The Most Important Question of our Age?

Paul,

Nothing in your thinking offends me as such - but that it is the natural consequence of your thinking that the species dies. Ah well, better luck next time, if there is one! Would you bet your life?

iconoclast.

Zetetic11235,

Why have speed limits when people like to drive fast? They're going to die anyway - so what does it matter? What a terribly foolish mindset.

iconoclast.

Absolutely True. It is because people are afraid of the unknown and unknowable. Not sure what point you meant to make by that statement. I guess I could say it is because of whatever pleases you to think of it. There is not a single, logical reason to pick the self preserving path we gravitate towards. It is simply instict. If you disagree, I would be happy to debate this point.

You did manage, I think, to entirely circumvent my point. If one dwells on dread of what is coming, when does one revell in what is now? If one lives in fear of doom, when does one live in the truth of what is present? To fear what is not known, to fear death, is pointless. To observe what is, to prevent what might be, is not the same as fearing it. I take my death for granted and don't assume there is anything after. I take humankind's downfall for granted and do not assume a light at the end of the tunnel. Yet I laugh the whole time when it is not the case. Worry as a component of life is good. Worry as its focus is foolish.

Zetetic11235,

By that statement I meant to indicate the foolishness of your post #28.

I think rather I should step aside and let you and paulhanke debate:



For me, I'm still waitng for DT - but I quite sincerely fear he may be having a crisis of some kind. DT - if you're listening, there is light at the end of the tunnel I assure you- even in face of such intransigence. I myself was returned to hope and life by following these ideas - there is something greater given than that which is taken away.

regards,

iconoclast.

... I have to say I fail to understand why ... your position is that your logos is all that is needed to help humankind to survive; my position is that your logos plus a complementary mythos will help humankind to thrive ... are you now saying that your logos can only work in an ethical vacuum?

Here are my musings on the subject of logic and teleological objectivity:

Logic is a tool. Man uses this tool by instinct as it has most often assured his survival. As a tool it has no ends in itself, only through its application is its value determined. A development of a logical system is not a development of logic but an application of it.

When Man questions logic, he has no basis for his questioning, as logic is instinctual. He is in a sense turning logic upon itself in a nonsensical fashion. Logic cannot validate itself logically; such a method would be circular.

To question logic is to question instinct. It can be quickly shown that this questioning of logic is a simple confusion: To question logic is to use logic upon logic and thus it is nonsense for any answer would still be within the bounds of logic, though it would have no meaning in any context.
Logic, however, cannot take the role of God to define progress. Just as a claw in and of itself does not define its application nor decide what manner of meat the beast shall take.

The role of god in a rational society is that of a compass in order that progress be defined and focused with a specific goal in mind, without such a compass, all that is called progress is inherently meaningless as progress denotes that which is built towards some definite goal. This goal has been left to non-analytic philosophy as its basis has been determined to be outside the realm of formal logic and more within the confines of metaphysics.

Should one find teleological objectivity through logic, we would be set, however, this is an action which is akin to finding a path with a map and compass when the destination is not decided upon yet. It is not logos which directs, but instinct and imagination. There is no proof you can write up that will show the path man must take. You can argue till the end of days towards Utilitarian ideals which you think are the correct measures of progress, but you will be fundamentally wrong, and any enforcement of your ideals shall have to be authoritarian.

The day man conquers death is the day life looses all meaning. The day one goal is the only acceptable goal and anything which generally might be concieved as being against this results in banishment or condemnation is the day freedom goes out the window. I welcome death over eternal life and safety if I must be a slave to a set of ideals.

Paulhanke,

I don't recognize this mythos/logos distinction. When DT brought it up I had to reach for the dictionary. If the prospect of extinction isn't enough - wait until it starts to bite. You're going down this path like it or not and the only question is forwards or backwards? If you want to meet the future looking backwards for the sake of religious sensibility upon national identity ect, while the lights go out, until the petrol pumps and supermarkets stand empty, then in good faith, meet your demise like patriots, and God save the Queen!!!

iconoclast.

Didymos Thomas,
I've taken your idea to write my posts on word instead, thanks.

I think religion has merit, personally. I think it should be separated from God though, because humanity has not shown anything good when construeing God with religion. Anything religion brings out has nothing to do with what God stands for, or at least shouldn't be. God is a pawn for religion, and as such should be kept separate. I think there's no denying God, but not believing in it is probably the healthiest choice. It shows realization, and character. We don't need an entity to convey what we are worth. When we do, we are ignorant.

Probably what Iconocast is trying to convey. Science at first glance seems like less ignorance when it comes with the virtue of technology. And then ofcourse we have to watch out that science doesn't become religion (ignorance), some rational/scientific idealistic totalitarianism. Thats what ethics is all about, and a problem is that religion is assumed not to need ethics like science does. Maybe science is at an advantage when it undergoes such moral inquiry and skepticism. Religion isn't like that until the damage has been done. It seems justified; its customs, the power evokers evoked through its false cause, the followers are better off. Such nonsense, how its taken an objective edge.

This is why I don't mind your stance because you view of religion through spirituality and subjectiveness/introspect. Thats where it belongs if we are going to idealize it with such pretentious characters like God. But the norm don't see value in that. A person who thinks Christianity thinks heaven over hell, by virtue of its advocacy. And even when they are clarified that its all about the golden rule, (get too high up in status in religious reform and it becomes hypocritical) they use it as merit for their ignorance of such objectiveness.

Yes religion changes like science, but not due to moral accuity. Its about adaptation. The political power of a society is only concerned about maintaining power and stability, and religion/conservatism is the objective tool to attain such. Only when those are threatened or compromised would the government act in concern to the public, for the public is where the potential of the power lies. There is no moral compass to mingle with the tool of religion. Only the reluctant cause for adaptation and reluctant public for change, thus ignorance. Rights are given to the public, minimally.

Religion and power do not work well, but I can't say as science does either, Iconocast; And if you are implying such a future where science is focused, then well, the system speaks to give it power.

I think thats quite the opinion there, that man must have spiritual needs. Even though I agree. They should change though. It would be insane if they didn't. And I kinda think this whole God thing is a bit outdated don't you think? I mean its essence will remain, but its form, .

Iconocast,

Power should be equal, substituting religion for science doesn't work. Power in general is evil when focused, its like an axiom to society.

I remember serving a minister at the grocery store where I work, I being a cashier, and I found out when I asked him why are you buying forty boxes of corn flakes?!

He says, "Its for my sermon, I'm a pastor".

I told him I'm agnostic, perhaps even an atheist.

He replies, "It's all good. Come along some time, why don't you help with the sermons. I often get people to come forth and share stories, maybe you have some reason to bring". ( He left me his business card, lol)

So religions definitely do not denounce science, unless by those hypocrites who are way up there in rank.

And the buddhist philosophy... It has everything to do with the individual. It is about personal thinking. Thats the point. Its the defining point of what makes religion become so evil, when personal thinking is overruled by the regular thinking, conforming without intro-judgement.

Please try to tramply my ideas, contradict them. I am so young and persuaded easily, I think. You'll have my side if you can. 15 years?!

Society should be fundamentally virtuous, science is not intrinsic enough I'd say. And humanity shouldn't be fundamentally anything except ability to feel pain and whats the opposite of pain, that the most intrinsic, binaric thing I can come up with . Lol, science, and religion; though I have to agree. Mysticism is primitive.

Unfortunately, faith is underlying to our being, so getting rid of it isn't going to happen, so I'd stop fretting about it. I agree though, it has not appeared through emotion enough or the way it should, and logically its irrational, so for those smart enough to know they don't necessarily need it, then good for them.

The nation state is a rationalization of a pre-existing religious social dynamic.

Sure, society has underlying conservatism to it, it must, it should. And when the public realises its invalid to virtue we adapt secularism as if it helps.

I don't know why you're giving Paul such a hard time, he's at least bluntly stating that the system is messed up. He's the best advocation you're getting.

Zetetic,
We should at least care when we can do something about the end of our existence. Sure, this global warming crap is not going to be stopped. It is inevitable, our work to reduce emmisions has merit, but to actually stop an ice age... lets just hope we get one before our water runs out. It is simply too late to reverse the other effects.

But this question Iconocast brings up is important. It gives us a reason. Yes we are not permanent, but we should last a little longer than a few centuries I think.

I agree with your logic stuff, but it sounds faniliar, like you've posted it before.

Aedes,
It is impossible to consider an axial age to be the same as last time, what with globalization and media, and as you stated, the lack of social indentity. Perhaps we are constantly undergoing mini axial ages lasting a couple years, and all those are being compiled through history, and when humanity is finally ready, (darn stubborness,) we'll have another realization point, and need or want for change. But not until a major change happens that steepens the slope for humanity. It'll take a lot more now since the Iraq war is going on, and things are only gradually going to get worse so noticing that something is wrong becomes difficult. So until after a WW3 or the ice from Greenland slides off, humanity isn't going to age one bit.
Yeah you''ll have you're disagreements here, my hasty generalizations, .

Paulehanke,
I'm concerned about the whole mythos and logos thing. Its a good way to look at this questio but...

mythos - Definitions from Dictionary.com
logos - Definitions from Dictionary.com

I don't think the dictionary provides a clear grasp on the terms. Could somebody give me a clear definition that wasn't wikied? No links plz.


Also,
Somebody said that "But the problem is that religion pre-dates science".

Yeah, it goes all the way back to spirituality which is underlying to our race just like our animal instinct.

Sorry for not writing as much to you guys but there was less to reply to than DT and Icono.

Holiday,

I set this aside to respond to you. You are so folksy it's difficult to know what to say sometimes. You're never going to get what I mean - too wise to waste the mental resources on deep and complex issues - bobbing up and down merrily on the surface while moody sharks like me circle the dark depths, in an eternal nightime of the soul - cold and black, broken only by the occasional flash of bloody violence.

iconoclast.

Holiday,

I think religion is a hegemonic ideology, and a refusal by humankind to grow-up into the sound understanding revealed by science. It's false, pretentious, racist, and escapist - it's an abdication of responsibility, an egositic rant, and a betrayal of both reason and the spiritual sense of man.



This is like saying I think bicycles are good except for the wheels. You would keep all the pretence, tribalism and dumb ceremony and dispense with the only object of worth - the absolute, that something beyond - it's perfectly sane to hope exists and perfect insane to believe in without evidence, to the exclusion of sound reason.

I can't imagine the kind of people who would come to your Godless church, but I can imagine people of intelligence and good conscience recognizing the superior epistemological value of scientific knowledge - that in honesty and humility, and for the common good, we are duty bound to honour and obey.

I propose, in much the same way that conceptions of God have been central to societies across the world and throughout the ages, that in this age, we must centralize science.

Not only is science true of reality, but science has the benefit of being objective - the same for you as for me, as for anyone else. It's not open to endless speculative interpretation, but directs inquiry toward determinate resolution - toward correctness and accord with reality.

Meeting upon this level playing field is the only chance we have to prevent the extinction of humankind - and it is not without a spiritual sense, and a yearning for the beyond that we must meet there. I am talking here about the next step in human evolution - but equally, transcedence to a higher order of being.

I know you don't see it, not yet. You talk about 'some rational/scientific idealistic totalitarianism.' But as opposed to what? Religious/racial hatred, falsity, and greed for wealth and power as the calculus of our actions, and the future cast upon the wind? Know then that there is no future and calculte your present worth. Know that Rome will fall and billions will die. Know that with your eyes fixed on heaven, it's to hell you go - war, disease, famine and death - unto oblivion.

Know that all the virtues are mine.

iconoclast.

... as did I - I much preferred DT's elaboration into a distinction between "science" on the one hand and "meaning and direction" on the other ...



... allow me to rephrase that and maybe it will make my position clearer: I want to meet the future as a whole species for the sake of the uniquely human sensibility ... that is, I want to save the human spirit as well as its biological shell ... does this mean I want to save religion? No ... it just means that I understand that the human spirit has needs that (for many) religion currently fills and which science cannot, and I am unwilling to destroy the human spirit by ripping away any support for those needs without first finding something else to put it its place ... Question: if you save the human biological shell but not the human spirit, have you really saved humankind?

... yeah, yeah, yeah ... personally, I find the most aesthetic distinction in this arena to be Karl Popper's: if it's testable, it's science; if it's not, it's metaphysics ... this distinction is at once scientific and metaphysical - it gives you a test for science, but at the same time the statement itself is not testable ... we're in the borderlands between science and metaphysics :a-ok: ... unfortunately, these borderlands are almost as devoid of values as science itself, and so Popper's distinction is pretty useless in a conversation that encroaches on "meaning and direction" ... so we're stuck with the distinction between "science" and "meaning and direction" (or logos/mythos, if you like) ...

P.S. great avatar! :a-ok:

... great sermon, Reverend Iconoclast! - it's got just about every element of religious dogma in it that I despise! ... humankind committed the original sin of irrational thought and has been wandering around in an insane fog until the revelation of science! ... we need to save humankind! - we must destroy the false religions and force the sinner to see the light of science! ... come children, worship with me at the alter of Scientism!!! ... yeah, right ... your solution to religion is another religion ... and here I thought this conversation could actually go somewhere :disappointed:

Paulhanke,

I don't think a spiritual need is ever fulfilled, for it is in essence a yearning - and I also think there's that sense in science, in the need to understand. Science is misunderstood, indeed, misrepresented. Like evolution, in which people see only the brute competition of survival of the fittest, and not the beauty and complexity of nature.

When I walk through a forest or along a coastline, it in no way diminishes, but enhances the sense of wonder to reflect upon the processes that have crafted the environment. I mean, do you watch the weather forecast but then not enjoy a sunny day? Or not watch the weather forecast because it will spoil the mystery??

You ask: Question: if you save the human biological shell but not the human spirit, have you really saved humankind?

But how is that possible? They are the same thing - our bodies are not something we inhabit, but what we actually are - spirtual sense included. You might have asked - if you save humankind but destroy all faith in God, have you saved humankind? And the answer is yes, for God is but a cipher for the unknown, pushed further and further away as our knowledge has grown, so He is now somehwere before time itself - a firework lighting God, setting the divine spark to the blue touch paper of the universe and standing well back from the big bang.

In the past, the unknown was much closer - but for fixation upon the cipher in face of accumulating knowledge, man fails to recognize the spiritual value of the known, and dwells in the desert of the real, dreaming of a far distant spiritual oasis. That's not how things are - the spiritual is in our biological shells and all aound us - and is undiminshed by knowledge.

iconoclast.

This is too dichotomous a statement. Science was for a long time very much part of religion. Both in Islam in their "golden age" and then in "Christendom" during the Renaissance, science was born within universities which were mainly founded for theological study. So it's not that religion predates science, it's that scientific (i.e. natural) questions were always part of religion until science grew into a discipline unto itself and spun off.

Aedes, I agree, but it's subtle - and subtlty doesn't go down well in some cricles. It gets misunderstood. Try this for subtle:

In the 13th century Siger of Brabant proposed that religious truths and rational truths could co-exist without either being compromised, but the Church of Rome decided otherwise. They used the Inquisition to persectute intellectuals and supressed rational knowledge for hundreds of years, but here's the thing:

If they hadn't taken such a stance, would scientific method have been possible? Or would man have continued to conflate the spiritual and rational? (as it was in the Islamic 'golden age.')

iconoclast.

Aedes,




Just checked and the context of that remark was the development of forms of political organisation. From this standpoint it's a valid statement. Science had little to do with political development. Pre-exiting religious dynamics set the context of the development of ostensibly rational and secular political institutions.

iconoclast.

... which sounds like the end-game mythos that I proposed earlier: a mythos that resembles the Gaia mythos by celebrating humankind in its natural context and demonizing divisive/dysfunctional tendencies ... but if you try to force such mythos all at once upon those who still cling to a Western/Cartesian/Dualism mythos, the result will not be pretty - you will destroy the human spirit in some (suicide) and horribly disfigure it in others (terrorism) ... to say it again, I don't disagree with an end game comprising a scientific-approach-to-sustainability logos complemented by a human-being-in-the-world mythos - I'm just saying we need to figure out a strategy for how we're going to achieve both peacefully ...

.......................................