on discussing god and religion

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

Moderator: Dan~

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Mon May 28, 2018 10:15 pm

iambiguous wrote:Consider this practice among particular Amish communities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa

Now, I'm not really at all familiar with how this works "in reality", but it is certainly going in the right direction in regards to children. You show them your way and you defend it. But you let them challenge it...even to the point of going out into the world and seeing how others choose to live.

Then they make a more informed decision regarding which direction they want to go.
Eexcept these youths go out and go from very clear guidelines and very low stimuli to highly manipulative environments of which they have no experience, no knowledge of how to manage drugs, alcohol, sex - set boundaries, see warning signs of abusers, have social circles that know how to see warning signs of problems, parents to give emotional feedback to the crises that arise and so on. I do not think the Amish elders are rubbing their hands in Machievellian glee, but the truth is most of the youths come back precisely because it is not a realistic way to experience new things. It is tossing them in the deep end when they have never waded. They do this without the support of elders. Throw your kid in the ocean without ever giving them swimming lessons and that kid will stand a good chance of developing a phobia.

I see it as a very clever way to make it seem like the Anglish have a sick culture. Which they do. All cultures are sick or perhaps better put dangerous. And you are damn well going to feel sick and aweful in most cases if you have no orientation, no guidance, total freedom with things you have never experienced before, and vultures and parasites in that other cultures well aware of your naivte, lack of boundaries, etc.

To send you girls out like that is basically setting them for a very high liklihood of date rape or worse. The boys also run a set of serious risks. Of course most come crawling back into mommy and daddy's arms and think that other culture is fucking nuts.

It's a fake test.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Thu May 31, 2018 6:21 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Consider this practice among particular Amish communities: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa

Now, I'm not really at all familiar with how this works "in reality", but it is certainly going in the right direction in regards to children. You show them your way and you defend it. But you let them challenge it...even to the point of going out into the world and seeing how others choose to live.

Then they make a more informed decision regarding which direction they want to go.


Eexcept these youths go out and go from very clear guidelines and very low stimuli to highly manipulative environments of which they have no experience, no knowledge of how to manage drugs, alcohol, sex - set boundaries, see warning signs of abusers, have social circles that know how to see warning signs of problems, parents to give emotional feedback to the crises that arise and so on. I do not think the Amish elders are rubbing their hands in Machievellian glee, but the truth is most of the youths come back precisely because it is not a realistic way to experience new things. It is tossing them in the deep end when they have never waded. They do this without the support of elders. Throw your kid in the ocean without ever giving them swimming lessons and that kid will stand a good chance of developing a phobia.

I see it as a very clever way to make it seem like the Anglish have a sick culture. Which they do. All cultures are sick or perhaps better put dangerous. And you are damn well going to feel sick and aweful in most cases if you have no orientation, no guidance, total freedom with things you have never experienced before, and vultures and parasites in that other cultures well aware of your naivte, lack of boundaries, etc.


Still, the narrative there is not all that far removed from the narrative here:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=179469&p=2333208&hilit=witness#p2333208

That any children John Book might bring into the world will have a better chance at either surviving or even flourishing in the modern world, doesn't change the part about the psychological foundations built right into objectivist religious dogmas.

His children will quite clearly be better acclimated to the postmodern mishmash of hopelessly conflicting narratives. But they still pay the price of living in a world that they construe [if they are a chip off Book's cynical block] to be essentially meaningless. And one that ends for all of eternity in oblivion.

The conflict here is still between the comfort and the consolation rooted in religion [on either side of the grave] and the many more options -- the "freedom" -- available to those who reject religion.

Still, the Amish are no more able to actually demonstrate the existence of their God than the atheists are able to demonstrate that we live in a No God World.

But: How would the choice that any one particular individual might make here [child or adult] not be profoundly embodied in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein?
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25089
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby Karpel Tunnel » Fri Jun 01, 2018 7:30 am

iambiguous wrote:Still, the narrative there is not all that far removed from the narrative here:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=179469&p=2333208&hilit=witness#p2333208

That any children John Book might bring into the world will have a better chance at either surviving or even flourishing in the modern world, doesn't change the part about the psychological foundations built right into objectivist religious dogmas.


OK. Let's look at the context. You make a value judgment, see your post above that I quote in my previous post, that the Amish are going in the right direction with rumspringa. (see there you are, making value judgments like all the objectivists, but that's not a problem with you as a dialogue partner, which is what I want to focus on). I point out the serious problems with what you consider 'the right direction'. It's is not a real allowing of freedom or exploring, it is in fact careless parenting, putting your children in harm's way and precisely not a process that allows exploration in a way most children can integrate. It does not allow an integratable experience of another way of living. Each culture includes mechanisms that protect people - to varying degrees - from the excesses or dangers of that culture. With NONE of these the dangers have no checks and balances. It's a rigged test. A fake test. Not an exploration of what it is to live in another culture. But in fact a process almost guaranteeing a return or at least a dangerous, likely in many ways unpleasant experience.

Instead of dealing with your value judgment in the context of my counterarguments that it might not be a right direction - Good, positive, moral, ethical - you shift to your criticism of objectivist postions, here religious ones.

You finish with:

But: How would the choice that any one particular individual might make here [child or adult] not be profoundly embodied in the manner in which I construe the meaning of dasein?
[/quote][/quote]
Note how we return to binary.

You make an value judgment evaluation of a process - rumspringa - that it is in the right direction. IOW not best practice, not without problems, but better than not doing this perhaps. Somewhere on a scale of good/bad as evaluated by you.

This meets my argument - well done or not - that this is actually not a good or even better process, but one designed to lead to failure and unpleasance.

You do not even acknowledge this questioning of your value judgment - iow you do not respond to my post - but simply drop back again into your binary value judgment - which includes that you have no way to evaluate, though you just did - and go on to talk about your issues, in part of the ad naseum - to use an adverb as a noun, which your approach has earned.

This is not a unique pattern on your part. It comes off as 'you have a value judgment of objectivists'. That because they are objectivists they are less likely to follow moderation, compromise, etc., which is the most morally acceptable position, given the problems of knowing what is objectively moral. You saw the Amish as, with Rumspringa, to that extant and on that issue, have a more moderate, exploratory option for their children. That is one that fits with what you consider the Good approach to human relations.

Now of course you do not couch this whole agenda with the moral judgments openly placed. They are implicit. But who cares about the hypocrisy implicit. Seriously, who cares.

The problem is the solipsism.
Karpel Tunnel
Thinker
 
Posts: 562
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:26 pm

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Sun Jun 03, 2018 9:21 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Still, the narrative there is not all that far removed from the narrative here:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=179469&p=2333208&hilit=witness#p2333208

That any children John Book might bring into the world will have a better chance at either surviving or even flourishing in the modern world, doesn't change the part about the psychological foundations built right into objectivist religious dogmas.


OK. Let's look at the context. You make a value judgment, see your post above that I quote in my previous post, that the Amish are going in the right direction with rumspringa. (see there you are, making value judgments like all the objectivists, but that's not a problem with you as a dialogue partner, which is what I want to focus on). I point out the serious problems with what you consider 'the right direction'.


Again and again and again: If we choose to interact with others -- either online or offline -- we can expect others to react to our own reaction to human behaviors. My point is that my basically positive reaction to this Amish practice is rooted in dasein. Just as your basically negative reaction to my reaction is in turn.

In other words, where are the theologians or the philosophers or the ethicists able to demonstrate that this practice either is or is not in fact the "right thing to do"?

Instead, as with other "conflicting goods", we have reasonable arguments that can be made from both sides, arguments that are able to be deflected in some respects, but not made to go away entirely.

That is always my point here.

The objectivists among us are those who [in my view] insist that their value judgments reflect the optimal or the only rational [virtuous] point of view. And they predicate this assumption on God or reason or deontology or political ideology or on one or another rendition of what it is "natural" to do.

And this thread was created in order to explore with zinnat13 the manner in which religious folks might connect the dots between what they construe to be moral behavior on this side of the grave and what they construe to be their fate on the other side.

Also, for those who are not religious, the manner in which they configure "I" in their head in those contexts in which they must choose particular behaviors deemed by them "here and now" to be the "right thing to do".

How exactly does that work for them when they are entangled with others in one or another moral or political confrontation? How are they not in the hole that "I" am in then?

Karpel Tunnel wrote: Each culture includes mechanisms that protect people - to varying degrees - from the excesses or dangers of that culture. With NONE of these the dangers have no checks and balances. It's a rigged test. A fake test. Not an exploration of what it is to live in another culture. But in fact a process almost guaranteeing a return or at least a dangerous, likely in many ways unpleasant experience.


Sure, for all practical purposes, I agree with this. But that doesn't mean that the test can't be reconfigured to minimize these objections.

We are still back to the point being made in Witness: that religious societies [in sync with God] embody human interactions that instill considerable comfort and consolation in mere mortals both on this side and the other side of the grave.

In Book's world that is basically missing. But out there he is afforded considerably more options from which to choose. He is "freer". Unless, of course, the No God folks concoct one or another political dogma, deontological intellectual contraption or assessment of Nature in which it is argued that in order to be deemed "one of us" others must toe the line.

Rachel: He's leaving, isn't he?
Eli: Tomorrow morning. He'll need his city clothes.
Rachel: But why? What does he have to go back to?
Eli: He's going back to his world, where he belongs. He knows it, and you know it, too.


How on earth would this exchange not be embodied in dasein?

Or has Eli actually pinned down the Whole Truth here?

My point is only to suggest that our reaction to the film and to Rumspringa are basically the same: existential contraptions. There are facts "in reality" here that we can both agree on as the objective truth. Out in the either/or world. But in shifting gears to our assessments of the facts in the is/ought world, objectivity often gives way to the subjective and the subjunctive.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You make an value judgment evaluation of a process - rumspringa - that it is in the right direction. IOW not best practice, not without problems, but better than not doing this perhaps. Somewhere on a scale of good/bad as evaluated by you.


Until you are able to grapple more effectively with the gap between my assessment of my own value judgments -- as existential contraptions rooted in dasein -- and your assessment of that -- as just another rendition of objectivism -- we are not likely to make much headway.

On the other hand, given the complexity of human psychology in all of this, that really doesn't surprise me. Here "I" is only more or less understood and/or controlled.

Or, sure, until I am able to grapple more effectively with your point here.

Karpel Tunnel wrote: You do not even acknowledge this questioning of your value judgment - iow you do not respond to my post - but simply drop back again into your binary value judgment - which includes that you have no way to evaluate, though you just did - and go on to talk about your issues, in part of the ad naseum - to use an adverb as a noun, which your approach has earned.


From my frame of mind, a "binary" argument here would revolve around value judgments as either wholly embodied in dasein or as wholly embodied philosophically in the epistemological truth. Whereas I have come to see it as a profoundly complex and problematic intertwining of "I" and "we" and "them". Out in particular historical and cultural and experiential contexts. Entwined in both nature and nurture, genes and memes.

And ever evolving existentially in a world bursting at the seams with contingency, chance and change.

And then going all the way back to the explanation for 1] why anything exist at all and 2] why this existence and not another.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25089
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: on discussing god and religion

Postby iambiguous » Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:50 pm

Monotheism has to be connected to development of written language. There are a few theories on how that might have happened. But one theory that I’m exploring advances the idea that it was particularly the adoption of phoenetic alphabet (Phoenician) which facilitated the creation of monotheism, in the Middle East.


This is clearly a relationship that revolves around a sophisticated technical knowledge of human language. How it evolved genetically as a component of the evolution of life on earth and how, given the evolution of culture over the millenia, it evolved memetically to encompass any number of historical contexts.

But I would imagine a factor just as significant is the advent of science.

After all, before science enabled us to understand nature with the level of sophistication we take for granted today, any number of human communities attributed the forces of nature to "the Gods". Gods connected to the Sun and the Moon and the Earth. Gods interwined in the flora and the fauna around which human interactions became so crucial. Gods embedded in the stars and in extraterrestrial phenomena like solar and lunar eclipes, comets and asteroids.

Then one by one these events were explained as "natural phenomena" rooted in the "laws of nature".

But all the science in the world doesn't explain why anything exists at all, or what happens after we die, or how we ought to live our lives from the cradle to the grave.

Instead, that seems to revolve around the fact that our brains have evolved to a point where we can even raise questions like these.

And here a God, the God, our God fits the bill like nothing else.

And the icing on the cake of course is this: that to the extent we can think ourselves into believing in the God, the psychological and emotional components of our lives have something really, really soothing to fall back on.

In other words, whether God does or does not exist, He is almost certainly something that is going to be invented over and over and over again.

And all the more so in a postmodern world where the "meaning of life" has been deconstructed into any number of mere "lifestyles"
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25089
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Previous

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users