A Natural 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: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Tue Oct 18, 2016 7:26 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Note for simplicity I stated "say 1000 elements." It just for example, I could have stated 'x elements.' By 'elements' I meant the smallest components within the proton, i.e quarks, gluons and other particles, etc.

As I said, for your own sake, you really should avoid the subject of physics.
You should get an education on philosophy. I admit I am not an expert in Physics but I am not wrong in principle that each phase of the physical world is made up of smaller parts which are not permanent, i.e. never change.

It is your lack of education in philosophy that is leading you into making absurd assertions concerning physics.

Just as water is defined as H2O within science, ALL "particles" are defined as to their exact size, shape, and make up. If their make up changes, they are no longer what they were. And if the particles within water change, it becomes a special kind of water, given a different name, such as deuterium.

      The Law of Identity: A is A
- The most classical assertion within all philosophy of logic, without which there can be no mind at all. Science cannot deny it and remain science.

What is "changing" within particles is exchanging, as in Theseus' Ship. The over all make up doesn't change at all other than minuscule variation in size dependent upon their environment.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24866
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:28 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Note for simplicity I stated "say 1000 elements." It just for example, I could have stated 'x elements.' By 'elements' I meant the smallest components within the proton, i.e quarks, gluons and other particles, etc.

As I said, for your own sake, you really should avoid the subject of physics.
You should get an education on philosophy. I admit I am not an expert in Physics but I am not wrong in principle that each phase of the physical world is made up of smaller parts which are not permanent, i.e. never change.

It is your lack of education in philosophy that is leading you into making absurd assertions concerning physics.

Just as water is defined as H2O within science, ALL "particles" are defined as to their exact size, shape, and make up. If their make up changes, they are no longer what they were. And if the particles within water change, it becomes a special kind of water, given a different name, such as deuterium.

      The Law of Identity: A is A
- The most classical assertion within all philosophy of logic, without which there can be no mind at all. Science cannot deny it and remain science.

What is "changing" within particles is exchanging, as in Theseus' Ship. The over all make up doesn't change at all other than minuscule variation in size dependent upon their environment.
If you shit at t1, then you are a different person in terms of composition at t2, does that mean you are a different James S Saint in general?

What you have failed to understand there are different perspectives to the same thing.
While there is same "you" in one sense [sense X], in reality there is a different you at t1, t2, t3, etc. [sense Y].
The fact is sense Y [specific and detailed] is is more realistic than sense X [general].
Note Heraclitus,

In general we always refer to the Nile as if it is the same river all the time, but in reality it is never the same river.

The fact is the state of an atom [in term of particles, etc.] (sense Y) within a permanent H2O combination of molecular structure [sense X] is never permanent.

The Law of Identity: A is A is only applicable to things within the same sense and same time. Again you failed on this.

Water at the level of the molecular sense is not the same at the sub-particle sense, therefore the Law of Identity: A is A and Law of non-contradiction do not apply.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:24 pm

If you shit at t1, then you are a different person in terms of composition at t2, does that mean you are a different James S Saint in general?

What you have failed to understand there are different perspectives to the same thing.
While there is same "you" in one sense [sense X], in reality there is a different you at t1, t2, t3, etc. [sense Y].
The fact is sense Y [specific and detailed] is is more realistic than sense X [general].
Note Heraclitus,

No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus


In general we always refer to the Nile as if it is the same river all the time, but in reality it is never the same river.

The fact is the state of an atom [in term of particles, etc.] (sense Y) within a permanent H2O combination of molecular structure [sense X] is never permanent.
I already told you that this philosophical perspective would make science impossible. There would be no point to doing experiments because the results would only be valid for that one particular time and place. There would be no point to developing theories because they would only be applicable once.

In general, it would be impossible to use experience for any purpose. One could not define words or be able to think. One would not be able to determine what is food and what is poison. One would not be able to make any decision.

All would be chaos. Life would be impossible.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:41 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:If you shit at t1, then you are a different person in terms of composition at t2, does that mean you are a different James S Saint in general?

What you have failed to understand there are different perspectives to the same thing.
While there is same "you" in one sense [sense X], in reality there is a different you at t1, t2, t3, etc. [sense Y].
The fact is sense Y [specific and detailed] is is more realistic than sense X [general].

So you are naive to the Ship of Theseus as well.
Prismatic567 wrote:Note Heraclitus,

In general we always refer to the Nile as if it is the same river all the time, but in reality it is never the same river.

The fact is the state of an atom [in term of particles, etc.] (sense Y) within a permanent H2O combination of molecular structure [sense X] is never permanent.

The Law of Identity: A is A is only applicable to things within the same sense and same time. Again you failed on this.

Water at the level of the molecular sense is not the same at the sub-particle sense, therefore the Law of Identity: A is A and Law of non-contradiction do not apply.

BS.

What the Ship of Theseus reveals is that our words and names are not the things in themselves, but identifying labels that we choose to apply as our need dictates.

The Nile river is always the Nile river because the river is defined as the flow of water at that location between those general points. There is nothing about the definition requiring particular water molecules. There only need be "some water flowing" for it to be a river.

Similar with Heraclitus' man and the Ship of Theseus. The same applies to any particular H2O molecule, to any bucket of water, as well as to every particle and object ever named. It is the pattern that is named, not necessarily all "elements" within.

ALL names are category and pattern labels identifying whatever their definition has specified. The specification for James S Saint does not indicate or require that each molecule be the same from moment to moment, but rather that there be a reasonable continuum of any changing or exchanging and that after the change, there is no significant difference to our concerns. So we can validly say that it is the same James S Saint, H2O, River, Man, or Ship because our definitions for our words, labels, and names allow for insignificant changes and exchanges.

As I said, it is your lack of philosophical education that is leading you into making ridiculous assertions (then followed by even more).

You wish to replace all existing religions with your own, yet obviously haven't a clue as to the real situation or need.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24866
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Thu Oct 20, 2016 4:21 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:If you shit at t1, then you are a different person in terms of composition at t2, does that mean you are a different James S Saint in general?

What you have failed to understand there are different perspectives to the same thing.
While there is same "you" in one sense [sense X], in reality there is a different you at t1, t2, t3, etc. [sense Y].
The fact is sense Y [specific and detailed] is is more realistic than sense X [general].

So you are naive to the Ship of Theseus as well.
Prismatic567 wrote:Note Heraclitus,

In general we always refer to the Nile as if it is the same river all the time, but in reality it is never the same river.

The fact is the state of an atom [in term of particles, etc.] (sense Y) within a permanent H2O combination of molecular structure [sense X] is never permanent.

The Law of Identity: A is A is only applicable to things within the same sense and same time. Again you failed on this.

Water at the level of the molecular sense is not the same at the sub-particle sense, therefore the Law of Identity: A is A and Law of non-contradiction do not apply.

BS.

What the Ship of Theseus reveals is that our words and names are not the things in themselves, but identifying labels that we choose to apply as our need dictates.

The Nile river is always the Nile river because the river is defined as the flow of water at that location between those general points. There is nothing about the definition requiring particular water molecules. There only need be "some water flowing" for it to be a river.

Similar with Heraclitus' man and the Ship of Theseus. The same applies to any particular H2O molecule, to any bucket of water, as well as to every particle and object ever named. It is the pattern that is named, not necessarily all "elements" within.

ALL names are category and pattern labels identifying whatever their definition has specified. The specification for James S Saint does not indicate or require that each molecule be the same from moment to moment, but rather that there be a reasonable continuum of any changing or exchanging and that after the change, there is no significant difference to our concerns. So we can validly say that it is the same James S Saint, H2O, River, Man, or Ship because our definitions for our words, labels, and names allow for insignificant changes and exchanges.

As I said, it is your lack of philosophical education that is leading you into making ridiculous assertions (then followed by even more).

You wish to replace all existing religions with your own, yet obviously haven't a clue as to the real situation or need.
Your views above are shallow and narrow which are based on ignorance of higher philosophical deliberations.

Note I mentioned 'senses' or 'perspectives' and you are totally blur on this critical matter. Can't see that 500 pound gorilla?

What you have argued and presented based on the 'Ship of Theseus' thought experiment is based on the common sense [vulgar] and conventional perspective which is very basic.

There are many perspectives to reality but you are only capable of dealing with the vulgar [common sense] and conventional perspectives. Why? There is a psychological reason for that.

In the above you are merely playing the 'language game' [Wittgenstein] and not dealing with reality [emergence not the thing-in-itself.]

The only constant is change.
If you view at any thing in terms of the highest precision of reality, that thing-X is a different thing at every nano-second. e.g.

For the same thing at the conventional perspective, say a cup of water of H20 molecules.
At minute t1, that cup of water has 1,000,000 H20 molecules [say]
Let say, we add another 200,000 h20 molecules every minute.
At minute t2, that cup of water has 1,200,000 H20 molecules
At minute t3, that cup of water has 1,400,000 H20 molecules
At minute t4, that cup of water has 1,600,000 H20 molecules
At minute t5, that cup of water has 1,800,000 H20 molecules

Now what you see is the 'same' cup of water in the common sense and conventional sense, but in terms of the number of h2o molecules and mathematics how can you insist 1,000,000 H20 molecules is the same as 1,200,000 H20 molecules, is the same as 1,400,000 H20 molecules, the same as 1,600,000 H20 molecules?

At the higher level of precision, even at micro-changes at nano-second of any thing within a thing, it it a different thing, A [was at t1] is not A [was was at t1] anymore, rather it is now A++ [as at t2]

The above higher precision perspective is applicable to 'Ship of Theseus' and similar examples, the 'Ship of Thesus' is the same ship in the common vulgar and conventional sense BUT from a more higher and realistic perception, it is a different ship in terms of materials, molecular structures, mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, time [t1, t2,] etc.
If a virus can talk, it will tell you it is a different ship in terms of the virus and various perspective.
Are you fearful of reality that you want to be an ostrich to avoid the higher perspectives of reality?

As I said, it is your lack of philosophical education that is leading you into making ridiculous assertions (then followed by even more).
You wish to replace all existing religions with your own, yet obviously haven't a clue as to the real situation or need.
Don't jump to conclusion too fast as in the above you are describing yourself.
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Thu Oct 20, 2016 10:05 am

Prismatic567 wrote:Your views above are shallow and narrow which are based on ignorance of higher philosophical deliberations.

Note I mentioned 'senses' or 'perspectives' and you are totally blur on this critical matter. Can't see that 500 pound gorilla?

What you have argued and presented based on the 'Ship of Theseus' thought experiment is based on the common sense [vulgar] and conventional perspective which is very basic.

There are many perspectives to reality but you are only capable of dealing with the vulgar [common sense] and conventional perspectives. Why? There is a psychological reason for that.

In the above you are merely playing the 'language game' [Wittgenstein] and not dealing with reality [emergence not the thing-in-itself.]

You really should do something about your habit of talking to yourself so negatively.

Prismatic567 wrote:The only constant is change.

.. and your attitude.

That is a ridiculous assertion that was given in hyperbole so as to emphasize a point and persuade more change (into socialism). It was never entirely true.

Prismatic567 wrote:If you view at any thing in terms of the highest precision of reality, that thing-X is a different thing at every nano-second. e.g.

For the same thing at the conventional perspective, say a cup of water of H20 molecules.
At minute t1, that cup of water has 1,000,000 H20 molecules [say]
Let say, we add another 200,000 h20 molecules every minute.
At minute t2, that cup of water has 1,200,000 H20 molecules
At minute t3, that cup of water has 1,400,000 H20 molecules
At minute t4, that cup of water has 1,600,000 H20 molecules
At minute t5, that cup of water has 1,800,000 H20 molecules

Now what you see is the 'same' cup of water in the common sense and conventional sense, but in terms of the number of h2o molecules and mathematics how can you insist 1,000,000 H20 molecules is the same as 1,200,000 H20 molecules, is the same as 1,400,000 H20 molecules, the same as 1,600,000 H20 molecules?

At the higher level of precision, even at micro-changes at nano-second of any thing within a thing, it it a different thing, A [was at t1] is not A [was was at t1] anymore, rather it is now A++ [as at t2]

The above higher precision perspective is applicable to 'Ship of Theseus' and similar examples, the 'Ship of Thesus' is the same ship in the common vulgar and conventional sense BUT from a more higher and realistic perception, it is a different ship in terms of materials, molecular structures, mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, time [t1, t2,] etc.
If a virus can talk, it will tell you it is a different ship in terms of the virus and various perspective.
Are you fearful of reality that you want to be an ostrich to avoid the higher perspectives of reality?

So you really are just too simple minded, "vulgar", to see how your language works. Why am I not surprised. You probably should investigate the word "sophomoric" as well as "arrogant", and "narcissistic".
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24866
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Prismatic567 » Fri Oct 21, 2016 5:13 am

James S Saint wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:Your views above are shallow and narrow which are based on ignorance of higher philosophical deliberations.

Note I mentioned 'senses' or 'perspectives' and you are totally blur on this critical matter. Can't see that 500 pound gorilla?

What you have argued and presented based on the 'Ship of Theseus' thought experiment is based on the common sense [vulgar] and conventional perspective which is very basic.

There are many perspectives to reality but you are only capable of dealing with the vulgar [common sense] and conventional perspectives. Why? There is a psychological reason for that.

In the above you are merely playing the 'language game' [Wittgenstein] and not dealing with reality [emergence not the thing-in-itself.]

You really should do something about your habit of talking to yourself so negatively.

Prismatic567 wrote:The only constant is change.

.. and your attitude.

That is a ridiculous assertion that was given in hyperbole so as to emphasize a point and persuade more change (into socialism). It was never entirely true.

Prismatic567 wrote:If you view at any thing in terms of the highest precision of reality, that thing-X is a different thing at every nano-second. e.g.

For the same thing at the conventional perspective, say a cup of water of H20 molecules.
At minute t1, that cup of water has 1,000,000 H20 molecules [say]
Let say, we add another 200,000 h20 molecules every minute.
At minute t2, that cup of water has 1,200,000 H20 molecules
At minute t3, that cup of water has 1,400,000 H20 molecules
At minute t4, that cup of water has 1,600,000 H20 molecules
At minute t5, that cup of water has 1,800,000 H20 molecules

Now what you see is the 'same' cup of water in the common sense and conventional sense, but in terms of the number of h2o molecules and mathematics how can you insist 1,000,000 H20 molecules is the same as 1,200,000 H20 molecules, is the same as 1,400,000 H20 molecules, the same as 1,600,000 H20 molecules?

At the higher level of precision, even at micro-changes at nano-second of any thing within a thing, it it a different thing, A [was at t1] is not A [was was at t1] anymore, rather it is now A++ [as at t2]

The above higher precision perspective is applicable to 'Ship of Theseus' and similar examples, the 'Ship of Thesus' is the same ship in the common vulgar and conventional sense BUT from a more higher and realistic perception, it is a different ship in terms of materials, molecular structures, mathematics, chemistry, physics, biology, time [t1, t2,] etc.
If a virus can talk, it will tell you it is a different ship in terms of the virus and various perspective.
Are you fearful of reality that you want to be an ostrich to avoid the higher perspectives of reality?

So you really are just too simple minded, "vulgar", to see how your language works. Why am I not surprised. You probably should investigate the word "sophomoric" as well as "arrogant", and "narcissistic".
When it comes to philosophy we have to present arguments to support one's view. There is no arrogance when I present what is truth as supported by various arguments.

On the other hand you are merely snarking and sniping at others as a fangless cobra without any substantive arguments at all.
Is 1,000,000 H20 molecules the same as 1,200,000 H20 molecules?
I am a progressive human being, a World Citizen, NOT-a-theist and not religious.
Prismatic567
Thinker
 
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 4:35 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Fri Oct 21, 2016 7:37 am

Prismatic567 wrote:When it comes to philosophy we have to present arguments to support one's view. There is no arrogance when I present what is truth as supported by various arguments.

Your form of "argument" is, "This is the way it is and if you can't see it, you are naive, too shallow, and narrow minded .. and need to think out of the box .. and read 100 books or more." :icon-rolleyes:

Prismatic567 wrote:Is 1,000,000 H20 molecules the same as 1,200,000 H20 molecules?

As explained in detail earlier .. an irrelevant question.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24866
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Oct 21, 2016 1:48 pm

Is there any way we can steer these arguments back to the possibility of having a natural religion?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12227
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Fri Oct 21, 2016 3:09 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Is there any way we can steer these arguments back to the possibility of having a natural religion?

Endless argumentation is a primary cause of religion. :wink:

"No, it isn't"
"Yes, it is."
No, it ISN'T"
YES, it IS!"
.

.
.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24866
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Ierrellus » Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:29 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:Is there any way we can steer these arguments back to the possibility of having a natural religion?

Endless argumentation is a primary cause of religion. :wink:

"No, it isn't"
"Yes, it is."
No, it ISN'T"
YES, it IS!"
.

.
.

Then tell me how Heraclitus' river or Theseus' ship are topics that further a discussion about natural religion.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12227
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:06 pm

Then tell me how Heraclitus' river or Theseus' ship are topics that further a discussion about natural religion.
If there is no permanence then there is no basis for natural religion (or much of anything else). Language requires that words have meaning for more than a few seconds. A river is a river as long a quantity of water flows - perhaps tens of thousands of years. Theseus' ship is his ship as long as the structure is maintained - perhaps hundreds of years.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby James S Saint » Sat Oct 22, 2016 3:14 pm

Ierrellus wrote:Then tell me how Heraclitus' river or Theseus' ship are topics that further a discussion about natural religion.

The word "Ah-dam" means "the damming up of the loose spirit". Endless argumentation is a type of "loose spirit", unrestrained, undisciplined, anti-progressive.

All joy is founded in the sensation of progress toward an inner held hope. When there is nothing but chaotic, endless conflict, there is very little, if any, perception of progress or of hope and thus minimum joy.

Ahdam was created, not by conflict, but by agreement - saving from the conflict, Yeshua. When he said that he was there in the beginning, he wasn't lying.

But to establish the agreeing that saves from the chaos (aka "Shiva"), life must realize the need for agreement. And that is most instinctively accomplished through the experience and perception of the threat of disagreement, conflict, chaos, shiva, the Devil. The perception of threat leads to the pursuit of hope. The very deeply established pursuit of hope, is what forms religion (the maintaining/binding of the gathering/legion/union).

"To stop all of this endless bickering, let's all agree upon ...."

It's a natural response in defense of a natural occurrence in human interaction.

Related enough? 8)
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 24866
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:38 pm

Perhaps seeking an end to the "endless" disputes would be like asking for an end of all change, when some change may be beneficial to one or all. A naturalistic religion would probably include all changes noted in scientific prognostications about future events. It could not die with dogma, which is the ailment of current world religions. It would accept change as human growth and development within the ecosystems that continue to sustain us. In short it would be concerned with eugenics and ecosystems.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12227
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:43 pm

It would accept change as human growth and development within the ecosystems that continue to sustain us.
When is 'change' growth and development, and when is it counterproductive or gratuitous?
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:57 pm

Prismatic567 wrote:wot condensed
Ship. Theseus.

James S Saint wrote:wot condensed
Ideas. Labels.


Ok look. James wins, cause, when you zoom onto a River at the molecular level, it is no longer Identified as a river. It is just a bunch of spheres.
So at the Zoom level of a river being a river, The river maintains a consistent identity within it's word paramaters.
Zooming in the River Nile, to where you only see spheres, it is no longer the River nile.
James wins, Prismatic loses.
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
the Grandmother.
 
Posts: 7753
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:00 pm

phyllo wrote:
It would accept change as human growth and development within the ecosystems that continue to sustain us.
When is 'change' growth and development, and when is it counterproductive or gratuitous?

Doesn't science daily deal with such distinctions?
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12227
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:08 pm

Doesn't science daily deal with such distinctions?
No. Science only say that something happens a certain way. It doesn't say if it is good or bad. Which is why you can kill millions of people with the science of a nuclear fission or you can heat and light their homes and keep them alive.
Science does not say if a country should change from a monarchy, to a republic, to a dictatorship.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:21 pm

phyllo wrote:
Doesn't science daily deal with such distinctions?
No. Science only say that something happens a certain way. It doesn't say if it is good or bad. Which is why you can kill millions of people with the science of a nuclear fission or you can heat and light their homes and keep them alive.
Science does not say if a country should change from a monarchy, to a republic, to a dictatorship.

A natural religion would ask of science that it relinquish its amoral stance about the consequences of events science causes. It could no longer pretend to be the innocent bystander or the toddler in a room with a loaded gun.
Should no scientists have a conscience?
Last edited by Ierrellus on Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12227
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby phyllo » Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:25 pm

A natural religion would ask of science that it relinquish its amoral stance about the consequences of events science causes. It could no longer pretend to be the innocent bystander or the toddler in a room with a loaded gun.
But how can it do that if morality cannot be measured? Science depends on measurement of quantities.
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 9696
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Ierrellus » Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:27 pm

phyllo wrote:
A natural religion would ask of science that it relinquish its amoral stance about the consequences of events science causes. It could no longer pretend to be the innocent bystander or the toddler in a room with a loaded gun.
But how can it do that if morality cannot be measured? Science depends on measurement of quantities.

I'd say morality can be measured. It can be the measure of well-being given to living beings.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12227
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:12 am

Ierrellus wrote:Recently I have sent away for Julian Huxleys Religion Without Revelation which proposes a natural religion while opposing those
of a supernatural persuasion. While waiting that book I would be interested in your ideas of what a natural religion might entail

Meditation
Utilitarianism
Morally Defensible Capitalism
The Protection Of Free Speech
An Equality With Other Species
The Concept Of Personal Responsibility
Altruism [ Both Reciprocal And Non Reciprocal ]
The Promotion Of Collectivism Over Individualism
Space Exploration With Regard To Finding A Second Earth
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:19 am

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
when you zoom onto a River at the molecular level it is no longer Identified as a river. It is just a bunch
of spheres. So at the zoom level of a river being a river the river maintains a consistent identity within
its word parameters. Zooming in the River Nile to where you only see spheres it is no longer the River Nile

You are absolutely right and very perceptive too as not everyone would actually get this so well done you
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby surreptitious57 » Sun Nov 13, 2016 10:28 am

Ierrellus wrote:
A natural religion would ask of science that it relinquish its amoral stance

Morality cannot be measured by science and it is wrong to think that it can
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious57
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1767
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2015 2:05 am

Re: A Natural Religion

Postby Ierrellus » Sun Nov 13, 2016 3:30 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Ierrellus wrote:
A natural religion would ask of science that it relinquish its amoral stance

Morality cannot be measured by science and it is wrong to think that it can

In what way wrong? J. Huxley believed that the scientific method for addressing claims about physical realities could be used to justify religious claims.
"We must love one another or die." W.H.Auden
I admit I'm an asshole. Now, can we get back to the conversation?
From the mad poet of McKinley Ave.
Ierrellus
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12227
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 12:52 pm
Location: state of evolving

PreviousNext

Return to Religion and Spirituality



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users