Religion versus human dignity.

timberlandko wrote:

wwlcj1982 wrote:
I'm sorry. I don't quite follow you.

That's unsurprising to the point of predictability.

Quote:
Why do you think my proposition are not rational.

For the simple reasons that it does not conform to the rational and does conform to the irrational. Thats just the way religion works, it is emotional, not rational.

Quote:
All the evidences you gathered are from this world. How can you prove the reality of this world by evidences gathered from this world?

Well, you don't answer my question. You are just showing the world. That's all. Still, I don't see any reasoning. It's the rational you alleged? I don't think so.

timberlandko wrote:

wwlcj1982 wrote:
I have already implied the difference between the "superstition" and "religious faith".

No, most emphatically and explicitly, you have not.

"As long as it's not been disproved, I'll stick to it. Maybe you would say it does not prove that what you believe is the truth. But if you choose to accept it, it is the truth(I accept it as truth). The only thing you have to do is to stay open-minded and willing to reason what you believe in order to get deep understanding. "

timberlandko wrote:

wwlcj1982 wrote:
As soon as the "religious faith" is disproved, it's superstition, and we should abandon it. Otherwise, it's not.

You have that exactly backwards; the burden of proof falls to the affirmative case. The requirement is not that religion be disproved, but that it be proved. Absent proof, a proposition is but an assertion, at best an assumption, effectively it is conjecture, speculation, it is a claim, and nothing more. Incumbent on the one making the assertion, forwarding the proposition, making the claim, is the obligation to validate the premise or premises foundational to the proposition at discussion. In the pertinent discussions on these boards to date, none promoting the religionist proposition have validated - established - the primary foundational premise of that proposition, nor any subordinate premise dependent therefrom. The question remains unresolved in every particular.

Let me make it easy for you. I will stipulate to the possibility of a god or gods or something of the like. Further, I will stipulate to the possibility there may be something which meets the parameters you have proposed for an afterlife. Further yet, I will stipulate to the possibility not just any but in specific your particular religious concept may be valid.

There you go - 3 big hurdles out of your way. Now, prove there be a god, gods, or something of the like, prove there be an afterlife consistent with the parameters you propose, and prove your particular religious concept to be valid. I'm willing to be affected through persuasion; are you capable of effecting persuasion?

Now, pending persuasion, I submit once more that religious faith and superstition cannot be differentiated fro one another in objective, academically sound, forensically valid manner.

Of couse belief itself is not rational, it contains emotion elememts in it. Otherwise it would not be called religion belief(or faith). But for you information , the religion belief should build on the basis of rational(not disproving it). At the end of rational, that's the beginning of belief, because of the limited function of rational which conclude from rational itself. The reason why people tend to believe is their spiritual vanity. If you can't accept it, that's fine. But it seems that you have complete faith on rational, which I think is just as irrational.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

On the question of "reality"...

IMO the nail in the coffin of "the rationality of religion" is the lack of agreement between believers. Views about "the physical world" change...but they change in flexible unison give or take an inevitable time lag as "knowledge" filters through. Religious beliefs also change despite the futile attempts of believers to ossify their particular versions in "holy scripture". The changes here are divergent which is a logical consequence of multifarious reinterpretation of "the word" in adaptation to shifting cultural allegiances. Those who do not successfully adapt and hold their particular version to be "the Truth" can become culturally isolated in an inappropriate time-warp and blinkered or belligerent with respect to change.

Maybe you are right. I never thought of it.

0 Replies

After reading this thread in its entirety I felt obliged to make a posting, although I won't get involved in the ongoing debate between timberlandko and wwlcj1982. English is my first language, and it strikes me that the prefix "re" (although not always used in its traditional prefix sense), is being used a lot without looking at the deeper meaning..

Yes, we live in a real-world (re-all); but that does not mean it was our first version as a species, read into that what you will. When was it we stopped living on a world and started living on a planet (plan-it (plan-net) - oops, too deep). This world is real enough for me though. I feel pain and pleasure, love and hate, anger and compassion, and desire coupled with the knowledge that I can't always act on my desires. Not from religious reasons but through a sense of choice coupled with the fact that the opportunities don't always present themselves!

I speak from a wealth of experience, rather than pure faith when I say that this world is far more than it appears at first glance to the uninitiated. To keep on the theme though, consider creed. Whatever my personal "spiritual beliefs", I do have a set of beliefs I try to live my life by, usually to try to benefit my existence. As an example, if I try my best not to cause other people problems, they are less likely to cause me problems. Creed could be said to mean originally, c-re-ed, see re-education. This is only speculation and conjecture on my part, but goes some way to illustrating how our language in its purest forms lays the groundwork for control and enforced methods of living. This is not necessarily a bad thing since education in any form is useful; the bad side is the interpretation.

I will quote timberlandko once now: "The question remains unresolved in every particular." Does that mean it was once solved? But we are left to solve it again.

We define our understanding of "real" from our senses and the world around us, although perception and interpretation play key roles there. If you turned perception upside down or interpretation of language becomes too skewed, then you're left with madness, a living hell.

Anyway, this is my first "proper" post, and I'm interested in whether anyone will respond.

0 Replies

Baph,

Welcome to A2K. The depth of your response is appreciated.

A couple of comments.firstly there is an implied distinction in this thread between "spirituality" and "religion", such that the former involves "no specific moral rules for the individual".indeed "the individual" may be open to transcendent deconstruction !
This leads on to my second point that your focus on language does not seem to be informed by the proposition that language may be an a priori factor in the phenomenon of "self-consciousness". (See for example Dennett or Bateson) It follows that since language is a shared social activity, concepts of "self" are inextricably linked to concepts of "others". It is not difficult to extrapolate that "scripture" being ossified language, could be a major impediment to exploration of/by "the self".

0 Replies

Thanks for the welcome fresco. Sorry it took so long to reply, I had to compose myself.......

Organised religion, for the good, by its very nature will always involve "specific moral rules for the individual" where moral could be said to derive from "more-all" meaning that to adopt those particular codes or rules will be beneficial to the group as a whole. As you indicated, there is a big difference between spirituality and religion. Religion by its very nature implies relying on something, whereas spirituality merely means believing in the existence of the spirit.

I had to look up "a priori" and it has multiple meanings all of which are relevant within the context of your response. Taken from the perspective that it means, "Proceeding from a known or assumed cause to a necessarily related effect; deductive", then I agree in part. Language is one of the key areas of our self-awareness, or our self-consciousness, but not the totality since visual stimuli alone can influence consciousness.
"a priori" also means, "Derived by or designating the process of reasoning without reference to particular facts or experience". If we are able to reason without experience, that in itself is an indication of self-consciousness, but to understand its impact fully in terms of self-consciousness or self-awareness, we have to look back at the phonetic and hidden meanings. A lot of these are esoteric, and due to the human condition, making the cognitive leaps is not straightforward, or even desirable for most.
The final meaning of "a priori" is," Made before or without examination; not supported by factual study". This meaning is incongruous to the other two, and doesn't fit in the context of your statement.

Concepts of "self" are linked to concepts of "others" through language, but the analysis of language to give us better methods of self-analysis is achievable, although I will admit it is not easy, since Pandora's box cannot be closed once it has been opened.

Finally, I agree, scripture is ossified language, but we have to take translation into consideration, as well as who really saw the original "documents", and can their testimonies really be believed. I don't see how scripture could be a major impediment to exploration of "the self" in the same way as I don't see how any academic reading could hinder exploration of "the self", an open mind is the only requirement. If I were reading a science text from, supposedly, 500 years ago it wouldn't hinder my knowledge of science today.

Just a quick one, reading (re-adding), adding information again into the global knowledge base that, I think it was yourself, alluded to in an earlier post.

0 Replies

wwlcj1982 wrote:

Well, you don't answer my question. You are just showing the world. That's all. Still, I don't see any reasoning. It's the rational you alleged? I don't think so.

Nonsense - your question has been answered unambiguously, and your proposition has been refuted decisively. Denial, no matter how vigorously executed, is not a defense.

Quote:

"As long as it's not been disproved, I'll stick to it. Maybe you would say it does not prove that what you believe is the truth.

You have every right to believe and profess as you find fitting. You even have the right to assert a thing or condition be a "truth" absent any proof.
However, the opposite side of that coin is that anyone may challenge any or all of your assertions in such regard. When it comes to "truth", "belief" is not an operative factor; the rquisite contingencies are evidence, its objective appraisal, and the logical conclusions to be drawn therefrom. Emotion, preference, and assumption play no part in the equation.

Quote:

But if you choose to accept it, it is the truth(I accept it as truth).

Internally, and entirely, incorrect; predicate to that statement's contentention is emotionally satisfying assumption derived through subjective "choice" and "acceptance", not dispassionate conclusion derived through objective observation and analysis.

Quote:

The only thing you have to do is to stay open-minded and willing to reason what you believe in order to get deep understanding. "

Indeed it is incumbent upon the reasonable to be open minded, to seek knowledge and the understanding thereof to the greatest depth and extent practicably obtainable. That precisely is my point. I do not out-of-hand reject or dismiss your proposition, I observe that to date in these discussions here no valid, objective, evidence-based argument for that proposition has been presented, and I opine that no such argument may be made. My observation derives from the evidence thus far to hand, it is a conclusion based on demonstrated fact, my opinion derives therefrom and is dependent entirely and only on the continuation of the absence of evidence to the contrary. My opinion is ammenable to revision through reason; it is rational. To date in these discussions here, no one has presented any rational reason indicating for any revision of my opinion. I am open minded, I will not draw a conclusion, pro or con, pertaining to any proposition, absent proof in support of that conclusion.

Quote:

Of couse belief itself is not rational, it contains emotion elememts in it. Otherwise it would not be called religion belief(or faith).

Strictly in context of these discussions, irrespective of any other consideration, "Belief", in the religious sense foundationally requisite to your proposition, more than "... contains emotion elements"; as presented, defined, argued, and defended, without exception or contraindication so far to date in these discussions, it is composed solely, entirely, and exclusively of the emotional, incorporating no aspect of, having no attribute of, the rational. That some such aspect and or/attribute may attach to your proposition is not at dispute; the possibility exists and in fact able, persuasive, even compelling arguments may and have been made in its support. However, none participating so far in these discussions on these boards - yourself most particularly not excluded - has even approached, let alone has accomplished same. Rather, you, in common with those others who to this point have undertaken the endorsing and espousing of the proposition you embrace and promote here, consistently forward that proposition ineptly, serving by such practice only to that proposition's discredit and inconvenience, not challenging, countering, and refuting the criticisms and objections presented thereto, instead inviting, typifying, and confirming those criticisms and objections. Passion, zeal, and commitment do nothing in the service of an incompetently presented proposition.

Quote:

But for you information , the religion belief should build on the basis of rational(not disproving it).

For your information, I submit again you have this precisely backwards.
It is incumbent upon the party holding for the affirmative of a propostion to make the case for that proposition. No one need disprove anything; absent proof - objective, reproducible, severally verifiable, externally and internally consistent, multiply independently derived and mutually cross-corroborative proof - any proposition is but assertion, conjecture, preferential assumption, supported only by emotion. That a proposition unproven need be disproved is a tautology, an absurdity, a blatant and irredeemable fallacy; no valid argument may proceed from the premise.

Quote:

At the end of rational, that's the beginning of belief, because of the limited function of rational which conclude from rational itself.

A meaningless assertion, without basis in, reference to, or consideration of demonstrated fact - an assumptive, afoundational, irrational, emotional holding as opposed to an objective, logically derived, dispassionate observation.

Quote:

The reason why people tend to believe is their spiritual vanity.

You're on to something there, at least, though it would appear you do not understand that, or why or how, that very concept and circumstance decisively invalidate your central argument, terminally sunder the premise proximately and critically foundational thereto.

Quote:

If you can't accept it, that's fine. But it seems that you have complete faith on rational, which I think is just as irrational.

Another absurdity; I have, and frequently, unambiguously so, explicitly declared and demonstrated - stipulated to - my willingness and ability to be persuaded through valid argument. Further, "faith", at least in the particular of that concept's association with and derivation from any religionist proposition or premise contextual thereto, by definition is no component of the rational, it is the antithesis of the rational.

0 Replies

Okay, for clarification on "a priori" I quote Dennett (because he is "naive realist" but makes this concession towards a transcendent view of reality)

Quote:

Acquiring a human language is a necessary precondition for consciousness - in the strong sense of there being a subject, an I, "a something it is like something to be".

Dennett 2005

The link between language, self and religion goes as follows.

On the basis that perception is active not passive, It follows that an "I" who has been linguistically programmed to be "one of God's intended creatures" is likely to see the world differently to an "I" who sees itself as "an accident of birth". This differentiation is reified within linguistic expressions such as "imshallah" (with God's will) used to every day activities and reinforced by frequent mandatory prayer sessions.

If we take a general cultural view of religion as "linguistic tradition" it follows that like in the Japanese phenomenon of "loss of face" leading to suicide, the "self" is subservient to its sociolinguistic origins which define its boundaries and duties. The "I" has no choice but "to believe"...,"self" and "belief" are co-existent.

0 Replies

Baph wrote:

I will quote timberlandko once now: "The question remains unresolved in every particular." Does that mean it was once solved? But we are left to solve it again.

Hi, Baph, and welcome to the moshpit ... hope you have fun here, thats the sole point of the entire exercize, after all.

Anyhow, and with particular regard to your evidenced focus on linguistics as a key component of cognition, I submit that for you to develop from that statement of mine which you quoted any such expansion as that you offered thereupon you perforce must project, you must misconstrue or misinterpret that which I wrote, you must infer a circumstance or condition neither directy expressed nor in any way implied. Explicitly per the statement here at discussion "The question" is and always has been unresolved, in every particular; there is nothing to "solve" again as no "solution" ever has been presented, no resolution ever has been achieved. "The question" remains unanswered, unresolved - in every particular. The implicit premise foundational to your commentary relevant to my statement is an illicit premise.

0 Replies

Fresco - Thanks for making that distinction, like I said I had never heard the expression "a priori" before.

I agree that a language is a necessary precondition for consciousness, without it we would have no method to self reason, or evaluate circumstance. Although the "language" does not have to be the same as the one used by those who surround us in our everyday existences. As long as we have external senses then the only language we really need for consciousness, is one for self talk and self-evaluation. To share the same viewpoint as others, or to be influenced by them, then we would need to share their language.

You make a very interesting point when you bring up the concept of being linguistically programmed. All of us are linguistically programmed in different ways and to varying degrees. That is part of the game of life at the highest level. I believe that without meta-awareness then the "self" is subservient to its socio-linguistic origins, with that awareness though, more informed decisions can be made

0 Replies

Thanks for the welcome timberlandko. I agree that the main focus of our time here is to have fun - as well as the sharing of knowledge and ideas coupled with the right mix of heated debate!

One thing has me stumped (not that I play much cricket), I can't work out how to quote subsections from different peoples posts in my own post without having to quote them in their entirety.

0 Replies

Baph wrote:

One thing has me stumped (not that I play much cricket), I can't work out how to quote subsections from different peoples posts in my own post without having to quote them in their entirety.

Couple easy ways to do that. One is click "Quote" on the post to which you wish to respond, then within the reply box to highlight and delete the text you wish to discard, being careful to preserve the apprpriate "[ quote ] and "[ /quote ]" tags.

Another is to simply copy-and-paste the text to which you wish to respond directly from the post in which it appears into a "Reply", typing the "quote" tags as appropriate.

Did that make any sense? I'm not a very good teacher Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Couple easy ways to do that. One is click "Quote" on the post to which you wish to respond, then within the reply box to highlight and delete the text you wish to discard, being careful to preserve the apprpriate "[ quote ] and "[ /quote ]" tags.

It works!!!! Razz

Quote:

Another is to simply copy-and-paste the text to which you wish to respond directly from the post in which it appears into a "Reply", typing the "quote" tags as appropriate.

Thanks for that Timberlandko - problems solved! Cool

0 Replies

wwlcj1982 wrote:

neologist wrote:
wwlcj1982 wrote:

I don't know that you'v ever read the Bible or know anything about Christianity at all. According to the Bible, afterlife is not a reward, it's the real thing no matter that you are firm beliver or not(the believer will go to heaven and nobeliever will go to hell). . .
A spurious contention actually, since the dead "are conscious of nothing at all." (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

no, it is not, unless you forget the Revelation.

Citation, please.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

wwlcj1982 wrote:
Well, you don't answer my question. You are just showing the world. That's all. Still, I don't see any reasoning. It's the rational you alleged? I don't think so.

Nonsense - your question has been answered unambiguously, and your proposition has been refuted decisively. Denial, no matter how vigorously executed, is not a defense.

Everything essential to your reasoning on the proposition "the World is Real" comes from this world, including those principles and assumption. And you are in this world too. You can't prove it with its elements depriving from it.

0 Replies

wwlcj1982 wrote:

timberlandko wrote:
wwlcj1982 wrote:
Well, you don't answer my question. You are just showing the world. That's all. Still, I don't see any reasoning. It's the rational you alleged? I don't think so.

Nonsense - your question has been answered unambiguously, and your proposition has been refuted decisively. Denial, no matter how vigorously executed, is not a defense.

Everything essential to your reasoning on the proposition "the World is Real" comes from this world, including those principles and assumption. And you are in this world too. You can't prove something with its elements depriving from it.

It would appear you have uniquely personal and decidedly contrarian understanding both of philosophy and of forensics. So be it - if you think your worldview works for you, you think it works for you.

And while this certainly may be unkind of me -and cheaply so, given that English appears to be not your native tongue - I beg your forgiveness, but I simply cannot resist noting the irony presented through the closing statement of your post here at discussion; " ... You can't prove something with its elements depriving from it"

Embarrassed

Again - sorry about the cheap shot - I just hadda do it Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

wwlcj1982 wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
wwlcj1982 wrote:
Well, you don't answer my question. You are just showing the world. That's all. Still, I don't see any reasoning. It's the rational you alleged? I don't think so.

Nonsense - your question has been answered unambiguously, and your proposition has been refuted decisively. Denial, no matter how vigorously executed, is not a defense.

Everything essential to your reasoning on the proposition "the World is Real" comes from this world, including those principles and assumption. And you are in this world too. You can't prove something with its elements depriving from it.

It would appear you have uniquely personal and decidedly contrarian understanding both of philosophy and of forensics. So be it - if you think your worldview works for you, you think it works for you.

And while this certainly may be unkind of me -and cheaply so, given that English appears to be not your native tongue - I beg your forgiveness, but I simply cannot resist noting the irony presented through the closing statement of your post here at discussion; " ... You can't prove something with its elements depriving from it"

Again - sorry about the cheap shot - I just hadda do it

Well, irony maybe comes from the way the i present my ideas. But I didn't mean it, and not aware of that I had done it. That's not my type.If I offended some of you, i appologize.

You are right on my irrational. The basic principles of existentialism and religion phylosophy are my worldview.

neologist:
Revelation 20:4,5 "I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the ord of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. The came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended)"

0 Replies

wwlcj1982 wrote:

... I didn't mean it, and not aware of that I had done it. That's not my type.

I know, and I knew what you meant - I just took an easy cheap shot at your expense.

Quote:

If I offended some of you, i appologize.

I shouldn't think any apology, other than perhaps from me for that earlier cheap shot, is called for. I've seen nothing in your posts I'd consider offensive. Wierd, mebbe, but not offensive.

Quote:

You are right on my irrational. The basic principles of existentialism and religion phylosophy are my worldview.

Interesting - I'm a bit of an existentialist myself - along the lines of pragmatic realism. I've put a good bit of thought and effort into getting there, and I ain't done yet, not by a long shot. Little matter if our worldviews differ, nor really is it all that important from whence they derive. Reality is what reality is, irrespective by whom or in what manner it be regarded. Thats the real deal with reality ... its real.

0 Replies

wwlcj1982 wrote:

. . . neologist:
Revelation 20:4,5 "I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the ord of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. The came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.(The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended)"

I didn't say there was no such thing as a resurrection.

0 Replies

wwlcj1982 wrote:

I don't know that you'v ever read the Bible or know anything about Christianity at all. According to the Bible, afterlife is not a reward, it's the real thing no matter that you are firm beliver or not(the believer will go to heaven and nobeliever will go to hell). . .

So where do all the Buddhists go?! Cool

Sorry - couldn't resist. Twisted Evil

0 Replies

As timber has made an excellent response to wwlcj1982's question, I will not respond to it. However, I will make this comment.

wwlcj1982 wrote:

If afterlife has been proved illusive, then I will not believe it, becasue a person can't believe in something illusive.

But both afterlife and God are illusive. You have seen neither and there is no reliable documentation of what either looks like.

Quote:

If not, then afterlife is the truth to me. It's not that someone says it's there, it's that one believe it's there.

But what is the belief based on? It is based on something that someone has said, that and your inability to comprehend the meaning of life. The latter, I do not blame you for. I suspect no one comprehends the meaning of life.

Quote:

Why don't you get it.

Get what? Just because I don't agree with you means I don't get it? Your viewpoint concerning religion is not the be all and end all. No viewpoint concerning religion ever is.

Timber can be completely wrong in his viewpoints on Christianity, just as you could be.

0 Replies

Religion versus human dignity.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know