Death and the Forfeit of Reason

[Mole]

A trance puts reason to sleep and awakens imagination.

And belief is a form of trance.

So belief can't be overturned by reason because reason is simply asleep.

So to keep battering away at belief with reason is futile.

Only a belief can defeat another belief.

 

[A window to the soul]

A trance puts reason to sleep and awakens imagination.

And belief is a form of trance.

So belief can't be overturned by reason because reason is simply asleep.

So to keep battering away at belief with reason is futile.

Only a belief can defeat another belief.

How does one go into a trance?

 

[Anew Leaf]

How does one go into a trance?

I can get my bunny to go into a trance. I just lay her gently on her back. And she will lay there, paws up, for a long time.

It's a survival trait so that when they get eaten they don't have to experience it quite so fully.

 

[A window to the soul]

I can get my bunny to go into a trance. I just lay her gently on her back. And she will lay there, paws up, for a long time.

It's a survival trait so that when they get eaten they don't have to experience it quite so fully.

Lolz! Clever. :]

Or that no one knows, and in this case, we should all say to ourselves honestly: we don't know!

On the contrary, some of us know that we know by the evidence all around us (i.e., mankind, Mother Nature, science). Why play dumb? :redface:

 

[Anew Leaf]

I must admit that I feel kind of bad doing it.... But she looks so cute!

I also sometimes chase her around the living room saying "caw!" just to give her a little thrill or two in her otherwise INFP world. (shes totally an INFP too)

 

[Octarine]

What if its the athiests who've been deluded and whose use of reasons to fit their purposes has been ill conceived?

More to the point, does it even matter to you if they are wrong in this life?

On the topic of God, Young Earth Creationists are just a hold over of prior American beliefs. After the American enlightenment period, there was a split between science and liberal Protestantism (which formerly was considered compatible with science).

Modern Christian scientists support "theistic evolution". An example is the views of NIH director Francis Collins. He also accepts the practical importance of embryonic stem cell research. (if you disagree with stem cell research on moral grounds, then you also agree with the closing of all IVF clinics)

 

[Mole]

How does one go into a trance?

A trance can be induced by any repetition. We go in and out of trances all during the day. However most trances are culturally induced and so are invisible to us. But as we learn to deliberately put ourselves in and out of a trance, we start to become aware of when we are moving in and out of trances during the day. For instance we find we enter a light trance when we ride in an elevator.

There are many kinds of trances. But in all trances some cognitive faculties are turned off and some imaginative faculties are turned on. And the kind of trance depends on which faculties are turned off and which are turned on.

 

[skylights]

So, it is the subconscious fear of death and the belief that we could possibly escape it that makes a person totally change his standards for what he considers reasonable.

nice work.


religion is interesting. the laws of physics as we know it bend with change in gravitation; we have no idea what happens to consciousness after life. i see no reason to believe non-existence is the inevitable conclusion, nor do i see much of a reason to sacrifice reasoning for security. i'll always know in the back of my head it's not really 100% certain.

 

[Lark]

So no reason is needed; all you need to do is hit the people with their [willfully committed/known] sin and error (as forceful and vitriolically as needed), and if elect, they'll be convicted and respond (eventually, at least), and if "reprobate", it will just "harden" them as God "willed" (according to chapter 9, their other favorite passage).
So you can teach that 1 + 1 equals one-in-a-bun, (if you can find the right proof-text for it), and horribly lose any argument on science and reason, yet still walk away smugly confident you "refuted" those "blinded fools".

I personally hate this strain of evangelical thinking, it seems small minded and myopic in the extreme and more about the person feeling "right" than what is or isnt truth, it reeks of the strains of choosen elects which I despise as a variety of sectarianism and psychological superiority/inferiority loops.

Its part of the reason why after hoping for a long, long time that reconciliation or ecumencism within fragmented Christianity could have a chance that I just gave up on the idea altogether. I used to think that it was a peculiar lingering legacy in my own society of historical sectarian divisions, the reformation and protestantism but most of that input to the North of Ireland is actually from the US now, things like the Alpha Course and other visiting preachers, I'm not saying that there's not a market for it and people want any excuse, a lot of the time that appears to be the case, but the US is a society I wouldnt believe there was as much of a reason for this sort of thing to have endured and persisted but it appears to have done.

 

[Lark]

More to the point, does it even matter to you if they are wrong in this life?

On the topic of God, Young Earth Creationists are just a hold over of prior American beliefs. After the American enlightenment period, there was a split between science and liberal Protestantism (which formerly was considered compatible with science).

Modern Christian scientists support "theistic evolution". An example is the views of NIH director Francis Collins. He also accepts the practical importance of embryonic stem cell research. (if you disagree with stem cell research on moral grounds, then you also agree with the closing of all IVF clinics)

I dont see a dichotomy between science or evolutionary theories and religion, the same way I dont see a dichotomy between, say geography and the performing arts, they're two different things. The important thing is to pursue truth and acknowledge that you dont have all the answers.

I do believe that the whole creationists thing is a uniquely American but its spreading out from there, its a shame because I remember watching black and white movies, I think James Stewart was in one of them, about teachers getting called to court for teaching Darwin's theories in the class room and kind of watched them with a isnt that quaint and thank god that's a thing of the past point of view.

 

[Lark]

Well, all of that is supposition.

I think the most that can be said is that someone has chosen to believe, and their faith overrides other measures of criteria. It's values-based.

I'm sorry? Supposition? Please clarify.

 

[Octarine]

I dont see a dichotomy between science or evolutionary theories and religion, the same way I dont see a dichotomy between, say geography and the performing arts, they're two different things. The important thing is to pursue truth and acknowledge that you dont have all the answers.

While you might not believe that belief in god is incompatible with the latest scientific findings, many others do. The reason is because many religious teachings deviate from the scientific viewpoint. If our understanding of science is to be more correct, then those teachings in part, must be wrong, or at least merely figurative.

The point about the enlightenment period was to implicate more sophisticated views of epistemology and the birth of the formal demarcation problem to separate those facts which can be known (physical) and those which cannot (metaphysical). A lack of scientific demarcation would mean that young earth creationism is equally as scientific as our recent evolutionary theories.

How well those methods of demarcation fared is of course an interesting discussion, but probably not suitable for this thread.

 

[Eric B]

I personally hate this strain of evangelical thinking, it seems small minded and myopic in the extreme and more about the person feeling "right" than what is or isnt truth, it reeks of the strains of choosen elects which I despise as a variety of sectarianism and psychological superiority/inferiority loops.

Its part of the reason why after hoping for a long, long time that reconciliation or ecumencism within fragmented Christianity could have a chance that I just gave up on the idea altogether. I used to think that it was a peculiar lingering legacy in my own society of historical sectarian divisions, the reformation and protestantism but most of that input to the North of Ireland is actually from the US now, things like the Alpha Course and other visiting preachers, I'm not saying that there's not a market for it and people want any excuse, a lot of the time that appears to be the case, but the US is a society I wouldnt believe there was as much of a reason for this sort of thing to have endured and persisted but it appears to have done.

I think it fits right in with the general US attitude of superiority, and many high church writers have long associated these low church trends with the "American spirit of the frontier" or "individualism".

 

[Lark]

While you might not believe that belief in god is incompatible with the latest scientific findings, many others do. The reason is because many religious teachings deviate from the scientific viewpoint. If our understanding of science is to be more correct, then those teachings in part, must be wrong, or at least merely figurative.

The point about the enlightenment period was to implicate more sophisticated views of epistemology and the birth of the formal demarcation problem to separate those facts which can be known (physical) and those which cannot (metaphysical). A lack of scientific demarcation would mean that young earth creationism is equally as scientific as our recent evolutionary theories.

How well those methods of demarcation fared is of course an interesting discussion, but probably not suitable for this thread.

I dont agree with you that there is any deviation, although it does depend on how you frame the debate or discussion, for some people their entire devotion to science rests upon the corner stone of its being in origin and continuity anathema toward religion, otherwise they would not care, I think that is a very poor understanding of science.

The second part which I've highlighted I dont agree with either, the demarcation between metaphysical and physical is an important one and its fair to mention but there are more reasons than this simple demarcation, which isnt the whole of science either, as to why creationism and evolutionary theories are not comparably scientific.

To be honest the mechanism of evolution appears to do far greater homage to God than creationism which is a pale projection of the human act of creating upon the cosmos and therefore also God.

 

[Lark]

I think it fits right in with the general US attitude of superiority, and many high church writers have long associated these low church trends with the "American spirit of the frontier" or "individualism".

I dont understand the high and low church distinctions, are those distinctions between the established churches, originally the Church of England, Church of Scotland and Church of Ireland and the various protestants or dissenters?

I see it as connected to the reformation and something akin to the Christian spiritual equivalent of trotskyism, the prepetual revolution, the problem with that is that it is objectively stuck in a moment, unable to learn from the past as event which is finished or move forward into a future which is after that event and not a return to it, repetition or renewal of it.

 

[Coriolis]

While you might not believe that belief in god is incompatible with the latest scientific findings, many others do. The reason is because many religious teachings deviate from the scientific viewpoint. If our understanding of science is to be more correct, then those teachings in part, must be wrong, or at least merely figurative.

Many religious teachings deviate from scientific findings, but not all do. This suggests that acceptance of established scientific theory is incompatible with certain religions or religious teachings, but not necessarily with belief in deity altogether.

It is worth noting also that sources like the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, some literal, some figurative. Any literal interpretation must meet the same standards of objective evidence as any other historical or scientific claim. The criteria are indeed different for figurative interpretations, much as the criteria for good art differ from those for good science. These criteria are much more subjective, with benefit, insight, beauty, inspiration for the beholder being a significant component.

But in general, evidence doesn't matter a ton, as long as it's not a smoking gun bit of evidence. There's a lot of evidence one can provide that I've been replied to with, "Well, maybe that's true, but in the end I think just don't believe the overall conclusion is true and/or I still think I'll be proven right in the end." A lot of stuff along the lines of "No, i don't understand why what you're saying seems to true, but I have faith it's not right."

Different priorities/standards of criteria.

It's values-based.

Yes. The evidence does not substantiate the literal truth of many religious claims, but objective substantiation is not needed for faith. That is why it is faith, and not proof. IME the real truth in most religious traditions is figurative and subjective, much like the lessons of Aesop. It does not matter if there really was a tortoise and a hare.

 

[Octarine]

It is worth noting also that sources like the Bible can be interpreted in many ways, some literal, some figurative.

I agree. But a figurative interpretation is incompatible with the orthodox teachings of many religions, including Islam and Christianity.
It may however be the case that these teachings are changing due to the pervasiveness of modern scientific findings in disputing biblical inerrancy.

 

[Eric B]

I dont understand the high and low church distinctions, are those distinctions between the established churches, originally the Church of England, Church of Scotland and Church of Ireland and the various protestants or dissenters?

High church is liturgical and very hierarchical and creedal. Low Church is more independent, less creedal or truly "sola-scriptura" (high Protestants use that term, but in practice frown upon ignoring the creeds), and regard baptism and communion as symbolic "ordinances" rather than "sacraments".

Those Churches you mentioned are all "high".
(I just last night looked up the difference between the two main "Calvinist" bodies, "Reformed" and "Presbyterian" and saw that Presbyterian came from the Church of Scotland). Low churches are like Baptist, Methodist, independents, etc. and most of the other American bred groups.

I have read books where high church advocates blame all the problems of the modern church (including the forever increasing schism) on the "independent spirit" of the low church (no creeds, no central authority, etc), and associate it with the American principles of democracy and the frontier. They have a good point there, but they also ignore that this splintering often begins when those high church sytems go corrupt. (Why there was a Reformation needed in the first place).

 

[Lark]

I agree. But a figurative interpretation is incompatible with the orthodox teachings of many religions, including Islam and Christianity.

Really? Have you read a Catholic Community Bible with scholarly accompanying script lately? You cant have if you believe this.

It may however be the case that these teachings are changing due to the pervasiveness of modern scientific findings in disputing biblical inerrancy.

Or, you know, it may not.

 

[Lark]

I have read books where high church advocates blame all the problems of the modern church (including the forever increasing schism) on the "independent spirit" of the low church (no creeds, no central authority, etc), and associate it with the American principles of democracy and the frontier. They have a good point there, but they also ignore that this splintering often begins when those high church sytems go corrupt. (Why there was a Reformation needed in the first place).

Interesting, I wouldnt blame independence of spirit per se, or American principles such as frontier democracy, those things where exports and Burke associates democracy not with political revolution but norms derived from the refomed churches.

In the UK at least I see the splits as a consequence of more radical and splinter groups not caring about traditions or norms, wether they are corrupt or not, and more favourable to fashions and vogues, particularly cultural ones, such as affirming homosexuality, disdain for the family life, intergenerational strife etc.

I personally dont think there was a reformation required, I think the schismatic fragmentation and then the rise of protestantism were European tragedies which were not repeated in the same fashion in other cultures.

There were corrections and adjustments carrying on a pace within the hierarchy of the church, Erasmus and others were leading it and it provided a version of Christianity, if you consider the discourses on free will, which is at once more modern but not positively modernist, its a paragon of a sort of reflective conservationism.

Unfortunately Luther et al didnt see it that way and often unleashed forces they couldnt contain, Luther's horror at the German Peasant war and eventual alliance with the principalities in an authoritarian attempt to end it all by force should have been a forewarning to the revolutionaries political, social, other, which followed in his stead. He was even horrified at Calvin's Geneva's attempts to out do the Inquisition in persecuting dissidents if I'm not wrong.

I'm sure that the ultimate goals of Luther et al were fine, as are the goals of pretty much all revolutionaries, all those seeking change for the better, but it had terrible and foreseeable consequences when translated into action.