The Most Important Question of our Age?

@iconoclast,

Quote:

It's clear to me DT - reading your reply - that you've begun with the first paragraph of my post - and commented critically on it before moving on to the next paragraph. You haven't read the whole thing through, thought about it, and then commented on each paragraph. You're not considering the argument at all - I think, because your not open to being swayed from your viewpoint.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I think this perspective of yours might simply be a matter of you not personally enjoying my perspective. Neither of our claims are original - I've heard yours, and I imagine you've heard mine.

Quote:

That's right. But it's not wholly undeserved, is it? I mean, this distinction you make between mythos and logos isn't the way things actually are. I'm critsizing how things are - and you keep countering with the way things should be. But as I said earlier:

The negative stereotyping isn't a matter of logos and mythos - it's a logical fallacy. As I said, a hasty generalization.

The way things are? Yes, many religious people rightly fall under the scope of your criticisms. The problem with your criticisms is that many religious people do not fall under the scope of your criticism. Let's have some sensitivity, and allow ourselves to appreciate the full complexity of the matter. Oversimplifying doesn't help the discussion.

Some people represent the way things should be.

Quote:

I think you have to face the fact that faith doesn't lend itself to a reasoned distinction between mythos and logos, for it is unreasonable - (not to hope that God exists, which is perfectly rational) but to bend reason to believe what one cannot know.

Then how do religious people make the distinction?

Quote:

And it's not as if faith is intrinsic to that spiritual sense of man

Well, we could debate what 'faith' means. But the bottom line is that man does have spiritual needs, and those needs must be met. Those needs are not met by science.

Quote:

but a silencing of the enquiring mind as a requirement of allegience to a sepratist sect - in denial of the fact that we are a single species inhabiting a single planetary environment.

Again, you can point to the abuses of spirituality all you like - such appeals will only be reasonable criticisms of those abuses, and will never be appropriate against religious individuals and institutions which do not make those mistakes.

Quote:

is just b*llocks. It's low tactics and should be beneath you.

I'm not the one making hasty generalizations about religion. I have no problem criticizing abuses of religion. Meanwhile, you extrapolate those abuses onto the whole of the religious population - a hasty generalization.

We agree on a great deal. The only real disagreement I see between us is that you insist on your hasty generalizations. I believe that, this issue aside, we would be on the same page. Do you think you are not making hasty generalizations? Let's focus on this, work through it, and then see where we stand. I think the conversation has a great deal of potential.

Quote:

all I'm suggesting is to add an extra step to this process ... after we throw out the "bad" mythos, we need to undertake an effort to create some new mythos in order to give this novel (to us) "how" some "meaning and direction" ...

Absolutely. Without this sort of progress, we would never have Buddhism, Christianity, or any religious development at all. We need religious development. So, I agree with you.

Honestly, I think we are in a new Axial Age. Who will stand up and offer the uniquely original mythos for our time? Not me, I'm not that creative.

Edit: Sorry, I think I have confused hasty generalization with fallacy of composition. I think Iconoclasts argument is a composition fallacy, not a hasty generalization.

I blame the wine :bigsmile:

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes,

I think there's a distinction to be made here between an individual with more tubes outside than in - and humankind adopting political and economic forms conducive to continued existence.

Okay then, maybe you might argue that life becomes so intolerbale on the surface we are forced underground. That would be pretty intolerable, (but not the fault of science) and it might be better to give up, but you cannot convince me of a real life situation that on a scientific basis would require anything like the Nazi eugenic, gentically modifed horror movie scenarios inferred by your criticisms.

The sun is about 5 billion years old and will last another 5 billion years - so that's not at issue. What is at issue is the energy crisis, climate change, overpopulation and environmental degradation, caused by decisions we make on a the basis of national government in capitalist economic competition.

These bases are not facts - they're open to question, and that's what i'm doing. A big asteriod is a fact - not open to question - I'd spread my arms and embrace extinction if it couldn't be avoided but it can, and should.

iconoclast.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Honestly, I think we are in a new Axial Age.

I'm not so sure about that one. I think we're changing too quickly, we have too little self-identity. When we reach some sort of meta-stability, we may finally reach another axial age. But not yet.

2 Replies

@Aedes,

Quote:

I'm not so sure about that one. I think we're changing too quickly, we have too little self-identity. When we reach some sort of meta-stability, we may finally reach another axial age. But not yet.

Fair enough. I suppose it would be incorrect to say 'this is a new Axial Age' when we haven't seen Axial thinkers emerge.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Quote:

I think you have to face the fact that faith doesn't lend itself to a reasoned distinction between mythos and logos, for it is unreasonable - (not to hope that God exists, which is perfectly rational) but to bend reason to believe what one cannot know.

Then how do religious people make the distinction?

This is direct contradiction and dosn't lend itself to a fuller understanding. I'm explaining why I think what I think and your just issuing flat denials. Do religious people make the distinction - who? Is this distinct from traditional religious thinking or an intrinsic aspect of religion i've failed to appreciate?

And here:

Quote:

Quote:And it's not as if faith is intrinsic to that spiritual sense of man

Well, we could debate what 'faith' means. But the bottom line is that man does have spiritual needs, and those needs must be met. Those needs are not met by science.

Quote:but a silencing of the enquiring mind as a requirement of allegience to a sepratist sect - in denial of the fact that we are a single species inhabiting a single planetary environment.

Again, you can point to the abuses of spirituality all you like - such appeals will only be reasonable criticisms of those abuses, and will never be appropriate against religious individuals and institutions which do not make those mistakes.

You split the sentance and ignore it's meaning. I'm not critisizing spirituality - but faith as a requirement of religious sects. You critisize me for fallacy of composition and then employ these rhetoricical devices to avoid addressing the points I raise. What is it with you? I have an opion but i'm willing to listen to and consider what you say - please extend me the same courtesy.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

I really shouldn't, as I've been drinking for several hours now, but here goes anyway.

Quote:

This is direct contradiction and dosn't lend itself to a fuller understanding. I'm explaining why I think what I think and your just issuing flat denials. Do religious people make the distinction - who? Is this distinct from traditional religious thinking or an intrinsic aspect of religion i've failed to appreciate?

Yes, religious people make the distinction. You might read some Karen Armstrong. She calls herself a "freelance monotheist".

Quote:

You split the sentance and ignore it's meaning. I'm not critisizing spirituality - but faith as a requirement of religious sects.

It's not really helpful to say I just do not understand.

The issue of faith depends heavily on your definition of faith. I too have some problems with the demand of faith by religious sects - depending on how they define faith. Depending upon how they use the word.

Quote:

You critisize me for fallacy of composition and then employ these rhetoricical devices to avoid addressing the points I raise. What is it with you? I have an opion but i'm willing to listen to and consider what you say - please extend me the same courtesy.

What have I avoided? I have already said, many times, that the criticisms you level (for example, religious suppression of science) are valid in certain contexts. My point is that you cannot point out, for example, the Catholic Church's suppression of science as evidence that all of religion suppresses science. The abuses of the Catholic Church only indict the Catholic Church. Arguments which suffer from the fallacy of composition are not convincing. This point is not merely a rhetorical devise, it's a valid objection to your argument.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

DT,

Quote:

This point is not merely a rhetorical devise, it's a valid objection to your argument.

It might be if you would acknowledge and consider the argument before dimissing it. As I said in an earlier post:

Quote:

religion pre-dates science, and poltical forms with economic interests built upon religious authority that pre-date science stand as obstacles because science re-interprets the legitimate ends and purposes of government.

Please don't respond again with:

Quote:

Not all religion predates science.

Tell me that's not avoidance. I have good reasons for making this statement, and it's disresepctful if you dismiss it so casaully - like you think I'm stupid. You might argue that I'm wrong - but please make the argument. Try and see what I'm getting at overall, because I have got something to say.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

I do not think you are stupid. If I did, I would just ignore you. That I consistently respond is an affirmation of my high estimation of your intellect. I'm really sorry if you got some other impression. Really.

But to your claim of avoidance, that quip was not the only response - surely you read the following:

Quote:

In any case, science, economics and politics are pragmatic concerns, and therefore should not be left to mythos. Mythos is simply not equipped to deal with these sorts of issues - for example, mythos cannot determine the most pragmatic economic policy. To use mythos as a way to establish economic truth would be silly and a clear misuse of mythos.
What mythos can do for economics, politics, ect, is help humans cultivate compassion, which just might better direct our economic and political ambitions. Just look at our politicians - their ambition drives them to ignore the real problems and real solutions. Perhaps if they were more compassionate, they would not be so selfish and would be more likely to honestly and responsibly handle the various problems presented.

I know you did not respond to the above, but that's okay. Maybe I didn't make any sense. I'll try to be a little clearer.

The pragmatic concerns of economics and politics should not be addressed by religion. When this happens, I am just as quick to criticize the offending religious establishment as you.
However, some religious people/establishments, do not interfere with the pragmatic concerns of economics and politics by erroneously imposing their mythos onto these rational concerns.
Therefore, you cannot categorically criticize all religion for a mistake only made by some religious people/establishments.

I know you have something to say - I'm very much interested in what you have to say. But before we can really address your more fundamental concerns, we have to eliminate the misplaced blame. Let's criticize the silly and dangerous religion, and, at the same time, appreciate the well intentioned and properly applied religion. Until we can do this, I doubt we can address the concerns you so rightly bring to our attention.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

DT,

That's great. I did read the following, but it's based upon the rejection of the premise that religion pre-dates science. It's not that religion itself concerns itself in political and economic matters but that these matters are handled by institutions founded in a pre-scientific era, and are therefore fundamentally religious in character. They are rationalizations of the pre-existing religious dynamics.

It's for this reason they have a problem with such simple scientific facts as the singular nature of the species and the planet, why they can't cooperate on issues like energy and climate, less yet over-popualtion and the environment.

That's what I'm trying to get across.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

Quote:

That's great. I did read the following, but it's based upon the rejection of the premise that religion pre-dates science.

Not really. At least from what I can tell. I do not reject the premise that religion pre-dates science - religion does predate science. The Sky God is far older than any scientific study.

As far as I'm concerned, my following point stands whether or not religion pre-dates science. No matter the timeline, mythos cannot overrule logos and logos cannot overrule mythos.

Quote:

It's not that religion itself concerns itself in political and economic matters but that these matters are handled by institutions founded in a pre-scientific era, and are therefore fundamentally religious in character. They are rationalizations of the pre-existing religious dynamics.

But these concerns are not always handled by religious institutions. For example, the American government is a secular institution, though influenced by modern religious ideology. The extent, the depth and nature, of that religious influence is unfortunate - I think we both agree here.

Quote:

It's for this reason they have a problem with such simple scientific facts as the singular nature of the species and the planet, why they can't cooperate on issues like energy and climate, less yet over-popualtion and the environment.

I am not convinced that these problems are the result of archaic, religious based institutions. I also do not think that the problems are the result of a denial of the facts that we are a single species inhabiting a single planet - I think the problems you mention (climate change, et al) are the result of leaders acting in their own interests rather than compassionately considering the long term influences of their decisions.

While we discuss these issues, let's also try to firmly establish our common ground. Maybe this attempt will help reduce the perceived emotional issues. Do you think all religion is to blame, or do you think misused, abused and misunderstood incarnations of religion are, at least in part, at fault?

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas,

I thought you had it there for a minuet. Please keep trying - I think we're close. You say:

Quote:

the American government is a secular institution

The nation state is a rationalization of a pre-existing religious social dynamic. The nation state is essentially the religious sect writ large. It's not a rational concept, but a concept with a rationale, inherent to its nature, opposed to the rational fact that the planet and species are singular.

This is not only a historically accurate account of the occurance of the nation state, but the features of the religious sect can be mapped directly onto the state. The inclusive/exclusive dynamic of faith groups is citizenship in another guise. The state has its sacred symbols, its mythos, its modes of dress and bahviour and its articles of faith - that identify and serperate one group of human beings from another.

This is part of the problem, but as I said earlier, the secular state is another. Secularism allows equal wieght be given to logos and mythos - (if it's correct to say that you are equating logos with science and mythos with religion) where logos is demonstrably true and religion near demonstrably false. Logos does over-rule mythos - for logos is universal whereas mythos is the mythos of a sepratist sect - be it religious or national in character.

You ask:

Quote:

While we discuss these issues, let's also try to firmly establish our common ground. Maybe this attempt will help reduce the perceived emotional issues. Do you think all religion is to blame, or do you think misused, abused and misunderstood incarnations of religion are, at least in part, at fault?

I would ask that you keep in mind what I'm trying to explain here - the concern expressed in the first post. I honestly don't mind what you believe - and you might find, if you stop throwing rocks in the road, that the ride is much smoother and the destination can be reached together. If you insist, then I will destory those rocks one by one if it takes me the rest of my life - for I will not allow my species to go quietly into extinction for the sake of your religious sensibilities. In short - if the pointy hat fits - wear it. The pointy hat certainly fits the catholic church - and it's in europe that the nation state and capitalism has its origin.

iconoclast.

2 Replies

@iconoclast,

DT,

for further clarification please see my blog entry: The nation state - a religious concept.

iconoclast.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

Secularism allows equal wieght be given to logos and mythos - (if it's correct to say that you are equating logos with science and mythos with religion) where logos is demonstrably true and religion near demonstrably false.

... speaking for myself, when I equate logos with science and mythos with meaning and direction this does not at all imply that logos is demonstrably true and mythos near demonstrably false ... I think it's already been hashed out that scientism is not an option - to say that the only truth is scientific truth is a human untruth ... let me ask you a question: when you say that we need to apply science for scientifically conceived reasons in order to ensure the continued existence of humankind, are you stating a truth? - if indeed you are stating a truth, then you have shown that mythos is not near demonstrably false precisely because this truth is part of your mythos!

2 Replies

@paulhanke,

Paul,

In this instance I was refering specifically to religious mythos (if it's correct to say that Didymos Thomas is equating logos with science and mythos with religion.) But you're correct in the observation - that the continued existence of the species is a value without scientific justification - and worse yet, later I'm going to talk about 'a scientific conception of reality' - a sort of ontology constructed from discrete scientific facts - which is a blatantly philosophical concept. Hurrah!

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

... let's see if this logos/mythos distinction will take us anywhere ... at this point we have logos defined as science and mythos defined as meaning and direction - if we start elaborating on these, will we understand better what mythos needs to be in order to support human being in an increasingly scientific world? ... so, I pose the following to the "committee": what's your take on science? what human needs does science fulfill? what human needs does science fail to fulfill? what form(s) do you think mythos should take to fill these needs? ...

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

... which is a blatantly philosophical concept.

... nothing at all to be ashamed about! :bigsmile:

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

Paul,

I should rather like to begin with the word committee and works backwards if that's okay. The form of government I propose is a global government organized on the basis of intellectual meritocracy - coming into being to address the related issues of energy and climate.

It is well within our sceintific grasp to supply the world's energy needs from sustainable sources - using solar energy to electrolyze sea water to produce hydrogen fuel.

Given this unlimited, pollution free source of energy we can do far more than meet human need, but would still have a great deal to do to secure our future.

Where mythos comes in, I think, is that a viable energy future will have a profound effect on humankind - and enable us to address the population and environmental issues that require greater spiritual involvement - not merely the logos of political and technological cooperation.

I have done my best to answer questions that in all honesty I didn't quite understand. If my answer seems oblique it's not intentional.

iconoclast.

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

... sounds like you've got a good grasp of the logos end of the stick - unfortunately, it's the mythos end of the stick that is typically the show-stopper ... for example, in order to establish a global government, we have considerable mythos hurdles to overcome - there's the Axial Age legacy of tribally exclusive deities; there's the tendency toward radical hypocrisy (Give me liberty or give me death! - but don't take my slaves away from me!); and so on ... as well, an intellectual meritocracy is unlikely to include anyone with sufficient charisma to unite the world ... so it's not so much that we need mythos to deal with the profound effects after the fact - we need mythos in order to make this future happen in the first place!

Shooting from the hip, an end-game mythos to complement your logos would look something like the Gaia mythos and include mythical elements that:
- demand scientifically conceived options for the future
- demonize tribal exclusivity
- demonize hypocrisy
- and so on

But there's no way in hell that you would be able to throw this mythos out there from day one and have anyone accept it ... Christians/Muslims/Jews/etc. would be screaming that their tribal deities are being blasphemed; Americans would be screaming that their God-given role as world leaders is being undermined; and on and on.

So in addition to an end-game mythos, we would need one or more transitional mythos' (and charismatic leaders?) in order to ween humanity away from the dysfunctional situation we find ourselves in ... and so a huge question is: what would these transitional mythos' need to look like? :perplexed: (another question for the "committee"! Wink

)

1 Reply

@paulhanke,

die then.
...........

1 Reply

@iconoclast,

iconoclast wrote:

die then.
...........

... that's a bit too undirected for me to do anything with - what exactly in my thinking offends you so much?

1 Reply

The Most Important Question of our Age?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know