized religion then you'd have a point. However it is not.  It seems you have more an issue with a theocracy than religion as most your issues stem from religious individuals empowered.

Because people use religion as a lever does not discount the entire rest of religious experience that is not war that has lead to religion being in a place of power. One could argue just as easily the place of science in war - especially since most supposedly religiously motivated wars stem to real issues concerning power, materials, or influence.

Like everybody, Soldiers fight because of fear or greed. Nothing else and nothing more.

This type of rhetoric is only common in people that do not understand (though this does not necessitate belief) what religion is, its place, and its necessity to a large part of man.

If Freeman doesn't have a sick mind, I guess he doesn't need to reframe does he? However as an actor, I'm sure hes extremely talented at reframing.

Rationality speaks in cold terms. In terms of war, rape, injustice, theft, strength, etc.

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 01, 2013, 10:56:06 AM

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 10:40:37 AM

Religious experience and Religion in general have plenty of results. They are just to a different end.  A computer is going to do very little in making the soul or mind of a man healthy. Religion has for thousands of years stabilized turbulent and poisonous worldviews and has increased the value of living by an immeasurable amount.

Observation would suggest it has not done so, what with all the sectarian strife and the 'value of living' decreasing during times of increased religious control, and once again improving during times of personal freedom and intellectual enlightenment.

Religion didn't gain power because it was useless to the people.

Religion gained power because it was useful to religious leaders who were able to convince followers, and inertia has kept it rolling since.
And of course, I never said religion doesn't have a purpose, but that's not the same as being true, and if you would claim it stabilizes "turbulent and poisonous worldviews" etc, the onus is on you to prove it.

Quote

Or would you argue that Religiously run Pakistan is a great and wonderful place to be right now?

Depends on your worldview.

In your worldview, is religiously run Pakistan a great and wonderful place to be right now?

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 10:57:33 AM

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 01, 2013, 10:56:06 AM

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 10:40:37 AM

Religious experience and Religion in general have plenty of results. They are just to a different end.  A computer is going to do very little in making the soul or mind of a man healthy. Religion has for thousands of years stabilized turbulent and poisonous worldviews and has increased the value of living by an immeasurable amount.

Observation would suggest it has not done so, what with all the sectarian strife and the 'value of living' decreasing during times of increased religious control, and once again improving during times of personal freedom and intellectual enlightenment.

Religion didn't gain power because it was useless to the people.

Religion gained power because it was useful to religious leaders who were able to convince followers, and inertia has kept it rolling since.
And of course, I never said religion doesn't have a purpose, but that's not the same as being true, and if you would claim it stabilizes "turbulent and poisonous worldviews" etc, the onus is on you to prove it.

It does not universally stabilize them.  If you'd like to see some evidence of religion stabilizing people I'd suggest taking a look at the 10 step program, to start.

Quote

Quote

Or would you argue that Religiously run Pakistan is a great and wonderful place to be right now?

Depends on your worldview.

In your worldview, is religiously run Pakistan a great and wonderful place to be right now?

I have several worldviews that I swap out at will. In all of them it is a great and wonderful place - because in them all I'm not ungrateful or a bigot.

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 01, 2013, 11:40:28 AM

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 10:57:33 AM

Quote from: hewholikespie on August 01, 2013, 10:56:06 AM

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 10:40:37 AM

Religious experience and Religion in general have plenty of results. They are just to a different end.  A computer is going to do very little in making the soul or mind of a man healthy. Religion has for thousands of years stabilized turbulent and poisonous worldviews and has increased the value of living by an immeasurable amount.

Observation would suggest it has not done so, what with all the sectarian strife and the 'value of living' decreasing during times of increased religious control, and once again improving during times of personal freedom and intellectual enlightenment.

Religion didn't gain power because it was useless to the people.

Religion gained power because it was useful to religious leaders who were able to convince followers, and inertia has kept it rolling since.
And of course, I never said religion doesn't have a purpose, but that's not the same as being true, and if you would claim it stabilizes "turbulent and poisonous worldviews" etc, the onus is on you to prove it.

It does not universally stabilize them.  If you'd like to see some evidence of religion stabilizing people I'd suggest taking a look at the 10 step program, to start.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Or would you argue that Religiously run Pakistan is a great and wonderful place to be right now?

Depends on your worldview.

In your worldview, is religiously run Pakistan a great and wonderful place to be right now?

I have several worldviews that I swap out at will. In all of them it is a great and wonderful place - because in them all I'm not ungrateful or a bigot.

Not to get too off-topic, but do you have to be ungrateful or a bigot to think that Burkas are repressive tools used by males to subjugate women?

If religion was just organized religion then you'd have a point. However it is not.  It seems you have more an issue with a theocracy than religion as most your issues stem from religious individuals empowered.

Because people use religion as a lever does not discount the entire rest of religious experience that is not war that has lead to religion being in a place of power. One could argue just as easily the place of science in war - especially since most supposedly religiously motivated wars stem to real issues concerning power, materials, or influence.

You say 'religion' is in a place of power as though there is a single monolithic religious bloc as opposed to the various faiths with their various subdivisions and contradictory beliefs (and self contradictory beliefs as well). Why is that?

Like everybody, Soldiers fight because of fear or greed. Nothing else and nothing more.

Most soldiers fight out of duty or loyalty.

This type of rhetoric is only common in people that do not understand (though this does not necessitate belief) what religion is, its place, and its necessity to a large part of man.

Religion is a personal belief in the existence of supernatural entities, often gods, usually with an afterlife. This often but does not require an additional attempt at explaining the world, granted benefits for worship, and other sundry purported benefits. It is used as a coping mechanism by many.
Religion is not inherently necessary. It may fulfill a psychological need for many, but it is far from the only method of gaining said fulfillment.

If Freeman doesn't have a sick mind, I guess he doesn't need to reframe does he? However as an actor, I'm sure hes extremely talented at reframing.

I do not have a sick mind, and I have no religion.

Rationality speaks in cold terms. In terms of war, rape, injustice, theft, strength, etc.

Rationality speaks in terms of cooperation, alliances, mutual benefit, and reducing lives lost unnecessarily.

I have several worldviews that I swap out at will. In all of them it is a great and wonderful place - because in them all I'm not ungrateful or a bigot.

Setting aside the implied ad hominem, what, in your vast and myriad worldviews, makes religiously run pakistan such a great and wonderful place?

If religion was just organized religion then you'd have a point. However it is not.  It seems you have more an issue with a theocracy than religion as most your issues stem from religious individuals empowered.

Because people use religion as a lever does not discount the entire rest of religious experience that is not war that has lead to religion being in a place of power. One could argue just as easily the place of science in war - especially since most supposedly religiously motivated wars stem to real issues concerning power, materials, or influence. 

Like everybody, Soldiers fight because of fear or greed. Nothing else and nothing more.

I claimed nothing on whether all religion was evil, I said that religion is one of the driving force of wars.  It motivates otherwise content people to fight battles and wars which may have nothing to do with them.  See the Crusades, which weren't majorly motivated by fear or greed on the part of the soldiers.

Science has a place in war, yes, but only as much as the tools it gives us.  I've yet to see a war specifically motivated on what side can come up with the best antibiotic, or who has the most accurate view of fluid dynamics.  Science also has a place in medical care and in fixing real problems, which religion does not.  If you'd like to argue that point, I can direct you to a study where prayers were performed by friends and relatives of ill individuals, and they got worse, presumably a psychosomatic response.

So yes, science gives us the tools of war, but religion gives the motivation to war.

This type of rhetoric is only common in people that do not understand (though this does not necessitate belief) what religion is, its place, and its necessity to a large part of man.

Feel free to explain why religion is necessary to a person.  Because as best as I can tell, it's not.

If Freeman doesn't have a sick mind, I guess he doesn't need to reframe does he? However as an actor, I'm sure hes extremely talented at reframing.

Talented in reframing, yes.  One who has reframed his worldview into a religious context, apparently not.  Would you care to define a sick mind?  You seemed to imply that a sick mind was one that hadn't had it's entire view of the world influenced by religion.

Rationality speaks in cold terms. In terms of war, rape, injustice, theft, strength, etc.

As does religion.  I've been to the deep south, I have relatives there.  The evangelicals who have their worldview influenced by religion speak of ridding the world of nonbelievers.  The use of the word kill may not be in there, but it's pretty heavily implied.  For other instances of religion speaking in terms of war, rape, injustice, and strength, see the Christian bible.  Parts of it claim that rape is fine to nonbelievers, specifically command war upon nonbelievers, that injustice only occurs to believers, and that with the strength of their god believers will always triumph.  You can claim that the Christian holy book isn't the entirety of religion, and I'd agree rather heartily.  But it is a religious book, you can't claim that the entirety of religion is without those faults.

I have several worldviews that I swap out at will. In all of them it is a great and wonderful place - because in them all I'm not ungrateful or a bigot.

You're also intentionally ignoring the parts of the world which are terrible.  Say, countries in Africa wherein slavery is common practice.  The poor of the world who starve to death every day.  The intentionally hostile of the world, who hate simply to hate and are aggressors to the those they hate.  Your world may be great, but the world isn't, it still has many glaring flaws that need to be corrected before it can be called that.

I'm not ignoring them; On the otherhand, I'm certainly not telling them how to live or artificially trying to advance their culture to make it more like mine.

I'd say religion gives A motivation to war, however its more like the issue of a tool which could be used for good or evil. Science gives as many motivations to war as religion and as such one cannot judge either in relation to each other based off this metric.

Religion is not necessary to a person. Its a necessity to a large percentage of people that would have easily killed themselves or would be otherwise making themselves unproductive and enemies of society without it.

A sick mind is a mind discontent with its view of the world; that is to say a mind with a worldview that would lead to insanity or perpetual unproductive and unworthwhile living. These usually end in some sort of crisis, psychosis, existential crisis, or other catastrophic mental breakdown.

I live in the south too.  Again, I would draw a distinction between the organizations of religion and the base religious experiences from which they are derived. Your point is taken and I will always say that religion is imperfect, or at least our understanding of it.

Those weren't ad homs. I was simply stating what makes it such a wonderful place. As a grateful and non-bigoted being it has more than enough to live happily for the rest of my life if such is my choice. Its not my business how their culture is run, and its not my place to act as a noble and judge it or guide it. As a place, Pakistan has food, water, air, heat, etc.

Those weren't ad homs. I was simply stating what makes it such a wonderful place. As a grateful and non-bigoted being it has more than enough to live happily for the rest of my life if such is my choice. Its not my business how their culture is run, and its not my place to act as a noble and judge it or guide it. As a place, Pakistan has food, water, air, heat, etc.

This can be true, but it also ignores compassion for another.  The ability to appreciate the suffering of another can make it difficult to ignore things like Burkas, whose intention is to deprive a woman of a higher quality of life.  To quote Sam Harris, "Who are you to say these things are wrong?  Who are you not to say?"  Especially when we are talking about something like female circumcision or Burkas, which are not voluntary and hold no practical purpose.

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

Those weren't ad homs. I was simply stating what makes it such a wonderful place. As a grateful and non-bigoted being it has more than enough to live happily for the rest of my life if such is my choice. Its not my business how their culture is run, and its not my place to act as a noble and judge it or guide it. As a place, Pakistan has food, water, air, heat, etc.

This can be true, but it also ignores compassion for another.  The ability to appreciate the suffering of another can make it difficult to ignore things like Burkas, whose intention is to deprive a woman of a higher quality of life.  To quote Sam Harris, "Who are you to say these things are wrong?  Who are you not to say?"  Especially when we are talking about something like female circumcision or Burkas, which are not voluntary and hold no practical purpose.

If a society is truly discontent it will correct itself without outside help or perish.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 01, 2013, 12:35:46 PM

Quote from: John Davis on August 01, 2013, 12:30:05 PM

Those weren't ad homs. I was simply stating what makes it such a wonderful place. As a grateful and non-bigoted being it has more than enough to live happily for the rest of my life if such is my choice. Its not my business how their culture is run, and its not my place to act as a noble and judge it or guide it. As a place, Pakistan has food, water, air, heat, etc.

This can be true, but it also ignores compassion for another.  The ability to appreciate the suffering of another can make it difficult to ignore things like Burkas, whose intention is to deprive a woman of a higher quality of life.  To quote Sam Harris, "Who are you to say these things are wrong?  Who are you not to say?"  Especially when we are talking about something like female circumcision or Burkas, which are not voluntary and hold no practical purpose.

If a society is truly discontent it will correct itself without outside help.

Maybe.  But it does have to start with people caring about what happens to others, and those people also have to make judgements about what is right or wrong.  If you think that Pakistan is not your society, then I would suggest that you are subscribing to a bigoted worldview as well. 

  If you think that Pakistan is not your society, then I would suggest that you are subscribing to a bigoted worldview as well.

Very good point. I'll adjust my beliefs according to what I come up to resolve that. Thank you.

They certainly have a different social memory than I do however.  I do care about their well being, it is just not my place to act as I cannot act in a rational manner. Who says a solution from me would not consequentially be worse or even more catastrophically more chaotic?  As such non-action seems key. Even by non-acting I can influence the universe. By simply having the point of view it strengthens the social memories tied to that view in the larger sphere, and hopefully remotely in the smaller spheres.

Quote from: Rama Set on August 01, 2013, 12:50:41 PM

  If you think that Pakistan is not your society, then I would suggest that you are subscribing to a bigoted worldview as well.

Very good point. I'll adjust my beliefs according to what I come up to resolve that. Thank you.

I would be interested in hearing the results.  Cheers.

Those weren't ad homs. I was simply stating what makes it such a wonderful place. As a grateful and non-bigoted being it has more than enough to live happily for the rest of my life if such is my choice. Its not my business how their culture is run, and its not my place to act as a noble and judge it or guide it. As a place, Pakistan has food, water, air, heat, etc.

You actually had not stated that what it was that made it a great and wonderful place. You still have not, apart from the vague 'it has enough food, water, air and heat for me to live happily,' a statement which was true for Slaveowners pre-civil war (with a different 'air'), and yet, I would not describe the American South at that time, which was highly religious and justified slavery though religion as being 'great and wonderful.'

Additionally, you should watching your phrasing, as it implied that anyone who did not see Pakistan as great and wonderful would be ungrateful and bigoted, and those would be ad-hominems