Religious Revolution?

For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict.

Moderator: Dan~

Religious Revolution?

Postby Magius » Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:20 am

From the book Brave New World.
"This revolutionary revolution is to be achieved, not in the external world, but in the souls and flesh of human beings."

- and -

"Religion would be the conscious and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End.."

What's your take?
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Njoapte » Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:49 pm

I am afraid I don't know exactly what revolution is being referred to here.

All changes in the overall attitude toward society, life, religion, etc., have come from changes in individual attitude. Why would any future changes be different?

Does "religion" mean spirituality in general? Or an institution of worship?
Njoapte
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:23 pm

Postby Magius » Sat Jan 25, 2003 10:50 pm

Njoapte stated:
All changes in the overall attitude toward society, life, religion, etc., have come from changes in individual attitude. Why would any future changes be different?


No they haven't, some have happened the other way around. Our views didn't make the industrial revolution, the industrial revolution changed our views. What Huxley is proposing, or so I think, is that the greatest of all revolutions will be one that completely changes our way of thinking and our way of behaving. I am in much agreeance with this sentiment.

Njoapte stated:
Does "religion" mean spirituality in general? Or an institution of worship?


I think what Huxley meant by Religion is the conscious and intelligent pursuit of the origins of our mind, which is what makes us different from anything else we know. Too often this pursuit has been quickly and rashly defined as God, moral beliefs, and an obtuse explanation for the origin of all things. So basically, we (human beings) pursued our Final End consciously, but we missed completely the intelligence part of it, which brought the result of egoism, which in turn made us lose site of our Final End and instead we came up with a hog-wash explanation for how the universe came to be and that everything is here for us (Christianity, Judaism, Sikhism, etc).

What's your take?
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Njoapte » Sat Jan 25, 2003 11:45 pm

The industrial revolution started with just one person. Or if you'd rather, a small group of people.

I don't know what would be considered a complete change. This would be a change of what? Of the way people think and behave in the present age? If we went back to a primitive tribal society that would fit the bill, so to speak.

What is the intelligence part of our Final End?
Njoapte
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2003 9:23 pm

Postby Pax Vitae » Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:02 am

Hi Magius,

Religion would be the conscious and intelligent pursuit of man's Final End.."


I agree with you. But I think Religion is the wrong word to describe it. I would say it should more rightly be called, “Philosophy” or a form of philosophy that studies origins of the mind. As people want to find new meaning now that most religions are starting to show their faults and failings. Because if a new religion just swaps one set of superstitions for another, realistically speaking you’ve haven’t made any progress at all.

Religions thrive on superstitious people, but the more educated a person is the less they would normally believe in superstition, as they know about cause and effect and other simple rules in Physics. Science has been killing superstitions over the past couple of hundred years and is going to continue doing so long into the future. It will also have to come up against religion again, as people like Galileo, etc, did in the past. But of course what is being questioned will be different. I would say the next big question to be answered that will affect both Philosophy and Religion is that of Free Will. As Empirical knowledge and its fruit science is based off understanding relationships between objects and explaining this relationship in terms of cause & effect. So it would be natural to assume that any rules that a sub-atomic particle in a ball will follow, will also have to be followed in our brains. Or why should the laws of cause & effect be changed because one objects a brain and the other a ball? While the cause & effect might be more complex in a brain it’s still just cause & effect. It’s like a maths sum: 1 + 1 = 2 is like an easy cause & effect. 2^4 * 2 / 34 * Sin(23) + 3 = 5.408757, while this is a little more complex to workout, if you follow all the rules correctly you will always get the right answer.

I see religion dieing off over the next 300 years or so, as repressive countries become more integrated because of greater access to things like the Internet, books, science, education, etc. The old ways will die off. It will leave a big hole to be filled, and what will fill this hole is “This revolutionary revolution to be achieved, is not in the external world, but in the souls and flesh of human beings,” as now they must explore! No more dogma, finally humanities greatest enemy, bind obedience, will be defeated. Now society will have to make choices about what is right or moral based off logical cogent arguments without deferring their answers to some magical superstition that only reveals itself when it chooses too. People will realise that Morality only works when the laws of the land strictly uphold that code of morality, and these laws will only work if they are moral! So it becomes vital important for the people to understand what is fair to all, is based off what they would have done to themselves. Plus that every choice a society makes will be sent like ripples through its future, for better or worse. Some call it Chaos theory but the effects are still the same. Because in Chaos theory, it only takes one email, to start the chain reaction that will bring about world peace!

But this won’t happen in my lifetime. :(


Pax Vitae
User avatar
Pax Vitae
(Jonathan Wilson)
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 12:44 pm

Postby Magius » Mon Jun 09, 2003 11:11 pm

Pax Vitae stated:
I agree with you. But I think Religion is the wrong word to describe it. I would say it should more rightly be called, “Philosophy” or a form of philosophy that studies origins of the mind.


I couldn't agree more and that's why I gave my interpretation of what I thought Huxley meant by it, instead of letting people assume the usual.

Pax stated:
As people want to find new meaning now that most religions are starting to show their faults and failings. Because if a new religion just swaps one set of superstitions for another, realistically speaking you’ve haven’t made any progress at all.


How true, but yet it works anyway. The prime examples to me are the Qur'an and scientology. Both are fairly new, a few hundred year old religions. New compared to the ancients. I can't believe people will actually follow scientology, some of the things I have read and heard about that religion are just straight out of a comic book. Yet people are devoted, loyal, and implanting the institution with more currency than most popular companies. The Qur'an is more carefully created, using the Bible and Torah as pillars to the newly spawned book and made to sound that God had intended it all along, and that there was a trinity of books prophecized in the Bible. I don't know if you read the Qur'an, I'm about half way through it, but as a disbeliever I would believe the Bible over the Qur'an any day.

Pax stated:
Religions thrive on superstitious people, but the more educated a person is the less they would normally believe in superstition, as they know about cause and effect and other simple rules in Physics.


Although I agree with you in principal, I'm afraid it doesn't always work. I've talked to guy who is a well respected scholar, teacher, scientist, and religious christian guru. He espouses about physics actually proving God, I heard his argument and I wasn't even slightly convinced, but the point is that even the educated get sucked in sometimes.

Pax stated:
Science has been killing superstitions over the past couple of hundred years and is going to continue doing so long into the future. It will also have to come up against religion again, as people like Galileo, etc, did in the past. But of course what is being questioned will be different. I would say the next big question to be answered that will affect both Philosophy and Religion is that of Free Will.


I only hope religions are wiped out, sooner than later. I agree and I think that there will be many Galileo's before any serious diminishing of religions is witnessed. Lastly, I don't think it will be Free Will that is the next big question. It always has been the big question and I think it will remain just that, a question. Many things are being found in the sub-atomic world and the world outside our galaxy in reference to Determinism vs Free Will, but the majority of the findings contradict in terms of Free Will vs Determinism.

Pax stated:
As Empirical knowledge and its fruit science is based off understanding relationships between objects and explaining this relationship in terms of cause & effect. So it would be natural to assume that any rules that a sub-atomic particle in a ball will follow, will also have to be followed in our brains. Or why should the laws of cause & effect be changed because one objects a brain and the other a ball?


Yes it is natural for us to assume that nay rules that a sub-atomic particle in a ball will follow the same rules as our brain and vice-versa. But then there is the idea of <i>emergent properties</i> which are properties that emerge when a level of complexity is reached, without which, the property would not have emerged. You said yourself that brain was more complex:
While the cause & effect might be more complex in a brain it’s still just cause & effect.
Hence, it is possible for a sub-atomic particle to be determined while the mind being free, same vice versa. But if Heizenberg was correct, then we just don't have the access to such knowledge, as we will never know the exact location of an electron around an atom. I think we will, but that's another discussion for another day. Furthermore, an experiment has shown that physicists put an atom in a vacuum where the electron around the atom jumped orbit without any stimulus, giving fuel for free will. But I just think they haven't found what made the electron jump.

Pax stated:
I see religion dieing off over the next 300 years or so, as repressive countries become more integrated because of greater access to things like the Internet, books, science, education, etc. The old ways will die off.


I agree, but the important question is, will there be a new religion that integrates the internet, science, and the future into it and grabs all the neo-disbelievers.

Pax stated:
It will leave a big hole to be filled, and what will fill this hole is “This revolutionary revolution to be achieved, is not in the external world, but in the souls and flesh of human beings,” as now they must explore! No more dogma, finally humanities greatest enemy, bind obedience, will be defeated. Now society will have to make choices about what is right or moral based off logical cogent arguments without deferring their answers to some magical superstition that only reveals itself when it chooses too. People will realise that Morality only works when the laws of the land strictly uphold that code of morality, and these laws will only work if they are moral! So it becomes vital important for the people to understand what is fair to all, is based off what they would have done to themselves. Plus that every choice a society makes will be sent like ripples through its future, for better or worse. Some call it Chaos theory but the effects are still the same. Because in Chaos theory, it only takes one email, to start the chain reaction that will bring about world peace!


*Applaus* Very well said. I agree with almost everything you said above.

Pax Vitae stated:
But this won’t happen in my lifetime.


Hey! All this optimism and then you finish off with this? Come on, where is the hope, strength, vigour, and chivalry? Why not be that first email?

What's your take?
User avatar
Magius
Magnanimous
 
Posts: 1489
Joined: Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:08 am
Location: Ontario, Canada

Postby Pax Vitae » Tue Jun 10, 2003 9:33 pm

Magius wrote:
Pax Vitae wrote:But this won’t happen in my lifetime.

Hey! All this optimism and then you finish off with this? Come on, where is the hope, strength, vigour, and chivalry? Why not be that first email?


I think a change of this magnitude takes generations, rather then years. The brainwashing carried out by our parents is a difficult thing to grow beyond, but not impossible. Most people don’t ask enough questions and at times prefer to defer to some authority figure. I believe it’s only people who turn to philosophy with an open mind and don’t have preconceived ideas about where philosophy will lead them have the hope of becoming freed from their roots.

They say we have freewill, yet things like advertisements do make a difference to the number of sales a product receives. By manipulating peoples beliefs its possible to make them choose certain paths or do things they might not do. This is why manipulative people can be so successful. A certain book says, “Don’t be wise in the ways of evil.” But this is wrong, I believe you must understand how your enemy is fighting if you hope to be able to recognise and defend yourself from the onslaught of there attack (metaphorically speaking). Most people need to be connected to the social system as it’s there life support, without this system they couldn’t cope. It’s like Morpheus said, “We have a rule, once a mind reaches a certain age we don’t free it.”

I see philosophy as a process of taking a hatchet to the system that once gave me life, and now I must live on under my own strength. I know many who have expressed to me that they would find it an unbearable way to live, but that’s because they have faith in a God or believe in the status-quo, which for them is beer, football, women, and don’t ask questions unless it’s related to one of the three aforementioned subjects. So I never try to undermine their beliefs. As for living off Faith, it’s like a drug, once you’ve truly tasted the bliss of faith its something that can never be replaced by anything else. I’ve searched in the tomes of the wise, the myths of ancients, and the bars of party animals, yet nothing can fill the void. To me life is a slow process of decay, until I have my only question answered in the final revelation of death. While this might sound morbid to some to me it’s truth and as such I accept it.

As for the email, I’m still wondering what the right address is? :)
User avatar
Pax Vitae
(Jonathan Wilson)
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 12:44 pm

Postby Matthew E. » Tue Jun 10, 2003 10:09 pm

I see philosophy as a process of taking a hatchet to the system that once gave me life, and now I must live on under my own strength. I know many who have expressed to me that they would find it an unbearable way to live, but that’s because they have faith in a God or believe in the status-quo, which for them is beer, football, women, and don’t ask questions unless it’s related to one of the three aforementioned subjects. So I never try to undermine their beliefs. As for living off Faith, it’s like a drug, once you’ve truly tasted the bliss of faith its something that can never be replaced by anything else. I’ve searched in the tomes of the wise, the myths of ancients, and the bars of party animals, yet nothing can fill the void. To me life is a slow process of decay, until I have my only question answered in the final revelation of death. While this might sound morbid to some to me it’s truth and as such I accept it.


Beautifully said. If its any consolation, you're not alone.

Previously, one of you mentioned that some invention or event will change the course of humanity or- "revolutionize it"- I think is how it was phrased. I agree, and I think this event has already been found; genetic engineering and cloning. I'm not a science fiction novelist, so I won't attempt to explain how... okay, maybe just a little. I think that genetic engineering is the next step in the evolution of man. Instead of allowing nature to decide what we are, we will decide it. Sure there will be the purists that claim "it is against God's will", blah blah blah blah. Those arguments won't last long. The cat's out of the bag. Imagine every child having the intelligence of Einstein, or the traits of Mother Teresa's compassion (if they exist, I don't mean to begin a nature vs. nurture argument). If all people really were created equal, I imagine that we could finally be treated that way.

Anyway, that's just some lofty thinking, I'm curious what any of your thoughts on the matter are.
"Behind every great fortune there is a crime."
- de Balzac

"Give a woman an inch and she thinks she's a ruler."
-Anonymous

"Absence is to love what wind is to fire; it extinguishes the small, it enkindles the great."

- Comte DeBussy-Rabutin

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
-Winston Churchill
Matthew E.
Thinker
 
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2003 1:09 pm
Location: Laguna Beach, California

Postby Pax Vitae » Thu Jun 12, 2003 11:03 pm

I agree that genetic engineering and cloning is already a very contentious issue. Personally the only real problem I have with cloning is that the health of the created child is much more lightly to have complication then one made the old fashioned way. While genetic engineering is a completely different story...

The main reasons against genetic engineering are the usual ones. A more defined two class system of those that are perfect and those that are not. Companies using DNA information to choose employees, who are genetically superior. Insurance agencies charging based off your DNA, the risk assessment will become a science instead of chance. I thought the movie ‘Gattaca’ was very good covering these points. Then there’s the possible that this “enhanced” DNA will become vulnerable to new viruses that required constant medication or treatment. To the pharmaceutical industry, to be able to make life liveable without a cure, i.e. you’ll have to take a drug for the rest of your life if you want to live. So then after a couple of generations we evolve into humans whose immune system no longer works and we require science and the pharmaceutical industry to keep us alive. Nature has already created this balance but with genetics we’ll be upsetting this tried and trusted way to fulfil some short-term goals.

Another thing about intelligences, most that are overly clever can be quite arrogant. This wouldn’t make for a good social life, and what would happen to all those stupid Hollywood movies? Hollywood would never let their mindless slaves be taken away.
User avatar
Pax Vitae
(Jonathan Wilson)
 
Posts: 1012
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 12:44 pm

Postby theoryofexist » Fri Jul 04, 2003 6:46 pm

Yes, but I think the problem is or maybe lack of a problem is that man will probably never reach his final end, whatever that may be.
theoryofexist
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 6:40 pm


Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users