AsburySkinsFan Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 One thing postmodernity would reject is many of the binary claims of religion. :evilg: ahh but Postmodernity can't do that because Postmodernity reflects relativity so if a person holds to the binary claims of religion it is accepted as their truths. :pfft: Granted, this dauses fits with Fundamentalists who want the impossible, i.e. absolute knowledge of that which isn't absolutely knowable. As a Postmodern I affirm that Absolute truth exists (like a punch to the face) but I also affirm that our ability to know and experience that absolute Truth is relative to each person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 One of these days, when I finally have the time and solid internet connection, I really need to start that "what good are humans" thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 There was a local band that had a lyric that I always thought rang true....."And I can't shake this feeling that man thinks and God laughs" Which to me is so true considering that an infinite being is watching finite man do his best to completely figure Him out. I hope this "envisioned laughing" in your mind, on the part of some supreme omnipotent being (who set up all the whole game to begin with), is of a benign nature and not of a derisive, dismissive, or demeaning nature as the song lyric seems to imply. Since I was quite young, I have marveled at how some people's thinking can seem so alien that they seem more of a different species than some animals--I didn't usually think that in any "insulting" sense, but more in a mixed sense of wonder and curiosity. Your post brought forth that reaction, again. Per corcaigh: the latest issue of Scientific American has some good stuff again this month, and this article relates to your comment (relatively lightweight magazine article as should be expected, but still of typically decent Sci-Am level). There is a lot of study and research on the topic for those with motivation and access to it. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief per marydu: if nothing else, I will PM that recipe to you :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerryMason Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I hope this "envisioned laughing" in your mind, on the part of some supreme omnipotent being (who set up all the whole game to begin with), is of a benign nature and not of a derisive, dismissive, or demeaning nature as the song lyric seems to imply. Oh no definitely not in a derisive, dismissive or demeaning way....the band is not a Christian band, but has Christian members. It's really more of a metaphor for how limited we are in our thinking compared to the vastness of God. We try so hard to do everything and control everything and God as our father kind of chuckles and then steps in to help. Picture a little kid trying to lift a huge tire that weighs too much for him and the dad kind of laughing and then without the kid knowing helping him lift the tire. That sort of way....if that makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Oh no definitely not in a derisive, dismissive or demeaning way....the band is not a Christian band, but has Christian members. It's really more of a metaphor for how limited we are in our thinking compared to the vastness of God. We try so hard to do everything and control everything and God as our father kind of chuckles and then steps in to help. Picture a little kid trying to lift a huge tire that weighs too much for him and the dad kind of laughing and then without the kid knowing helping him lift the tire. That sort of way....if that makes sense. I think sometimes we tend to sound like we are embracing a self imposed ignorance, sometimes (i.e. a lot of the time) our science does figure stuff out, we can lift the tire. Where I disgree with science is where it draws the boundaries of knowledge and then rules out of belief that which it can't answer which is not the same as finding enough proof to disqualify an idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Picture a little kid trying to lift a huge tire that weighs too much for him and the dad kind of laughing and then without the kid knowing helping him lift the tire. That sort of way....if that makes sense. Cool. That was the framing I was hoping for, and yes it is a benign and very familiar one to me, while at the same time still having an element of "alien" if you know what I mean. And sticking with that framing, I would see the "dad" as hopefully wanting to encourage his child to keep testing his strength and abilities. Of course, in that framing, the child may someday be quite able to lift that heavy tire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 We try so hard to do everything and control everything and God as our father kind of chuckles and then steps in to help. I strongly disagree with this characterization as it refers to the pursuit of knowledge. We know a tiny, tiny amount about reality. But look what we can do with what we know while admitting our limits, and trying to push them back, little by little. The Bronowski video posted captures this well. Commentary from religious believers that science only reveals what god created can be interpreted as anything from shallow to deeply anti-intellectual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 I liked ASF's last post. To a large degree, both science and religion will (justly and unjustly) be judged to a degree by its messengers. This seems to be a huge misunderstanding of the nature of science and scientific knowledge as a fragile human endeavor. Jacob Bronowski articulates this beautifully here. Just to mentally meander around at some length , in between serious Monday **** here at the factory, with some tangents on science and “fragility“ or ‘limited” angles (and other thread topics)… Like you (I presume) I find little fragile or limited or inherently “cold” (humanity-wise) about science, other than how human egos can make it so, which is certainly the same for religion or any other form man's interests take. Science is amazingly robust. And to my view it's really unlimited by its nature (I’ve read some in here who think otherwise). It’s also as “caring” as we make it (i.e. look at medical and food production advancements). One of my relatives in the clergy used to say “Next time you’re hungry, go sit in the closet and pray for God to send you a sandwich. When you’re hungry enough, get out, go to the fridge and make your own and have some fresh cold milk with it.” He wasn’t advocating agnosticism or atheism. My prediction is that scientific method will certainly be significantly with us from here on, as long as we exist and meaningfully impact (as it has to date) every aspect of our human experience. I sometimes point out to certain folks when appropriate, to just to look around them and reflect (righhht :pfft:) on everything they do, everyday, that forms a huge part of their world that is "full" of the impact science has had, particularly in the last couple hundred years. It is most likely to only be increasingly so. Science demonstrates its enormous impact on man and his perception of existence, as well as his behaviors, by figurative mountains of clearly seen evidence. With some of the people I refer to above in my current locale, I sometimes, eventually, challenge their unsolicited verbalizing of scorn for science by pointing out that such only occurs when the message is one they don't like because they feel it conflicts with their their religious or political beliefs, and note that this is accompanied by precious little genuine knowledge of science (collectively and in specific areas of study) as a field or profession. I then point out exact examples of how they yet will (have) certainly seize(d) onto the very same "science" if they can find a way (including "spinning", severe distortion, or even complete misrepresentation) it supports their beliefs. It's an amazingly "wtf" :pfft: yet common display of a specific mode of human behavior (mostly self-identity psychology) to me. We all know ( I hope) hypocrisy is as common a human trait as dishonesty, but some degrees and forms in some individuals, groups, or societal contexts, is particularly noteworthy as being outstanding in its field. And of course, science often benefits, and has been greatly utilized by, institutions of faith--notably Christianity in our tailgate and larger U.S cultural context---in both the practical and existential sense. Most notably in the practical sense, perhaps, by advancements in travel and communications---getting a message out and reinforcing it; gathering followers and advocating a platform over a wide geographical region (global now). And in the existential sense, whenever science has something in physics or biology or evolution etc. that can be used in a supportive manner to the Christian vision of God, it is wielded with enthusiasm even if not always accurately. IME such can often (not always) be subject to what we call “spinning” these days as political ideologues will do at times with “facts.” Please (for the reactionary) note I am not saying ALL such considerations that get discussed involve people “spinning” the material. Classical logic and philosophy have also long been subject to similar "spinning" (often somewhat graciously called "arguments" :pfft:), of course, and by nature, they should be so involved. Spin vs. spin is at the heart of much of philosophy . Those fields should rise to meet any challenge to their constructs. Science will do so. That cat is truly out of the bag (forget the damn box) and it will not die. As populations increased and travel expanded, “knowledge” (actual or imagined) was increasingly spread and the “average” person’s data bank could swell, although likely, as a generality, less than that of the more privileged person. It may be due in no small part to science--and all engineering/technology is part of science, so here I refer again to advancements in travel and communications, like the printing press--that some religions have even as deep and long-lived roots as they have currently. In western civilization, for hundreds of years, there were tales of gods and spirits (paganism/polytheism and various rituals/rites) evolving into what we think of as the “classic” Roman & Greek religions which we now, universally, call "mythology." There were centuries where "average folk" in that regions really believed much of those tales, passed by word of mouth and what few writings were available---especially to the "average citizen.“ And of course there always was a class of non-believers. Those classical pantheons of Gods were said to have created men for their worship and entertainment. That’s not too dissimilar (if at all) to what some are saying in here. While communications technology has changed the dynamics dramatically, perhaps someday we will see some dissolution with the “religions of Abraham” similar to what the Greeks/Romans saw of those earlier religions. Though any complete disappearance or even seriously significant devaluation of those faiths seems unlikely to me, even in hundreds of years from now. I can see, however, where a large role in what/how many people believe what may depend more than a little on what science brings to the table in the future. As for the amazingly convoluted head trips we humans take (as I often view such matters :evilg: :pfft:), few activities offer better examples than philosophy, religion, politics, and professional sports. :cool: This is why we're all here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Like you (I presume) I find little fragile or limited or inherently “cold” (humanity-wise) about science, To clarify, there is nothing fragile about the scientific method, but current scientific knowledge is fragile. But knowing, accepting and embracing this avoids the (false) dogma and certainty that others fall prey to. Science is certainly not cold. Here's a little on this from Feynman ... On a similar theme, I go stargazing with friends - sometimes, after we've looked at a few objects and we've talked about how visually stunning it is, we talk about the physics behind it all, the distances, the time-span, the processes involved in those photons being created and traveling to strike their retina, and they often are moved to tears at the immensity and beauty of the information as they put the larger picture together, and their place in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 13, 2012 Share Posted August 13, 2012 Yeah, amigo, hope it didn't seem like I was suggesting you implied that...I know better..i was just letting my mind wander (which I shouldn't do since it's too small to be out alone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerryMason Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I think sometimes we tend to sound like we are embracing a self imposed ignorance, sometimes (i.e. a lot of the time) our science does figure stuff out, we can lift the tire. Where I disgree with science is where it draws the boundaries of knowledge and then rules out of belief that which it can't answer which is not the same as finding enough proof to disqualify an idea. I agree with you. It wasn't a perfect analogy just trying to draw the picture to show that the quote from the band wasn't meant to be a dismissive or demeaning one. ---------- Post added August-14th-2012 at 12:32 AM ---------- And sticking with that framing, I would see the "dad" as hopefully wanting to encourage his child to keep testing his strength and abilities. Of course, in that framing, the child may someday be quite able to lift that heavy tire. Oh most definitely. But also being able to recognize his limitations as man (let's say parting a sea lol) while recognizing that such a task may be beyond himself but not beyond God, thus reliance on God for such things. ---------- Post added August-14th-2012 at 12:39 AM ---------- I strongly disagree with this characterization as it refers to the pursuit of knowledge. We know a tiny, tiny amount about reality. But look what we can do with what we know while admitting our limits, and trying to push them back, little by little.The Bronowski video posted captures this well. Commentary from religious believers that science only reveals what god created can be interpreted as anything from shallow to deeply anti-intellectual. Like i said earlier I was just paiting a picture to help Jumbo understand the tone of the lyric. It wasn't really meant to be a comprehensive study of who God is either dogmatically or personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Cool. That was the framing I was hoping for, and yes it is a benign and very familiar one to me, while at the same time still having an element of "alien" if you know what I mean. And sticking with that framing, I would see the "dad" as hopefully wanting to encourage his child to keep testing his strength and abilities. Of course, in that framing, the child may someday be quite able to lift that heavy tire. Seriously? For a few thousand years (if that's how long this particular religious defending poster agrees with) That would become tedious almost immediately I would think. ****, you're one of the better posters here and I can watch you get annoyed, even by people who you enjoy and agree with. Yeah, they're kind of like me, but stupid and dangerous, but I'm gonna let it go and see what happens. No ****ing way man. That's ignorant to an offensive level IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Perhaps to control the animal population ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Perhaps to control the animal population ? Humans are animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share Posted August 14, 2012 I've been busy in the Stadium...have we come up with an answer (or two) yet? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Like i said earlier I was just paiting a picture to help Jumbo understand the tone of the lyric. It wasn't really meant to be a comprehensive study of who God is either dogmatically or personally. It has nothing to do with any definition of god. It reflects the ignorance and anti-intellectualism of those who think that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhoRUSupposed2Be Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Have you ever thought to yourself that you are the answer that you seek. God is the universe so therefore we a part of that one entity alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWFLSkins Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Perhaps to control the animal population ? Humans are animals. Point unintended but made nonetheless. Have you ever thought to yourself that you are the answer that you seek.God is the universe so therefore we a part of that one entity alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it. ~ Martin Luther (Heidelberg Disputation) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 What is the "it" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 "Ask not the it of itness when it is not what it seems to be, unless what it looks like to you is not the it you thought it would be, for then the it probably is it in the end." ---Ch 5, Book IV, Article E, Paragraph .2 1/4 <see appendix> "The Quasimodo Ballet" by S. Agnew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 What is the "it" ?The love of God & the love of man.---------- Post added August-14th-2012 at 01:37 PM ---------- "Ask not the it of itness when it is not what it seems to be, unless what it looks like to you is not the it you thought it would be, for then the it probably is it in the end."---Ch 5, Book IV, Article E, Paragraph .2 1/4 <see appendix> "The Quasimodo Ballet" by S. Agnew These are the kind of thoughts that make Vulcan's cringe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Or they are students of Enlightenment/Modernist thinking which by its very nature excludes the idea of God until God can be proven. The rules of Enlightenment can very well hamper knowledge of that which is outside of their rules. It is like not believing in South because the window you're looking out faces North. We know that there was never a global flood and that talking snakes do not exist... so we know that the Bible was wrong on some claims... but suppose the Bible turns out to be correct about some things. How would we know which ones? By comparing it with findings made by students of "Enlightenment/Modernist thinking" It is not about just knowledge. It is about reliable knowledge. Some people stop coming up with stuff when their knowledge stops. Some people keep going even though they have no reasonable basis for it. They could be right. They could be wrong. They have no way of knowing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 These are the kind of thoughts that make Vulcan's cringe. Those are my people. Good to see you around, Z. ---------- Post added August-14th-2012 at 12:52 PM ---------- Some people keep going even though they have no reasonable basis for it.\Like iggle fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PerryMason Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 I've been busy in the Stadium...have we come up with an answer (or two) yet? lol No, we're all just gunna have to wait for the sequel to Prometheus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.