Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: dhancock on February 04, 2014, 09:43:25 pm
-
Did anyone else watch the Ken Ham - Bill Nye creation v.s. evolution debate? It was quite interesting, and I thought the moderator did a good job. You should be able to see it at http://debatelive.org/. I guess it all goes back to - "a man's morality dictates his theology." However, if you seek the truth, you will find it. Just be warned, truth isn't always comfortable. :o I'm sure most of you have different beliefs than I do, but I can't help but think that there has to be a creator. The simplest bacteria is in itself so complex. How could nothing create something?
Psalms 19:1 " The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork."
-
How could nothing create something?
Give it a few billion years and who knows what might happen (clue, do you know how long a billion years is?)
-
I believe that none of the established creeds holds any convincing answers; at best they are developments of ideas and the retelling of folklore, but I also believe that they pretty much all (at least ones about which I know a little) touch on the need that we have as a species, a need that I think springs not from fear but from some inner knowledge that this can't just be a happy/unhappy accident.
Anyway, as far as I gather from school: matter can neither be created nor destroyed. At best, you can change it. So big bangs, where there is nothing and then there is something, don't seem to compute unless there is divine intervention prior to the banging.
But quite apart from that, were we not destined for something else, I see no purpose to love, affection, beauty and any of the other factors that make life worthwhile. Brutality would be enough for survival as species. It works for all the others.
So on balance, I have faith that it doesn't all end at death. In fact, I quite fancy the concept of a spiritual dimension where I and my lost loved ones can wander wherever without buying tickets.
Rob C
-
One of the most unbearable things for humans is to not know ...
-
Give it a few billion years and who knows what might happen (clue, do you know how long a billion years is?)
Is it a thousand million or a million million? ;D In either case I wish I had a billion (or even a million).
Jim
-
I believe that none of the established creeds holds any convincing answers; at best they are developments of ideas and the retelling of folklore, but I also believe that they pretty much all (at least ones about which I know a little) touch on the need that we have as a species, a need that I think springs not from fear but from some inner knowledge that this can't just be a happy/unhappy accident...
So on balance, I have faith that it doesn't all end at death. In fact, I quite fancy the concept of a spiritual dimension where I and my lost loved ones can wander wherever without buying tickets.
Rob C
It depends on whether you want to be convinced. "a man's morality dictates his theology."
I make mistakes, so I don't trust myself. I don't trust scientists, because they are human like me. Instead, I have decided to trust the Bible, which I believe to be inspired and in which I see no error. In fact, it has been preaching science before scientists (http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html). For example, Job 26:7 says, "He hangs the earth on nothing." Science has only discovered this in the past 550 years. The Bible named Cyrus, a king of Babylon, over a hundred years before he was born.
Again, since I don't trust myself, I have to trust in someone else to save me from what I have done wrong. No religion does this (I don't consider my relationship to God as a religion; although some of you might differ). All of them you have to do good things to get a good afterlife. Ray Comfort (another creationist) likens it to going in front of a judge for murder, but saying, "I have done more good things than I have done bad. Aren't you loving enough to let me off?" One sin is enough to send us to hell, but God didn't want us to go to hell, even though we decided to disobey. So He sent Jesus Christ, His son, to take the wrath of God that we justly deserve upon Himself. Then, Christ rose from the dead, defeating death, so through Him, we also can rise to eternal life. We accept this by believing in Jesus Christ, and repenting (turning away and recognizing the wrongness) of our sins. danielhancockphotography.com/christmas.pdf. Either way, I would encourage you to get and read a Bible. Many people would like to tell you what it says, but read it for yourself. Some of it will not make sense (1 Corinthians 2:14), but keep reading. It is an amazing book.
-
It depends on whether you want to be convinced. I make mistakes, so I don't trust myself. I don't trust scientists, because they are human like me. Instead, I have decided to trust the Bible, which I believe to be inspired and in which I see no error. In fact, it has been preaching science before scientists (http://www.eternal-productions.org/101science.html). For example, Job 26:7 says, "He hangs the earth on nothing." Science has only discovered this in the past 550 years. The Bible named Cyrus, a king of Babylon, over a hundred years before he was born.
Again, since I don't trust myself, I have to trust in someone else to save me from what I have done wrong. No religion does this (I don't consider my relationship to God as a religion; although some of you might differ). All of them you have to do good things to get a good afterlife. Ray Comfort (another creationist) likens it to going in front of a judge for murder, but saying, "I have done more good things than I have done bad. Aren't you loving enough to let me off?" One sin is enough to send us to hell, but God didn't want us to go to hell, even though we decided to disobey. So He sent Jesus Christ, His son, to take the wrath of God that we justly deserve upon Himself. Then, Christ rose from the dead, defeating death, so through Him, we also can rise to eternal life. We accept this by believing in Jesus Christ, and repenting (turning away and recognizing the wrongness) of our sins. danielhancockphotography.com/christmas.pdf. Either way, I would encourage you to get and read a Bible. Many people would like to tell you what it says, but read it for yourself. Some of it will not make sense (1 Corinthians 2:14), but keep reading. It is an amazing book.
I don't really want to get into some sort of religious discussion - because I am not in the least religious and I don't believe in any sort of God. However I do trust myself and I do trust others around me. Yes, I know they and I make mistakes - but so what? We all do some good and some bad, and we have to live with that. I don't feel the need to be absolved of my sins and I feel perfectly comfortable talking to other real people about issues I have problems with. Each to their own, but personally I would rather take my chances with people.
Jim
-
Anyway, as far as I gather from school: matter can neither be created nor destroyed. At best, you can change it. So big bangs, where there is nothing and then there is something, don't seem to compute unless there is divine intervention prior to the banging.
Rob C
Not true. Happens every day in every nuclear reactor on the planet. That's what E=MC^2 is all about.
But, I'm not trying to make any sort of argument about your (or anyone else's) belief statement; that would be as fruitful as comparing Canon to Nikon, Ford to Chevy, etc.
-
Not true. Happens every day in every nuclear reactor on the planet. That's what E=MC^2 is all about.
But, I'm not trying to make any sort of argument about your (or anyone else's) belief statement; that would be as fruitful as comparing Canon to Nikon, Ford to Chevy, etc.
Isn't that the point? You have to have the reactor, somebody had to build and run it. The same with your original bang. I don't know what the equation is about, other than Mr Einstein is usually quoted along with it - a relative sort of relationship there? I doubt that many folks, anywhere, truly do understand what its all about. It doesn't even matter; there always has to be a starting point. Or one may as well deny logic, a process which one is perfectly willing to apply in every other circumstance.
I don't have an evangelical bone in my body; anyone can have any brand of anything - it matters not a jot to me either.
;-)
Rob C
-
And who created the "creator?"
No offense, but what a huge load of nonsense. If you are so fond of the Bible, read Bart Ehrman who completely and irrefutably demolishes the bible as a source of facts.
Oy, why does such ignorance still exist in the world?
-
And who created the "creator?"
No offense, but what a huge load of nonsense. If you are so fond of the Bible, read Bart Ehrman who completely and irrefutably demolishes the bible as a source of facts.
Great question! I've wondered about the same question myself, but I've only heard one other person ask it. The answer: God is eternal, with no beginning or ending. God created the beginning of time. (Genesis 1:1)
I read the description for a couple of Bart's books. There are refutations to his statements, but you probably are not interested in hearing them. If you were, you could have already found them elsewhere. However, I can tell you, without a doubt, the Bible was around before Bart, and it will be around after him. Voltaire boasted that within 100 years of his death, the Bible would disappear from the face of the earth. Voltaire died in 1728, but the Bible lives on (livingwaters.com). People have tried to get rid of the Bible many times (such as the Roman emperor Nero), but it is still there. It has proven the test of the ages.
Who would benefit from how the Bible is written? Jesus? His death is well documented (and his resurrection, though many try to deny it). The apostles? They are clearly described as imperfect men. Besides that, eleven out of twelve were killed for it. Isaiah (one of the prophets)? He was sawn in half with a saw. Moses? Besides being displayed negatively in his own writings, he could have stayed as royalty in Egypt if that is what he wanted.
-
Nice photo of a bird of paradise bloom. Soon it will be time for me to clip our birds of paradise back. They grow like weeds in Central Florida.
-
Nice photo of a bird of paradise bloom. Soon it will be time for me to clip our birds of paradise back. They grow like weeds in Central Florida.
Thanks! They only grow in greenhouses here. :)
-
And who created the "creator?"
No offense, but what a huge load of nonsense. If you are so fond of the Bible, read Bart Ehrman who completely and irrefutably demolishes the bible as a source of facts.
Oy, why does such ignorance still exist in the world?
Or arrogance?
So many people thought they had all the answers, only to discover they didn't even understand the questions.
Rob C
-
Or arrogance?
So many people thought they had all the answers, only to discover they didn't even understand the questions.
Rob C
There's no arrogance here, in fact quite the opposite. I don't claim to have "the answers," only to know that certain "answers" are pure poppycock. Unlike many people, I am comfortable not having answers to the "big questions," and am not sure we ever can. I feel very humble when facing the reality of the universe, and it annoys me to no end when some chucklehead tries to cram all this mystery and majesty into a religious myth that would make a modestly intelligent 15 year old burst into laughter. "The tooth fairy did it!"
OK, shutting up now.
-
How could nothing create something?
How could there be nothing?
I make mistakes, so I don't trust myself. ... Instead, I have decided to trust the Bible, which I believe to be inspired and in which I see no error.
Errare humanum est. As you make mistakes, that belief may be mistaken.
I would encourage you to get and read a Bible. Many people would like to tell you what it says, but read it for yourself.
I read the description for a couple of Bart's books.
I would encourage you to get and read a Bart Ehrman book. Many people would like to tell you what it says, but read it for yourself.
And who created the "creator?"
Great question! I've wondered about the same question myself, but I've only heard one other person ask it. The answer: God is eternal, with no beginning or ending. God created the beginning of time. (Genesis 1:1)
How could God be eternal? How could God create the beginning of time?
-
The desire to have the one and only truth in your hands is human and understandable,
but in the end this misconception leads to frustration and destruction.
Neither our language, nor our mind with its symbolic thinking and its
continuous attempt to reconstruct the world are able to encompass any sort of final truth - if it exists at all.
Living with this shortcoming is hard to bear - it creates fear and uncertainty,
which subsequently is soothed by religion, science, ideology.
And in their vital and urging need for security the illusion to finally have the one and only truth in their hands
humans start crusades, inquisition, war, genocide, divorce and all other kinds of squabbleing.
Its time to leave the sandbox and grow up !
Cheers
~Chris
-
I find it totally absurd that any human could imagine that they could have any significant insight and knowledge of the creator of the entire universe. As some wise sage once said, any knowledge of God is probably as accurate as the knowledge of a Beethoven piano sonata that a mouse might have as it scampers across the piano keys in the middle of the night.
It's pretty obvious to me that God is a creation of the human imagination. Such a concept can be useful in the sense that it gives people hope that there is something better in store for them after their miserable existence on this earth.
Mohamed is reputed to have said that this world is a prison for the true believers, but a paradise for the unbelievers. I imagine that a person could tolerate being in prison if they were assured that a paradise would be the reward after death. That's what it's all about.
-
Neither our language, nor our mind with its symbolic thinking and its
continuous attempt to reconstruct the world are able to encompass any sort of final truth - if it exists at all.
This is where we disagree. Through what we find in the Bible, I believe we can all understand the basics of truth; I also believe that there definitely is a final truth. I either ate the doughnut, or I didn't.
I find it totally absurd that any human could imagine that they could have any significant insight and knowledge of the creator of the entire universe. As some wise sage once said, any knowledge of God is probably as accurate as the knowledge of a Beethoven piano sonata that a mouse might have as it scampers across the piano keys in the middle of the night.
I do have a question for you: how do you know that?
That's what the Bible is for, to reveal God to us. No human knows it all, including the individual you quoted and me.
How could there be nothing?
Before the creation of my house, my house was non-existent.
I don't think your unbelief in a higher power is because of your objections. Those who create hold their creation responsible. Having a Creator means each of us will be held responsible for our actions. I think your objections come from not wanting there to be a God.
-
I find it totally absurd that any human could imagine that they could have any significant insight and knowledge of the creator of the entire universe.
I agree; what a shame that that puts us both in total disagreement with the scientists who think that they are gifted with the 'truth'...
However, I see little real conflict between the scientists and my own beliefs: they think they have proved some of the steps along the way to understanding and I agree with them to an extent; the only problem is that I think they are far further down the hill than they imagine themselves to be. I have no problem with anyone's faith just as long as it doesn't attempt to become a compulsion onto everyone else, and the religion of science is nothing less. I have personally known religious people, so-called Bible-thumpers and self-styled Christians - who were amongst the worst mothers it has been my misfortune to meet in life, and I have met absolute disbelievers who were kind beyond need. We come in many flavours and it has little to do with creeds. It's a shame that Christianity is so blighted by some of its adherents, something that I suppose curses all religions.
I'm reminded of the 'do as I say and not as I do' concept...
One huge objection I see in exclusivity of religion is this: why should the poor unfortunates born many thousands of years before the year 1 AD be held responsible for their 'sins' and condemned to eternal damnation when they were never offered the religious aternatives around today?
In closing, I'd suggest that the Ten Commandments give us a fairly good set or rules for communal living. You don't have to subscribe to any faith to see the value in them - they come down to mutual respect.
Rob C
-
This is where we disagree. Through what we find in the Bible, I believe we can all understand the basics of truth; I also believe that there definitely is a final truth. I either ate the doughnut, or I didn't.
Sorry Daniel - but in my eyes you are trapped in words, language and the functioning of your brain here, and are attempting to claim an absolute truth for yourself.
This is the beginning of the slippery slope into the problems I mentioned above.
I personally find it completely viable to believe in a creator, as long as you understand it's an attempt to solve or depict something for yourself or your community but for heavens sake accept it's not necessarily the only answer to the question.
Interestingly enough the borderline for any sort of dogmatism has already been drawn in the second commandment by the author(s) of the bible itself:
Second commandment, abbreviated version: "You shall not make for yourself an idol"
But I'll drop out of the discussion here - it's degenerating into a lowly sandbox fight: "My sandcastle is more beautiful than yours ...".
Cheers
~Chris
-
This is where we disagree. Through what we find in the Bible, I believe we can all understand the basics of truth; I also believe that there definitely is a final truth. I either ate the doughnut, or I didn't.
That's what the Bible is for, to reveal God to us. No human knows it all, including the individual you quoted and me.
Which Bible are you talking about? There are many versions...which are translated differently by Humans with different opinions. Some translations were created to please a King who did not like what the previous versions had to say. Even the modern churches can not even agree which Bible is authentic. So, after thousands of years, if people can not agree on the authenticity and truth of a document, how can we be expected to believe the content of the document? Do you have a picture of the original to share on this photography forum? That may help us to understand.
-
Uh oh. I see a train wreck on the horizon.
Religions claim to have the answers and back up their answers with words. ("scripture")
Science asks questions, then backs up the answers with proof. ("facts")
-
I would like to make one thing clear. I think that each person has the right to his/her own beliefs or lack of beliefs. I am comfortable in my belief and also in my faith. But, it is my belief and my faith. I am not going to say that another person is right or wrong. Time will surely decide that better than I can. To each his own. If a person wants to believe in God or the great spaghetti monster....I support them in their freedom.
-
The essential difference?
Science is falsifiable, religion is not.
-
How could nothing create something?
How could there be nothing?
Before the creation of my house, my house was non-existent.
Yes, there was a time and place in which your house was non-existent but other things existed instead. Again -- How could there be nothing?
I don't think your unbelief ... I think your objections come from not wanting there to be a God.
Please don't presume you know my beliefs. My objections come from the weakness of your reasons.
-
A few things:
1. No scientists "believes" they hold the "truth". The present the current best model that fits and explains observations and which proves to be useful as a predictor (that's simplified). Real scientists love to find out there's something new or that they were wrong, because it means another piece of the puzzle has been revealed. It's not offering truth, it's offering our best understanding and is always subject to review and change.
2. The presumption of "nothing" in the beginning is exactly that, a presumption without any evidence. How do complex things form from simple things? Chaos theory does a good job of explaining it. The earth, as an example, is not a closed system since additional energy is being received from the sun (other starlight and other high energy sources are of no meaningful value by comparison) and as such, entropy doesn't apply.
3. The "debate" was pointless. Ham has no interest in an actual debate - he just proselytises from an absurd interpretation of the Bible. Most people of faith don't take such a literal view (and a handpicked literal view at that, ignoring anything inconvenient or that they don't like). Faith and science are not irreconcilable, but Young Earth Creationism is utter bunk, from a scientific, theological or philosophical point of view. It might seem relatively harmless, too, but it's the same line of thinking that leads to the likes of Westboro Baptists, which I think speaks volumes.
-
It's a shame that Christianity is so blighted by some of its adherents, something that I suppose curses all religions.
Emulate Christ, not Christians.
-
The essential difference?
Science is falsifiable, religion is not.
Religion as a set of beliefs in a god may not be, but there is ample evidence that all material things aimed at supporting those beliefs, starting with books such as the bible, are, if not a purposeful falacy, very far from being a credible source of knowlegde about the mechanisms driven our physical world.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I recall once having a conversation with a Jehovah Witness male who attempted to convert me to his religion. After a long diatribe from me on the subject of the unlikely existence of a God in reality, as imagined by the human mind, the man replied that he didn't think he would be able to continue living if he were to accept that there is no God.
The conversation ended there, but that comment stuck in my mind. We should accept the fact that often peoples' belief system, whether reasonable or not, is what gives their life meaning. Without it, or deprived of it, they might find themselves at sea and flounder.
I recently came across a few words of wisdom from Gautama Buddha, the nature of which surprised me because this advice, which I'm going to share with you, is reported to have been given about 2,500 years ago, although the historical accuracy of any event in the distant past which is recorded only by word of mouth, must be doubtful.
As the story goes, written down about 29 B.C.E in the Pali Canon, Gautama Buddha whilst travelling and teaching after his enlightenment, came across the village of Kesaputta in Northern India where he was greeted by a clan of people known as the Kalamas. These Kalamas were very skeptical people because they had experienced frequent visits form various holy men in the past, each offering different teachings which were often in conflict with what other holy men had said. The Kalamas wanted to know whose teaching they should follow and how they could be sure that one particular teaching was truer than another.
The Buddha's response is known as the Kalama Sutta. It grabbed my attention because I was astounded that this person, Siddharta Gautama, appears to have laid down the basic principles of the scientific method about 2,500 years ago.
Here it is. The Kalama Sutta, Angutarra Nikaya 3.65, Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon.
1. Do not believe in something merely because it is reported.
2. Do not believe in something because it has been practiced by generations, or has become a tradition or part of a culture.
3. Do not believe in something because a scripture says it is so.
4. Do not believe in something because you believe a God has inspired it.
5. Do not believe in something because a teacher tells you it is so.
6. Do not believe in something because the authorities say it is so.
7. Do not believe in hearsay, rumour, speculative opinion, or acceptance to logic and inference alone.
8. Help yourself accept as completely true only that which is praised by the wise and which you test for yourself and know to be good for yourself and others.
Can't disagree. ;D
-
Give it a few billion years and who knows what might happen (clue, do you know how long a billion years is?)
That depends on which side of the ocean you live. In North America 1,000,000,000 is considered a billion. In England, 1,000,000,000,000 is considered a billion. Still, both are a pretty long time!
Mike.
-
That depends on which side of the ocean you live. In North America 1,000,000,000 is considered a billion. In England, 1,000,000,000,000 is considered a billion.
Not any more, Mike. We've long since given up asserting any independence from you Yanks on this one.
Jeremy
-
It's now an ISO standard, but it was originally used by French mathematicians and adopted in the US later (and then later became an ISO standard).
-
I always believed in the following:
one million: 1,000,000
one billion: 2,000,000
one trillion: 3,000,000
I was never very good at maths, but always knew when somebody owed me money, which wasn't the same thing as getting paid. For that I should have been good at boxing.
;-)
Rob C
-
Quote Ray Reply#30
The conversation ended there, but that comment stuck in my mind. We should accept the fact that often peoples' belief system, whether reasonable or not, is what gives their life meaning. Without it, or deprived of it, they might find themselves at sea and flounder.
Unquote.
The best description of religion that I have read/heard is that it is a psychological crutch. Ray's statement encapsulates it precisely. :(
-
It's pretty obvious to me that God is a creation of the human imagination. Such a concept can be useful in the sense that it gives people hope that there is something better in store for them after their miserable existence on this earth.
Sir Isaac Newton
Abraham Lincoln
Tolkien
CS Lewis
etc, etc....
What a bunch of miserable, backwards idiots.
-
Sir Isaac Newton
Abraham Lincoln
Tolkien
CS Lewis
etc, etc....
What a bunch of miserable, backwards idiots.
Absolutely - they had no imagination at all.
Somebody mentioned a train crash; I think that we might be best accepting the principle of different strokes for different folks, and getting back to photography.
Rob C
-
Absolutely - they had no imagination at all.
Somebody mentioned a train crash; I think that we might be best accepting the principle of different strokes for different folks, and getting back to photography.
Rob C
If ever a thread begged to be closed after the first post, this is the one. :)
-
Sir Isaac Newton
Abraham Lincoln
Tolkien
CS Lewis
etc, etc....
What a bunch of miserable, backwards idiots.
You forgot to mention Albert Einstein. ;)
We're all backward, compared with someone who is more forward. The most brilliant person you know is still an ignoramus on many aspects of knowledge. The combined knowledge and understanding of all the scientists in the world is not even sufficient to understand what 90% of the matter and energy in the universe consists of. They call it Dark Matter and Dark Energy because it's completely invisible, and so far undetectable.
In the case of Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein, I understand their religious views led them into error with regard to their scientific theories.
Newton's laws of gravity had a very obvious flaw when applied to the universe. If every object is exerting a gravitational force of attraction on every other object, then the universe should collapse onto itself, unless it is in a state of expansion, which we now understand to be the case.
Newton was obviously aware of the problem. His explanation as to why the universe was not collapsing upon itself was because God prevented it. God was holding all the stars and galaxies in their relative position to each other, in opposition to the force of gravity.
This idea of a static universe, apart from orbiting planets, moons and comets, was inherited by Einstein, who was also religious. Despite the fact that the maths he used in his first theory of relativity, Special Relativity, implied that the universe is expanding, Einstein didn't believe it. He modified his equations to make them fit a static universe.
He later realised his mistake after Edwin Hubble made a convincing case that the universe is expanding.
There is also another area where Einstein's understanding appears to have been flawed as a result of his religious convictions. He had great difficulty in accepting the probabalistic nature of Quantum Mechanics and the uncertainty involved. He expressed his objection with the famous quote, 'God does not play dice.' Yet these theories of Quantum Mechanics have proved to be very successful. Hopefully we will soon have quantum computers operating at blazingly fast speeds. ;)
-
There is a place for both science and religion. It's not a matter of either or. Science tries to explain the how and religion the why. Each should stay out of the domain of the other. We'd all be better off since our bodies, brains and spirit need both.
-
Hopefully we will soon have quantum computers operating at blazingly fast speeds. ;)
Hopefully, we will not.
I spent some time working on a pic this afternoon, yes, on Windows 8, and at a particular stage quite near completion, I hit something on the keyboard by mistake, and my adapted configuration for W8, which removes it from the original horror picture show and into a mode closer to W7 and earlier, vanished in an instant, reverting to W8 'standard' and leaving me no way of swapping back without closing down.
Clearly, I lost all my work.
I think innovation can be a pain in the ass; it generally represents nothing more than the greed of the manufacturers to screw yet more from our pockets.
Rob C
-
There is a place for both science and religion. It's not a matter of either or. Science tries to explain the how and religion the why. Each should stay out of the domain of the other. We'd all be better off since our bodies, brains and spirit need both.
A poem. (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/171645)
-
I've put off reading this thread as like many here I'm afraid it will become the sport of trolls and a train wreck. Can't you just see it coming?
Oh well, here's my tuppence worth for whatever its value. :)
In the words of another: "To live is to seek knowledge and fulfilment on the one hand, and to also have touched at the heart of life and death through experience of the sacred....It is always a source of wonder that the unseen and intangible tie or hold us to the world that is so visible, filled with different life forms - that is what makes the sacred difficult to discuss. When you wonder - you are silent".
For myself, the bible is a bit like a camera manual, forgive the analogy. You can read it all you want, but one day you have to go out and fire the shutter and be assessed on the results.
Now I'm going to put the boot in. I have met some folk from the creationist community. Apparently they believe the Creator of All That Is faked the age of the world. How is that not blasphemy?
David S
PS Yes Rob. Every time I hear the words "new model" it's time to lock up the wallet. Otherwise known as a pain in the ass reliever.
-
If ever a thread begged to be closed after the first post, this is the one. :)
Why? As far as I can see it has remained very civil and is a lot more interesting than why a Canon is better than a Nikon or "Is Adobe ripping us all off with CC". I'm not a believer but I find it fascinating to hear all the opinions on the subject.
Jim
-
Just think about this sort of thing: emotion.
Do the other animals feel it too? Is there a version of it in the howling of a wolf? (No famous r'n'b reference intended here.)
For myself, things such as art, though quite different in its many genres, mark the separation between man and beast. As far as music goes, could I but do any single thing this guy does (both would have me feel greedy), I'd throw away all the cameras at once and immerse myself in the simple, unPhotoshopped beauty of it all.
No photograph has ever brought similar depths of emotion to me as does music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06xZyh8VBFQ
Oh that we could choose our own qualities.
Rob C
-
Why? As far as I can see it has remained very civil and is a lot more interesting than why a Canon is better than a Nikon or "Is Adobe ripping us all off with CC". I'm not a believer but I find it fascinating to hear all the opinions on the subject.
Jim
Well, I would say you're right, Jim. It has remained civil. My point was that the first post struck me as the kind of post that could have triggered something quite different.
-
Well, I would say you're right, Jim. It has remained civil. My point was that the first post struck me as the kind of post that could have triggered something quite different.
I have to say I was worried about it too..... but it seems to be running okay at the moment and do find these threads can be illuminating as long as they don't get hijacked.
Jim
-
Just think about this sort of thing: emotion.
Do the other animals feel it too? Is there a version of it in the howling of a wolf? (No famous r'n'b reference intended here.)
For myself, things such as art, though quite different in its many genres, mark the separation between man and beast. As far as music goes, could I but do any single thing this guy does (both would have me feel greedy), I'd throw away all the cameras at once and immerse myself in the simple, unPhotoshopped beauty of it all.
No photograph has ever brought similar depths of emotion to me as does music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06xZyh8VBFQ
Oh that we could choose our own qualities.
Rob C
Rob, perhaps you should start another thread about human emotion or whatever.
Jim
-
Just think about this sort of thing: emotion.
Do the other animals feel it too? Is there a version of it in the howling of a wolf? (No famous r'n'b reference intended here.)
For myself, things such as art, though quite different in its many genres, mark the separation between man and beast. As far as music goes, could I but do any single thing this guy does (both would have me feel greedy), I'd throw away all the cameras at once and immerse myself in the simple, unPhotoshopped beauty of it all.
No photograph has ever brought similar depths of emotion to me as does music.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06xZyh8VBFQ
Oh that we could choose our own qualities.
Rob C
Apropos of your post and of this whole thread, it occurs to me that Jerry Lee and his cousin Jimmy Swaggart had similar musical sensibilities, but somewhat different underlying messages, and different emotional impact.
-
Rob, perhaps you should start another thread about human emotion or whatever.
Jim
There's a problem: only a holistic approach makes sense... I think religion is a massive part of the human psyche, and emotion crosses into and pretty much through everything we do. How does one separate yet stay true?
Even those who have no faith can't keep aloof; their lives are ever in contact with the others, whose faith may well remain undisclosed, but the implications and edicts of which still, to one degree or another, effect the behavioural front or interface with the rest of humanity.
We truly are our brothers' keepers!
Rob C
-
Apropos of your post and of this whole thread, it occurs to me that Jerry Lee and his cousin Jimmy Swaggart had similar musical sensibilities, but somewhat different underlying messages, and different emotional impact.
Saw a clip recently where little sis (no mean boogie pianist herself) was talking about Jerry Lee's musical problems with the church: she played and sang a couple of lines of a straight version of a gospel song - there are some things I must not do... and then exactly the same thing in her brother's style. Magical. Minute changes, but huge emotional muscle.
If you watch film of some of the small, black church congregations at worship, they do exactly the same thing, and far from sinking into blasphemy or disrespect, I think they achieve the opposite: a true and deeply personal connection with the spirit of the God they are worshipping. Sometimes, I think the concept of sophistication is a barrier to truth and connectivity.
Rob C
-
I think religion is a massive part of the human psyche
It's part of a quest for reason: why did this happen? why are we here? what's life for? Religion provides an answer. It's not one I'd subscribe to, but it makes some people happy and secure. To non-believers, it looks suspiciously like a comfort blanket.
As Voltaire observed, perhaps not entirely without cynicism, "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer".
Jeremy
-
Sometimes, I think the concept of sophistication is a barrier to truth and connectivity. Rob C
AMEN
-
It's part of a quest for reason: why did this happen? why are we here? what's life for? Religion provides an answer. It's not one I'd subscribe to, but it makes some people happy and secure. To non-believers, it looks suspiciously like a comfort blanket.
As Voltaire observed, perhaps not entirely without cynicism, "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer".
Jeremy
Maybe he was just pissed that the opportunity to do so himself had long passed...
Rob C
-
It's part of a quest for reason: why did this happen? why are we here? what's life for? Religion provides an answer. It's not one I'd subscribe to, but it makes some people happy and secure. To non-believers, it looks suspiciously like a comfort blanket.
As Voltaire observed, perhaps not entirely without cynicism, "Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer".
Jeremy
If not God, man finds other things to worship. Science. Government. Alcohol and drugs. Money. There are all kinds of idols. The common denominator is man seems to want to have faith in something, believe in something as all powerful, even if himself.
-
If not God, man finds other things to worship. Science. Government. Alcohol and drugs. Money. There are all kinds of idols. The common denominator is man seems to want to have faith in something, believe in something as all powerful, even if himself.
+1
-
We should not forget what a potentially powerful instrument of social control a religion can be. The concept of eternal damnation in a fiery hell must sometimes be a powerful deterrent against bad behaviour for certain believers, just as the concept of a life of eternal bliss in a heaven is an alluring reward for good behaviour.
One wonders just how many people throughout history have refrained from acts of theft, assault and murder as a result of their considering the consequent punishment of such actions after their death.
I'm reminded of a quote from Mohammed, "This world is like a prison for the true believers, but a paradise for the non-believers." The implication here is that the true believer who dutifully tolerates the prison rules will be rewarded in heaven, perhaps even with a few virgins if he's a male; whereas the non-believer who wantonly satisfies his lusts and lascivious desires will meet with eternal punishment after death, which will be much more severe, of course, than any prison sentence on earth.
I'm also reminded of the following passage from Mathew 5.29, which seems to express a similar sentiment that it's better to rigidly comply with certain rules and restrictions, such as refraining from lusting after women, rather than be cast into hell.
And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out,
and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for
thee that one of thy members should perish, and
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
Although, to be reasonable, if thy right eye offend thee, I think it would be better to wear an eye patch instead of plucking out the eye. ;D
-
If not God, man finds other things to worship. Science. Government. Alcohol and drugs. Money. There are all kinds of idols. The common denominator is man seems to want to have faith in something, believe in something as all powerful, even if himself.
God is that which we value above all else.
That may be much the same for those who identify with a religion and those who don't.
(I don't think we'd say someone has faith in alcohol or other drugs or money. Faith in Government? Apparently "If Only the Führer Knew!" was not an uncommon sentiment but that's not faith in the institution of government. Science? "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves.")
-
As much as I have enjoyed reading this thread I never thought I would post something to it. But, in today's New York Times there is an article about domesticated camels in, or not in, Genesis.
The link: http://nyti.ms/1m2LV2o
It isn't my intention to start a debate along the lines of "The Media, good or bad." Simply thought the article was interesting and germane to the thread.
David
-
My 2 cents from a few years ago: http://roberts-rants.blogspot.ca/2007/04/watching-over-us.html (http://roberts-rants.blogspot.ca/2007/04/watching-over-us.html)
-
There's one significant aspect of all debates like this, whatever the subject, which I've realized that most people seem to be unaware of, and which can sometimes be the cause of a lot of anger and conflict.
It is that everything, without exception, requires interpretation. Even at the most basic level of viewing a scene that one might wish to photograph, the brain and visual system interprets certain light frequencies it receives through the eye as an experience of certain colors. The greenness of a leaf is not a property of the leaf. Rather, the leaf has a property of reflecting a particular wavelength of light which the average, or normal human brain interprets as a sensation of greenness.
We then have a tendency to project that sensation of greenness onto the leaf, asserting that the leaf is green and that we are witnessing reality.
If the leaf could speak, and respond to our assertion that it is green, it would probably say, "Hey Buster! Don't call me green. I am as I am. My greenness is purely a product of your own imagination." ;D
Even when it comes to very detailed scientific matters, the public at large seems to be unaware of this unavoidable process of interpretation. One sees it in the Climate Change debate. Those who are worried about the future of their grandchildren, and believe that rising CO2 levels are a great threat, get very emotional about the views of skeptics who claim that we cannot be certain about the matter and should treat it as a risk management.
The very fact that such skeptics are often branded as 'Climate Change deniers' is a bit shocking to me. I sense there is a religious fervour implied by such comments, like categorising everyone into believers and non-believers.
Skepticism is at the heart of scientific progress. Denialism is burying one's head in the sand without reference to any contradictory evidence or any reasonable, alternative explanations.
I'm amazed that quite often, apparently intelligent people will use the consensus principle as justification for their support that Anthropogenc Climate Change will be disastrous. Have we reached the stage in human development when consensuses of scientific opinion cannot be wrong? They've frequently been wrong in the past, especially when the subject is really complicated, with elements of chaos included, as climate change is.
But let's not divert the topic to climate change. I use this as an example of a type of religious fervour that takes place at an emotional level, even among certain scientists involved in Climate Change research.
How much more difficult it must be to interpret what someone actually said and meant a couple of thousand years ago or more, especially when the words of that person have been relayed by human memory and word of mouth for a number of generations before being written down.
I understand that the gospels were written about 70-100 years after the death of Christ. The Pali Canon was written about 400 years after the death of Gautama Buddha. There's a huge scope for misinterpretation there.
-
Hey, we're human. We make mistakes about a lot of things.
-
Does no one remember paying the "telephone game" as a child...what is said to the first child does not resemble what comes out of the last child's mouth.
That's what happens when folklore is passed down from generations past.
-
Hey, we're human. We make mistakes about a lot of things.
Hey! We're the most intelligent life form in the entire universe, as far as we know. Of course we make mistakes, but we should bloody well learn from them. ;)
-
Does no one remember paying the "telephone game" as a child...what is said to the first child does not resemble what comes out of the last child's mouth.
That's what happens when folklore is passed down from generations past.
Absolutely! Sometimes referred to as 'Chinese Whispers'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers
But this is surely just one element in the interpretation problem. In the case of religion, the people passing down the message are not playing a game. They are trying to live the message and understand the spirit behind it.
For all we know, they might sometimes have improved upon the message, and ironed out some of the flaws and incomprehensible statements.
I tend to think this is what might have happened with the Kalama Sutta attributed to Buddha. It seems to be just too sane, and reasonable, and modern to be an accurate description of the Buddha's words. Or maybe that impression of mine is due to the additional difficulty of translation from an ancient language into a modern language. There are some words in ancient languages that simply do not have an exact modern equivalent. We have to make our best guess.
I'm just speculating. I'm not an authority on such issues, but I'm rather fascinated by the entire debacle.
I also felt a slight sense of betrayal when questioning, above, the authenticity of those words in the Kalama Sutta, attributed to the Buddha. If that's what he really said, then Wow!. He's my inspiration.
-
excerpted from page one:
But quite apart from that, were we not destined for something else, I see no purpose to love, affection, beauty and any of the other factors that make life worthwhile. Brutality would be enough for survival as species. It works for all the others.
Rob C
The "Universe" (for want of a better, all-including word) does not need us to understand or explain it. It has existed without us for billions of years, and will, apparently, be doing so again in a very little time at the rate our species is eliminating our own habitat.
As far as to the "purpose to love...etc" - we humans value it, and that is reason enough for it to exist. Holy books merely codify good manners our species developed, they came after, not before.
-
Of course we make mistakes, but we should bloody well learn from them.
We do learn from them...we go from killing our brother with the jawbone of an ass to using a AK-15.
That's how we became more civilized/efficient in our methods of killing one another. ::)
-
"Morality, then, is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented. ... It is the insights of rational individuals that make a truly universal and unselfish morality something that our species can aspire to."
The Moral Life of Babies (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
-
the need that we have as a species, a need that I think springs not from fear but from some inner knowledge that this can't just be a happy/unhappy accident.
A classic experiment from the 1940s by the psychologists Fritz Heider and Marianne Simmel suggested that imputing agency is so automatic that people may do it even for geometric shapes. For the experiment, subjects watched a film of triangles and circles moving around. When asked what they had been watching, the subjects used words like “chase” and “capture.” They did not just see the random movement of shapes on a screen; they saw pursuit, planning, escape.
Supposedly we have come to assume random movements are caused by some purposeful agent; because we're descended from the ones who ran away when the leaves rustled in the wind, and occasionally it really was a hyena that moved the leaves not the wind.
Anyway, as far as I gather from school: matter can neither be created nor destroyed. At best, you can change it. So big bangs, where there is nothing and then there is something, don't seem to compute unless there is divine intervention prior to the banging.
Lavoisier's 18th century Law of Conservation of Mass merged with Mayer's 19th century Law of Conservation of Energy at the beginning of the 20th century; so, on a larger scale, what you gathered from school would be the total amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant.
You may also have gathered that (taking gravity into account) a ball at the top of a slope has potential (negative) energy which can convert to kinetic (positive) energy; and for the universe, supposedly the postive and negative energies cancel out and the total energy is zero -- both now and at Big Bang.
But quite apart from that, were we not destined for something else, I see no purpose to love, affection, beauty and any of the other factors that make life worthwhile. Brutality would be enough for survival as species. It works for all the others.
You don't think it possible that love and affection could bind parents together to care for their children, and so promote their children's survival (and reproduction) more effectively?
Why does the peacock have such a beautiful tail? (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_09.html)
-
I tend to think this is what might have happened with the Kalama Sutta attributed to Buddha. It seems to be just too sane, and reasonable, and modern to be an accurate description of the Buddha's words. Or maybe that impression of mine is due to the additional difficulty of translation from an ancient language into a modern language. There are some words in ancient languages that simply do not have an exact modern equivalent. We have to make our best guess.
I'm just speculating. I'm not an authority on such issues, but I'm rather fascinated by the entire debacle.
I also felt a slight sense of betrayal when questioning, above, the authenticity of those words in the Kalama Sutta, attributed to the Buddha. If that's what he really said, then Wow!. He's my inspiration.
There is no reason to suppose that the words of the Kalama Sutta as we now read them have anything to do with western/modern "chinese whispers", or mistranslation. The fact that they might "sound modern" isn't really good evidence. The Pali text was written down a couple of hundred years after the Buddha died, based on an oral tradition. There might have been some chinese whispers in there, but only within that time period, and the more striking element is the formal quality of the Sutta which emerges when you compare it with other Suttas. It is a highly structured text rather than a transcription of speech. It has been translated many times into many languages and been the subject of much careful scholarship. The reasonable conclusion is that both the original Pali text and the modern versions accurately represent what the Buddha thought.
For anyone wondering what Ray and I are on about, check out an excellent translation here (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html).
-
1. You may also have gathered that (taking gravity into account) a ball at the top of a slope has potential (negative) energy which can convert to kinetic (positive) energy; and for the universe, supposedly the postive and negative energies cancel out and the total energy is zero -- both now and at Big Bang.
2. You don't think it possible that love and affection could bind parents together to care for their children, and so promote their children's survival (and reproduction) more effectively?
1. Potential energy was defined to me as energy by virtue of position; kinetic energy as energy by virtue of motion. That they may have made a zero equation didn't arise (thank goodness - I hated maths even more than physics, though I did pass in both - the physics at a Highers level, but maths as a lowly Lower until I had to go to night school and my wife-to-be coached me through that horror where I converted the Lower to the equivalent of a Higher, too. What torture to someone who only wanted to be a snapper.)
2. Without some higher principle, I guess only to the level of a wolf or a lioness. Then, early youth over, get the hell out, leave my space and fight for yourself.
I think the entire emotional life we have is based, knowingly or not, on a sense of the divinity of it; that's one of the few reasons I see for the refusal of suicide as a way out. To me, the idea is the throwing of such a gift back in the face of the One who gave it to us in the first place. If there is another life, then what a fine way to reject it.
Rob C
-
2. Without some higher principle, I guess only to the level of a wolf or a lioness. Then, early youth over, get the hell out, leave my space and fight for yourself.
So there's a purpose for love and affection.
A purpose for altruism would be less obvious (but then altruism may be less common).
-
The Pali text was written down a couple of hundred years after the Buddha died, based on an oral tradition.
My understanding, Ken, is that the Pali Canon was first written down in Sri Lanka about 450 years after the Buddha died. That's an awful long time for errors and misinterpretation to take place. Many folks are a bit concerned that the Christian gospels might not accurately reflect the actual words and life of Christ because they were written about a generation after the death of Jesus and possibly not by any of his disciples or witnesses.
But 450 years of nothing but oral tradition and memorization seems a bit extreme. Imagine the whole works of Shakespeare being written down for the first time today, from the memory of actors who had passed down their rehearsed lines by word of mouth over many generations for 400 years.
Furthermore, the Pali Canon is a lot more voluminous and extensive than the entire works of Shakespeare. I believe it's even bigger than the last printed version of the full Britannica Encyclopedia, which is a mere 32 volumes. ;D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon
-
My understanding, Ken, is that the Pali Canon was first written down in Sri Lanka about 450 years after the Buddha died. That's an awful long time for errors and misinterpretation to take place. Many folks are a bit concerned that the Christian gospels might not accurately reflect the actual words and life of Christ because they were written about a generation after the death of Jesus and possibly not by any of his disciples or witnesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C4%81li_Canon
ou are right about the 450 years rather than 200. That would still exclude the notion that the Sutta sounds modern because it has been influenced by modern ideas. However, for me that is neither here nor there, because in my view the text clearly doesn't reproduce the actual words of the buddha - it is highly stylised in a "call and response" way that makes it easy to memorise. The reason this doesn't worry me is that what the Buddha is reported as saying, here and in other suttas, is essentially "don't take this stuff on authority, try it out and if it works for you, go for it". So even if we could be confident that the text did reproduce his actual words, he would be telling us that we shouldn't give that any great weight. Instead, we should trust our own discovery of its truth (or untruth) through attempting to live it. That is one of the things buddhists mean when they say that the real buddha is within each individual practitioner. "Faith" in buddhism is provisional and has to be confirmed or not by day to day experience.
-
ou are right about the 450 years rather than 200. That would still exclude the notion that the Sutta sounds modern because it has been influenced by modern ideas. However, for me that is neither here nor there, because in my view the text clearly doesn't reproduce the actual words of the buddha - it is highly stylised in a "call and response" way that makes it easy to memorise. The reason this doesn't worry me is that what the Buddha is reported as saying, here and in other suttas, is essentially "don't take this stuff on authority, try it out and if it works for you, go for it". So even if we could be confident that the text did reproduce his actual words, he would be telling us that we shouldn't give that any great weight. Instead, we should trust our own discovery of its truth (or untruth) through attempting to live it. That is one of the things buddhists mean when they say that the real buddha is within each individual practitioner. "Faith" in buddhism is provisional and has to be confirmed or not by day to day experience.
I agree. It's the general attitude of mind that's important and the soundness of the advice however such advice might be phrased.
I'm very impressed by the Kalama Sutta because it is so unusual for any religious scripture to advise anyone not to accept what is claimed, by scripture or teacher, without investigating the matter for himself.
However, I sense a slight conundrum here. At the time that the Buddha was giving this address to the Kalamas about 2500 years ago, there was presumably no Buddhist scripture. The Buddhist scriptures (the Pali Canon) were first written down around 29 BC.
The existing religious scriptures of that time in India, and the cultural practices, would have been the Vedas, which presumably the Buddha did not accept after gaining his own enlightenment.
The Kalamas had something better than a mere scripture. They had the Buddha himself to answer their queries, whereas the modern Buddhists have to rely upon the scriptures, as well as older monks and teachers. I'm not sure they would get very far if they began questioning the advice of their Abbots and the thousands of rules in the Pali Canon relating to correct behaviour. ;)
-
If the leaf could speak, and respond to our assertion that it is green, it would probably say, "Hey Buster! Don't call me green. I am as I am. My greenness is purely a product of your own imagination." ;D
Kermit probably felt the same.
Jeremy
-
Imagine my disappointment where I'd originally thought this was all leading to a scholarly exposition on the finer points of the Kama Sutra from our eastern correspondent with proven photographic, investigative experience in the ways of the eastern transvestite/transsexual! Can't trust any Internet site no mo'! All is false in those siliconed valleys!
;-)
Rob C
-
The Kalamas had something better than a mere scripture. They had the Buddha himself to answer their queries, whereas the modern Buddhists have to rely upon the scriptures, as well as older monks and teachers. I'm not sure they would get very far if they began questioning the advice of their Abbots and the thousands of rules in the Pali Canon relating to correct behaviour. ;)
They would certainly get into trouble in many places. Buddhism has no immunity from the heresies (distortions of the truth) which affect other religions and is shaped by the cultures in which it is practised, many of which are hierarchical and authoritarian. On the other hand, great teachers are supposed to have realised the buddha's understanding for themselves, so modern students do in a sense have "buddha" ("a" rather than "the") to answer their questions, and in some schools challenging the teacher is accepted, even expected for mature students. And in the West of course everything is up for grabs. My own experience in buddhist retreats is that asking challenging questions of the teacher in public is acceptable provided it is done respectfully. And in private interviews, not asking a question which is on your mind is considered a missed opportunity. So the empiricist and anti-authoritarian line you find in the Kalama Sutta is still alive and well.
On the "thousands of rules", you might find this (http://www.fsnewsletter.amaravati.org/html/14/liv-vin.htm) interesting - a modern "western" monk explaining why he follows them.
I am feeling vague disquiet about how far this is from the topic. But like all things, my disquiet arises, and passes away. Time for a coffee. ;)
-
Those who are enlightened know how to behave without rules, Stamper. ;)
Furthermore, the young ladyboy is clearly the real thing: a ladyboy. Where the misrepresentation?
I would also have hoped that all of the postings here were adult material; were I interested in children's stuff, I'd buy Enid Blyton's works. As for pyramid schemes - do they still build those things somewhere other than Vegas?
Puzzled (from Spain)
-
I'm loath to end this thread, but will if it deteriorates further.
Michael
-
Saw a clip recently where little sis (no mean boogie pianist herself) was talking about Jerry Lee's musical problems with the church: she played and sang a couple of lines of a straight version of a gospel song - there are some things I must not do... and then exactly the same thing in her brother's style. Magical. Minute changes, but huge emotional muscle.
Rob C
Quite by accident, I found the clip to which I'd referred above.
If you're impatient or just not fond of the music, it's at around 2.40 or so.
http://youtu.be/IgsxXnvL3gE
Rob C
-
I have to say that I'm rather dismayed that my image of a transgender Thai person has been censored on this site. There were no genitals shown, only breasts. I don't understand what's the big deal. I don't belong to such a prudish society. I'm very disappointed in the narrow standards of this site.
-
Should this wandering thread wander further off-course and result in further 'Report to Moderator' notices, it will be locked.
Please use considered judgment and remain civil.
-
The Kalamas had something better than a mere scripture. They had the Buddha himself to answer their queries, whereas the modern Buddhists have to rely upon the scriptures, as well as older monks and teachers.
A small joke on the matter, as illustration:
A new monk shows up at a monastery where the monks spend their time making copies of ancient books. The new monk goes to the basement of the monastery saying he wants to make copies of the originals rather than of others' copies so as to avoid duplicating errors they might have made. Several hours later the monks, wondering where their new friend is, find him crying in the basement. They ask him what is wrong and he says "the word is CELEBRATE, not CELIBATE!"
Cheers,
Bart
-
There's one significant aspect of all debates like this, whatever the subject, which I've realized that most people seem to be unaware of, and which can sometimes be the cause of a lot of anger and conflict.
It is that everything, without exception, requires interpretation.
Yes indeed. This is why the fundamentalist insistence on the innerancy of a sacred text is ultimately meaningless. Even an innerant text (and who could establish, rather than merely claim, its innerancy?) must be interpreted. But IMO the inerrant text claim is nothing but a dodge. What's actually being claimed is the innerancy of particular interpreters. To state this directly would invite, and rightly so, charges of extreme arrogance. So it's put forth indirectly, while nonetheless being believed fervently, instead.
Even when it comes to very detailed scientific matters, the public at large seems to be unaware of this unavoidable process of interpretation. One sees it in the Climate Change debate. Those who are worried about the future of their grandchildren, and believe that rising CO2 levels are a great threat, get very emotional about the views of skeptics who claim that we cannot be certain about the matter and should treat it as a risk management.
The very fact that such skeptics are often branded as 'Climate Change deniers' is a bit shocking to me. I sense there is a religious fervour implied by such comments, like categorising everyone into believers and non-believers.
Skepticism is at the heart of scientific progress. Denialism is burying one's head in the sand without reference to any contradictory evidence or any reasonable, alternative explanations.
I'm amazed that quite often, apparently intelligent people will use the consensus principle as justification for their support that Anthropogenc Climate Change will be disastrous. Have we reached the stage in human development when consensuses of scientific opinion cannot be wrong? They've frequently been wrong in the past, especially when the subject is really complicated, with elements of chaos included, as climate change is.
I'll take you up on this a bit. One of my friends is a climate scientist. To him (and I agree) the evidence & analysis to date clearly point towards a historically abnormal disruption in the global climate and towards us as being to some extent responsible. The mistake he feels some of his colleagues have made (and I again agree) is to go beyond presenting data & analysis and into advocating policy. Once you do this you end up in the quicksand of politics & ideology and are understandably subject to accusations of (mis)using science to justify dogma. Better to stay clear of that realm and thus avoid tainting your good work with emotionalist fervor. Let the mechanisms of policy setting, as harrowingly imperfect as they often are, do their thing. I'm personally sanguine about it. IMO our nature is such that we don't respond to unwanted developments until our backs are up against the wall. But if the evidence & analysis is on the right track we'll eventually deal with it.
I find it interesting that both the political Left and Right are so wedded to stasis. On the Left the subject of genetically modified food invokes the same kind of brain-liquifying emotionalism that evolution invokes on the Right. As if there's such a thing as "natural" food free from genetic influence. Or that genetic mutation hits an arbitrary brick wall when a given species is on the verge of becoming a different species. Both betray a deep desire that certain aspects of the world not change. But history and evidence tell us that eventually everything changes.
-Dave-