Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Money, sex, and power - what religion is really all about.) You forgot elephants.
kickfight wrote:
Dogma and spirituality are not rooted in the same thing at all. Yes...and no.
Dogma is a belief held by an organization-as-an-entity that its followers accept as a "given". If any religion is based on spirituality AND tells others that certain aspects must be followed in order to be associated with it ("a true christian", "a real baptist", "a faithful moslem", etc.), its dogma is rooted in the same thing.
It may be filtered by higher-ups in the organization with a different agenda than the original spiritual roots, but it's promulgated exactly the same way as other revealed truths are: from on high, and not to be questioned.
As such, dogma is belief-based--a belief in the interpreters / promoters of a given religion--which was, in turn, founded on a spiritual belief.
kickfight wrote:
The 'deep sincerity' and 'faith' of the inquisitors is one of the most inhrently suspect claims in all of recorded history. Their actions are in fact glaring evidence that their adherence to purely dogmatic corruptions of religion were contradictory to the practice of the religion itself. Hardly, given that they were operating under the auspices of the religion itself. They may have been mislead by the church leaders, who may have been distorting The True Meanings, but deep sincerity and faith doesn't require that what is believed is correct.
The Inquisition as we see it today is the example used earlier, but the suicide bombers who do it in the name of christianity (IRA etc) or islam (911 etc) also seem to believe with deep sincerity and faith that their actions were sufficiently correct to give up their lives in the attempt.
Which is how this whole thing started. Blind belief is dangerous--it is dogmatic, both in fact and by definition. Dogmatic faith in evolution is as foolish as dogmatic faith in hell. If there is a basis for the belief, it's not blind. It may still be incorrect, but at least it's not blindly believing something because Someone Said So.
Photographer
Nihilus
Posts: 10888
Nashville, Tennessee, US
kickfight wrote:
I am pointing out how people who choose to ignore the existence of a creative source are intentionally forfeiting an aspect of their complete humanity. You play verbal ping pong with so much topspin as if intentionally trying to misguide the whole crux of the issue.
Your entire point is summarized in the one sentence above. Please enlighten me if your support for this assertion (which you started and made) is composed of anything more than a flaccid concept of what consitutes humanity.
(P.S. None of this has anything to do with the essay I linked to, btw.)
Photographer
Nihilus
Posts: 10888
Nashville, Tennessee, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
I think it's impossible to grow up in a society without encountering situations in which "values" are offered (that's probably not the right word but I don't know a better one) for one's consideration. Regardless of the source of those values, we encounter them and choose to adopt or reject them. The argument lies within the difference of opinion as to whether 'spirituality' (a 'creator/creatrix' complex, in terms of the discussion) is an innate characteristic of humans, as opposed to one wholly perpetuated by nurture and environment.
Body Painter
BodyPainter Rich
Posts: 18107
Sacramento, California, US
Justin wrote:
Because Buddhism, to my understanding, promotes self-enlightenment, you won't see much in the way of religious wars over Buddhism. It's not much of an evangelistic, sanctimonious, "my way or no way" type of religion. In fact, in Japan, a majority of people who admit to religious adherence cheerfully admit to being both Shinto (native animism and rituals) and Buddhist (spiritual philosophy).
Nothing piles up the pages like a good ol' science/religion thread, hey? As I said, I was not sure, but I had a feeling that Buddhist beliefes and Bushido had some connections, and as others have said, there seems to be even "Buddhist Fundamentalist" sects at some point in history causing war and strife. I would agree though, that at the present time, you don't hear of Buddhists causing major violence in many places. People are missing the point of my thread which is that FUNDAMENTALISM is the problem. And Jeff, while I agree that Christianity (Following Christ) is definately a peaceful persuit, many of the current conservative "fundamentalist" Christians I know today spend a heck of a lot of time on O.T. verses dealing with Sodom and Gamorah, gay sex, sparing the rod and spoiling the child, God created the earth in 6 days, the flood was the result of idolaters and so forth and I hear relatively little on "love one another".
There are texts in the Bible that would seem to justify such things as selling your daughters into slavery, stoning your neighbor for planting his crops in a forbidden fashion, and all kinds of things. Do most Christians believe this...no. But a fundamentalist attitude in ANY religion I've ever heard of (perhaps not scientology, but they are still young) generally leads to trouble.
Body Painter
BodyPainter Rich
Posts: 18107
Sacramento, California, US
jeffgreen wrote:
Tim,
re: Your link that you gave on the theory of evolution http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/sectio ⦠theory.asp
"Since mutation is a random process, changes can be either useful, unfavorable, or neutral to the individual's or species' survival. However, a new characteristic that is not detrimental may sometimes better enable the organism to survive or leave offspring in its environment, especially if that environment is changing, or to penetrate a new environmentâsuch as the development of a lunglike structure that enables an aquatic animal to survive on land (see lungfish ), where there may be more food and fewer predators. "
First question is this: Evolutionists, do they believe that all beings are one species? If not, then what I was saying from the beginning is accurate in that evolution teaches that species evolve into other species. Every time I would say that you would tell me that I need to educate myself on what evolution actually is. I knew what it is but went ahead and read the link you gave me and it reenforced my understanding. That is evident by the last sentence I quoted. To grow lungs to survive on land means that an aquatic animal now becomes a land animal thus becoming a different species. How am I incorrect here?
Second question is this: Where are the evolving beings now? Evolution is the gradual, continuous change from existing previous forms. Since it is gradual and positive or negative changes can occur in evolution then there would be some "in between" stages at all times. All things can not evolve at the same time. This would indicate that there would be no "missing link" because somewhere (especially since evolution has been researched for 3 centuries now) there would be an existing "misssing link". As long as we have simple celled organisms we will have them evolving into something else and so on. We SHOULD have fish that walk. We should have different evolved animals, both aquatic and land and air. So the claims of "missing links" (which I *think* has been abandoned now) seem lacking as there should be living evidence especially, as I have said, since scientists have been searching for 3 centuries now!
I guess to answer my first question, I'll quote from the definition of "evolution" from the same site you linked me to:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/e1/evolutio.asp Jeff,
Where are the evolving beings now? They are all around you, they are everywhere.
Did you realize that people are on the average much taller now than they were even a few hundred years ago?
Every organism is a "missing link" because evolution is an ongoing process. A common dolphin is a potential mising link between the ancient archeocetes and whatever it is dolphins might evolve into a million or so years from now. The reason you can't "see" a living "missing link" for what it is, is because you would also have to know what it will become in the future. Science has evolution pretty well figured out, but time travel is still out of reach (and likely to remain so...alas).
There is a reason that all living things are organized into bilateral symmetry, radial symmetry, or no symmetry at all. All creatures that have a left and right side are related to the first creature that accidentaly grew a left and a right side.
There is also DNA evidence. Hear it is REALLY simplified by me, and I could be wrong so if someone can say it better please do...
Humans and chimpanzees look alot alike. Same basic face structure, same basic arms and legs, same basic organs inside. There is a reason that chimps are considered the "best metch" for humans in medical testing. We share about 96-97% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzees, same code in the same order.
We look WAY different from a dog (boxer for instance) but since we are mammals we still share about 5% of our DNA with EXACT duplication. Chances are this is the DNA that says "you will have 2 eyes" "grown a spine first, and then connect the hips to the spine" during the growth stages. And going all the way to the simplest multi-celled animals there is some duplication of DNA.
The more we know about DNA sequences, the more we realize that diffent species within the same families share much of their DNA (lions and tigers for instance are VERY similar). By charting these similarities and comparing with DNA obtained from the remains of extinct animals, scientists have been able to update and completely rethink the taxonomy of all living things. (read more at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~vsmith … laxter.pdf ) though it is REALLY dry reading.
There is an EXCELLENT and relatively simple explanation to be found at http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … onomy.html
So, creatures DO evolve from one species to another (or some do) but it is a VERY gradual process. It is not like a fish just groing legs from one generation to the next. It is more like a fish sub-species growing a slightly longer and stronger fin structure every hundred years or so in a certain geographic location. Over millenia that sub-species in that location has much longer and stronger fins than similar species in other areas. Then eventually over many more millenia the fish get to where they can use their longer and stronger fins to move around and were you to compare them at that point to the fish you started with you would think they were two entirely different creatures, and they are, but with a COMMON ANCESTOR.
The point here is you are seeing evolution in action, but you cannot comprehend it in real time. If you could find a visible creature that reproduced a new generation every second or so, and watched (documented) the generations of creatures over the span of 100 years you would probably see a great deal of evolution (or not, you might have to wait 500 years for something visible because of the randomness of mutation). If you were to bombard the creatures with radioactive rays, ultraviolet light, and varied conditions you would probably see faster evolution (and/or extinction which happens to species when they cannot evolve to survive a changing environment (see Wooly Mammoths)).
The problem is that with the human eye, and limited lifespan (and attention span) there is little chance of seeing any evolution with your own eyes. Evolution is slow, and subtle in most cases and not so easily noticed (which is why it has taken thousands of years for human kind to figure out).
Get it?
Photographer
Tim Baker-fotoPerfecta
Posts: 9877
Portland, Oregon, US
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
Jeff,
Where are the evolving beings now? They are all around you, they are everywhere.
Did you realize that people are on the average much taller now than they were even a few hundred years ago?
Every organism is a "missing link" because evolution is an ongoing process. A common dolphin is a potential mising link between the ancient archeocetes and whatever it is dolphins might evolve into a million or so years from now. The reason you can't "see" a living "missing link" for what it is, is because you would also have to know what it will become in the future. Science has evolution pretty well figured out, but time travel is still out of reach (and likely to remain so...alas).
There is a reason that all living things are organized into bilateral symmetry, radial symmetry, or no symmetry at all. All creatures that have a left and right side are related to the first creature that accidentaly grew a left and a right side.
There is also DNA evidence. Hear it is REALLY simplified by me, and I could be wrong so if someone can say it better please do...
Humans and chimpanzees look alot alike. Same basic face structure, same basic arms and legs, same basic organs inside. There is a reason that chimps are considered the "best metch" for humans in medical testing. We share about 96-97% of our DNA sequence with chimpanzees, same code in the same order.
We look WAY different from a dog (boxer for instance) but since we are mammals we still share about 5% of our DNA with EXACT duplication. Chances are this is the DNA that says "you will have 2 eyes" "grown a spine first, and then connect the hips to the spine" during the growth stages. And going all the way to the simplest multi-celled animals there is some duplication of DNA.
The more we know about DNA sequences, the more we realize that diffent species within the same families share much of their DNA (lions and tigers for instance are VERY similar). By charting these similarities and comparing with DNA obtained from the remains of extinct animals, scientists have been able to update and completely rethink the taxonomy of all living things. (read more at http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~vsmith … laxter.pdf ) though it is REALLY dry reading.
There is an EXCELLENT and relatively simple explanation to be found at http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultran … onomy.html
So, creatures DO evolve from one species to another (or some do) but it is a VERY gradual process. It is not like a fish just groing legs from one generation to the next. It is more like a fish sub-species growing a slightly longer and stronger fin structure every hundred years or so in a certain geographic location. Over millenia that sub-species in that location has much longer and stronger fins than similar species in other areas. Then eventually over many more millenia the fish get to where they can use their longer and stronger fins to move around and were you to compare them at that point to the fish you started with you would think they were two entirely different creatures, and they are, but with a COMMON ANCESTOR.
The point here is you are seeing evolution in action, but you cannot comprehend it in real time. If you could find a visible creature that reproduced a new generation every second or so, and watched (documented) the generations of creatures over the span of 100 years you would probably see a great deal of evolution (or not, you might have to wait 500 years for something visible because of the randomness of mutation). If you were to bombard the creatures with radioactive rays, ultraviolet light, and varied conditions you would probably see faster evolution (and/or extinction which happens to species when they cannot evolve to survive a changing environment (see Wooly Mammoths)).
The problem is that with the human eye, and limited lifespan (and attention span) there is little chance of seeing any evolution with your own eyes. Evolution is slow, and subtle in most cases and not so easily noticed (which is why it has taken thousands of years for human kind to figure out).
Get it? He will not get it, unfortunately. Stories (or anecdotes) are much more easy to 'get' than is reality. /tim
Photographer
Marcus J. Ranum
Posts: 3247
MORRISDALE, Pennsylvania, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
the suicide bombers who do it in the name of christianity (IRA etc) or islam (911 etc) also seem to believe with deep sincerity and faith that their actions were sufficiently correct to give up their lives in the attempt. Equally important is that they believe that there's an eternal reward waiting for them after they die. I doubt that you'd get a big line of atheist wanna-be martyrs if you put out the call.  We're all much too in touch with the preciousness and brevity of our time here on earth.
By offering unsubstantiatable promises of a glorious hereafter, religion makes a safe bet: in return for life and service today, you'll have yards of silk, rivers of milk and honey, and all the virgins you can service. And, when it turns out to be a lie, it's too late for a refund!
Isn't it funny how the believers clamor for "proof of evolution" but offer no "proof of an afterlife"?? I wish some of those televangelists would go check out the afterlife and come back and report to us on what they find...
mjr.
Photographer
RStephenT
Posts: 3105
Vacaville, California, US
Let me ask a question(or several if you will). Can any of you fathom a reality beyond where we are now intellectually, i.e where reason evolves into some higher state of consciouness? If you accept the evolutionary model for the development of mankind (for the purpose of this question), there must have been a time in our development where "instinct" was the order of the day... if some bright fellow or gal came by and tried to reason their way out of or into something, most likely the reaction they got from our distant relative would be based on instictiveness rather than reason. Like maybe a bash on the head, if you were seen as a threat.
But we evolved as a species to where we are able to reason. Otherwise none of us would be able to read what has been said, nor comment on others' point of view. But how did we get there? And more important is how do we get to a different level of consciouness? Is that a logical next step?
Consider the role of spiritually, but divorce it from religious dogma... or add another expanded definition, or give it a different name if you will. To me spirituality is an inner process, not an outer one. We can use different techniques to unlock our potential (i.e meditation etc), but the key point is the training of the mind so that it really follows our instructions and not continually wanders off on it's own. Is that connecting to the almighty... I don't know, but it does have the potential to alter our point of view.
There may come a time in our development where we realize that we are more alike than different, where what benefits others is more important than what benefits us. Perhaps then we can to begin to understand what the great mystics did see, rather than follow the interpretations and dogma that many religions(and their followers) profess as "their way or the highway" sort of thinking.
Photographer
bencook2
Posts: 3875
Tucson, Arizona, US
Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Equally important is that they believe that there's an eternal reward waiting for them after they die. I doubt that you'd get a big line of atheist wanna-be martyrs if you put out the call. We're all much too in touch with the preciousness and brevity of our time here on earth.
By offering unsubstantiatable promises of a glorious hereafter, religion makes a safe bet: in return for life and service today, you'll have yards of silk, rivers of milk and honey, and all the virgins you can service. And, when it turns out to be a lie, it's too late for a refund!
Isn't it funny how the believers clamor for "proof of evolution" but offer no "proof of an afterlife"?? I wish some of those televangelists would go check out the afterlife and come back and report to us on what they find...
mjr. You and your so called "proof"! The most circular of debates.
Body Painter
BodyPainter Rich
Posts: 18107
Sacramento, California, US
bencook2 wrote:
You and your so called "proof"! The most circular of debates. Which is why mjr was saying that asking for proof was funny, and then making a tongue in cheek comment. I believe the people most insistent for proof here have been the ones saying their is no proof for evolution. (The same ones who offer no "proof" for I.D.)
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Nihilus wrote:
You play verbal ping pong with so much topspin as if intentionally trying to misguide the whole crux of the issue.
Your entire point is summarized in the one sentence above. Please enlighten me if your support for this assertion (which you started and made) is composed of anything more than a flaccid concept of what consitutes humanity.
(P.S. None of this has anything to do with the essay I linked to, btw.) You appear to have a lot of difficulty following a rather straightforward thread, and seem to get confused easily. No, that is not my entire point, and if my concept what constitutes humanity seems flaccid to you, well... I can't help you with seeing beyond your... um... limitations.
Oh, and discussing the essay you linked is no longer relevant, just to keep you on track.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
You forgot elephants. It's OK... elephants never forget.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Dogma is a belief held by an organization-as-an-entity that its followers accept as a "given". If any religion is based on spirituality AND tells others that certain aspects must be followed in order to be associated with it ("a true christian", "a real baptist", "a faithful moslem", etc.), its dogma is rooted in the same thing. Absolutely. However, a dogma can be created from any belief or idea, secular or religious, and can be only tangentially linked to the original belief. So while spirituality can be one of the foundations of dogma, it does not imply by any means that dogma *requires* spirituality.
Kevin Connery wrote:
It may be filtered by higher-ups in the organization with a different agenda than the original spiritual roots, but it's promulgated exactly the same way as other revealed truths are: from on high, and not to be questioned. And the same applies for secular dogma, which reiterates that dogma and spirituality are independent concepts.
Kevin Connery wrote:
As such, dogma is belief-based--a belief in the interpreters / promoters of a given religion--which was, in turn, founded on a spiritual belief. No, the Webster's dictionary definition specifically shows that dogma can be a secular belief or a religious belief, or belief in a myth or fairy tale or rumor, even.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Hardly, given that they were operating under the auspices of the religion itself. They may have been mislead by the church leaders, who may have been distorting The True Meanings, but deep sincerity and faith doesn't require that what is believed is correct. Hm. Well, we're talking about two different concepts, then. You're defining institutionalized deception, which has little to do with spirituality.
Kevin Connery wrote:
The Inquisition as we see it today is the example used earlier, but the suicide bombers who do it in the name of christianity (IRA etc) or islam (911 etc) also seem to believe with deep sincerity and faith that their actions were sufficiently correct to give up their lives in the attempt. Actually, it's highly unlikely that either the Inquisition, the IRA, or Al-Qaida were or are motivated by deep sincerity and faith. The Inquisition clearly meant to enforce an established order by means of institutionalized terrorism, and IRA and Al-Qaida are reacting (by the inflammatory rhetoric of their leaders) to a perception of either being persecuted or marginalized. A religious righteousness is the call-to-arms, no doubt about it. The reason it works is because it resonates deeply in humans. All humans, at their core, are at risk of having their spirituality manipulated by powerful rhetoric.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Which is how this whole thing started. Blind belief is dangerous--it is dogmatic, both in fact and by definition. Dogmatic faith in evolution is as foolish as dogmatic faith in hell. If there is a basis for the belief, it's not blind. It may still be incorrect, but at least it's not blindly believing something because Someone Said So. I agree completely with this statement. That's why dogma of any kind is distinct from true spirituality or true science, and yet both spirituality and science can be distorted into dogma.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Nihilus wrote:
The argument lies within the difference of opinion as to whether 'spirituality' (a 'creator/creatrix' complex, in terms of the discussion) is an innate characteristic of humans, as opposed to one wholly perpetuated by nurture and environment. The contention is that spirituality manifests itself in humans regardless of nurture and environment. The only reasonable alternative concept I've come to accept regarding this universal awareness is that spirituality is a vestigial instinct of some sort that was meant to provide resistance to adversity, misfortune, and the knowledge that life is finite, all somewhat necessary to the development of a working conciousness. I can kinda sorta abide that, as a rational explanation for why most humans exhibit a sense of spirituality.
Body Painter
BodyPainter Rich
Posts: 18107
Sacramento, California, US
I believe that they have found centers in the brain that, when stimulated electrically can bring about "religious or spiritual" types of experience. This would also key in with many cultures and the use of mind altering drugs as a part of spiritual/religious practice (and the intensity of resistance by other coultures). While there are mixed reviews on Hamer's The God Gene, there is a fair amount of evidence shown by more than one researcher that people inherit a propensity for religious/spiritual intensity and/or commitment. Perhaps those of us who dismiss religious dogmatists who wish to teach I.D. as science can forgive said dogmatists. After all, the trait for religiosity might well have inherent survival value and this may well have helped them evolve into beings who cannot, by their genetic nature, accept evolutionary theory.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
I believe that they have found centers in the brain that, when stimulated electrically can bring about "religious or spiritual" types of experience. This would also key in with many cultures and the use of mind altering drugs as a part of spiritual/religious practice (and the intensity of resistance by other coultures). Yup. But that is external manipulation. One can also simulate any number of seemingly 'mystical' experiences artificially. At the core, hwoever, is a common awareness of a creative source, which manifests itself in all cultures, and is explored (or exploited) via artificial means or constructs.
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
While there are mixed reviews on Hamer's The God Gene, there is a fair amount of evidence shown by more than one researcher that people inherit a propensity for religious/spiritual intensity and/or commitment. No argument there. The renegade element there is that all recorded history shows that all known human cultures seem to inherit and exhibit *some* spiritual awareness. It certainly manifests itself differently by culture, but it is the common link in all cultures.
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
Perhaps those of us who dismiss religious dogmatists who wish to teach I.D. as science can forgive said dogmatists. After all, the trait for religiosity might well have inherent survival value and this may well have helped them evolve into beings who cannot, by their genetic nature, accept evolutionary theory. Ah... and personally, I can sympathize with the origin impetus for religion (spirituality as common bond = the desire to create a common value system). However, at this stage, the formula has been corrupted to the point where I find ID to be just another form of salesmanship exploiting that common bond of spirituality. It's like science blinding human intelligence to the point that fulminating an entire city in a matter of minutes honestly seemed like a really rational and expedient way of getting on with it.
It's pretty clear that the misfiring of human conciousness can be triggered in many ways... 
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
RStephenT wrote:
But we evolved as a species to where we are able to reason. Otherwise none of us would be able to read what has been said, nor comment on others' point of view. But how did we get there? And more important is how do we get to a different level of consciouness? Is that a logical next step? Gulp. OK, so here you plant the seed of discussion of another theory which has been enticing to humans for... well, ever. Did we passively 'evolve' to where we are 'able' to reason, or did we 'will' ourselves into evolving there? If so, can we 'will' ourselves beyond, to 'higher' reason? IOW, did we in fact 'create' ourselves, as the only rational beings on the planet, by the sheer power of our will? Is the 'will' truly the distinguishing characteristic of humans (in re: all other living beings), and reason simply the manifestation of our will? It is a tantalizing alternative to the idea that a) we were created by some omniscient entity which selected us, and us alone, to be the rational beings, which implies questioning our very origin, or b) are the result of a set of natural phenomena which, at some point, took a probabilistic hyper-leap from instinct to self-determination, from trial-and-error conditioning to analytical and deductive observation, etc. It's a thought...
Body Painter
BodyPainter Rich
Posts: 18107
Sacramento, California, US
kickfight wrote:
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
I believe that they have found centers in the brain that, when stimulated electrically can bring about "religious or spiritual" types of experience. This would also key in with many cultures and the use of mind altering drugs as a part of spiritual/religious practice (and the intensity of resistance by other coultures). Yup. But that is external manipulation. One can also simulate any number of seemingly 'mystical' experiences artificially. At the core, hwoever, is a common awareness of a creative source, which manifests itself in all cultures, and is explored (or exploited) via artificial means or constructs.
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
While there are mixed reviews on Hamer's The God Gene, there is a fair amount of evidence shown by more than one researcher that people inherit a propensity for religious/spiritual intensity and/or commitment. No argument there. The renegade element there is that all recorded history shows that all known human cultures seem to inherit and exhibit *some* spiritual awareness. It certainly manifests itself differently by culture, but it is the common link in all cultures.
Ah... and personally, I can sympathize with the origin impetus for religion (spirituality as common bond = the desire to create a common value system). However, at this stage, the formula has been corrupted to the point where I find ID to be just another form of salesmanship exploiting that common bond of spirituality. It's like science blinding human intelligence to the point that fulminating an entire city in a matter of minutes honestly seemed like a really rational and expedient way of getting on with it.
It's pretty clear that the misfiring of human conciousness can be triggered in many ways... I can go along with most of what you said, except for the argument (if it was in fact yours) that the awareness of a creative force is universal. If it is a genetic trait (or more likely a combination of genetic traits) then it is also possible, even likely, that some humans are born without it or have it, but in a non-active state. It is also possible (and I might argue extremely likely) that we have not always had these traits in our genetic past.
On an interesting aside. Assuming we found the "God" genes and/or the parts of the brain directly responsible for "spiritual" awareness...what must we do if we found animals that had similar genes and/or brain developement? Would we then have to assume these non-speaking creatures had a "soul"? but forget my pointless speculation...this argument has enough tangents already.
Photographer
RStephenT
Posts: 3105
Vacaville, California, US
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
I can go along with most of what you said, except for the argument (if it was in fact yours) that the awareness of a creative force is universal. If it is a genetic trait (or more likely a combination of genetic traits) then it is also possible, even likely, that some humans are born without it or have it, but in a non-active state. It is also possible (and I might argue extremely likely) that we have not always had these traits in our genetic past.
On an interesting aside. Assuming we found the "God" genes and/or the parts of the brain directly responsible for "spiritual" awareness...what must we do if we found animals that had similar genes and/or brain developement? Would we then have to assume these non-speaking creatures had a "soul"? but forget my pointless speculation...this argument has enough tangents already. Want to make yourself crazy consider this: I recently saw a program where they showed a raven facing a problem... i.e. food down at the end of a tube... said raven devised a tool 9 times out 10 that enabled him/her to get the food... implies some level of deductive reasoning (i.e problem solving)? We may not be the only species that continues to evolve.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
I can go along with most of what you said, except for the argument (if it was in fact yours) that the awareness of a creative force is universal. If it is a genetic trait (or more likely a combination of genetic traits) then it is also possible, even likely, that some humans are born without it or have it, but in a non-active state. It is also possible (and I might argue extremely likely) that we have not always had these traits in our genetic past. Absolutely. it's highly speculative that it's a genetic trait (although it would help explain its verifiable universality, and it's an interesting argument that I don't think can be just hand-waved away).
It's more likely that it isn't something that is genetic at all, but the very essence of what makes us human (and thus, every human, in order to be defined as such, is born with it).
BodyPainter Rich wrote:
On an interesting aside. Assuming we found the "God" genes and/or the parts of the brain directly responsible for "spiritual" awareness...what must we do if we found animals that had similar genes and/or brain developement? Would we then have to assume these non-speaking creatures had a "soul"? but forget my pointless speculation...this argument has enough tangents already. No, that's a great question. If we did find "God" genes (which is feasible if we consider spirituality to be a inherited genetic trait), then we'd be forced to re-evaluate both religion and evolution if the same genes were discovered in animals. Same as if we found animals who exhibited what we interpret as 'reason' or 'conciousness'... we'd have to re-evaluate a lot of things!
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
Dogma is a belief held by an organization-as-an-entity that its followers accept as a "given". If any religion is based on spirituality AND tells others that certain aspects must be followed in order to be associated with it ("a true christian", "a real baptist", "a faithful moslem", etc.), its dogma is rooted in the same thing. kickfight wrote:
Absolutely. However, a dogma can be created from any belief or idea, secular or religious, and can be only tangentially linked to the original belief. So while spirituality can be one of the foundations of dogma, it does not imply by any means that dogma *requires* spirituality. If you prefer to narrow it down--I hadn't felt it was necessary in this context--to "religious dogma", it does follow, however. Spirituality historically led to institutionalized religion which led to religious dogma.
That "dogma" in a vacuum could be based on any belief is a side-issue. (And not so much a side issue, since that, too, is belief based. But that's a separate digression.)
Kevin Connery wrote:
It may be filtered by higher-ups in the organization with a different agenda than the original spiritual roots, but it's promulgated exactly the same way as other revealed truths are: from on high, and not to be questioned. kickfight wrote:
And the same applies for secular dogma, which reiterates that dogma and spirituality are independent concepts. Yes. But it doesn't eliminate it from religious dogma. Your statement doesn't reduce the validity of the original claim, unless you specifically exclude "religious dogma" from all dogmatic beliefs. Given what we're discussing, that sounds like an attempt to sidetrack.
Kevin Connery wrote:
As such, dogma is belief-based--a belief in the interpreters / promoters of a given religion--which was, in turn, founded on a spiritual belief. kickfight wrote:
No, the Webster's dictionary definition specifically shows that dogma can be a secular belief or a religious belief, or belief in a myth or fairy tale or rumor, even. Out of context interpretation. Notice that I said..."As such", which includes the tie-in to the previous points, which was all about religious dogma.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Hardly, given that they were operating under the auspices of the religion itself. They may have been mislead by the church leaders, who may have been distorting The True Meanings, but deep sincerity and faith doesn't require that what is believed is correct. kickfight wrote:
Hm. Well, we're talking about two different concepts, then. You're defining institutionalized deception, which has little to do with spirituality. Your original claim wasn't that the Inquisitors didn't have spirituality. It was that "The 'deep sincerity' and 'faith' of the inquisitors is one of the most inhrently suspect claims in all of recorded history."
If you called all religious dogma "institutionalized deception", this could be used to support that. If you don't accept that usage, it doesn't; they were following the precepts of their church and were supported by the leaders of the church. If their beliefs were incorrect, it doesn't reduce their own sincerity or faith.
Kevin Connery wrote:
The Inquisition as we see it today is the example used earlier, but the suicide bombers who do it in the name of christianity (IRA etc) or islam (911 etc) also seem to believe with deep sincerity and faith that their actions were sufficiently correct to give up their lives in the attempt. kickfight wrote:
Actually, it's highly unlikely that either the Inquisition, the IRA, or Al-Qaida were or are motivated by deep sincerity and faith. The Inquisition clearly meant to enforce an established order by means of institutionalized terrorism, and IRA and Al-Qaida are reacting (by the inflammatory rhetoric of their leaders) to a perception of either being persecuted or marginalized. A religious righteousness is the call-to-arms, no doubt about it. The reason it works is because it resonates deeply in humans. All humans, at their core, are at risk of having their spirituality manipulated by powerful rhetoric. That supports what I said, though I used "believe with deep sincerity and faith" rather than the 'having their spirituality manipulated'. Your claim assumes it's a deliberate distortion of their spirituality, but that's true of all religious texts: they attempt to codify rules, or summarize what was said or happened, and that always turns into...religious dogma. Again, we're back to the beginning: spiritualism whose believers spread the word lead to religion which leads to religious dogma. Are there any exceptions to this path? (I realize there are non-spiritual ways to get to dogma; that's not pertinent.)
These groups were/are doing it in the name of their religion, based on their faith in that religion. I made no claim for spirituality at this end. Historically, once a religion is formed, there's frequently a disconnect between what you call spirituality and the original precepts of the faith.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Which is how this whole thing started. Blind belief is dangerous--it is dogmatic, both in fact and by definition. Dogmatic faith in evolution is as foolish as dogmatic faith in hell. If there is a basis for the belief, it's not blind. It may still be incorrect, but at least it's not blindly believing something because Someone Said So. kickfight wrote:
I agree completely with this statement. That's why dogma of any kind is distinct from true spirituality or true science, and yet both spirituality and science can be distorted into dogma. The bible is dogmatic in many ways; the Q'ran in many ways; the scientific method (not 'science') is dogmatic; etc. You seem to be claiming that the only way to maintain spirituality is to require ignoring all religious and scientific training and instructions.
RStephenT wrote:
Can any of you fathom a reality beyond where we are now intellectually, i.e where reason evolves into some higher state of consciouness? Yes. "Singularities make me nervous." (c.f. Vernor Vinge)
Photographer
Tim Baker-fotoPerfecta
Posts: 9877
Portland, Oregon, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
The bible is dogmatic in many ways; the Q'ran in many ways; the scientific method (not 'science') is dogmatic; etc. You seem to be claiming that the only way to maintain spirituality is to require ignoring all religious and scientific training and instructions.
Yes. "Singularities make me nervous." (c.f. Vernor Vinge) The scientific method of inquiry is designed to eliminate dogmatic beliefs. That's why we submit our research to peer review evaluation and change our theories based on the best, available evidence. Religion does not. /t
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
RStephenT wrote:
Want to make yourself crazy consider this: I recently saw a program where they showed a raven facing a problem... i.e. food down at the end of a tube... said raven devised a tool 9 times out 10 that enabled him/her to get the food... implies some level of deductive reasoning (i.e problem solving)? We may not be the only species that continues to evolve. I saw that too, and I was fascinated by what, for all intents and purposes, seemed to be a creative exercise in problem-solving and the development of a tool. We have ravens all over this area, and I've seen them do some remarkable things.
However, I imagine that ravens have been problem-solving in this manner for a very long time, and that while their problem-solving may becoming more sophisticated (i.e. they are adapting to their environment by using our discards, rather than depending on branches and twigs and whatnot), they have still not exhibited signs of progress, which is what truly differentiate the dramatic effects of evolution in humans from that in animals. If dolphins started communicating abstract ideas to each other, or ravens started building catapults, then I'd have a very different take on the concept of animal evolution vis-a-vis human progress.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
The bible is dogmatic in many ways; the Q'ran in many ways; the scientific method (not 'science') is dogmatic; etc. You seem to be claiming that the only way to maintain spirituality is to require ignoring all religious and scientific training and instructions. Tim Baker wrote:
The scientific method of inquiry is designed to eliminate dogmatic beliefs. That's why we submit our research to peer review evaluation and change our theories based on the best, available evidence. Religion does not. /t Agreed. The method, however, is fairly dogmatic. "here are the steps you must follow". Granted, they're conceptual steps, but...
Photographer
Tim Baker-fotoPerfecta
Posts: 9877
Portland, Oregon, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
Kevin Connery wrote:
The bible is dogmatic in many ways; the Q'ran in many ways; the scientific method (not 'science') is dogmatic; etc. You seem to be claiming that the only way to maintain spirituality is to require ignoring all religious and scientific training and instructions. Agreed. The method, however, is fairly dogmatic. "here are the steps you must follow". Granted, they're conceptual steps, but... However, unlike religion, one of the constructs of the scientific method is that 'change' is a significant part of the process ... where 'change' is a constant in religion.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
If you prefer to narrow it down--I hadn't felt it was necessary in this context--to "religious dogma", it does follow, however. Spirituality historically led to institutionalized religion which led to religious dogma.
That "dogma" in a vacuum could be based on any belief is a side-issue. (And not so much a side issue, since that, too, is belief based. But that's a separate digression.) Seems a semantic interpretation, but fair enough. If the point is to establish a link from spirituality to institutionalized religion to dogma, that can be established as much as any other link. I suppose I'm having difficulty understanding the point of reiterating that link, since dogma can also be established without spirituality (i.e. cults, propaganda, etc). Since the discussion is not limited to religious dogma, but dogmatic beliefs of all kind, is certainly not a side-issue.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Yes. But it doesn't eliminate it from religious dogma. Your statement doesn't reduce the validity of the original claim, unless you specifically exclude "religious dogma" from all dogmatic beliefs. Given what we're discussing, that sounds like an attempt to sidetrack. Oh, I see. No, you misunderstood. It doesn't *eliminate* it from religious dogma, it simply illustrates that religious dogma can be created with or without spirituality. In other words, spirituality is not a REQUIREMENT for the development of religious dogma. A religion can be created from a vacuum and people can become believers because of the innate spirituality in humans (and some carefully crafted targeted marketing).
Kevin Connery wrote:
Out of context interpretation. Notice that I said..."As such", which includes the tie-in to the previous points, which was all about religious dogma. Incorrect. The discussion is about ALL dogma, not just religious dogma.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Your original claim wasn't that the Inquisitors didn't have spirituality. It was that "The 'deep sincerity' and 'faith' of the inquisitors is one of the most inhrently suspect claims in all of recorded history."
If you called all religious dogma "institutionalized deception", this could be used to support that. If you don't accept that usage, it doesn't; they were following the precepts of their church and were supported by the leaders of the church. If their beliefs were incorrect, it doesn't reduce their own sincerity or faith. Incorrect. My original claim was that the premise that the Inquisitors were acting on deep sincerity and faith is inherently suspect, and that suspicion is supported by the very content of the religious dogma that they were alleging to enforce. As I interpret it, all religious dogma by definition is a form of 'institutionalized deception' when it so dramatically deviates from the very content of what the religion postulates.
Kevin Connery wrote:
That supports what I said, though I used "believe with deep sincerity and faith" rather than the 'having their spirituality manipulated'. Your claim assumes it's a deliberate distortion of their spirituality, but that's true of all religious texts: they attempt to codify rules, or summarize what was said or happened, and that always turns into...religious dogma. Again, we're back to the beginning: spiritualism whose believers spread the word lead to religion which leads to religious dogma. Are there any exceptions to this path? (I realize there are non-spiritual ways to get to dogma; that's not pertinent.) No, my claim is that the religion has been distorted, by clearly deviating from what the religious texts actually say. The reason it succeeds time and time again is because it EXPLOITS spirituality. Obviously, there are religious texts that do not turn into religious dogma, so the idea that the codification of rules as religious text is inherently a distortion is a misapprehension. When religion is distorted to where it becomes dogma, and spirituality is being manipulated by dogma, then we have a deviation. This is the path that I have illustrated. I don't quite see where you think that the path is spiritualism inherently leads to religion which inherently leads to dogma. If that is in fact your premise, I'd like to see you substantiate it.
Kevin Connery wrote:
These groups were/are doing it in the name of their religion, based on their faith in that religion. I made no claim for spirituality at this end. Historically, once a religion is formed, there's frequently a disconnect between what you call spirituality and the original precepts of the faith. Well, I don't necessarily think there's a disconnect, I think there is a exploitation of spirituality by means of religious dogma. Religious dogma is a tool of manipulation of a group of beleivers. When it gets to 'faith' in a religion, I often think faith can be either a legitimate adherence to a codified set of values, reinforced by spirituality, or it can be a subscription to a "we are the chosen" club, which can be used to excuse and validate all kinds of otherwise inexcusable behavior, and works on the faithful by exploiting spirituality.
Kevin Connery wrote:
The bible is dogmatic in many ways; the Q'ran in many ways; the scientific method (not 'science') is dogmatic; etc. You seem to be claiming that the only way to maintain spirituality is to require ignoring all religious and scientific training and instructions. Incorrect. I am claiming that one way to maintain spirituality (and intelligence) is to identify dogma (i.e. a corruption of a codified set of values or ideas for the purpose of exploiting either spirituality or understanding) when it manifests itself, and to avoid it.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Tim Baker wrote:
However, unlike religion, one of the constructs of the scientific method is that 'change' is a significant part of the process ... where 'change' is a constant in religion. Which is another thing spirituality and science have in common: the concept of progress.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
kickfight wrote:
Which is another thing spirituality and science have in common: the concept of progress. You're expected to change your belief over time? interesting.
As for the dogma discussion, since we're not agreeing on what is being discussed, it's of little use to continue. If I say "orange" talking solely about a fruit and you hear "orange" strictly as a color, it doesn't matter if the word is the same. We seem to have that same impass.
I do agree that your suspicion about the Inquisitors being dogmatic is correct. That is different than your initial claim, which was that they weren't sincere or acting on faith. Even if their belief can be "proven" to be wrong, if they did believe it, they were sincere and acting on faith.
Much like many of the supporters of evolution are sincere, even if they don't understand the science behind it, or many of their opposition who lack that same comprehension. It's sincere on both parts...and for many, it's strictly a dogmatic belief, based solely on what they've been told.
Replace 'evolution' with 'intelligent design' for parallelism.
For both of these, there's no requirement that there be proof for their supporters to believe; it's blind faith. Some, on both sides, may understand what they'd proposing or decrying, but the majority--or at least the most vocal--do not appear to, and are simply reponding in ...dare I say it... a knee-jerk fashion. (That's based on Real World observations, not this thread by itself.)
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
You're expected to change your belief over time? interesting. Not what I said. Your spirituality develops as you develop.
Kevin Connery wrote:
As for the dogma discussion, since we're not agreeing on what is being discussed, it's of little use to continue. If I say "orange" talking solely about a fruit and you hear "orange" strictly as a color, it doesn't matter if the word is the same. We seem to have that same impass. Fair enough. That can be resolved by agreeing on our apparently unique interpretation of certain terms or words, but so be it.
Kevin Connery wrote:
I do agree that your suspicion about the Inquisitors being dogmatic is correct. My suspicion, to reiterate it for the third time, is that the Inquisitors were acting not by faith or deep devotion to the tenets of religion (which would be a contradiction, since their actions clearly VIOLATED just about every tenet of their religion) but that they acted by the imposition of religious dogma (i.e. a corruption of religion) and did so knowingly, not giving a damn about the obvious contradiction that exists when you have 'Men of God' acting in a manner utterly contrary to the 'Word of God'.
Kevin Connery wrote:
That is different than your initial claim, which was that they weren't sincere or acting on faith. Incorrect. My claim has been consistent as from when it was first stated. You seem to be reinterpreting it differently every time you post, and I keep having to put you back on track.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Even if their belief can be "proven" to be wrong, if they did believe it, they were sincere and acting on faith. On which the jury is still out, and against which all the evidence weighs.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Much like many of the supporters of evolution are sincere, even if they don't understand the science behind it, or many of their opposition who lack that same comprehension. It's sincere on both parts...and for many, it's strictly a dogmatic belief, based solely on what they've been told. That makes no sense. To actively support something that one doesn't understand is not sincere, it's a posture. The Inquisitors had a business model to exploit; they weren't just doing it out of ignorance or just to be au courant or because they truly believed they were doing "God's Work". This would imply that the Inquisition was made up entirely either of complete idiots or rather psychotic dilettantes. It makes far more sense that they were perfectly aware of what they were doing: twisting religion to secure the position of power of the church through terror tactics (and pillaging, looting, and raping all the way). There's far more historic precedent to sustain a theory of deliberate opportunistic malice, since it's something that humans love to do to other humans when they think they can get away with it!
Kevin Connery wrote:
Replace 'evolution' with 'intelligent design' for parallelism. There are probably a good number of 'enlightened fools' on both sides... I'll grant you that. But there more likely a larger number who are 'in the game' for the purpose of selling one or the other of the above products.
Kevin Connery wrote:
For both of these, there's no requirement that there be proof for their supporters to believe; it's blind faith. Eh. I've investigated the concept of blind faith... it's rarely blind. It's more like 'one-eye-open, one-eye-half-open' faith.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Some, on both sides, may understand what they'd proposing or decrying, but the majority--or at least the most vocal--do not appear to, and are simply reponding in ...dare I say it... a knee-jerk fashion. (That's based on Real World observations, not this thread by itself.) Perhaps. I can concede that in some cases there is a kind of extended crowd hysteria phenomenon when it comes to certain beleifs (the pilgrimages to the Tortilla of The BVMâ¢, or the Grilled Cheese Sandwich of The Saviorâ¢, etc). But with something as methodical, institutional, and sadistic as the Inquisition, nah. Not by a long shot.
Photographer
Nihilus
Posts: 10888
Nashville, Tennessee, US
kickfight wrote:
The contention is that spirituality manifests itself in humans regardless of nurture and environment. The only reasonable alternative concept I've come to accept regarding this universal awareness is that spirituality is a vestigial instinct of some sort that was meant to provide resistance to adversity, misfortune, and the knowledge that life is finite, all somewhat necessary to the development of a working conciousness. I can kinda sorta abide that, as a rational explanation for why most humans exhibit a sense of spirituality. In the context you describe, you seem to be using the term 'spirituality' to encompass the entirety of human curiousity which cannot be sated (satisfactorily?) by naturalistic endeavors. If that's the case, then it's not spirituality that is inherent to us...but the search and desire for answers to our endless questions. Spirituality manifests itself from that point on for some (not all) as a means by which to achieve those answers, and often times, in the most intimate and personal of ways (which is another boon to it).
I still don't consider the spirituality itself innate...no human is born with a deity complex, but it is introduced via environment and education. Then again, this all should be prefaced by a description of what you consider 'spirituality' to be and whether you invoke some sort of incorporeal creatrix/creator in the concept.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Nihilus wrote:
In the context you describe, you seem to be using the term 'spirituality' to encompass the entirety of human curiousity which cannot be sated (satisfactorily?) by naturalistic endeavors. If that's the case, then it's not spirituality that is inherent to us...but the search and desire for answers to our endless questions. Spirituality manifests itself from that point on for some (not all) as a means by which to achieve those answers, and often times, in the most intimate and personal of ways (which is another boon to it). That's one way of putting it, although it simply rejects the universality of this search and desire in all humans, which can be verified by noticing that all cultures have this search and desire despite their environment and nurture. This universality would imply that spirituality *is* inherent, but then is approached through various processes which may involve personal ritual, or communal ritual, or potentially outright rejection.
But in a way I agree with your assessment, in that it is *possible* that what I describe as spirituality is essentially our will to knowledge or understanding, manifested in ways we still haven't found a common way to describe. I'd cotton to that...
Nihilus wrote:
I still don't consider the spirituality itself innate...no human is born with a deity complex, but it is introduced via environment and education. Ah! Good point! Now note that I don't necessarily feel that spirituality inherently implies the existence of a deity. The creative force that spirituality yearns for may be nothing more or less than the source origin (i.e. the BIG Big Bang, metaphysically speaking). The way I see it, enviroment and education shapes our approach to spirituality, but spirituality does precede our conditioning to it, which is why I refer to spirituality as being suitable to development. As we grow and develop, our relationship with our spirituality grows and develops also.
Nihilus wrote:
Then again, this all should be prefaced by a description of what you consider 'spirituality' to be and whether you invoke some sort of incorporeal creatrix/creator in the concept. I think you've assisted me in describing (as best I can) what I personally consider spirituality to be: the relationship with the source origin. It doesn't necessarily have to be a one-on-one with a deity (i.e. an anthropomorphic being with a suspiciously-human will ), but the yearning to reunite with the creative, elemental One; not regarding a divine entity per se, but acknowledging an internal, transcendant element in me that is linked to what I like to call the Original... the first 'It' that subdivided unto perpetual subdivision. Or something like that...
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
kickfight wrote:
My suspicion, to reiterate it for the third time, is that the Inquisitors were acting not by faith or deep devotion to the tenets of religion (which would be a contradiction, since their actions clearly VIOLATED just about every tenet of their religion) but that they acted by the imposition of religious dogma (i.e. a corruption of religion) and did so knowingly, not giving a damn about the obvious contradiction that exists when you have 'Men of God' acting in a manner utterly contrary to the 'Word of God'. IF they acted under the imposition of religious dogma--a corruption of the underlying faith--and followed the word of their Church, there's nothing in that to say they didn't act sincerely or in faith. That their actions violated the original meanings of that faith, or the current ones, isn't in question--certainly I have none.
You asserted that "The 'deep sincerity' and 'faith' of the inquisitors is one of the most inhrently suspect claims in all of recorded history". I've been responding to that assertion all along.
While I do not personally believe they were anywhere near innocent (guilty as h*ll, in fact), IF they were doing what their Church told them, believing the Church to be correct--since the Church THE arbiter of faith, if not spirituality, their actions were carried out in deep sincerity and faith.
You can't say that they DID act under the auspices of the religious dogma of the time and their superiors and try to use that to show that they were not sincere or following their faith.
If you don't believe they believed their Church leaders, you'll come to a very different conclusion. (I do, myself.) But your argument is based on the presumption that they knew what their "real" religion said, not what their church told them. That presumption is NOT correct in general for the period in question.
Bad faith can mean two things, after all. Not being true to what you really believe is correct, and being true to something that is objectively bad. My opinion about at least Tomas de Torquemada is that he was not being true to what he believed, but citations about most of the other inquisitors is much less clear. There's a lot of contemporary accounts about many inquisitors showing that they were faithful and sincere. (Or that they held the charade 24/7 for their whole lives. I'm not sure which is more likely.)
Kevin Connery wrote:
That is different than your initial claim, which was that they weren't sincere or acting on faith. kickfight wrote:
Incorrect. My claim has been consistent as from when it was first stated. You seem to be reinterpreting it differently every time you post, and I keep having to put you back on track. See above.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Much like many of the supporters of evolution are sincere, even if they don't understand the science behind it, or many of their opposition who lack that same comprehension. It's sincere on both parts...and for many, it's strictly a dogmatic belief, based solely on what they've been told. kickfight wrote:
That makes no sense. To actively support something that one doesn't understand is not sincere, it's a posture. You've just asserted that every Christian (or Jew, or Moslem, or ...) who doesn't understand all about their religion is posturing. (Bleep, that same claim means that supporting G*d is a posture for people of most religions, as G*d is usually defined as being beyond human understanding,)
If you limit it to the Real Worldâ¢, it's merely saying that everyone who doesn't understand all about evolution is also posturing. Or all the planks in their political party, or... Or higher mathematics, or... It seems a little excessive.
(Yes, I added the word "all", because it's key to my use of "understanding". If yours is different, it would explain the disagreement.)
kickfight wrote:
This would imply that the Inquisition was made up entirely either of complete idiots or rather psychotic dilettantes. Oh, not dilettantes. There was waaaay too much devotion (in the secular sense) for that.
Kevin Connery wrote:
For both of these, there's no requirement that there be proof for their supporters to believe; it's blind faith. kickfight wrote:
Eh. I've investigated the concept of blind faith... it's rarely blind. It's more like 'one-eye-open, one-eye-half-open' faith. Which doesn't disagree with my statement. Proof is not required. (Italics apparently weren't enough emphasis.)
Kevin Connery wrote:
Some, on both sides, may understand what they'd proposing or decrying, but the majority--or at least the most vocal--do not appear to, and are simply reponding in ...dare I say it... a knee-jerk fashion. (That's based on Real World observations, not this thread by itself.) kickfight wrote:
Perhaps. I can concede that in some cases there is a kind of extended crowd hysteria phenomenon when it comes to certain beleifs (the pilgrimages to the Tortilla of The BVMâ¢, or the Grilled Cheese Sandwich of The Saviorâ¢, etc). But with something as methodical, institutional, and sadistic as the Inquisition, nah. Not by a long shot. I was referring to the evolution/ID argument here, as I suspect you know.
As for the Inquisition, I'm not entirely convinced all, or even the majority of the inquisitors weren't acting in good faith based on a "bad" set of dogma. There's a lot of substantiation about the higher-ups--well educated, and well versed in the bible as-a-whole--but it's less clear about the rank and file sociopaths, er, inquisitors.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
IF they acted under the imposition of religious dogma--a corruption of the underlying faith--and followed the word of their Church, there's nothing in that to say they didn't act sincerely or in faith. That their actions violated the original meanings of that faith, or the current ones, isn't in question--certainly I have none.
You asserted that "The 'deep sincerity' and 'faith' of the inquisitors is one of the most inhrently suspect claims in all of recorded history". I've been responding to that assertion all along. You have been responding to that assertion, but simply negating it without backing it up in ANY WAY. I have explained to you repeatedly that it is very doubtful that the Inquisitors were each and all acting on faith or deep devotion to a series of teachings that CONTRADICT the actions that they undertook. I don't know how many times I need to explain this before it sinks in.
Kevin Connery wrote:
While I do not personally believe they were anywhere near innocent (guilty as h*ll, in fact), IF they were doing what their Church told them, believing the Church to be correct--since the Church THE arbiter of faith, if not spirituality, their actions were carried out in deep sincerity and faith. No, and here's your misunderstanding: you equate THE CHURCH with the RELIGION, and that is an error. The CHURCH abused its position as the "arbiter of faith" (not spirituality, which may or may not have anything to do with religion) by mandating acts that history clearly shows CONTRADICTED the tenets of the RELIGION. No-one, unless they were extraordinarily feeble-minded or insane, would perform these acts of terrorism and call themselves "Men of God". If you want to argue that the Inquisitors were secular hooligans who joined in to turn a quick buck, I'd buy that. Most evidence would support that. But to try to argue that the Inquisition did what it did under the influence of legitimate "faith" and "devotion" is simply swimming against the flow of evidence and logic itself.
Kevin Connery wrote:
You can't say that they DID act under the auspices of the religious dogma of the time and their superiors and try to use that to show that they were not sincere or following their faith. What? How do you figure that? Do you still not get that 'relgious dogma' is a CORRUPTION of religion?
Kevin Connery wrote:
If you don't believe they believed their Church leaders, you'll come to a very different conclusion. (I do, myself.) But your argument is based on the presumption that they knew what their "real" religion said, not what their church told them. That presumption is NOT correct in general for the period in question. You're floundering, Kevin. You're trying SO hard to find some kind of hole in my argument, and yet you keep failing at it. So. Where, at any time, did I state that knowledge of "real" religion was a requirement? That's never been the argument. The argument has ALWAYS been that the Inquisitors did NOT do what they did based on their "deep devotion" or "faith", because their actions show that they lacked or circumvented any such things. They could have been well versed in the scripture, or totally ignorant of the scripture. That's utterly irrelevant to my argument. The POINT is that they weren't sincere servants of the RELIGION. They were probably sincere servants of the Church, because only a moron would have missed that the Church was the biggest business in town.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Bad faith can mean two things, after all. Not being true to what you really believe is correct, and being true to something that is objectively bad. My opinion about at least Tomas de Torquemada is that he was not being true to what he believed, but citations about most of the other inquisitors is much less clear. Some may have capitulated to greed and indulgence, knowing full well what they were doing was against the teachings they claimed to sustain. Others may have been less versed in the teachings themselves, and simply winked their way through the whole thing, going for the gusto. But I see NO evidence that ANY of these people came home from a long day of thumb-screwing and stake-burning and auto-da-fe-ing, popped open a Bud, and truly and sincerely thought "Man, I sure am happy to be doing the Lord's good work!".
I mean, you'd have to be pretty selective about your awareness if you ran around all day with a Bible, exhorting the name of God, and yet your job was to terrorize, and torture, and kill, all because some OTHER dude told you that doing so was OK per the very book you held in your hands all day long (or 'cuz the Pope said so, etc, etc). GIMME. A. BREAK.
Kevin Connery wrote:
There's a lot of contemporary accounts about many inquisitors showing that they were faithful and sincere. (Or that they held the charade 24/7 for their whole lives. I'm not sure which is more likely.) Um... try a combination of fear, greed, opportunity, and toeing the company line. Holding the charade 24/7 has more historical background to support that theory.
Kevin Connery wrote:
See above. Same as it ever was.
Kevin Connery wrote:
You've just asserted that every Christian (or Jew, or Moslem, or ...) who doesn't understand all about their religion is posturing. (Bleep, that same claim means that supporting G*d is a posture for people of most religions, as G*d is usually defined as being beyond human understanding,) Ah, I notice you conveniently rephrased it with an "all", without which your original point collapses. BZZZT. Nice try, but no cigar. If someone doesn't have at least a basic grasp on what they claim to believe, then yes... they are posturing. For opportunity, for a quick buck, to stay out of trouble, etc. They are not believers. History shows us that the people who DO understand and DO believe often end up on the rough uphill road. So, no... my claim at no time implies that supporting G*d is a posture for people of most religions. And your last premise, that since G*d is defined as being beyond human understanding, then all religious people are therefore hypocrites or posers, is one of the most laughably transparent and clumsy attempts at pretzel logic ever.
Kevin Connery wrote:
If you limit it to the Real Worldâ¢, it's merely saying that everyone who doesn't understand all about evolution is also posturing. Again, flawed logic, as illustrated above.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Or all the planks in their political party, or... Or higher mathematics, or... It seems a little excessive. Well, yeah! Didn't that kinda clue you in... that maybe you missed something back there?
Kevin Connery wrote:
(Yes, I added the word "all", because it's key to my use of "understanding". If yours is different, it would explain the disagreement.) Ah... so only people who know "all" truly "understand". Gotcha.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Oh, not dilettantes. There was waaaay too much devotion (in the secular sense) for that. Devotion... in the secular sense... oh, you mean enthusiasm. I see. Hm. That was... actually... my point.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Which doesn't disagree with my statement. Proof is not required. (Italics apparently weren't enough emphasis.) You appear to be trying to make a point with that. I'm sure you'll be making your point... at some point?
Kevin Connery wrote:
I was referring to the evolution/ID argument here, as I suspect you know. Which still does not address the issue of faith or devotion therein.
Kevin Connery wrote:
As for the Inquisition, I'm not entirely convinced all, or even the majority of the inquisitors weren't acting in good faith based on a "bad" set of dogma. There's a lot of substantiation about the higher-ups--well educated, and well versed in the bible as-a-whole--but it's less clear about the rank and file sociopaths, er, inquisitors. *sigh*... there were probably a few poor rubes who truly did think they were doing the Lord's Work. The rest of 'em were a bunch of criminals, whether they knew or "understood" all, some, or none of the actual content of the Bible.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
IF they acted under the imposition of religious dogma--a corruption of the underlying faith--and followed the word of their Church, there's nothing in that to say they didn't act sincerely or in faith. That their actions violated the original meanings of that faith, or the current ones, isn't in question--certainly I have none.
You asserted that "The 'deep sincerity' and 'faith' of the inquisitors is one of the most inhrently suspect claims in all of recorded history". I've been responding to that assertion all along. kickfight wrote:
You have been responding to that assertion, but simply negating it without backing it up in ANY WAY. I have explained to you repeatedly that it is very doubtful that the Inquisitors were each and all acting on faith or deep devotion to a series of teachings that CONTRADICT the actions that they undertook. I don't know how many times I need to explain this before it sinks in. Once, if you actually explained.
You're confusing some form of absolute understanding of the precepts of a religion with what is taught. There IS collaborating evidence from the time that at least some of the inquisitors were doing what they believed was correct, based on what their Church told them.
Unless you posit that they "should have known better"--'better' in this case being running contrary to the teachings of their religious superiors--your argument fails. What they did was according to what they were taught. There is also evidence that some of the inquisitors had special religious training by those same superiors, which further supports the claim that they believed that what they were doing was according to the faith they followed.
Not spiritual? Not in the sense we use it today. Acting in faith? Quite possibly.
kickfight wrote:
No, and here's your misunderstanding: you equate THE CHURCH with the RELIGION, and that is an error Not at all.
That they followed "THE CHURCH" (your usage) rather than the "RELIGION" isn't pertinent to their having faith; "THE CHURCH" was the arbiter of what their religion was at that time. It doesn't matter if "THE CHURCH" abused it's position for this issue. If they believed "THE CHURCH" was the religion--and evidence is available for that--behaving in good faith does mean following "THE CHURCH".
kickfight wrote:
No-one, unless they were extraordinarily feeble-minded or insane, would perform these acts of terrorism and call themselves "Men of God". As you wish. I won't bring up the other religions that kill and torture according to the tenets of their faith, since those taithful believers much also be extraordinarily feeble-minded or insane as well. Apparently "Men of God" must believe YOUR God, not theirs. Or their understanding of their religion.
Kevin Connery wrote:
You can't say that they DID act under the auspices of the religious dogma of the time and their superiors and try to use that to show that they were not sincere or following their faith. kickfight wrote:
What? How do you figure that? Do you still not get that 'relgious dogma' is a CORRUPTION of religion? I don't take all religious dogma as corruption, but even so: is following your belief unfaithful if what you believe is incorrect? That's where we seem to disagree.
You keep returning to that as if it proved a lack of faith; it doesn't.
kickfight wrote:
I mean, you'd have to be pretty selective about your awareness if you ran around all day with a Bible, exhorting the name of God, and yet your job was to terrorize, and torture, and kill, all because some OTHER dude told you that doing so was OK per the very book you held in your hands all day long (or 'cuz the Pope said so, etc, etc). GIMME. A. BREAK. Yup. You're right; you'd have to be pretty selective. Sadly, there's a lot of evidence supporting it over the last 15 centuries, not just during that period.
Kevin Connery wrote:
You've just asserted that every Christian (or Jew, or Moslem, or ...) who doesn't understand all about their religion is posturing. (Bleep, that same claim means that supporting G*d is a posture for people of most religions, as G*d is usually defined as being beyond human understanding,) kickfight wrote:
Ah, I notice you conveniently rephrased it with an "all", without which your original point collapses.
BZZZT. Nice try, but no cigar. Yes, and I even noted why I included it, so you couldn't miss it.
kickfight wrote:
If someone doesn't have at least a basic grasp on what they claim to believe, then yes... they are posturing. [...]They are not believers. Fair enough. I'll let that stand, and let your accusation against virtually all religious and political followers stand.
You're on your own, now.
Photographer
kickfight
Posts: 35054
Portland, Oregon, US
Kevin Connery wrote:
Once, if you actually explained.
You're confusing some form of absolute understanding of the precepts of a religion with what is taught. There IS collaborating evidence from the time that at least some of the inquisitors were doing what they believed was correct, based on what their Church told them. Right. So you're stating that because the Church told them so, these people sincerely beleived that they were doing the work of the Lord, and did not understand or know or realize that terrorizing and brutalizing and maiming was wrong, and they did so because of faith and deep devotion. Uh huh.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Unless you posit that they "should have known better"--'better' in this case being running contrary to the teachings of their religious superiors--your argument fails. Incorrect. As I have stated several times already, unless these were all morons or deeply psychotic 'joiners', they DID know better, because even a child knows that their actions were wrong, and they did it anyway.
Kevin Connery wrote:
What they did was according to what they were taught. There is also evidence that some of the inquisitors had special religious training by those same superiors, which further supports the claim that they believed that what they were doing was according to the faith they followed. And what they were taught went against the text of the word of God. Again, nothing you have stated contradicts my argument. NOTHING. These were people who for all intents and purposes should have had more exposure to the word of God, and yet their actions contradict biblical teachings.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Not spiritual? Not in the sense we use it today. Acting in faith? Quite possibly. Nothing that I have seen substantiates that.
Kevin Connery wrote:
That they followed "THE CHURCH" (your usage) rather than the "RELIGION" isn't pertinent to their having faith; "THE CHURCH" was the arbiter of what their religion was at that time. It doesn't matter if "THE CHURCH" abused it's position for this issue. If they believed "THE CHURCH" was the religion--and evidence is available for that--behaving in good faith does mean following "THE CHURCH". Incorrect again. It doesn't matter if they believed the Church was the religion. That the Church commanded the Inquisition to terrorize, brutalize and kill people, and that they, calling themselves Men of God, went ahead and did so, leans STRONGLY in favor of their desire to benefit from their position as Inquisitors, and leans WAY AGAINST any evidence that they were doing so due to devotion and deep faith.
Kevin Connery wrote:
As you wish. I won't bring up the other religions that kill and torture according to the tenets of their faith, since those taithful believers much also be extraordinarily feeble-minded or insane as well. Apparently "Men of God" must believe YOUR God, not theirs. Or their understanding of their religion. Not at all. Any religion that calls for the death and torture of others is insanity, and their followers are either feeble-minded or insane. Of course, that's not how it is, only how you would like it to be, to fit your argument. The way it IS, humans corrupt religion into dogma, enlist others to exploit the faithful, and attempt to get away with whatever they can under the guise of 'religious fervor'.
This mealy-mouthed attempt to leverage the Inquisition to illustrate that "faith" turns otherwise intelligent, sane individuals into sadistic maniacs is failing miserably, Kevin. Really...
Kevin Connery wrote:
I don't take all religious dogma as corruption, but even so: is following your belief unfaithful if what you believe is incorrect? That's where we seem to disagree. If your religion says one thing, and your church tells you to do the opposite, and it's obvious to anyone that the church is exploiting the religion to do whatever it wants to do, if you participate, your belief is inherently suspect. You can certainly CLAIM that you're doing it out of faith, because THAT'S THE MODUS OPERANDI. You're pretending to be a Man of God. That's how you get away with things. You're doing 'God's Work'. In fact, the more you terrorize, brutalize and kill, the more devout you appear to be.
Kevin Connery wrote:
You keep returning to that as if it proved a lack of faith; it doesn't. I never said that it *proves* a lack of faith. It DOES unquestionably make that claim of faith extremely suspect, except to the extremely naive.
Kevin Connery wrote:
Yup. You're right; you'd have to be pretty selective. Sadly, there's a lot of evidence supporting it over the last 15 centuries, not just during that period. Which only REINFORCES the fact that people did NOT commit these acts based on faith or deep devotion.
kickfight wrote:
Ah, I notice you conveniently rephrased it with an "all", without which your original point collapses.
BZZZT. Nice try, but no cigar. Kevin Connery wrote:
Yes, and I even noted why I included it, so you couldn't miss it. Thanks! It didn't help you much, though...
Kevin Connery wrote:
Fair enough. I'll let that stand, and let your accusation against virtually all religious and political followers stand.
You're on your own, now. Oh, no! You're just silly.
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 17824
El Segundo, California, US
kickfight wrote:
Any religion that calls for the death and torture of others is insanity, and their followers are either feeble-minded or insane. I guess that explains the Moche, Toltec, Mayan, and Incan religions, which had human sacrifice and torture as part of their core. fundamental beliefs. (Many of the Mayan faithful seem to have competed to be the sacrifice, based on most current archaeological evidence/interpretation. [Breaking the Mayan Code by Michael Coe] The Aztecs occasionally used outsiders (by force), but the norm was the faithful who voluntarily queued up by the dozens to wait their turn. Why? Because they believed their blood sacrifices would help prevent the 5th destruction of the earth. [The Aztecs, by Inga Clendenin]) Or the Sioux or Cheyenne, which practiced self-torture as part of their Sun Dance. And the Kali and Shakti followers in India, some early Greek religions, ....
Or perhaps you actually meant what you said, and that they can't be religion if they believe something you don't--they must be insane, "and their followers are either feeble-minded or insane".
Or perhaps you accept them as religions, but call them insane. Which begs the point: how can you assert that your beliefs are correct, and theirs are not? Certainly, they'd say the same about you and your beliefs, with the same fervor and faith that you have.
No matter which, discussing it with you is pointless. It's your way or no way.
Photographer
Xandria Gallery
Posts: 1354
Arlington, Texas, US
Tim Baker wrote:
He will not get it, unfortunately. Stories (or anecdotes) are much more easy to 'get' than is reality. /tim Nice shot, Tim. Grow up. These "stories" that you denegrade have been proven to be pretty darn reliable if you have an open mind... Strike one for you.
Second thing is you say it is more easy to 'get' than is reality. If evolution is such a reality, why is it a theory? Why is it that for 300 years science has been struggling to prove it and the more they study the more scientists, it seems, question it. Your reality isn't based firmly on the ground, but somehow I think you already either knew it or have been told so plenty. Strike two.
You have one more strike left? Of course several pages back I asked you questions about evolution and you skated around it without answering so I guess that could be considered strike three. Sorry dude.
Photographer
Xandria Gallery
Posts: 1354
Arlington, Texas, US
Tim Baker wrote:
However, unlike religion, one of the constructs of the scientific method is that 'change' is a significant part of the process ... where 'change' is a constant in religion. Woah! Sweet! I never knew that science doesn't have any rules that are bound to it. All rules are changing. An object in motion will stay in motion if acted upon by an equal and opposite force! Gravity is subject to change! Oh wait... science is governed by certain rules just as religion is.
Photographer
Tim Baker-fotoPerfecta
Posts: 9877
Portland, Oregon, US
jeffgreen wrote:
Woah! Sweet! I never knew that science doesn't have any rules that are bound to it. All rules are changing. An object in motion will stay in motion if acted upon by an equal and opposite force! Gravity is subject to change! Oh wait... science is governed by certain rules just as religion is. Scientists could care less about your 'process' - If it makes you feel better to "belive' than that's cool. Just back up your beliefs with some evidence. /t
Photographer
Tim Baker-fotoPerfecta
Posts: 9877
Portland, Oregon, US
jeffgreen wrote:
[
I never knew that science doesn't have any rules that are bound to it. Then, I'd suggest you study about how the scientific method works.
Photographer
Xandria Gallery
Posts: 1354
Arlington, Texas, US
Yup, still can't deal with anything said, just keep throwing accusations.
|
