On respect

[darkstar3]

(Reposted as an OP by DUer request)
You ask for respect, and I would give it, but we have a differing view on what constitutes respect.

Atheists and believers have a very difficult time on agreeing to just what exactly constitutes "respect."

I respect you as a human being.
I respect that you have made a choice.

That, with few exceptions, is where my default state of respect ends. I do not respect your particular beliefs. I do not afford them any more weight or import than the beliefs of anyone else, past, present, or future.

I genuinely and truthfully see no difference between today's worship of a single deity called God and the ancient worship of a pantheon of deities that are no longer believed in. Yet, when I make statements like this, I am labeled as "disrespectful," because I dare to compare religious thoughts and practices of today to mythology or fantasy. It's not that I or any other atheists who do this are trying to be flippant or assholish, it's just that we genuinely don't see a difference, and your particular flavor of mythology has earned no more or less respect than any other idea on the planet.

Just because it's something that's important to you or others does not mean that people should respect it. Sharia law is an important and closely held belief of Muslims, and it requires that women adhere to laws that essentially turn them into nothing more than property. Should we respect those laws or the beliefs that led to their creation and enforcement any more than we respected segregation laws in our own country decades ago?

Respect is a funny thing. It comes in different levels. Basic respect for someone as a human being should be given by default, but respect for just about anything else, including ideas (whether they are closely held or not) is earned.

[Deep13]

1. exactly

:yourock:

[tabatha]

2. I think respect is a difficult concept for many people in this country

where people can be derided for their stances, their beliefs and even what they look like.

"Basic respect for someone as a human being should be given by default" - if that tenet were followed, there would be no religion and no need for it either.

[Jim__]

39. "if that tenet were followed, there would be no religion and no need for it either."

I'm not clear why you say that. I don't think religion has to do only with respect. Can you you say why you believe that?

[tabatha]

40. Just from observation.

I grew up in South Africa where religion was the reason for keeping Blacks separate.
I have also found that sexism goes along with racism, as women in that country were expected to get married, stay home and have children, based on religious teachings.
If I look at the Middle East at Sharia law, it is also a tool to control people, especially women.

If people respected others and regarded men and women as equal, and had no desire for one to control the other, there would be no need for religion. Religion (mostly social laws) is used to control and hence disrespect other people.

Where has it been used otherwise?

[darkstar3]

42. Religious people:

Please note when you answer this loaded question that there is a HUGE difference between religion, which is a hierarchical structure built around beliefs, and spirituality as experienced by an individual. Please do not conflate the two in an effort to defend religion in this instance.

Carry on...

[tabatha]

43. I defended religion?

And I never mentioned spirituality in my answer.
I have followed and read about themes of spirituality across continents.

[darkstar3]

44. No, no, not at all.

You asked the loaded question. I was just letting people who intended to answer it know that religion and spirituality are two very separate things.

Sorry for the confusion, friend. :hi:

[tabatha]

45. OK, I was slow on the uptake.

[Jim__]

46. Your answer is somewhat surprising.

Your original statement: if that tenet were followed, there would be no religion and no need for it either implies that we need religion because people don't show basic respect for one another. Your second answer states that religion leads to disrespect between people.

Does your original statement really mean that there is no need (no function) for religion today? That's a different argument than the one you appeared to be making.

As to the separation between the races in South Africa, Portuguese, Dutch, and British settlers acted pretty much like European settlers everywhere, they either ignored (with some trade) the locals, or, they conquered them and colonized the land. That typical European behavior probably had more to do with the separation of the races than religion. Anyway, out-group enmity is typical of human groups and seems to mimic out-group enmity of various inter-species (especially primates)competition for resources. It doesn't seem like religion is required to explain this behavior; although religion can be used to support the behavior.

As to where it has ever been different, according to Nicholas Wade in, "The Faith Instinct", as religion arose in human hunter gatherer societies they went from male dominated to extremely egalitarian (extreme in that the best hunters might be killed for standing out from the group); and men and women appear to have become equal as religion became common within groups.

[whosinpower]

3. I don't care what you believe

But I can still respect you, and more importantly - be respectful of you. You will lose my respect when you foist it upon me as the "truth light and way."
If you show me with good intentions and challenge my beliefs, you may gain more respect.
There is a semantic difference with challenging beliefs and being respectful and/or earning deserving respect.

Case in point - you use Shariah law. What would be the best way to challenge the beliefs within Shariah law in regards to the treatment of women? Would it be better to just say - that is wrong, and I have no respect for anyone who adheres to those laws, or might it be more effective to empower those women to challenge those laws - to change them and allow Shariah to evolve into something more than it is now for them?

[darkstar3]

4. Wouldn't both of your solutions to Shariah Law be considered disrespectful by a Muslim? n/t

[whosinpower]

8. Maybe some would, but not all

I guess what I am saying is that they have the right to change their laws and belief systems. We do not. We can encourage them - but we cannot force them. Encouraging is respectful, because it implies an equality. Telling them you have no respect for them because of their beliefs is counter productive. They will cling to it even harder just to spite you. Because you have stated you have no respect for them - you are saying, in effect, they are not equal to you. It is elitist.

And, just because you have no respect for them - they will automatically give back what you offer - no respect for you. How will that change anything??

[Silent3]

6. You left out a third option inherent in the OP

You left out having no respect for the Sharia laws themselves. You immediately, and I'd guess unconsciously even, reformulated that idea into "no respect for anyone who adheres to those laws".

The frustration the OP feels, and I share it too, is that so many people seem unwilling or unable to understand that important distinction.

[Deep13]

12. +1

Ideas are created by and held by people, but those ideas are not people.

[whosinpower]

14. Your right - I did and was not even aware of it

My bad.

[Deep13]

7. Empowering those women would necessarily be contrary to Shariah law.

To answer your question generally, what I am not willing to do is to pretend that an idea is reasonable when it isn't or to pretend that I agree with something when I don't. I frankly feel that any solution that requires any level of dishonesty only perpetuates the problem.

[onager]

27. Which Sharia law?

I'll try to be concise, but this is a fairly large topic. Most Westerners equate Shariah with "strict legal Muslim fundamentalism," but it's not that simple.

I've lived in two countries that are officially under Sharia law - Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

They're as different as night and day.

Many Americans, especially if they've visited Egypt, might find it hard to believe Egypt is even under Sharia law. Women there dress pretty much however they want.

Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution: Islam is the Religion of the State. Arabic is its official language, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

The irony of that: currently the Egyptian government itself is the main force holding the line against misogynistic fundamentalist asshats who want to impose a more strict form of Sharia in Egypt.

When I lived in Egypt (2005-2009), the Minister of Culture, Farouk Hosni, kicked off a giant crap-storm when he banned the headscarf for any Egyptian women who appeared on TV as news reporters, etc.

And we can always count on Souad Saleh to kick up such storms. She's one of the few female experts on Sharia, and a professor at al-Azhar Universtiy in Cairo (the world's oldest Islamic university). She gets a lot of death threats.

[darkstar3]

28. I don't really think it matters in context.

I was trying to illustrate an example of a religious belief held dear to some but repugnant to others, such as the treatment of women as property and slaves.

If you'd like to be more specific and factual, please feel free to post more info on Sharia Law. For the purposes of our discussion on respect, let's assume that I meant Sharia Law as currently implemented in Saudi Arabia, Iran, parts of Afghanistan, and other places where you find oppressed women wearing an outfit a beekeeper couldn't stand because the men aren't expected to control their own sexual urges.

[roguevalley]

32. my belief is spiritual and I think people have a spiritual dimension, some

expressing it in religious observance and others in behavior and attitude. I think some even deny it for whatever reason they want. I truly don't care. The decision about belief is one of the most personal and private ones you can make and each person must decide for themselves. You don't have to be religious to be spiritual and I think when you take that aspect away from youself, you take a lot of what makes a person alive and vibrant as well. IMO.

Even the greatest scientists of all -Einstein and Newton and the like- were spiritual and religious and valued it and frankly, I find even this being denied or denegrated tedious. What people do with the outward manifestations of spiritual actions and belief OR LACK OF IT can be critiqued. They often result in awful actions. But they also bring about the selfless aspect of religious who spend their lives helping others and the millions and millions of people who actually do try and fulfill social justice and other aspects of being religious that are good. Just saying that religions are superstitions that should go away denigrates those people and it disallows that even though there has been bad things as a result of people's actions (justified by their interpretation of religions) there has been infinite good as well. A lot of what motivates Obama stems from his belief in "superstitions" and the like. Is he a dork too?

Atheists don't have a lock on the truth. Nor do religious people. The only way we can truly find out what is true and who was right is after we die. As for the here and now, we can learn on both sides to be respectful and automatically not assume that when we meet and self-identify that it means to start a battle. After all, atheists always complain about getting kicked around when people find out they are one or see it as the way they are received in the country. But so many of them do the same with religious people too. And saying its because religious people treat them badly is not a good retort. I've been kicked in the teeth by both. My uncle is the most disgusting atheist I've ever met and he's the worst ambassador for this point of view ever to inhabit the earth. I don't hold it against atheism.

We both have to treat each other well if there is to be respect and it has to start with each other. Its the only way peace comes. IMO.

[darkstar3]

41. I think you missed the point I'm trying to make.

You mention the word respect in your post multiple times, but when you do you are demanding that it be afforded to ideas of both sides automatically. As I said in the OP, ideas must earn respect, they do not get it automatically.

Your Obama canard and overall second paragraph is old hat for many reasons:
1. It is possible to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.
2. I never called anyone a "dork", so implying that I did with the phrase "Is he a dork too?" is putting words in my mouth.
3. You're building a straw man. Not everyone who refers to religion as "superstition" states that it should definitely be done away with. Some, in fact many, realize that humanity is a superstitious lot and that losing that superstitious nature is something we have to come to gradually.
4. You're never going to find consensus on Einstein's spiritual or religious views. He has been quoted out of context for far too long. Also, Einstein may be one of the most well known scientists today, but his contributions weren't nearly as important as many others, so I wouldn't apply the label of "greatest" to him.

Some wrap-up notes:
1. The idea that we all have a "spiritual dimension" is your belief, and many do not share it. Yet in starting your call for respect on both sides, you drop this nugget,
You don't have to be religious to be spiritual and I think when you take that aspect away from youself, you take a lot of what makes a person alive and vibrant as well. IMO.
disrespecting the ideas of those who disagree with you. See what I mean when I say ideas don't get automatic respect? And that's fine. You can disrespect my ideas and still respect me as a human being, as long as you recognize that I have the same right and ability.
2. The only way we can truly find out what is true and who was right is after we die. On the big question of whether or not there is a God or an afterlife, you are correct, but what about all the questions that deal specifically with the world we inhabit while we're alive? Scientific truths, the treatment of women, the morality of slavery and indentured servitude, and many other happenings and aspects in this world are spoken about with differing points of view by different religions. If you're going to tell me that you think they're all equally valid, then you're practicing moral relativism.

I think the whole misunderstanding here is that you are equating your ideas with your personhood. If someone disrespects your ideas on spirituality or religion, you feel that they have disrespected you as a person. That's part of the problem I was trying to address in the OP. Ideas are not people, and many of them (not making any judgments about yours specifically) are flat out wrong. If we would all just step back and realize we are not our ideas on a specific subject, I think discussion of the topics of spirituality and religion would go a lot smoother.

[roguevalley]

72. actually, I guess the real thing that always comes to me here is the

idea that science can be theoretical without the possibility of actual hard evidence and that is supposed to be okay but religious people have to produce empirical evidence for their ideas, theories and beliefs. That is the biggest thing that comes to me whenever this stuff comes up. My ideas are not my personhood although I believe that we are spiritual beings having a physical life. What comes next none of us know but I am not closing doors. I also am not going to not question all things including science. The religious trappings of spiritual life don't interest me. I don't defend them, I don't believe them but I do believe the philosophy that underpins religious thought and life.

By the way, creationists are nuts. But spiritual thought and explorations aren't. They aren't the same to me. One is a roadblock and the other is a journey, just like science. And for most of your posting, I didn't read it. I just skimmed it because we are not going to agree and I didn't lay on you anything. Nothing. Whatever gets a person through their day is fine with me. I've had enough death in my family in the recent past to know that I don't know the truth anymore than anyone else. There are things in both sides of the coin that cannot be proven but no one seems to care that one side is always attacked for what people believe and the other side gets a pass. I don't defend the mythology that permeates religious thought. I do defend the ideas of religious thought that make it worth something to four billion people. As for Obama, his religion informs all he does. the idea that a religious person can sometimes do something right is an awful, awful statement to make. It denigrates what he is in total. But that is just me and my opinion.

[darkstar3]

73. Your claims about science are a false characterization,

and a false parallel. Science has never claimed that it has found the answer to any big question in life without first providing evidence to back it up. Anything idea that doesn't have sufficient corroborating evidence is a hypothesis, sometimes a "working hypothesis", but it is never stated as some form of "truth"

You are mischaracterizing the scientific method when you say that science can be theoretical without the possibility of actual hard evidence and that is supposed to be okay. It is NOT okay to simply lack hard data, and yet claim that you have an answer to a question or support for a hypothesis. That entire idea is counter to the scientific method. If you don't believe me, if you think you have proof that science has claimed to answer something where there is no hard data or evidence to back it up, then I'd be happy for you to post it so that we can all mock that half-assed researcher together.

I also am not going to not question all things including science.
Really? And what questioning process brought you to the current belief that we are all spiritual beings having a physical life? Is this a belief that you question as a frequently as you question other beliefs, or science itself?

On top of those questions, ponder this: Science encourages doubt, and dares people to ask questions. It is how we learn. It is how we progress. Without questions, life is meaningless. But you must be careful about the method of your questioning, lest it lead you nowhere.

[roguevalley]

75. yada yada yada. I give up. I don't even care anymore. be happy in

your certainty that you know it all. I give up caring about this anymore.

[darkstar3]

77. Goodnight.

Just take with you the knowledge that I never claimed to know it all. In fact, I find the whole idea of knowing it all quite boring. How incredibly dull life would be if there were never to be any more discoveries!

[ironbark]

80. Roguevalley…if your still around

Could you please expand and elaborate on this please, I’m not sure I’m reading it right-

“As for Obama, his religion informs all he does. the idea that a religious person can sometimes do something right is an awful, awful statement to make. It denigrates what he is in total. But that is just me and my opinion”

Enjoyed the rest of your post…just had trouble understanding the last bit.

[omega minimo]

84. Literally

"You don't have to be religious to be spiritual and I think when you take that aspect away from youself, you take a lot of what makes a person alive and vibrant as well. IMO."

[MorningGlow]

5. I don't care if you respect my beliefs or not

As long as you let me believe what I want without calling me names. Unfortunately, the name-calling and belittling of belief systems has turned into a sport here. Therefore, it's the civility of discourse that's at issue.

When people open fire from the get-go, on either side, without even attempting to understand the other side, why bother having a discussion forum at all?

When people on either side try to "trap" the opposition with wordplay, then congratulate themselves on a job well done, whether or not they accomplished what they set out to do (usually to make themselves look superior and the other side look ignorant), why bother attempting to converse?

When people do not ask questions (not "logic traps", but honest questions in order to understand the other side of the issue), there is no conversation whatsoever, no learning, no understanding, and then, no, no respect. But don't we need common courtesy/respect in order to have civil discourse? (Note that I'm not saying respect must equal blind acceptance. Rather, respect--meaning common courtesy--must be present in order to maintain civility and make progress in understanding "the other".)

What's dismaying is not that we here on DU believe different things/feel differently about an issue. It's the fact that too many people who jump into a discussion do so with swords drawn and insults flying, bent on proving "the other side" to be "fools". And that's a ride that will never come to an end as long as the status quo remains in place.

How do we fix that? :shrug:

[Deep13]

10. If ones point of view is illogical, then one has to expect to be trapped by it.

Logic is an important part of critical thinking. If one is being consistent with his or here definitions and is reasoning consistently with the evidence, but is still caught in a logical trap; that is a very real indication that the idea has no basis in reality. If ones faith comes from observing creation, then one has to realize that "creation" is an assumption that god made everything. It is built on an unproved premise.

It's not up to me to decide who is or is not a fool. That is irrelevant to the argument. An idea that matches reality is a good idea. One that is contradicted by it is not. The goal should not be how to live with each other's questionable beliefs, but rather how to find the truth. The only way I know for sure to get there is to examine the evidence critically. I do think for many people that the permission to rely on faith or preconception stunts ones intelectual growth. But again, that is irrelevant to the veracity of religious claims.

[MorningGlow]

18. Ah, but then you're wading into the issue of faith

I have experienced things in my belief system that have proven to me that what I believe is very real. However, to others who have not had the same experiences, it is unreal. Therein lies the issue of "faith". I have recently come to the realization that the definition of faith is not really "believe what someone in authority tells you without questioning it", but instead is "having the courage to believe in your own personal experiences even if the means do not yet exist for 'proving' what you believe to other people".

So...if I can't satisfactorily "prove" to you that what I believe exists within the parameters of your accepted "reality", that means my beliefs are illogical and therefore worthy of disrespect, as, by association, am I? As well as anti-intellectual, as you note? I'm sorry, but that sounds very narrow-minded from here. :(

[Deep13]

21. I don't doubt your experiences.

I'm sure you saw, heard, felt whatever you are describing. I take personal experience very seriously. That's not the issue. I am simply skeptical that the cause was divine or supernatural. I know, for example--and this might not apply to your experiences--that the human mind has some hard wired limitations that actually exist as a survival advantage. The human mind is programmed to recognize patterns. It is so good at it, that people are really susceptible to recognizing patterns that just are not there. When I say patterns, I don't just mean visual perception, but causal connections of all kinds. "There are no coincidences" is an example of that taken to an extreme. A false positive after all is usually harmless (not always, just ask the victims of witch hunts). A false negative can get you killed in a hurry from failing to see the cliff, ice, bear or enemy. Really every aspect of human perception has an evolutionary cause and many of them are hold-overs from when we were not so smart. Personally, I think the real courage is being able to admit that our view of the world might not be right. I was in your boat once and not very long ago. Before that, I was in Sarah Palin's boat. So I know what you mean.

So, I don't doubt your experiences, I just doubt that god is what explains them.

[MorningGlow]

22. I completely understand

I would never ask anyone to believe my experiences outright without having had some of their own in a similar vein. That would amount to "believe what I tell you and don't question".

I see the validity and possibility of your suggestions and how you would reach that conclusion, as you have not experienced what I have and so would have a completely different perception. But then that raises the question of "what, exactly, is divine or supernatural?" That sort of contemplation arrives at a fast dead end, however, without discussing a specific experience.

[omega minimo]

49. There is the stumbling block in the "logic" and "critical thinking"

"But then that raises the question of "what, exactly, is divine or supernatural?"

One "side" convincing themselves that the other believes in "the supernatural."

Too many blind, possibly false assumptions, without a discussion of your questions; without sane discussion you invoked above, where folks discuss ideas more, tromp on each other less.

[darkstar3]

25. I'm sorry, I have to ask an OT question here:

Why do you put "reality" in quotes? I have to admit, it really bothers me.

[GliderGuider]

290. I can't speak for MG, but the reason I often say "reality"

is because what most people take to be reality is nothing of the sort. It's an amalgam of perceptions, all of which have been fed through the meat engine between our ears where the external inputs were channeled though a variety of psychological filters and programs that we have all been accumulating since we were born. What comes out into our consciousness is a coloured, distorted and heavily edited interpretation of the original inputs. The final construct bears as much resemblance to reality as an abstract expressionist painting does to the original pond of water lilies. It's no longer reality, it's "reality".

[JerseygirlCT]

243. I agree with this

Faith by its nature is not something to be proven or disproven like a scientific theory. It's very personal, and as you say, shaped by that person's experiences.

[omega minimo]

50. Know Thyself

"The goal should not be how to live with each other's questionable beliefs, but rather how to find the truth."

[iris27]

17. Refusing to play, I think. (That's my working hypothesis at the moment,

anyway.) Sticking to discussion of the issues and ignoring insults or snide tones when they crop up, by addressing only the meat of the post.

[MorningGlow]

19. I have done that

Although not before having been baited into participating in pointless, circular "I know you are but what am I" arguments. ;) Live and learn, I guess.

[ironbark]

26. Brilliant post, well done!

So glad you took the time to contribute.

Quick addition-

How can there be respect for the others pov if you are inventing/manufacturing it for them?
If your not actively listening/reading, not checking for the others meaning and intent but continually assuming and projecting your own…how can there be respect?

The hallmark of the vast majority of discussions I have had on this board has been the necessity to continually say- “No I’m not saying that, I did not say that, that’s your assumed projection of my pov not mine”.

Many may not believe in god….but quite a few believe they have godlike powers to read anothers mind.

“When people do not ask questions (not "logic traps", but honest questions in order to understand the other side of the issue), there is no conversation whatsoever, no learning, no understanding, and then, no, no respect. But don't we need common courtesy/respect in order to have civil discourse? “

YES!
Respect does not begin and end with tolerance for the great differing philosophies it begins with the little “common courtesy” of actually listening… towards the end of understanding.

[omega minimo]

51. "How can there be respect for the others pov if you are inventing/manufacturing it for them?"

"Many may not believe in god….but quite a few believe they have godlike powers to read anothers mind. "


:yourock:

[omega minimo]

48. Excellent. Well put MG

:applause:

[GliderGuider]

9. How does an idea "earn" respect?

To a first approximation we respect ideas that agree with or support our own pre-existing ideas.

[Deep13]

11. I respect ideas that are supported by evidence...

...or at the very least are not contradicted by it.

[GliderGuider]

13. And if there is no evidence?

How do you decide on the relative respectability of pantheism vs. string theory?

[Deep13]

15. No evidence gets you to zero.

Pantheism and string theory have a lot in common there. Of course in pantheism, which does accept the basic premise of a divine presence, one can make predictions that in principal can be disproved by experiment and observation. For example, the unintelligent nature of evolution precludes any divine purpose in the development of life. What little I know about string theory is that it is primarily a mathematical model that is internally consistent (something most religions are not) but does not make a single testable prediction about the real universe. So yeah, while it might "make sense" to those who understand it, it really isn't science until it can be tested. So I respect the work that went into string theory and I respect that it is valid within the parameters of ST, but I'm not willing to conceded any real-world validity until it has been tested. Pantheism has been described by Dawkins as "sexed up atheism." I'm not sure I accept that because it is still a belief system that apparently holds the core values of every religion to be true. Since those core principals largely contradict each other, OTOH, I think it should be ruled out. Religions that claim to be the one, true revealed truth cannot all be right.

[GliderGuider]

23. My point is that respectability doesn't require "evidence"

so much as it requires that the idea under consideration be consonant at some level with your personal worldview/paradigm/cultural narrative.

To go a step further, if your criterion for respectability is a requirement for evidence, the nature of the evidence you will accept depends on your worldview. If I were to accept subjective evidence of the power of meditation from my (and others') experience and you rejected it becaused there was no way to measure that power, what is gained or lost by chosing one paradigm over the other? If you choose one over the other, you end up in a tautological position, because you axiomatically choose the one that supports your pre-existing paradigm...

[darkstar3]

24. John Calvin is on line 1 for you...

To clarify, since I'm sure that reference will go over some heads (not necessarily yours), your "pre-existing paradigm" creates a regression paradox, leading back to, essentially, "it's all pre-existing, it's all predestined."

[GliderGuider]

29. I don't get that metaphysical about it.

For me it starts with the cultural narrative that we co-create, and the social conditioning that supports and propagates the story. The reason the "scientific" worldview is so highly respected and valued in the West but less so in the East (until recently) is that the cultural narratives were different. As the narratives converge, so does the conditioning and the resulting paradigm that people grow up accepting as self-evident.

[darkstar3]

30. Then what you're talking about is referred to in my circles as 'bias',

unless I am quite mistaken. The cultural, ingrained psychological tendencies that all of us have by the time we reach adulthood.

What you have to understand is that it is possible to investigate your own thought processes on a meta level and slowly, but surely, identify those biases for what they are. Then, after recognizing them, it becomes easier to correct for them as you study new things.

This investigation is, to be sure, not an easy process, and oftentimes starting it requires the guidance of wiser individuals who have thoroughly studied the behavioral sciences.

But as interesting as it may be for us to investigate the effect that our cultural biases have on our various religious beliefs and decisions, it's not the topic of this thread. Bias, though real, does not affect the concept of automatic respect, because no matter what biases an individual might hold, there is no reason for them to automatically respect the ideas of another individual.

[GliderGuider]

35. Is a core value also a bias?

Let's take the core value of Western culture -- that the scientific method, the technology it enables, and the progress that results from the combination, is a good thing. I suppose that value could be considered a bias as you describe it. Certainly over the last 5 years I have applied the techniques of skeptical inquiry you describe to my acceptance of that value. Through that gradual, incremental process it became possible for me to see it for what it is, understand the distortions it imposes on my behaviour, and eventually to discard it and replace it with a value/bias I find less harmful and more humane.

Now, my new values have little in common with my old ones, so anyone who still accepts the paradigm I've abandoned (that technology and progress are self-evident goods) will think I've either made a huge mistake or that I've lost part of my mind. I can tell you that this new worldview gets precious little respect. That's completely understandable though, because one of the things a dominant paradigm does is defend itself vigorously against opposition, criticism and challenge.

[skepticscott]

38. That may be your assessment of the core value

but please don't presume to attribute it to everyone else here and elsewhere. It certainly isn't correlated with the central conviction of rationalism and skeptical inquiry, namely that the scientific method is the best way we know of to obtain accurate knowledge about the physical universe and how it works. Saying whether the technological progress that results from that knowledge, after considering all of its benefits and liabilities, is a "good" thing comes down to value judgments which are, ultimately, outside the realm of science. Science may inform those questions, by showing what has been accomplished and what is possible that wasn't before (the prevention or curing of diseases that used to be fatal, for example), but it cannot decide them.

Of course, the burden is on people who assert that technological progress (in total, or beyond a certain point) is a bad thing to show at what point in history things were better overall for humans than they are now. When would they choose to live rather than now and which of the benefits of technology would they be willing to give up?

[tama]

64. Value and time

universalism in itself is ethically very problematic vs. cultural relativism, as there can be no "universalism" and universalist globalization and imperialism and homogenizing devoid of cultural bias (disguised as "objectivity", good for all etc.).

Values I share with Gliderguider are very simple. Sustainable way of life, not fouling up the planet so that it becomes unlivable for our children and grandchildren. Belonging in nature - that is all that we are - instead of trying to control and fight what we are - nature.

Technology is a "farmakon" - Greek word for both medicin and poison. Not bad or evil (or both) in nature, but when promoted to technocracy, based on some basic values (such as living well) the evidence of technocracy and modern man made part of machine (remember Chaplins movie) is slavery, not freedom. Technocracy is not sustainable and not good life and science made slave of technocracy is not good science.

[Silent3]

31. What gains the scientific approach respectability is results.

There is clear, verifiable progress gained from using the scientific approach. That progress is more than some mere "cultural narrative". Science grows, expands, builds on previous successes, learns from previous failures. Non-scientific concepts such a religion and superstitious and mystical practices, however, just go around in circles, change in the manner that clothing fashions change, except often with a lot more strife and bloodshed. Catholicism is not a more "advanced" religion than Zoroastrianism, astrology does not improve upon the predictive power of reading animal entrails.

[GliderGuider]

34. The value of progress is the core of our cultural narrative.

It seems self-evident to you that progress is good, yes?

It's possible to have a narrative where that is not the case. To someone who was embedded in that story our need for constant progress and our casual acceptance of its costs might might look insane.

[Silent3]

36. I was waiting for that (sigh!)

Whether you value progress or not, it's a sign of effectiveness. Not a sign that everything in life is necessarily better in each and every way than if we'd all stayed living in caves or mud huts, but it's still a sign that science is doing something, that it's an approach with a better handle on how the world works that people turning their hopes and fears into fantasies of gods and demons and magic beads.

But if you're bound and determined to turn everything into "cultural narrative", yes, I'm perfectly aware you could keep going and going with that special variety of insistent vagueness that is happy to claim that 2+2=4 is just a cultural choice, and if a culture that wants the answer to be 3 or 5 or lemon-lime that's just as "valid".

"Who are we to judge and insist our way is better?" :eyes:

[tama]

65. Science = tool?

Apes like us are good with tools compared to most other species. That's a scientific fact, and also self-reflection. Self-knowledge. Tool vielding ape without sense of purpose, without know thyself kind of knowledge, is at least half blind. Tool vielding, making science nothing but aid of technocracy, looses sense of all other meaningfull relations.

Theoretical physics is most fundamentally about esthetics, viewing nature as is. Making esthetics a servant of technocracy has to do with wet dreams of alpha males and wannabes vielding clubs to bash others into submission.

[Silent3]

69. Can you translate that mishmash into English, please?

Other than the fact that you've got a bug up your ass about those awful dominating alpha males, is there lucid point in there?

[GliderGuider]

70. It's odd that it can be so clear to me yet so opaque to you.

I don't think tama's first language is English, so this is a pretty good shot at expressing some complex and abstract thoughts.

What's the bug up thine own ass?

[Silent3]

71. It's not the literal meaning of the words that's the problem...

...it's the nonsensical, wooly word-association-game vagueness of it all I object to. "Complex and abstract" is being far too kind.

Her post brings to mind something Jefferson said talking about the Christian idea of the Trinity:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

Much the same can be said about tama's fierce dedication to turning everything into a "cultural narrative" and nothing more, where all ideas no matter how crazy they seem are equal... well, except, of course, and ideas that spring the utter evil of the "dominant paradigm".

[tama]

103. Cultural narrative

Well I happen to believe that cultural equality based on the golden rule is ethical. And the attitude and practice - that you seem to subscribe to - that some cultures are more equal than others unethical.

The technocratic culture that is convinced that it is superior to all others and has conquered and globalized whole Earth into consumerist mass society, a planet wide pyramid fraud with banksters at top, sees nature as a mere resource and destroys the ecological carrying capacity with it's tools and by forcing humanity into part of machine.

[Silent3]

118. What I don't subscribe to is the absurdity of the connections...

...you're making. You make the leap from the idea of anything at all being deemed superior to another thing to everything you think is wrong with "technocratic culture".

You speak as if the only solution (going back to the OP -- remember that?) is for everyone to respect everyone else's ideas no matter how absurd, otherwise somehow if some of us think invisible sky daddies and crystal therapy are nonsensical, especially if we dare to say so and propose the idea that (gasp!) evidence is a good way to separate the worthy ideas from not so worthy (how judgmental!), the inescapable result is evil bankers and ecological disaster.

The irony, of course, is that you're obviously very judgmental yourself about anyone and anything that doesn't go along with your scheme of vague, unanchored cultural relativism.

[tama]

119. Strawmen upon strawmen

they are not helpfull and too much of them to get into details.

What are the underlying causes and roots of banksters, ecological disaster and generally the mess we are in? Is the map or maps provided by mainstream science reliable guide out of our predicament (to be able to continue to adapt to evolution without unavoidable pain) or is it also in some ways part of the problem?

PS: I'm not denying evidence, but I do see a lot of denial of valid and important evidence.

[Silent3]

121. The only straw men in my post are your straw men...

...that I'm pointing out.

What are the underlying causes and roots of banksters, ecological disaster and generally the mess we are in?

There are numerous causes. The question is, rather than hinting or acting as if your opinion of the causes is obvious, why don't you state what you think the causes are for the record?

One could say that the cause of all of those problems is people breathing oxygen, because obviously, if all humans decided to stop breathing oxygen, there wouldn't be any banks, no wars, no industrial waste. Obviously the root cause of all that's wrong with the world is people breathing oxygen!

Unless you can spell out your objections to the OP more clearly, I don't see where your objections to the OP make any more sense than a crusade against breathing oxygen.

[tama]

173. You make false assumptions

about my opinions and present them as facts. If you want to know my opinions, ask, don't presume - or trust your telepathic mind reading skills, telepathy doesn't really work like that.

You assume that I object to the OP but I don't. I happen to strongly agree with darkstar3 that critisizing belief systems need not and shouldn't be taken as personal attacks. I just like to point out that when I criticize certain belief systems or rather, rigid world views, that criticism seems to be taken personally also by many people who identify as atheists and sceptics, who rather than discuss the criticism rationally resort to ad hominems and abusive language.

So what I'm saying is nothing more and nothing less than that (at least many but not necessarily all) atheists are human too and act like humans act. I don't find anything especially controversial about reminding of such fact - that should be self-evident.

[beam me up scottie]

197. "telepathy doesn't really work like that."

Really? How does it work?

And while you're enlightening us primitive heathens, perhaps you can finally prove your claim that you "can define god(s) in many ways".

When you prove god(s) exist, you'll have so many converts you're sure to be promoted.

[tama]

203. OK

quantum entanglement is the best current working hypothesis. Telepathic succes rates at "guessing" who is calling and other experiments correlate in the experimental data with emotional closeness but not with geographic distance, which suggest that it is a non-local phenomenon.

Are you really a primitive heathen? If so, also I happen to appreciate shamanistic ways of life greatly, so we have a lot in common.

A primitive heathen to other, here's couple of definitions of god/s I've allready given elsewhere:
1) Inclusive organic entity or system is a god to it's subsystems, e.g. corporations, states, local ecosystems and Earth in relation to their human subsystems; a human organism is god to its cellular subsystems etc.
2) Universe as holographic conscious quantum computer

Mind you, these are just meaningfull definitions that anyone can come up with for a word like 'god'. No claims about existence of anything or not is implied by mere definitions of a concept. Only thing proved by these definitions is that I can define god/s in many ways - and it ain't the biggie you seem to think but piece of cake.

[beam me up scottie]

206. Nice try. Explain telepathy using scientific methods and empirical evidence.

I knew you had nothing but woo on gods.

[tama]

217. Why such hostility?

Why do you act like I belong to some enemy camp? What's the war about?

I thought forming hypothesis and with enough progress, testable theories, based on empirical evidence is the scientific method. If you have valid criticism in this respect, please share it.

[beam me up scottie]

225. No hostility, just tired of asking for evidence, either you have proof or you don't.

If you don't have scientific evidence it's no big deal, I have no idea what experiences you've had. But don't expect others to just take your word for it.

[tama]

230. Proof ?

I'd rather not discuss my own experiences - exactly for the reasons you mention. That is why I rather refer to empirical scientific data from Sheldrake and others, as I did above.

Honestly, I have difficulties understanding requests for proof in post following a mention of Sheldrake's empirical studies about telepathy. If you are infamiliar with those, I presume you can google as well as anyone. If you have criticism about those, please share it so we can see how valid it is.

Edit to add - my memory failed and I see that I didn't mention Sheldrake in this context, though I've been mentioning him many times in other posts. But that was what I was thinking about and referring to.

[ironbark]

269. From #26

Many may not believe in god….but quite a few believe they have godlike powers to read anothers mind.

[darkstar3]

74. It is opaque to more than just Silent3...n/t

[beam me up scottie]

82. I only took Woo Woo I and II in high school.

I think they make up the shit as they go along.

[omega minimo]

88. more evidence of the level of respect and civility expressed by some on DU

[beam me up scottie]

89. Look at me!!! Everybody look at me!

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

91. stemming from illogic that would never meet scientific criteria or withstand skeptical inquiry

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=240069&mesg_id=240257

[beam me up scottie]

92. Are you getting enough attention yet?

If not, please go on with the hypocrisy, this is pure comedy gold.

[omega minimo]

94. you're not making any sense.

[ironbark]

270. A cursory summary of ‘Respect’ displays thus far

shows the atheist brethren managing to induce the following responses-

“I give up. I don't even care anymore. be happy in your certainty that you know it all. I give up caring about this anymore”

“Strawmen upon strawmen they are not helpfull and too much of them to get into details.”

“You make false assumptions about my opinions and present them as facts. If you want to know my opinions, ask, don't presume “

“Why such hostility? Why do you act like I belong to some enemy camp? What's the war about?”




It’s a good thing we’re in the ‘Respect’ thread and not the Game On thread.

From #26
I repeat the point and question-

How can there be respect for the others pov if you are inventing/manufacturing it for them?
If your not actively listening/reading, not checking for the others meaning and intent but continually assuming and projecting your own…how can there be respect?

[omega minimo]

283. Good question

and I am also very curious about the squirrelly notion of what respect is or is not -- whether it's vocabulary or culture that has changed or what. Some seem to think respect has more to do with endorsement than courtesy; a competition for votes rather than an extension of good will.

Could this be a reaction to "Political Correctness"? The Right Wing anti-diversity propaganda managed to trick people into being embarrassed to show respect for its own sake?

[darkstar3]

122. Some do.

It makes sure that their viewpoint is unassailable, because by the time you put together an argument against it, they've made up something new that makes them right for the moment!

You should see the southern Pentecostals spin that ability into an art. It's mind boggling.

[tama]

204. Discordianism! nough said n/t.

[ironbark]

79. +1. n/t

[Jim__]

120. I think progress is good if it's progress toward a worthwhile goal.

I fear that we make progress in technology with no real idea of where we are going; or even of where we want to go.

[omega minimo]

284. and without knowing

where we came from

[Deep13]

52. Well, here's the thing.

I don't know what you mean by power of meditation, but I don't doubt that your personal experiences really are those experiences. I just don't see any reason to assume they are divine in origin.

Testing ideas with experiment or observation gets away from agreement with paradigm and puts them in the real world. We know this approach can find the truth because we use it. It took us to the moon, to modern medicine etc. etc. The point is, those ideas exist in objective reality and not just in our minds. Talking about paradigms and belief systems like this suggests all ideas are more or less equal and subjective when the discussion is confined to mere discussion. Move beyond discussion to practical effect, and that point of view is no longer valid.

[GliderGuider]

53. I'm not talking about divinity either.

I'm a third generation strong atheist whose boundaries have recently loosened up a bit.

I don't think that "all ideas are more or less equal". I'm saying that the ideas one accepts as valid (i.e. grants respect to) depends on one's worldview. That's not a terribly difficult idea. And I'm saying that practical effects can be subjective as well as objective. Also not rocket science.

[Deep13]

139. Can you give me an example of practical effects being subjective?

I don't know what you mean by that.

[GliderGuider]

286. Meditation practices consistently help people develop greater compassion and empathy.

The inner inquiry work I do is designed to make its practitioners less reactive, and to allow them to be more aware of their own deep motivations. That gives them more freedom of choice in their emotional responses to life events. It has worked that way for me and the others who are doing it with me.

Taken together, effects like that, while purely subjective, consistently increase the practitioner's quality of life.

That's the sort of thing I was talking about. Sorry it took my a while to get to your question.

[omega minimo]

55. "The point is, those ideas exist in objective reality and not just in our minds."

Doesn't modern science suggest and support all sorts of explorations of both objective reality and our minds, since, oh, say 100 years ago? Where do the DU supporters of Holy Science incorporate current ideas into their dogmatic insistence on the scientific method as the Be All and End All. What century are they living in?

(Yes, I know the New Physics is on one of the web smack down talking points lists, but really, how hidebound are the folks who don't know about or care about discussing where science is NOW?)

[Deep13]

134. Not really.

Even studies that depend on the subjective answers of test subjects do their best to examine large groups to avoid sampling bias and to standardize answers to avoid bias in those collecting the data. Comparing ideas against objective fact is the very antithesis of dogma, so your sarcasm there is misplaced. And again, it works. It may not find all the answers, but so far it is the only thing that has found any of them.

I live in the 21st century and invite you to catch up.

[tama]

66. Repeatability

Testing repeatability of observations and manipulations allready makes certain assumptions about meaning of linear time and causality. As such those preconceived assumptions result in method and theory over reality - which is not by any means obligated to follow and obey such basic assumptions.

Presupposition of 100% repeatability is the foundation of ideology of mechanical control - the power trip, god is dead, man is god.

My way is closer to loser way, surrendering, trying to adapt to evolution instead of trying to control it by mechanical means. I would say the empirical evidence and conventional wisdom is on my side - scientifically.

[darkstar3]

67. You are stating that there can be no objective reality, correct? n/t

[tama]

105. What do you mean by "objective"?

You have your subjective views about what and how objective reality is. I'm not denying your world view, only that all is limited to it and that it is the only truth. Reality cannot be subjected to your "objective reality" - as defined by you subjectively.

Living in a shared reality means sharing and respecting reality - I wish I could replace the noun "reality" with a verb. It is possible to share even without subjects and objects.

As Heraclitus said, you cannot step twice in the same river.

[darkstar3]

123. I suspected as much.

You are playing with solipsism, and frankly I don't know why anyone here should continue to debate with you at that point. If nothing is "real", if nothing is objective, if nothing can be experienced in the exact same way by two different people, then we all just live in our own little subjective bubble worlds and there's no way to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that anyone or anything outside of your own mind exists. At that point, why continue the discussion?

It comes back to a post made on another thread recently: What is blue? There IS an objective answer. The color blue is actually caused by electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength of approx. 475nm. The close range above and below 475nm can be referred to as "shades" of blue.

[tama]

155. We've been over this

and you are still making the same logical fallacy of either-or. Criticism of the whole subject-object dualism does not lead to subjective solipsism.

You seem to define "objectivity" by measurability, at least in some contexts (blue defined as string of numbers) instead of experience of the blue qualia that poetically minded would think first. Fine, no problem, this leads to interesting question:

What is mathematical subject and mathematical object? If the subject-object category does not apply to math, does that make math solipsism?

[darkstar3]

174. Actually, I don't remember going over this,

and there is no logical fallacy at work here, because as I've said in other places before, some things in life really are binary. There either is an objective reality, or there is not.

[tama]

181. Old age don't come alone

but with creeping dementia... ;)

Or maybe you just missed my response last time you brought up the solipsism argument, that can happen too.

Let's try this with the buddhist notion of codependent causality - if subject arises, object arises; if subject ceases, object ceases. Such notion is not unscientific but valid interpretation of quantum measurement problem. A coherent quantum state "where and when" subject and object have not decoherred into observation event is not solipsism - unless the wave function of the whole universe is not defined as a solipsist - and very very lonely - god.

Sure, some things in life are binary - such as chirality etc., - but your notion of objective reality requires your subjective clarification before it can be more fully and meaningfully discussed.

[darkstar3]

189. Your middle paragraph is unfollowable,

but no matter, I will answer your final point.

your notion of objective reality requires your subjective clarification before it can be more fully and meaningfully discussed.
I really hate doing this, but I'm going to have to go to the dictionary. For objective:

undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence"

For reality:

the state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be; "businessmen have to face harsh realities"

Both definitions have been pulled from wordnet, and they are the only definitions that apply when we are talking about the overarching concept of "the real."

So "objective reality," to combine these two terms, is simply "the state of the world as it really is, undistorted by emotion or personal bias, and based on observable phenomena." I believe observable is the key word here, because therein is where your question of subjectivity lies. But if EVERYONE can observe the same thing in the same way, that makes it not only an observation, but an observation that transcends personal bias or emotion. That's why I went with the definition of "blue" above. Many people assign the word "blue" to many different shades of color, and even assign it to emotions, but the observable phenomenon is that everyone whose eyes can process the 475nm range of the electromagnetic spectrum sees the exact same color.

[tama]

211. Yeah

the idea that the middle paragraph tried to express does not open that easily.

Let's pass the dependence on category of subject when defining what is objective (ie non subjective) just by pointing out that dependence. Or if you can define objective independently from subjective, then let's hear such definition.

What is more interesting, at least to me and scientific world view, is the quantum measurement problem and what it says about observation events - and necessity of categories of subject and object as foundation of thinking.

As I'm sure you are aware, quantum theory is currently the most fundamental current scientific theory and quantum phenomena are not limited just to microscopic world (in recent laboratory experiments, allready objects visible to eye behave quantum mechanically, moving and not moving at the same time: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100317/full/news.2010.130.html); classical physics - where division into subject and object can remotely make sense - is special case of quantum physics. So what causes decoherence of quantum potential into observable classical world? How do categories of subject and object feature in this process?

[darkstar3]

215. Again your post is nigh indecipherable, but I think I get the gist.

The quantum measurement problem, as you call it, applies only the very microscopic, particulate level of matter. The differences between microscopic observation and macroscopic observation are, frankly, quite significant. That we have trouble observing subatomic particles with our current equipment is no reason at all to suspect observations made on a macroscopic, or even microscopic but not subatomic, level.

Aside from that, what you've said here does nothing to answer the definition you asked for. Objective reality is defined above, by your request. If you disagree with that definition, provide your own. If you think that objective reality cannot possibly exist, then simply admit it and there will be nothing left for us to discuss.

[tama]

223. As far as I understand

the supposed line between microscopic quantum world and macroscopic classical world is arbitrary. Laboratory evidence I mentioned certainly points that way.

So in the interpretation that I've found worth of lot of consideration and taught to me by a pupil and coworker of Bohm (just to give credit where credit is due, I'm not making this up myself), when I "subjectively" observe my "objective" surroundings what is happening is constant process of quantum potential decoherring into subjective (or mental) and objective (classical world) aspects of this observation event, including the decoherence of the whole classical universe. The trap of solipsism is avoided by the fact that "I" as this localized mental process decohere from moment to moment certainly am not the only mental process observation act in the universe but part of web of life (and observation) sharing same or at least similar enough reality to stay functional. Sorry if I can't explain this more clearly, I do my best in area that is generally considered very difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain.

As interpretations of quantum theory are allmost by definition thought experiments that as such don't need to be mutually exclusive, and as I like to entertain this interpretation seriously enough, the notion of "objective reality" in the frame of this interpretation becomes quite different from the definitions you offered.

I don't claim perfect understanding of quantum physics, far from it, but hope that though poorly explained these views are enough to show that it is possible to think otherwise but still rationally and inside scientific understandings about the issues of subject and object, including "third way" ways that avoid the either-or dichotomy between subjective and objective aspects of decoherence.

[darkstar3]

226. There are three distinct divisions.

"Microscopic" means anything that can only be observed through a microscope.
"Microscopic quantum" or just "quantum" applies only to the particulate level.
"Macroscopic" applies to anything that can be observed without a microscope.

Seems pretty simple to me. And quantum theory, BTW, doesn't do anything to damage the idea of "objective reality." Is there, or is there not, an objective reality?

[tama]

234. "particulate level"?

Decoherence does not mean collapse of wave function:

"Quantum decoherence gives the appearance of wave function collapse and justifies the framework and intuition of classical physics as an acceptable approximation: decoherence is the mechanism by which the classical limit emerges out of a quantum starting point and it determines the location of the quantum-classical boundary. Decoherence occurs when a system interacts with its environment in a thermodynamically irreversible way. This prevents different elements in the quantum superposition of the system+environment's wavefunction from interfering with each other. Decoherence has been a subject of active research since the 1980s.<1>

Decoherence can be viewed as the loss of information from a system into the environment (often modeled as a heat bath).<2> Viewed in isolation, the system's dynamics are non-unitary (although the combined system plus environment evolves in a unitary fashion).<3> Thus the dynamics of the system alone, treated in isolation from the environment, are irreversible. As with any coupling, entanglements are generated between the system and environment."

"Decoherence does not generate actual wave function collapse. It only provides an explanation for the appearance of wavefunction collapse. The quantum nature of the system is simply "leaked" into the environment. A total superposition of the universal wavefunction still occurs, but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue. Specifically, decoherence does not attempt to explain the problem of measurement. Rather, decoherence provides an explanation for the transition of the system to a mixture of states that seem to correspond to those states we perceive as determinant. Moreover, our observation tells us that this mixture looks like a proper quantum ensemble in a measurement situation, as we observe that measurements lead to the "realization" of precisely one state in the "ensemble". But within the framework of the interpretation of quantum mechanics, decoherence cannot explain this crucial step from an apparent mixture to the existence and/or perception of single outcomes.<1>"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence

"The measurement problem in quantum mechanics is the unresolved problem of how (or if) wavefunction collapse occurs. The inability to observe this process directly has given rise to different interpretations of quantum mechanics, and poses a key set of questions that each interpretation must answer. The wavefunction in quantum mechanics evolves according to the Schrödinger equation into a linear superposition of different states, but actual measurements always find the physical system in a definite state. Any future evolution is based on the state the system was discovered to be in when the measurement was made, meaning that the measurement "did something" to the process under examination. Whatever that "something" may be does not appear to be explained by the basic theory.

To express matters differently (to paraphrase Steven Weinberg <1><2>), the wave function evolves deterministically – knowing the wave function at one moment, the Schrödinger equation determines the wave function at any later time. If observers and their measuring apparatus are themselves described by a deterministic wave function, why can we not predict precise results for measurements, but only probabilities? As a general question: How can one establish a correspondence between quantum and classical reality?<3>"

"De Broglie–Bohm theory tries to solve the measurement problem very differently: this interpretation contains not only the wavefunction, but also the information about the position of the particle(s). The role of the wavefunction is to generate the velocity field for the particles. These velocities are such that the probability distribution for the particle remains consistent with the predictions of the orthodox quantum mechanics. According to de Broglie–Bohm theory, interaction with the environment during a measurement procedure separates the wave packets in configuration space which is where apparent wavefunction collapse comes from even though there is no actual collapse. Decoherence analysis is one way to view this.

The present situation is slowly clarifying, as described in a recent paper by Schlosshauer as follows:<7>

Several decoherence-unrelated proposals have been put forward in the past to elucidate the meaning of probabilities and arrive at the Born rule … It is fair to say that no decisive conclusion appears to have been reached as to the success of these derivations. …

As it is well known, the fundamental role of classical concepts. The experimental evidence for superpositions of macroscopically distinct states on increasingly large length scales counters such a dictum. Only the physical interactions between systems then determine a particular decomposition into classical states from the view of each particular system. Thus classical concepts are to be understood as locally emergent in a relative-state sense and should no longer claim a fundamental role in the physical theory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_problem


To repeat:
"classical concepts are to be understood as locally emergent in a relative-state sense and should no longer claim a fundamental role in the physical theory."

and

"A total superposition of the universal wavefunction still occurs, but its ultimate fate remains an interpretational issue."

In other words, this can be understood to mean that the ultimate fate of the universal wavefunction is not independent from interpretational issues. All classical systems and their interpretations affect creatively the fate of the universal wavefunction.

To answer your question the best I can: yes there is objective reality (or many such realities), but IMO it's not all of reality or independent from subjective realities.

[darkstar3]

252. Once again,

Wikipedia is not accurate. Secondly:

yes there is objective reality (or many such realities), but IMO it's not all of reality or independent from subjective realities.

Everything I've bolded in your statement negates everything that came before it.

[tama]

254. Feel free

to correct the wikipedia article where necessary. Wikipedia is as accurate as you want it to be.

Objective reality is linguistic notion. No linguistic expression is identical to the reality it describes. Reality is not limited by English language. Philosophical skepticism does not believe in nor deny objective reality. Philosophical skepticism avoids proposition sentences.

[darkstar3]

258. And apparently everything else.

Tama, I am afraid I'm not playing anymore. I simply have no time for anyone who will deny that an objective reality outside the subjective scope of any one person exists. You can call it what you want, but it boils down to the age old idea of solipsism, and I have no desire to prove repeatedly that I am real, that you are real, that the keyboard in front of you is real, that blue is real, that stars are real, or any other number of pointless proofs that will sway you in no way because you still can't move beyond the idea that everything is subjective.

This is the root of our problem in debate. This is our point of contention, and it's never going to go away.
In a world where all is subjective, science has no meaning.
Goodbye, Tama. Until the next thread, perhaps...

[omega minimo]

287. "Blue is real"?

[tama]

291. You are real

both objectively and subjectively and regardless of the subject-object category. Thrice real! :)

Reality is not limited just to objective reality, it's much more.

By, been fun so thanks.

[ironbark]

281. Thank you tama, from #66 to #254, that was a pleasure to read. n/t

[GliderGuider]

285. I second that! tama's conceptual abilities always blow me away.

Plus she never gets ticked at people who don't get it. She really collapses my wavefunction... :-)

[Deep13]

138. " certain assumptions about meaning of linear time and causality"

Um, what? Are you aware of any examples of effects preceding causes? That makes good science fiction, no one can point to an actual example of it. The scientific method bends human expectation to fit reality, not the other way around. That's what prevents it from being an ideology.

The scientific method has nothing to do with controling evolution by mechanical means. It is a way of discovering what is real and, more to the point, what is not real.

[tama]

166. As you should know

in quantum theory of geometrical time, the arrow of time goes both ways. How the common psychological experience of time - "entropic time" - decoheres from geometric time is still quite a mystery.

Newtonian notions of causality are getting bit old - even in science.

"The scientific method bends human expectation to fit reality, not the other way around. That's what prevents it from being an ideology"

It is unclear what you mean by "human expectation", but bending humans to fit a theory sounds awfully ideological, of procrustean ideology.

[Deep13]

172. Yeah, I'm aware of the idea...

...and I may be behind the times, but I'm not aware of any experiments that show effects preceding causes in subatomic particles. Even if they do, I don't really see what practical consequence that has on the need for repeatability in controlled, scientific experiments. So far, at least on the macroscopic scale, the arrow of time moves in one direction, from order to entropy.

What I meant by "Human expectation" is that we have to be prepared to put preconceptions aside and accept demonstrable facts. Kind of like how the idea that most of the Earth's surface was formed in a short time through a series of catastrophies that have ended has given way to uniformitarianism.

[tama]

175. It get's tricky

as definitions of "cause" and "effect" are theory dependent. I remember one experiment where subjects were shown emotive pictures and the neurological "response" to the image preceded seeing the image. Please don't ask me for a link as I've lost it and have poor memory, only hint that comes now to mind is 'Bierman and Radin'.

Quantum decoherence into phenomenal world of classical physics (and mental processes?!) is still rather poorly understood process in relation to time and thermodynamics, but I don't see big problems with the idea that in observation event or quantum measurement event both "observer" and "observed" decohere more or less simultaneously and of course, co-dependently. What are causes and effects in such context?

[omega minimo]

56. "A divine presence"

Where?

"For example, the unintelligent nature of evolution precludes any divine purpose in the development of life."

Who?

That's not what the pantheists say about themselves. They probably have no disagreement with string theory either. These are different dimensions and levels of perceiving this "objective reality."

The assumption and projection of "a divine presence" and "divine purpose in the development of life" onto pantheists may be in the eye of the beholder.

Reading what pantheism actually is further blurs the distinction between all the various categories of those who don't believe in an anthropomorphic deity.


http://www.pantheism.net/

[darkstar3]

16. They are both hypotheses about the universe that have no successful tests.

On their surface, neither would appear to be more respectable than the other. It is entirely possible, and has indeed been accepted by many scientists studying the possibilities of string theory, that this new attempt to understand "the secrets of the universe" will yield no more truth than previous attempts which we now call mythology. The major difference between pantheism and string theory, as explanations of universal phenomena, is the fact that right now we don't have much in the way of contradictory evidence for string theory.

[Silent3]

37. Don't you see, caring about "successful tests" is just a cultural narrative!

It's just as "valid" to do things in a way where success doesn't matter, or where success is measured by insisting that you believe you've been successful. :)

[tama]

107. String theory

From what I've heard, string models have been called "not even wrong" meaning that they are not valid (popperian) theories that can be falsified.

IMHO a TOE without theory of consciousness included is not really a "TOE".

[DeSwiss]

20. Yes, Yes, Yes!!!! K&R!!!

I think this bears reposting:

"The church hates a thinker precisely for the same reason a robber dislikes a sheriff, or a thief despises the prosecuting witness. Tyranny likes courtiers, flatterers, followers, fawners, and superstition wants believers, disciples, zealots, hypocrites, and subscribers. The church demands worship -- the very thing that man should give to no being, human or divine.

To worship another is to degrade yourself. Worship is awe and dread and vague fear and blind hope. It is the spirit of worship that elevates the one and degrades the many; that builds palaces for robbers, erects monuments to crime, and forges manacles even for its own hands. The spirit of worship is the spirit of tyranny. The worshiper always regrets that he is not the worshiped.

We should all remember that the intellect has no knees, and that whatever the attitude of the body may be, the brave soul is always found erect. Whoever worships, abdicates. Whoever believes at the command of power, tramples his own individuality beneath his feet, and voluntarily robs himself of all that renders man superior to the brute."

Robert G. Ingersoll

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

47. Holy Moly

:eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

54. Some believers cannot separate themselves from their religious beliefs.

We can and do. Criticism of religion is not disrespectful.

[GliderGuider]

57. Some scientists can't separate themselves from their beliefs either.

For that matter, most of us have that problem, no matter what we believe.



Don't believe everything you think.

[beam me up scottie]

60. "Don't believe everything you think" is what they tell kids when they want them to shut up.

And stop asking so many questions at Sunday School. ;)



Don't stop thinking because you believe.

[GliderGuider]

68. It's also what we tell adults to invite them to examine their assumptions

That implicit admonition was behind Galileo's cannon ball experiment at the Tower of Pisa and Wegener's championing of continental drift. Everyone,whether scientific or religious, has erroneous beliefs about the way the world works. Reminding people of the inherent fallibility of the human mind is as valuable in science as it is in religion, and its utility isn't limited to children.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Sorry, science is not a religion, even kids know that.

[GliderGuider]

114. It feels wonderful, doesn't it?

That sense of being Absolutely Right, I mean. I remember it wistfully, because I was Absolutely Right once too. I would encourage you to enjoy the feeling while it lasts, just as I did. You may not believe me, but that will change as the years go by. Even the drug of Absolute Truth loses its effect eventually.

[beam me up scottie]

127. Gah, are you paying attention at all? I'm the atheist/skeptic, remember? I made no absolute claims.

Stop misrepresenting my posts.

And knock off the patronization, grannie, I've examined and experienced enough woo to know it's bullshit and I doubt that will ever change.

[GliderGuider]

132. Well, "science is not a religion" sounded pretty absolute to me.

After all, you didn't put any qualifiers whatsoever on that statement.

ETA: And the use of the term "woo" is a big old flag, too.

[beam me up scottie]

141. Science is not a religion unless you redefine "religion" until it's absolutely meaningless.

Like you did with the word "fundamentalist".

And woo is the only polite word I have to adequately define your posts.

Are you traditionally religious? And when did you change your pov? Was there a life changing event that made you reconsider or are you just hedging your bets? Seriously, I'm curious because I'm very close to a person who is no longer an atheist.

[GliderGuider]

148. Are you sure?

According to our good friends at Wikipedia,

Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

Nothing in that description says that a belief in a deity is required in order for a system of beliefs to be considered a religion.

According to this definition, "A communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, with associated practices, values, institutions and traditions that may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy" seems like a definition that could apply to science without any stretch or redefinition at all.

I think you've set up a straw man definition of religion to help justify your position.

And to answer your added question, no I'm in fact a strong (explicit) atheist, especially when it comes to personalized, anthropomorphic gods. My family consists at the moment of four generations of strong atheists, of which I'm the third (my maternal grandparents started the tradition). I do define myself as secularly spiritual, and in that vein I draw on traditions like Deep Ecology, pantheism, Taoism and Zen.

If you want to read more about my views, they're in the main text on my home page: http://www.paulchefurka.ca and in the article, Reflections on a Non-Theistic Spirituality.

And I prefer Mr. Woo if you don't mind :-)

[darkstar3]

152. Problems:

1. Wikipedia is not an accurate place for information.
2. The whole "often described" phrase is nothing more or less than the old "some people say" canard. Therefore, with no sources to back up the claim of "some people say", the description in your extract is useless.
3. Science is not a way of life. It is an approach or method to investigation. You could say that persistent investigation is a way of life, but not science itself. Ergo, even working within the confines of your useless extract, science is still not a religion.

[GliderGuider]

154. The definition seems perfectly reasonable to me.

But perhaps we're looking to get different things out of it.

Is Taoism a religion?
How about Zen Buddhism?
How about pantheism?

All these have some conception of the Absolute, but no deities.

[beam me up scottie]

159. Who claimed that deities are required for religion?

I must have missed that, can you point it out?

[GliderGuider]

161. If they're not, then perhaps we have no quarrel?

What would you say to pantheism, Taoism and Zen in that case?

[beam me up scottie]

164. I have no quarrel with non-theists who don't try to legislate their religious beliefs.

Or define my lack of them.

[GliderGuider]

168. Hmm. Nothing left to argue about. I hate it when that happens.

Think this is a first for the Internet?

That was stimulating and fun. Thanks.

[beam me up scottie]

170. Me too.

:)

It actually happens a lot on DU, I've learned from you and so will anyone who reads this thread.

Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

157. Your bias is showing, you only posted the part that supported your claim:

It doesn't work when you post the entire article:

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.<1>

Aspects of religion include narrative, symbolism, beliefs, and practices that are supposed to give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life. Whether the meaning centers on a deity or deities, or an ultimate truth, religion is commonly identified by the practitioner's prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things, and is often interwoven with society and politics. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws and ethics and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experience.

The term "religion" refers both to the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction. "Religion" is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system,"<2> but it is more socially defined than personal convictions, and it entails specific behaviors, respectively.

The development of religion has taken many forms in various cultures, with continental differences.

Religion is often described as a communal system for the coherence of belief focusing on a system of thought, unseen being, person, or object, that is considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine, or of the highest truth. Moral codes, practices, values, institutions, tradition, rituals, and scriptures are often traditionally associated with the core belief, and these may have some overlap with concepts in secular philosophy. Religion is also often described as a "way of life" or a life stance.

To illustrate the difference I don't need a straw man definition, I'll just use Wikipedia too.
(Fyi, I never claimed a deity is required for a belief system to be a religion)

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction, or reliably-predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice, from which a good deal of randomness in outcome has been removed.<1>

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.<2><3> This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs—although the two are commonly interconnected.

Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.

The ability of the general population to understand the basic concepts related to science is referred to as scientific literacy.

It doesn't work, science is not a religion. If you want to ignore actual definitions and keep using your own personal one, that's fine, but you don't get to make up your own facts.


I don't think I called you a woo, I am trying not to do that because some people I like find it offensive. Woo is another word for pseudoscience. I don't know why I thought you were female, I apologize if I offended you.

I will read your homepage since you were brave enough to provide it. From what you just posted, your views are not so different from mine.

[GliderGuider]

163. Hey, if we can't cherrypick Wikipedia, all the fun goes out of it. nt

[GliderGuider]

171. Something just occurred to me about this religion/science definition business.

In religious studies a common practice is to separate out the external structure of a religion from its mystical core. The external structure includes a lot of cultural baggage, and here we find all the normative, doctrinal, social control aspects of the system. Those aspects are very different from religion to religion. At the core however, we find a mysticism that tends to be deeply personal instead of cultural and (from what I can tell) has many common elements across religions. This is the root onto which the structure of the religion is grafted depending on the cultural circumstances. Mysticism per se is not power-oriented, doctrinal, normative or otherwise culturally engaged. It's a purely personal experience.

I see an interesting parallel to science. At the core we have the scientific method, a tight, self-contained kernel that isn't tied to any specific set of values, personalities or cultural requirements. This is "real" science in the same sense that mysticism is "real" religion. Then around the scientific method is build an enormous apparatus that includes normative qualities, doctrines, power structures etc. When we say the word "science" this structure is what lay people tend to think of, in much the same way that when we use the word "religion" people think of "the church" and its various social structures.

To whatever degree this insight is valid, we should be careful to compare apples to apples across the two fields of thought. Comparing the scientific method to a ecclesiastical structure would be as valid as comparing mystical experiences to the National Science Foundation.

[beam me up scottie]

183. You know, I liked you before this thread but now you're really rocking the house.

I can see the parallel even though I've never had a mystical experience.

s'funny, we (DU atheists and skeptics) have talked about what we find "spiritual", but it was important to define that word in order to continue; Spirituality without the supernatural element.

Personally, I get high from nature. I love animals, but love is such a vague term, I feel a kinship with them, like we connect. I take in foster animals and occasionally rehabilitate wildlife. I feel like I understand my fellow creatures and they seem to respond to me. Again - nothing supernatural, I can't read their minds or speak their language.

I am also deeply moved by music - so much so that I'll drop everything and even pull over my car to let a song wash over me. My tastes are very eclectic, anything goes as long as the music makes me feel.
Ava Maria and Amazing Grace (especially when performed by bagpipes) really get to me and the feeling I get has nothing to do with religion.

I think I understand personal mysticism as much as anyone like me can.

I practice yoga, tai chi and meditation. No mysticism for me, but I have improved my discipline, both mental and physical, my balance and posture, and my breathing. Meditation allows me to clear my mind and narrow my focus, something that comes in handy when you are stressing and can't concentrate.


You nailed it here:

"To whatever degree this insight is valid, we should be careful to compare apples to apples across the two fields of thought. Comparing the scientific method to a ecclesiastical structure would be as valid as comparing mystical experiences to the National Science Foundation."

It seems the only people who constantly try to compare apples to non-apples are spoiling for a fight.

[GliderGuider]

190. Thank you very much.

I've been chewing over this issue for a long time trying to find clear ways to express what is intuitively obvious to me, and this just popped up now. I'm really happy it struck a chord for you.

It was really hard for me, with my lifelong contempt for religion and even non-theistic spirituality, to accept what was happening when I began to have these experiences of deep connection. They felt so obviously sacred, but the word scared the bejeesus :-) out of me. What would happen if I accepted that I had sacred feelings? Would "I" somehow disappear? Would I develop a hunger for bad crackers and cheap wine? Start to yearn for salvation? Be disowned by my family?

It turns out the only big change is that I became more compassionate.

[omega minimo]

231. The SACRED!!!

:yoiks::spray: edit dupe :hi:

[omega minimo]

232. This insight reflects

what my Questions for the Heart, not the Head was inviting. What it feels like. Associations or assumptions that might be stumbling blocks or need to be reexamined or released. Projections that might be referencing something in the past, being "wrestled with" as I put it, whether an image or in this case, a mere word. Common ground.

Thank you for posting this.






"t was really hard for me, with my lifelong contempt for religion and even non-theistic spirituality, to accept what was happening when I began to have these experiences of deep connection. They felt so obviously sacred, but the word scared the bejeesus out of me. What would happen if I accepted that I had sacred feelings?"

Another fear you might have had: "Will someone call me WOO WOO and jump down my throat every time they see me on DU?"

[GliderGuider]

233. It was a bit difficult edging my new perceptions out onto the public stage.

But frankly, compared to my fear of my father's reaction (imagine that, 57 years old and still worried about what his old man will think) DU was a bunch of friendly pussycats.

Of course it helped that at the same time I lost most of my urge to draw lines in the sand and argue about this shit. I have no problem letting others "win" if it's really important to them. My beliefs don't depend on me changing anyone's mind.

[omega minimo]

239. you've hit the core of it, haven't you, with the words

"these experiences of deep connection."

[GliderGuider]

240. Yes, it feels like it.

:-)

[omega minimo]

241. which may lead to

sense of interconnection :wow::hi:

[GliderGuider]

245. Oh no, a death worse than fate!

[omega minimo]

247. THE SUPERNATURAL!!!!!!!

:hide::yoiks:

[GliderGuider]

248. Well, no. It is indeed super. But it's natural. nt.

[omega minimo]

250. XACKLY!!!

:wow::bounce:

[beam me up scottie]

259. "Would I develop a hunger for bad crackers and cheap wine?"

Like a spiritual vampire!

:rofl:

I'm always amazed at how much MORE we feel as we get older. Songs that used to give us chills make us cry, you have to turn the channel when a humane society commercial comes on the tv, and news stories about suffering little boys haunt us for weeks.

I understand my mother a lot better now, I wish she was still alive so I could tell her.

[darkstar3]

260. I HATE those humane society commercials.

I can't watch them for the same reason I can't volunteer at dog shelters. I can't save them all, and it makes me very sad.

Oh, I'm sorry, back to the topic..

[beam me up scottie]

262. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

I try to save them all, too.

[omega minimo]

229. "seems the only people who constantly try to compare apples to non-apples are spoiling for a fight"

Yes. GG's post shows common ground and "it seems the only people who constantly try to compare apples to non-apples are spoiling for a fight. " Like you and yours, right? Your reply is truly odd. Beyond ironic.


There is much room for common ground. I've expressed many times my interest in getting beyond the skirmishes and word/mind games and on to what people from different perspectives, potentially overlapping disciplines, have to share with each other. I've gone in search of it on DU and wandered into toxic traps full or prejudices and predispositions to fights that I had no idea even existed.

One basic point that skeptics or atheists refer to -- as you just did -- is "the supernatural" as a stumbling block, an assumption projected on others who may have no attachment to "the supernatural" at all.

Perhaps instead of "the supernatural," what you mean is "the unclassified by science."

[beam me up scottie]

236. delete

not worth my time

[omega minimo]

238. not able to address the question or approach potential common ground?

"Perhaps instead of "the supernatural," what you mean is "the unclassified by science."

What IS "the supernatural"?










(There's nothing in that peaceful post you can dispute; not sure what difficulty you're having. Unless its the spotless record of behavior that some atheists here think they have :spray: It's funny seeing all the angelic comments. O8) O8) )

[omega minimo]

237. .

[westerebus]

255. In your practice of Tai Chi have you ever experienced

a deep state in which you breathing has no beginning and no end, you are neither inhaling or exhaling?

If this to personal, you need not answer.

[beam me up scottie]

261. No, not yet.

It is extremely difficult for me to lose myself in it, I feel like I am never alone, either a critter, a human, a sound or my own worries always find their way through.

I am trying to find someone to help me with my meditation but the pickin's are mighty slim around here.

sigh... maybe if/when we move to Colorado...

[ironbark]

289. An alternative proposition may be...

that religion is the science of getting people to live together.

The repeatable experiment is to invite people from extremely diverse cultural, ethnic and language backgrounds and under the umbrella and practice of religious traditions
live together in communal environment.

The Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Christians and Moslems have all conducted this social science experiment successfully in communes, monasteries and convents that have lasted hundreds and hundreds of years as living communities.

Since the French revolution the same experiment has been conducted thousands of times in dozens of nations by various secular, atheistic, political, and philosophical groups. They have had the time, resources, commitment and thoroughly well thought out governing philosophies and principles.

None that I have ever heard of has lasted beyond eighty years, most collapse with the passing of a charismatic founder.

If anyone knows of a secular commune that has lasted beyond a generation I would be delighted to hear of that exception.

Until then I hold the science of being able to get diverse groups of people to live and work together for hundreds of years to be the most fundamental and important science of all.

"Proof" dear old Gran used to say "is in the pudding" ;-)

[GliderGuider]

153. BTW, I haven't used the word "fundamentalist" in this thread.

You had me confused with someone else you object to.

[beam me up scottie]

158. You are correct, I apologize.

I thought you were making the same claim.

[darkstar3]

124. You are conflating two very separate forms of belief.

You think that believing certain scientific assumptions is the same as believing in a God, or at least, that's the way your post reads.

Here's an adapted example from one of my favorite comedians about the two different forms of belief:
Person 1: "I believe in God."
Person 2: "I believe I'll have a scotch."

See the difference?

[GliderGuider]

126. Ah. That helps clarify it.

Perhaps I'm failing to distinguish between "scientific beliefs" and "beliefs about science". A scientific belief is something like, "The Earth orbits the sun, and using that knowledge lets us predict weather patterns," while a belief about science could be something like "Science is the highest product of the human mind, and anyone who chooses another worldview has chosen to live in darkness."

Science has allowed us to make great predictions, and organize the chaos of the natural world to our own benefit. However, it's debatable whether that simple capacity should accord it automatic pride of place as the organizing principle of a community of essentially irrational, emotional, human beings.

[darkstar3]

129. And now you have a false dichotomy.

No one is suggesting that science itself should be a founding principle in the creation or organization of communities. No one who studies science has ever claimed that it should be given "pride of place as the organizing principle" of anything, except maybe organizations dedicated to research. Have you been watching South Park?

What we do suggest is that science is sufficient in the search for meaning and substance in the universe without being augmented by religion. The fact that we are all humans racing together at breakneck speed for the grave should be enough of an organizing principle for communities, though there are many psychological and sociological needs that will also serve as founding causes and principles.

[GliderGuider]

130. "science is sufficient in the search for meaning and substance in the universe"

is exactly the "belief about science" I'm talking about. I don't believe it is sufficient. It may be enough if all you're searching for is substance, but from what I've seen, science as a discipline stays fairly silent on the subject of meaning.

I happen to think that "modern" monotheistic Abrahamic religions are far worse than science if one is looking for a single organizing principle, but I certainly don't think science on its own is sufficient.

[darkstar3]

137. .

And what non-scientific approach has provided reliable answers to any question? What question did this approach provide reliable answers for?

[GliderGuider]

142. Well, here's one.

Buddhist thought over the last 2500 years has provided very reliable answers to the question "If I have have all the stuff I could ever want, why am I still suffering?"

[darkstar3]

151. Not exactly.

Buddhist thought doesn't delve deeply enough into psychology to provide a reliable, verifiable, and wholly concise answer. "Desire is the source of all suffering" may be a deep insight into psychological processes, but it does nothing to answer the question of "why." Follow the regression back, tell me why desire is the source of suffering. Break out of the circle and tell me more about human behavior and exactly how it causes desire, how desire works, why it's part of humanity to begin with, and how we can know more about it.

Buddhist thought on the subject doesn't go deep enough into behavioral research for the inquisitive.

Meanwhile, we have entire branches of science devoted to the answering of that and many other behavioral questions. Not being a psychologist myself, I can't get into the full-on explanation of "why", but I know enough from my previous reading on the subject that psychology and sociology provide real, verifiable, and explainable answers to why we suffer, why we fight, why we search for meaning, and many other questions.

You have to understand, I'm not stating that science has an exclusive lock on the truth. What I am saying is that it provides us with a methodical way to investigate said truth, until we know more about it and possibly find other truths relating to it along the way. It lets us preserve the inquisitive five-year-old within, and keep asking the question "why".

[GliderGuider]

160. And I have no quarrel with science as a methodology.

It does perfectly fine at that. And I have no quarrel with the fact that current forms of monotheistic Abrahamic religions are a curse upon mankind.

Regarding Buddhism, there was no requirement in your initial question that the answer be "verifiable and wholly concise" whatever those terms mean to you. You asked for an example of a non-scientific system of thought that provides reliable answers to any question, and what that question might be. I gave you one, and you don't appear to like it. That you would like my answer was also not a requirement.

What you call "psychological insight" I also call "meaning". It's in this arena that science is still playing catchup. It may get there, but I question whether the structure of the scientific method is really appropriate for discovering and communicating meaning. We might be able to figure out what the neurochemical markers of suffering are, but that's different than answering the question, "What is the meaning of life?"

[darkstar3]

177. I was trying to make a point about the dimensions of reliability.

Buddhist thought is reliable insofar as it always generates the same "result". (I put that in quotes because it is a logical end, not a data point.) But it never lets us ask "why". We don't get to delve deeper into the recesses of human nature and investigate desire and its consequences strictly within the confines of Buddhism.

I guess you could call it the difference between a "truism" and a fact. Truisms are repeatable, and may show us truth about the universe, but facts let us delve deeper into the "why".

(For the record, I don't agree that desire is the source of suffering, because I think it's a whole lot more complex than that.)

[GliderGuider]

180. Well, that is why Buddhist thought has been extended by modern psychology

The work done by Freud, Jung, Adler, Rogers, Reich, Maslow, May etc. has taken psychology a long way past the old Buddhist schools.

[tama]

169. No one?

Perhaps so in these discussions, but 'eliminative materialism' (not making any claims about personal beliefs, just discussing the general idea) that rejects the "laymans psychology" and seeks to replace it with purely materialist "psychology" or sumfink, would seem to suggest something to that end.

[darkstar3]

176. So show me an example. n/t

[tama]

186. Google

"eliminative materialism" and read. That's the example I'm discussing as I hoped I made clear. And to repeat, I'm not claiming anyone here is an eliminative materialist unless they happen to say that they agree with eliminative materialism.

[darkstar3]

191. I'm not interested in starting my own research project on the subject,

I'm interested in learning why you felt the need to bring up that topic here, and how it applies to the current conversation, and an example is usually the way that works. Do you have one, or not?

[tama]

199. Strange

The point was just to question the "no one" argument with counter example. Eliminative materialism is an intellectual position that at least some people in the world subscribe to, as such position exists.

Why is it so problematic to understand that eliminative materialism and those who support that view is the example I'm giving? Is your default expectation that I should name some person and preferably a fellow DUer as an example or what's the comprehension problem here?

[darkstar3]

207. It is nothing but a hypothetical logical position

until you find someone who espouses and defends it, THEN it becomes a POV.

[tama]

213. Sure

at least the Churchland's espouse and defend it. Call me a nitpicker but I just like to find counter examples to over generalisations beginning with words "all", "everybody", "none" etc. An annoying habit but can't help myself.

[darkstar3]

218. That's fine,

but you didn't prove your point, because eliminative materialism has nothing whatsoever to do with supplanting religion with science. It's strictly a psychological model dealing with behavioral sciences.

[tama]

224. Here's what I responded to

"No one is suggesting that science itself should be a founding principle in the creation or organization of communities."

Not "supplanting religion with science" as the issue was organization of communities. I think it is fair to say that organization of communities is based on "folk psychology" which eliminative materialist seek to replace with "psychology" based on reducing mental processes to brain neurology, and thus by logical implication that also organization of communities should be based on eliminative psychology.

[darkstar3]

228. And I disagree with you.

I do NOT think it's fair to say that organization of communities is based on "folk psychology", because it is MUCH more complex than that. I also think that if you go back and read what I was originally responding to, you'll find that the topic was indeed the idea of supplanting religion with science in motivational terms.

[tama]

235. Hmm

In the context of how eliminative materialists discuss these matters, "folk psychology" seems to refer to all human behaviour preceding the eliminative psychology, hence the inference that organization of communities is based on folk psychology.

But I agree with you that there is no need to limit the discussion to frames set up by eliminative materialists and accept such simplifications.

[Jim__]

58. Criticism of religious beliefs is not disrespectful. Mocking of relgious beliefs is.

Claiming someone believes in a "sky-daddy", when that person has never made any such claim, is disrespectful. Claiming that religious beliefs are equivalent to belief in Santa Claus is disrespectful. It is possible to intelligently disagree with someone's religious beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

59. And?

Should we respect all stupid beliefs?

[omega minimo]

85. Nope. No fundamentalism here.

"Should we respect all stupid beliefs?"

[beam me up scottie]

90. Many beliefs are stupid, get over it.

The belief that sylphs attack chemtrails to protect us from them is stupid.

The belief that orgone muffins are preferred by garden fairies is stupid.

If you can't handle criticism about yours, don't post them on an internet forum because the idea that beliefs are sacred is stupid too.

[omega minimo]

93. and your dominant paradigm authoritarian decrees are vested in you by what power?

:popcorn:

You realize that is what fundamentalism is, right? And they think all other beliefs than their own are "stupid" or worse.

[beam me up scottie]

95. The power that orgone doesn't exist and clouds are not alive.

Why not look it up and post a nice long thread about them in GD? I'm sure you could handle the criticism.

And not "all other beliefs" are stupid, just the stupid ones like sylphs and orgone generators.

I'll even help you get started:

[omega minimo]

96. Oh. So the ones YOU say are "stupid."

[beam me up scottie]

97. I'm sure scientists are just dying to read your theories on sylphs and orgone generators.

Better get crackin'!

[omega minimo]

100. .

Better lay off the crack :crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

99. Another ridiculous belief is that women's menstual periods sync with moon cycles.

It's been debunked repeatedly but that doesn't stop the true believers.

[omega minimo]

109. Try telling that to the women who use the moon to chart their cycles

for millennia

[beam me up scottie]

111. So you're actually saying that women's menstral periods sync with the moon?

Again?

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

256. So you're actually saying that the monthly cycle of women and the moon wobbles too much for your

comprehension?

[beam me up scottie]

265. Explain again how human menstrual periods match lunar cycles.

:popcorn:
It was so hilarious the first time I'm going to sell tickets to the sequel.

[omega minimo]

266. You are very sad

[beam me up scottie]

271. No, I'm amused at your attention-getting antics.

You just have to be in the spotlight, even if you're making a fool of yourself.

[omega minimo]

273. That's sad too. Says more about you than me. Are you determined to learn nothing from

recent discussions? Don't see how you'll be able to go back to your antics after all the claims of absolute angelic behavior. Try something new. Unless, "you just have to be in the spotlight, even if you're making a fool of yourself."

[beam me up scottie]

275. Not worth it.

I am ashamed that I acknowledged you at all.

[omega minimo]

278. Maybe you will learn something

[ZombieHorde]

263. That is not fundamentalism, here is a link to dictionary.com's definition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalism

[omega minimo]

282. " a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles "

Main Entry: fun·da·men·tal·ism
Pronunciation: \-tə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1922
1 a often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b : the beliefs of this movement c : adherence to such beliefs
2 : a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles <Islamic fundamentalism> <political fundamentalism>
— fun·da·men·tal·ist \-tə-list\ noun
— fundamentalist or fun·da·men·tal·is·tic \-ˌmen-tə-ˈlis-tik\ adjective

Sure as Hell is! :spray:

[omega minimo]

102. And?

Should we respect your beliefs?

[beam me up scottie]

104. Of course not, what the fuck do you think this thread is about?

[omega minimo]

106. So you assume yours won't be

which justifies you not respecting others? :crazy:

[beam me up scottie]

110. I don't have to respect the belief that gays are an abomination and should be stoned to death.

Do you?

[omega minimo]

112. Your belief system, like your sense of respect

is completely arbitrary, based on what you determine at the moment most suits your agenda. Including shifting the topic.

You treat others the way you don't want to be treated.

[beam me up scottie]

113. "shifting the topic"? Did you notice that the thread is about NOT RESPECTING BELIEFS

I never mentioned a belief system, perhaps you could tell me what it is so I'll know.

Anyway, I don't have time to hold your hand anymore, you're being purposely obtuse to get attention.

And I've got a great smelling man waiting for me in a warm bed.

You treat others the way you don't want to be treated.

[Jim__]

115. And, disrespecting a person's core beliefs is disrespecting the person.

A person's core beliefs determine who the person is and the world in which they live and while we all live in the same physical world, our understandings of it are different. Religious beliefs tend to be core beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

125. Bullshit.

Religious beliefs deserve no more respect than political leanings or fashion sense.

[Jim__]

128. Very intelligent response. As expected. - n/t

[beam me up scottie]

131. Again, the "core" religious belief that gays should be put to death is not worthy of respect.

You have yet to prove why it should be.

As expected.

[Jim__]

133. A belief that gays should be put to death is not a core belief of a person.

Such a belief does not define who the believer is or what type of world they are living in (remove such a belief, and you do not change the person's understanding of reality).

[beam me up scottie]

136. It's a religious belief and it sure as hell defines the people who believe it.

A person's core beliefs determine who the person is and the world in which they live

[Jim__]

143. Even for those people, I doubt that when they ask themselves the question,

"Who am I?", they answer, "I'm a person who hates fags." But even if they do, I doubt any of those people are posting on DU, and it is on DU that we frequently see religion being mocked.

IOTW, if that's your justification for mocking religion, it doesn't seem to be applicable here.

[beam me up scottie]

146. The religious beliefs of those people are frequently mocked on DU.

And yes, their religious bigotry- including their core beliefs about homosexuality - do indeed define them, they drive all over the country to protest at funerals, for fuck's sake.

Why should we treat the religious beliefs of fundamentalist christians differently?

Either we're allowed to object to and ridicule all religious beliefs or none.

[Jim__]

149. From post 115: And, disrespecting a person's core beliefs is disrespecting the person.

As stated above, a person's core beliefs determine who they are. These people's beliefs about homosexuality may be part of their religious beliefs, I doubt very much it is part of their core beliefs. Besides, most religious people condemn these people. Their beliefs are hardly typical of religious beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

167. So you're disrespecting their religious beliefs and by doing so disrespecting them? Got hypocrisy?

Can you prove that "These people's beliefs about homosexuality" aren't "part of their core beliefs"?

If not, you're done (per your #115: "And, disrespecting a person's core beliefs is disrespecting the person.").

You failed to prove your claim and also condemned the religious beliefs of others.

[Jim__]

192. Where did I mock their beliefs?

This subthread started in post #58 which is about mocking beliefs. The entire conversation is not repeated in every post, but the context is clearly about mocking.

[beam me up scottie]

205. Where did I say you mocked them? I said you disrespected their beliefs.

You informed us in #115 that

"disrespecting a person's core beliefs is disrespecting the person"


You made an unsubstantiated claim in #113:

"A belief that gays should be put to death is not a core belief of a person.
Such a belief does not define who the believer is or what type of world they are living in (remove such a belief, and you do not change the person's understanding of reality)."

Unless you can prove that those beliefs are NOT their "core" beliefs, you are indeed disrespecting their religious beliefs.


Finally in #198 you admitted that some other believers would find your reply disrespectful:

" They may consider my reply disrespectful.
However, my reply would not be mocking - which is the topic of this subthread that started in post #58.

It's fine to say that these beliefs have no place in civilized society. However, it is just sticking your head in the sand to pretend that they are not there. "



This thread is about not respecting beliefs. You didn't respect the beliefs of others, you're guilty.

And a hypocrite.

[Jim__]

214. See post #192.

The entire context is not repeated in every post.

[beam me up scottie]

227. See my post #167 and your post #115. You dissed the religious beliefs of other christians.

According the gospel of Jim_, disrespecting religious beliefs is the same as disrespecting the person.

From post 115: And, disrespecting a person's core beliefs is disrespecting the person.

Please stop misrepresenting my posts because you're confused. I never claimed you mocked them, but your posts clearly show you did disrespect them.

[omega minimo]

246. "IOTW, if that's your justification for mocking religion, it doesn't seem to be applicable here."

Indeed.

Aside from being a strawman. tossing out that challenge to defend something that no one on DU would defend and cannot be associated with all religions anyway, you can't lump all religions together.

"Either we're allowed to object to and ridicule all religious beliefs or none."

All religious beliefs are not the same. Ridicule them for what reason?





On DU you're required to be civil and follow Rules "based on respect."

[omega minimo]

244. strawman

[darkstar3]

135. And political beliefs, racial beliefs, and many other beliefs are often "core beliefs."

The people at Stormfront (please don't go straight to their website if you don't know who they are) are incredible racists whose "core beliefs" include that white people are superior to all others, including some people who look white but just happen to be Jewish. (To the peanut gallery: Let's forget for the moment that the vast majority of Stormfronters share a common religion and focus on their "core beliefs".)

Do you respect those beliefs? I sure as hell don't.

The people at Freeperville (please don't go straight to their website if you don't know who they are) are right-wing assholes of the first order. Their "core beliefs" include the ideas that Democrats are "pansies", that liberals will destroy this country utterly, and that global climate change is a conspiracy, among many other things. (To the peanut gallery: Let's forget for the moment that the vast majority of Stormfronters share a common religion and focus on their "core beliefs".)

Do you respect those beliefs? I sure as hell don't.

Beliefs do not make the person. We are the sum of much more than our simple political or religious beliefs on one topic.

[Jim__]

140. I think we've had this discussion before.

No, I don't respect those beliefs. Nor do I expect to be involved in any kind of exchange of ideas with those people. However, if I am talking to them, trying to reason with them, I would not mock their beliefs. I would disagree with their beliefs and tell them why; the same thing I've done in discussions with religious people. I wouldn't tell them that they're stupid. I wouldn't laugh at their ideas. Doing that eliminates any chance that I could convince them that they're ideas are wrong; and no, I don't expect to convince them in one conversation that they're ideas are wrong. But, if we are speaking reasonably, I may be able to get them to think a little more about their ideas. Respectful, reasonable conversation has the power to change people's minds, even though this is usually done incrementally. Mocking people does very little to convince them to re-think their ideas.

[beam me up scottie]

147. We should be allowed to disrespect and ridicule all beliefs or none.

No special categories, no bias.

[Jim__]

150. We're basically allowed to do anything we want.

Reasonable people can distinguish between reasonable behavior and foolish behavior. Calling names and mocking people's deepest held beliefs is just childish.

[beam me up scottie]

162. Thank you for your permission.

Sorry I missed your halo, I had no idea you were only person on DU who never disrespected or mocked anything.

[Jim__]

179. You need to work on your English comprehension.

I didn't give you my permission. I just stated that we are allowed. The first person plural subject includes me in the scope of those being permitted.

[beam me up scottie]

187. So it's perfectly okay when you disrespect the religious beliefs of others?

What are you going to do with all those bricks you've accumulated inside your glass house?

[Jim__]

193. As I stated in post 150, it's childish.

If acting childish is OK with you, then that says an awful lot about you.

[beam me up scottie]

200. You dissed the beliefs of other christians and revealed your own hypocrisy.

And that says everything about you.

Where shall we send your binkie?

[darkstar3]

156. Dangerous ground.

Beliefs that are ridiculous and borderline insane, the ones that lead people to kill others because they believe it was the right thing to do, should never be treated with kid gloves. If you coddle those beliefs, you do nothing more than let the person on the other end of the debate believe that their views have a place in civilized society.

"God hates fags" has no place in civilized society.
Burquas have no place in civilized society.
Infidels should be killed (not exclusive to Islam, BTW) is a belief that has no place in civilized society.

I could go on, but I won't. Instead I'd like to hit on one particular point: I would disagree with their beliefs and tell them why. And in telling them why, you would very likely say something they consider "disrespectful." Imagine yourself in a conversation with Osama Bin Laden regarding the moral and religious implications of suicide bombings, and then think about how you would disagree with him and explain why you do so without being disrespectful to his closely held beliefs.

[Jim__]

198. They may consider my reply disrespectful.

However, my reply would not be mocking - which is the topic of this subthread that started in post #58.

It's fine to say that these beliefs have no place in civilized society. However, it is just sticking your head in the sand to pretend that they are not there.

[beam me up scottie]

208. This thread is about not respecting beliefs.

The comment "It's fine to say that these beliefs have no place in civilized society." is disrespectful.

[darkstar3]

209. You're getting there.

However, my reply would not be mocking - which is the topic of this subthread that started in post #58.
What you're missing is that disrespect and mockery go hand in hand. If you were to tell a fundamentalist gay-hating Fristian that the Bible didn't support their beliefs, and show them examples, they would tell you (speaking from experience here) that you are mocking their God, their book, and their beliefs. Your tone can be as cordial as you like, your arguments sound, and your words carefully chosen to avoid mockery and offense, but you still interpreted their book for them, and that's a big no-no.

It's fine to say that these beliefs have no place in civilized society. However, it is just sticking your head in the sand to pretend that they are not there.
Non-sequiter. I never said anything about the current presence of beliefs, only that many of them SHOULDN'T be present.

[Jim__]

212. No, what you said is civilized society has no place for them.

Obviously, since they are present, there is a place for them.

[darkstar3]

219. Now you're simply parsing words in order to split hairs.

I can't imagine with your current grasp of English that you didn't know what I meant.

[Jim__]

220. I'm splitting hairs?

Here's what you said: "God hates fags" has no place in civilized society.
Burquas have no place in civilized society.
Infidels should be killed (not exclusive to Islam, BTW) is a belief that has no place in civilized society.

And, what I said: It's fine to say that these beliefs have no place in civilized society. However, it is just sticking your head in the sand to pretend that they are not there.

And then your reply: Non-sequiter.<SIC> I never said anything about the current presence of beliefs, only that many of them SHOULDN'T be present.

[darkstar3]

222. Exactly. n/t

[GliderGuider]

178. I've been thinking about this since I saw the subject line.

I've been asking myself, are my core values really "ME" in some unchanging sense? If so, then if I change a core value (which I have done) am I then somehow not me any more? How are core values different from non-core values in terms of making me who I am? If someone insults a value that I hold, core or not, how does that insult me as a person? And who is the me that should be insulted?

I guess I might feel insulted if I was neurotically attached to that value, but it doesn't seem that a person whose sense of self can be rocked by having one of their beliefs insulted would be too stable in the first place.

I just don't get it.

[darkstar3]

184. Well put, and perfectly in line with the point I was trying to make in the OP. n/t

[Jim__]

185. It's not a matter of neurotic attachment. Nor is it a matter of never-changing.

It is a matter of values that answer questions such as, "Who am I," "What is the meaning of life," etc. Such questions cannot be changed quickly because they imply changing your basic understanding of who you are, what you are, and where you are. A person who has spent his whole life believing in a personal god, in a life after death cannot just decide one day to change those beliefs. They are too central to who the person is. The beliefs can change, but that change almost always takes place over time.

Mocking those beliefs is tantamount to an attackon the person himself. It serves no purpose other than heating up a discussion.

[GliderGuider]

201. I agree to an extent.

People do not usually change deeply ingrained beliefs overnight. However it's a fact that people do sometimes change them very rapidly indeed. That's the story behind the song "Amazing Grace", for instance. The literature of sudden transformation is very broad and deep, and I've experienced a couple so those life-changing moments myself, when in in single minute a lifelong set of beliefs was wiped away (and no, it wasn't a religious conversion). This still leaves me with the deep question of who I am. Am I just the sum of my beliefs? It doesn't feel like that to me. I feel I am essentially the same person after my transformation as I was before.

I remember in the past being very identified with my beliefs, to the point that someone merely telling me they were religious (or didn't believe in global warming, or thought population growth was an excellent idea, or whatever) would provoke a strong internal reaction in me. Maybe I'm unusual, but now that I've spent some time seriously asking myself who and what I am, the notion that "I am" this or that belief makes no sense any more.

I do get that most people people have a strong identification with their beliefs (maybe that's a better way to say it than "neurotic attachment") and hurting other people unnecessarily is not a compassionate thing to do. So I usually avoid challenging people that way. I will critique their beliefs, but only with their approval, and never in an insulting way. Mocking peoples' beliefs is the behaviour of a bully.

[omega minimo]

249. It would be disingenuous

to pretend not to understand that belief is one of the -- if not THE -- most personal aspects of being a conscious human being. "Core values" are just that: central to persona and identity. Pretending that people should be separated or disassociated from their own beliefs is silly. There's a whole range of experience here and different senses of identification with DOGMA if that is what you are critiquing. But as for belief, let's end the pretense some here have, that the person and the belief are separate, as an excuse to disrespect people and say "I didn't disrespect you, I disrespected your beliefs and anyway, respect has to be earned, asshole." :thumbsdown:

"it doesn't seem that a person whose sense of self can be rocked by having one of their beliefs insulted would be too stable in the first place" seems deliberately insulting.

[GliderGuider]

267. I have a few comments on that

First off, I hold a number of core beliefs that others disrespect. We all do. Someone is always going to disrespect any belief I hold -- people are too diverse for that not to happen. They may not mock it to my face, but they will mock it in print, or on the net, or on radio or television.

Whether it's my political beliefs (I'm by turns a socialist and an anarchist), my religious beliefs (I'm both a strong atheist and deeply spiritual), my social beliefs (I think global industrial civilization is headed for a crash, and a large part of me is rooting for collapse), my philosophical beliefs (I think that science and technology are the handmaidens of our demise, and that self-awareness is humanity's tragic flaw), not to mention my beliefs about sexuality and relationships which are likewise several sigmas out from the mean -- everyone is likely to find something in that stew that they disrespect. If my sense of self was shaken every time someone dissed my beliefs I wouldn't have made it much past puberty.

There are two ways we deal with the inevitable disrespect, as far as I can tell.

The way most of us deal with it is by developing the unshakable opinion that our values are the right ones, and the reason others disrespect them is that they are idiots. Since we discount the opinions of idiots so heavily, they don't touch us. The only time, as far as I can tell, that having someone diss our beliefs really hurts is if we deeply respect that person in some way. If the respect is lacking, their opinion rolls off our backs like water off a duck -- after all, they are the ones with the problem, not us. This is the posture that most of us take.

The second way we can deal with it (and it's not mutually exclusive with the first) is to understand at a deep level that we are not our beliefs; that we exist, in some essential sense, independently of them. This is the position that allows us to retain our ongoing, seamless sense of self despite radical shifts in core values. For someone who holds this as their primary core belief, insults to any belief (including this one) are as emotionally charged as someone else disliking their haircut. This position is much more rare, and takes a lot more work to develop. I probably know less than a couple of dozen people to whom it applies, but I include it because it's the position I take personally.

And I'll stand by my statement about psychological stability. IMO anyone who lets the opinions of idiots matter to them that much has a stability problem. But that's just the opinion of this particular idiot.

[omega minimo]

268. In the context of this discussion and forum

it seemed we were discussing religious or spiritual beliefs, not more generalized ones. These are very personal. As they involve consciousness or soul or spirit or awareness or lack thereof, these seem more intertwined with persona and identity.

"my religious beliefs (I'm both a strong atheist and deeply spiritual)..."

I hope you will write more about this and possibly OP.

[GliderGuider]

272. The religious and the atheists both disrespect my position

To the religious my spiritual sensibility is contaminated by my atheism, and to the atheists my atheism is defiled by my spirituality. Both camps could see me as indecisive (worse that those fucking agnostics even :-) ) and full of woo. But so what? My beliefs may be a big part of who I am, but why should it bother me if people mock them? After all they are the idiots, not me. I had other beliefs before I had these and will probably have still others later on. Through it all I'm still me, and nothing anyone says can touch that.

Now I think that anyone who spends psychological energy mocking others' religious beliefs is by and large wasting their own time and energy. I also think that sort of negativity tends to impact the mocker more than the mockee, but hey, it's what hairless apes do in the zoo.

As I said in a post above, my spiritual position is fully laid out between the text on the home page of my web site and in an article I wrote at the beginning of the year entitled Reflections on a Non-Theistic Spirituality.

I put that article up as an OP here on New Years Day: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=214&topic_id=231455 so I don't want to re-plow that ground just yet, but thanks for your interest.

On edit: Rather than put up a new post, I'm going to kick my original January post up so people who are interested can take a look at it.

[omega minimo]

276. Thank you. I'll read those.

Sounds like have some insight about the connection between agnostic and atheist and at the very least, a unique stew of views within yourself.

"Both camps could see me as indecisive (worse that those fucking agnostics even) and full of woo."

Certitude seems more questionable to me than "indecision." That's why I was curious about being positive about a negative.

Thanks again.

[GliderGuider]

188. The fact that someone disrespects me says nothing at all about me.

It says a lot about the other person, though.

I was brought up to believe that no idea is immune from critique. I was also brought up not to hurt other peoples' feelings, and to recognize that one could do the former without doing the latter. Critiquing an idea in such a way that the holder of the idea is hurt is not communication, it's just bullying.

Now, if you're not arguing with someone over the belief, by all means disrespect it all you want.

[Jim__]

196. This subthread started in post #58 and is about mocking beliefs. - n/t

[GliderGuider]

202. Mocking someone's beliefs is just bullying. Why would someone do that? /nt

[omega minimo]

251. Because they can?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=240069&mesg_id=240707

[ZombieHorde]

264. I can think of certain situations where mockery is bullying,

but posting God = Spongebob on a message board is not bullying, but it may be insulting to the good name of Spongebob.

[GliderGuider]

274. Hey, if I was Spongebob I'd be totally pissed.

[beam me up scottie]

277. 'way!

Sponge Dude rocks! :headbang:

[ZombieHorde]

279. That is a great picture. nt

[omega minimo]

280. It's a different show

Spongegod Squarepants

[darkstar3]

61. Oh really?

Claiming that religious beliefs are equivalent to belief in Santa Claus is disrespectful.
How so, exactly? How is comparing a religious belief in the Christian God to belief in Santa any different than comparing it to belief in Vishnu, Krishna, or any other God or set of gods Christians don't believe in?

The comparison is apt for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that children who believe in Santa Claus do so strongly, sometimes even more strongly than adults who believe in God.

You, like others before you, are refusing to separate respect for beliefs and respect for the person. They are mutually exclusive, and that is half the point of my OP.

[omega minimo]

86. It's dismissive and insulting

and you know it. Why pretend otherwise? On a thread about respect? Still acting above reproach for something clearly antagonistic and distressing to others.

"You, like others before you, are refusing to separate respect for beliefs and respect for the person. They are mutually exclusive, and that is half the point of my OP."

Who says they're "mutually exclusive"? You? By what authority do you decree this? As someone has pointed out, there's not much more personal that one's belief or lack of.

[tama]

108. No disrespect for Santa

Naughty children get no presents. :)

PS: sometimes respect for the belief in personhood and respect for humanity can be mutually exclusive.

[Jim__]

116. Yes, really.

How so, exactly? How is comparing a religious belief in the Christian God to belief in Santa any different than comparing it to belief in Vishnu, Krishna, or any other God or set of gods Christians don't believe in?

The comparison is apt for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that children who believe in Santa Claus do so strongly, sometimes even more strongly than adults who believe in God.

It's pretty pathetic if you really don't see the difference. Almost every known culture has believed in a god. Santa Claus is not a god, he is a legendary figure that is used to enhance children's celebration of a holiday. There is no comparison.

You, like others before you, are refusing to separate respect for beliefs and respect for the person. They are mutually exclusive, and that is half the point of my OP.

Asked and answered above. See post 115.

[DeSwiss]

76. El, or Eli = "Sky Daddy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28deity%29">ʾĒl is the Northwest Semitic word for "deity", cognate to Arabic ʾilāh and Akkadian ilum.

In the Canaanite religion, or Levantine religion as a whole, Eli or Il was the supreme god,<2> the father of humankind and all creatures and the husband of the Goddess Asherah as recorded in the tablets of Ugarit.<2>

The word El was found at the top of a list of gods as the Ancient of Gods or the Father of all Gods, in the ruins of the Royal Library of the Ebla civilization, in the archaeological site of Tell Mardikh in Syria dated to 2300 BC. He may have been a desert god at some point, as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. El had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yam, and Mot, each of whom has similar attributes to the Greek gods Zeus, Poseidon, or Ophion and Hades or Thanatos respectively. Ancient Greek mythographers identified El with Cronus the Titan, as distinguished from Chronos.

*snip*

Also in Northwest Semitic the typical belief and thought for El is that he controls the Moon and the Sun. In the myth, while he controls them they often fight for a place as his favorite. The results, day, night, day, night, are often explained as following. When it is day, the Sun has beaten the Moon. When it is night, the Moon has beaten the sun. When this myth formed it was not known that one part of the planet was in night and one in dark. They said that no heavenly body won twice in a row, except on the days of the eclipse.

*snip*

Christian theology

Christians accept the Hebrew Tanakh as part of scripture, generally translating El {אֱל} as "god" or "God." Some Christians take the Tanakh's use of the plural "Elohim" {אֱלהִים} for God as confirming the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

According to church fathers of early Christianity, El was the first Hebrew name of God. Dante Alighieri in his De vulgari eloquentia suggests that the name was the first sound emitted by Adam: While the first utterance of humans after birth is a cry of pain, Dante assumed that Adam could only have made an exclamation of joy, which at the same time was addressing his Creator. In the Divina commedia, however, Dante contradicts this by saying that God was called I in the language of Adam, and only named El in later Hebrew, but before the confusion of tongues (Paradiso, 26.134).

Unlike Jews and mainstream Christians, Latter-day Saints identify Elohim as a distinct deity from Yahweh, whom they identify with Jesus Christ. Elohim is viewed as God the Father, while Yahweh, or Jesus Christ, is identified as God the Son.

" From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" <"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" in King James Version Bible> -- which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:45-46, NIV)

- A god who is referred to as our Father, and who resides in the sky, indeed is everywhere at once, is a sky daddy. Words, don't in and of themselves convey respect. Respect is earned. Like respect for the fact of gravity. Words used to describe the facts can never on their face be disrespectful. They may be pejorative, but it's still factual. Oddly, they're more factual than religion is itself. The Semitic god(s) of the Levant and Canaan, and from whom Yahweh spun-off at one point in the timeline -- as a storm-god. A god of the sky. The Father. Daddy.

The Sky-Daddy.

[darkstar3]

78. +1 n/t

[beam me up scottie]

81. +2

More than one xian on this board went crazy because we used that spelling.

[omega minimo]

87. Crazy talk

:wtf: is this: Lord of the Flies?

"Words, don't in and of themselves convey respect. Respect is earned. Like respect for the fact of gravity. Words used to describe the facts can never on their face be disrespectful. They may be pejorative, but it's still factual."

"Respect is earned."

Since when? In some situations and not others, when it suits the person doling out the respect tokens?

"Like respect for the fact of gravity."

Okay, what? :wow:

"Words used to describe the facts can never on their face be disrespectful. They may be pejorative, but it's still factual."

So you consider using pejorative words to be respectful? :crazy: They may be factual, but still disrespectful.


What is this new Survivor: Planet Earth code of ill logic coming from? What cynical code are we supposed to all be sharing now? Gotta link?

[DeSwiss]

98. Well I wouldn't expect for you to understand.it. n/t

[omega minimo]

101. Can you explain it?

Can you acknowledge how it appears? What do you base these claims on? Really, is it your assertion based on your own ideas, or something you've heard someone else say?

It's hard to pick a favorite but how bout this one: "Words used to describe the facts can never on their face be disrespectful."

Never? Does that really make sense to you and if it does, would you mind explaining it?

[DeSwiss]

165. It makes perfect sense to me. If you don't, you need to study more. n/t

[omega minimo]

195. Nonsense

You can't explain it. You can't acknowledge how it doesn't make sense.

[DeSwiss]

216. I can explain it perfectly.....

...and it is perfectly understandable -- to anyone who has at least two braincells to rub together.

In the past I would waste a lot of time discussing and defending issues such as this. Hoping to enlighten. In your case it is to no avail since it is clear your mind has long since been closed and nailed shut. However, last year I almost died. I'm still in recovery. But among the many things all my physical ordeals impressed upon me -- is that life is way too short and too precious to waste. And I've concluded that arguing with you is definitely a waste of my time.

It took me over 58 years to acquire all the knowledge that I have. And I have no motivation to attempt to convey any of it to someone whose mind is as clearly closed as yours is. Furthermore, you owe it to yourself to expand your own knowledge through your own discovery. Although from what I've read in the things that you've posted, I don't think you ever will.

Suffice it to say that I've had enough of you and your argumentativeness, and most of all, your incoherency. I find it all too infantile to waste my precious few moments on. The only advice I will offer (though I'm certain you will ignore it), is this: Grow up and stop acting so childish and maybe people will listen to you.

- So I bid you adieu, and send you to the ranks of Ignore as I'm sure many others have done before me......

[omega minimo]

221. No you can't

Or you would have. Yours is a very good example of being unwilling to engage in even the most simple level of discussion, preferring to make blanket assumptions, hostile projections, fucked up insults, rather than consider what you have written and whether perhaps some explanation is warranted.

If attitudes have changed, if word usage has channged, if common attitudes have changed, that is also worth discussion. If you are 58 years old, you can't be excused for being too young to know any better, in terms of what used to be common knowledge, common usage or common courtesy.


"Words, don't in and of themselves convey respect."

Sure they do.

"Respect is earned."

Since when? Says who? In the context of this thread, we're talking about the basic level of courtesy/civility proposed by a moderated discussion board.

"Like respect for the fact of gravity."

Since you have done your best to personally attack me and impugn my integrity, I will not refrain -- as before -- from wondering out loud if that reflects crappy writing skills.

"Words used to describe the facts can never on their face be disrespectful."

Is that ignorance, arrogance or immaturity speaking? At the very least, this is another example of where an honest discussion participant would acknowledge the cognitive disconnect. Rub two brain cells together and anyone realizes you don't go around using "words used to desribe the facts" whenever you want and claim they "can never on their face be disrespectful."

That's incredibly immature to pretend that is valid. It provides an excuse to say anything, be disrespectful and pretend "I'm just saying what's true"'

"They may be pejorative, but it's still factual."

How can they be pejorative AND respectful?



This attitude, with no explanation, clarification, justification, is based on the assumption that it's ALWAYS true as long as your assumptions, your belief, your group, your attitude of what has "earned" respect is the dominant one, the one feigning no disrespect when saying whatever you think is true about others.

[Jim__]

117. Yes, and venus means goddess of beauty and love.

So, whenever anyone refers to venus we can take understand that they are referring to a goddess. Oh wait, that's just the etymological derivation; so, it's not what it means today.

[darkstar3]

144. Etymology is important to definitions,

because we don't just redefine words willy-nilly whenever we want. Atheism, for example, still maintains its etymological meaning from the original Greek. Further, your simple denial of DeSwiss's point based on etymology fails to account for the fact that the majority of Christians believe in Heaven, believe that God lives there, and consistently say the phrase "up in Heaven" when referring to deceased relatives, Jesus, or God himself. Heaven is always "up", and Hell is always "down." God/Jesus/Mary/relatives are always "looking down on us." The phraseology is important, and I would say it does a lot to prove DeSwiss's point.

[Jim__]

145. Yes, and people still use the word venus. Are they referring to a goddess?

"Venus if you will, please send a little girl for me to thrill ..."

[darkstar3]

182. I will not continue to follow your etymological red herring.

I have shown you why it is not applicable here, and unless you have a more compelling argument against DeSwiss's point I'm moving on.

[Jim__]

194. Etymological red herring? The whole subthread is about etymology. - n/t

[darkstar3]

210. Go back and read it again from the start.

It's about more than simple etymology, it's also about the history of several God-like beings.

[DeSwiss]

288. None of this religiously syncretistic crap of today......

...means what it meant before. Including Christianity. That's my point. In general terms, it boils down to most religions are in some way continuing to worship the Sun, since they are all in some way derivatives of earlier Sun-God/Pantheon religions.


- Since the beginning of religions, they've been a delightfully heroic or hideous cast of mythical and symbolic characters. Whom people have either cherished for good luck and fortune (as they still do now). Or whom they fear as they would death, and a scream in the night time. Literally the stuff of all our tales......

"The Halo You See Behind
Jesus' Head -- Is The Sun"
http://www.archive.org/details/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft">

[ZombieHorde]

62. I wish I could have recommended this on time but I have been busy with school.

Fantastic OP.

[darkstar3]

63. Gratzi. :)

Now keep studying so you can continue to make educated and thoughtful posts. :hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

242. I can't find anything in your post to quibble about

disagree with particular beliefs, state your own opinion, it's all good.

I see the line at belittling people who do not agree with you. (General you). That's where it crosses the line from disrespecting beliefs to disrespecting other DUers.

[darkstar3]

253. Thank you.

It seems that for some, it is very difficult to see the line between "that's nonsense" and "you're an idiot". Some cross that line without thinking because they don't know it's there, and some assume that line has been crossed against them for the same reason.

And so once again I find myself in full agreement with someone on the other side of the "God debate", if that's what we want to call it. 'Tis refreshing, and I thank you for your input.

[omega minimo]

257. So

from now on, we will not find you crossing that line?