| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
I think that various interpretative methods should absolutely be taught extensively at high school (in English class) and they should be applied to mainstream religious texts. This is all completely within the religious tradition: interpretative reading of scripture - except that you supply your own (modern) methods, instead of staying within a traditional paradigm of interpretation. Of course, republicans would be against this because it would 'teach children to be critical of religion'. | ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
On March 03 2013 16:37 sam!zdat wrote: Yes. For early man, the world is totally and completely magical. So would you say that on some level it's the fear of losing the magic that keeps us coming back the religious concepts of creation, providence and manifest purpose, even though we now have much better explanations available? How long can it last if our faith is founded on the wonder and bewilderment of people who didn't know a fraction about how the world really works compared to an average third-grader? | ||
|
Fwmeh
1286 Posts
Otherwise, I agree 95% with you. Sadly, it is hard to discuss religion with people whose sole knowledge of the field comes from arguing with creationists on the internet (a free win) and reading Dawkins (ugh >.<). | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
On March 03 2013 21:27 Fwmeh wrote: Sam, you should read more math, beyond the logic. I propose topology and algebraic structures. Also, I propose that try and tone down your inner douche. What for ? Should mathematicians all read Heidegger and Joyce ? And I suggest homologic algebra -_- Edit : also, just for fun, there are 4 people that suggested I should read the Bible during my education : two communist history teachers and two leftist Latin teacher, one of them who even dared to make us translate the beginning of Genesis. | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On March 03 2013 21:36 corumjhaelen wrote: What for ? Should mathematicians all read Heidegger and Joyce ? And I suggest homologic algebra -_- Edit : also, just for fun, there are 4 people that suggested I should read the Bible during my education : two communist history teachers and two leftist Latin teacher, one of them who even dared to make us translate the beginning of Genesis. Mathematicians should read Aristoteles and Pythagoras if you go old and could probably benifit from philosophy though Heidegger is probably too much argumentative/definitional logic rather than mathematical logic (I have absolutely no idea if that is what they are called, but since I enjoy the mathematical logic I do not care about definitional terms!  ). James Joyce is an author and probably pretty worthless in the context of most sciences except for some ideas about sentence structuring.If you look through time, you will find that mathematical logic is very closely related to philosophy and if you listen to the old scientists they will often use philosophy in some ways to contextualize their research! What Fwmeh probably means is that Sam is focusing a bit too much on the arguments and lack the distance you get from having to accept that there are things with definitive truths and you will be wrong from time to time! Also topology and algebraic structure is likely to refer to the use of fractals (1.x - 2 dimensional denomination was shown) in economics since it is a rather unconventional substitute for normal distribution/log normal distribution (1 dimensional). | ||
|
Ubiquitousdichotomy
247 Posts
| ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
On March 03 2013 18:13 WolfintheSheep wrote: Only if he's seeking an explanation. Take a robot for example. It has its variables, it has their values and definitions, and does not have the capacity to see beyond what is defined. Going slightly higher, an animal. I can't get into the mind of an animal, but considering that the requirement for philosophical thought is a certain level intellect, I think it's fair to say that an animal's mind interprets observations exactly as they are. This object is food, food is eaten. That object is soft and warm, it's good to sleep on. So on, so forth. The world is not "magical", there is not God, they simply observe the world and interpret it based on their instinct and mental capacity. So if things below our level of intelligence have no fundamental framework of "God" within their knowledge base, why does it become automatically inserted into ours once we evolved to that threshold of brain power? Because animals are not seeking explanation,humans are seeking explanation. "God" is the most simple explanation possible, it covers every posssible event. Later when humans gain more knowledge more and more events can be explained by science. Why are humans seeking explanation, well i dont know for sure. Humans have this unique ability that seperates them from animals. Humans can see far into the future ,they can look ahead in time. That is the reason why an explanation is so valuable for humans,A correct explanation enables them to predict manny more things . Humans can make a connection between things that happend in the past and things that happend at a later time. Animals can not make such connections at all because they can not look into the future, they can not look ahead in time and an explanation has no value for them, nor are they capable of creating one. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
On March 03 2013 22:47 radiatoren wrote: Mathematicians should read Aristoteles and Pythagoras if you go old and could probably benifit from philosophy though Heidegger is probably too much argumentative/definitional logic rather than mathematical logic (I have absolutely no idea if that is what they are called, but since I enjoy the mathematical logic I do not care about definitional terms! ). James Joyce is an author and probably pretty worthless in the context of most sciences except for some ideas about sentence structuring.If you look through time, you will find that mathematical logic is very closely related to philosophy and if you listen to the old scientists they will often use philosophy in some ways to contextualize their research! What Fwmeh probably means is that Sam is focusing a bit too much on the arguments and lack the distance you get from having to accept that there are things with definitive truths and you will be wrong from time to time! Also topology and algebraic structure is likely to refer to the use of fractals (1.x - 2 dimensional denomination was shown) in economics since it is a rather unconventional substitute for normal distribution/log normal distribution (1 dimensional). While I'm not sure about having people read Heidegger specifically (shit's hard bruh, and believe me, there is very little "logic" involved ), Mathematicians and STEM professionals ought to read stuff like Ulysses precisely because of how little it seems to do with their chosen field. One does not read Joyce for the sentence structure, but rather to become better acquainted with facets of the human condition that would otherwise be very difficult to come about. A scientist does not read Ulysses so that he he can apply what he read in the lab, rather so that he knows he doesn't have to. What Fwmeh probably means is that Sam is focusing a bit too much on the arguments and lack the distance you get from having to accept that there are things with definitive truths and you will be wrong from time to time! What does this mean? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 03 2013 20:39 McBengt wrote: So would you say that on some level it's the fear of losing the magic that keeps us coming back the religious concepts of creation, providence and manifest purpose, even though we now have much better explanations available? How long can it last if our faith is founded on the wonder and bewilderment of people who didn't know a fraction about how the world really works compared to an average third-grader? We need the magic. Disenchantment is not a unequivocally good thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenchantment On March 03 2013 21:27 Fwmeh wrote: Sam, you should read more math, beyond the logic. I propose topology and algebraic structures. What does that possibly have to do with it? On March 03 2013 21:27 Fwmeh wrote: Also, I propose that try and tone down your inner douche. http://en.musicplayon.com/play?v=245642 On March 03 2013 21:36 corumjhaelen wrote: Edit : also, just for fun, there are 4 people that suggested I should read the Bible during my education : two communist history teachers and two leftist Latin teacher, one of them who even dared to make us translate the beginning of Genesis. Thank god for teachers On March 03 2013 20:13 Grumbels wrote: Of course, republicans would be against this because it would 'teach children to be critical of religion'. That's why religion is too important to be left to the fundamentalists On March 03 2013 22:47 radiatoren wrote: James Joyce is an author and probably pretty worthless in the context of most sciences except for some ideas about sentence structuring. Maybe not for "science." But some mo'fuckin SCIENTISTS might wanna read them some Joyce, fuck, they might learn something | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 04 2013 02:29 Rassy wrote: Because animals are not seeking explanation,humans are seeking explanation. "God" is the most simple explanation possible, it covers every posssible event. Later when humans gain more knowledge more and more events can be explained by science. Why are humans seeking explanation, well i dont know for sure. Humans have this unique ability that seperates them from animals. Humans can see far into the future ,they can look ahead in time. That is the reason why an explanation is so valuable for humans,A correct explanation enables them to predict manny more things . Humans can make a connection between things that happend in the past and things that happend at a later time. Animals can not make such connections at all because they can not look into the future, they can not look ahead in time and an explanation has no value for them, nor are they capable of creating one. My question is not "why is God an explanation", it's "Why is God automatic inclusion into the knowledge framework as soon as the threshold for conceptual thinking is reached?" Or, maybe more clearly, is it literally impossible for anything with human-level of intelligence to never have a concept of God, at any point in their lives? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
McBengt
Sweden1684 Posts
As for your point, I will simply have to disagree. I think the magic of reality far supersedes any creation story or fable in its grandeur and scale. I see magic when I look at a picture from a supernova hundreds out lightyears away, not when someone tells me some theoretical entity made me for its amusement. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 04 2013 03:56 sam!zdat wrote: ^You are focusing too much on theistic conceptions and ignoring the real question. This is because your goal is just to discredit an ideological enemy, and not to understand things. The idea of "God" in the way that you mean comes later. No, I understand perfectly that the concept of God with a name, form or even abstract definition doesn't have to exist. I just can't see how any sort of concept that could be remotely considered "God" is an automatic inclusion into any knowledge framework. For example, if you were to place one million newborns into the wilderness in complete isolation, and every single one was to survive, you're saying that by the age of, say, 5, every single one of them would have God somewhere in the framework of their knowledge. | ||
|
Seldentar
United States888 Posts
http://www.policymic.com/articles/24983/obama-drone-memo-sets-dangerous-precedent-for-domestic-drone-use http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/domestic-drones http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security-criminal-law-reform/new-documents-reveal-us-marshals http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-free-speech-national-security/drone-nightmare-scenario-now-has-physical http://news.yahoo.com/domestic-drones-already-reshaping-u-crime-fighting-150612964.html http://www.infowars.com/dhs-built-domestic-surveillance-tech-into-predator-drones/ Why is this so rarely discussed? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:11 McBengt wrote: Sam, I respect your position and have no issue with you, but there is no need to insult me by linking a wiki page. I am perfectly aware of what disenchantment means, thank you. it wasn't an insult, how do I know you know about weber? sorry bro (edit: it's funny how you guys think I'm "insulting" you and "being a douche." You should pull your heads out of your own self-righteousness-holes for a minute and listen to the way that atheists talk to religious people. I'm just a fucking gadfly. If I were speaking like this and telling people how some old book is stupid and made up, you'd be cheering me on from the sidelines. get over yourselves) As for your point, I will simply have to disagree. I think the magic of reality far supercedes any creation story or fable in its grandeur and scale. I see magic when I look at a picture from a supernova hundreds out lightyears away, not when someone tells me some theoretical entity made me for its amusement. The two are not incompatible. Religion is not a fairy tale. (though fairy tales are also worthy our respect). I like all of that stuff, and I like religion too, and when I like both of them together all at once it's even better. On March 04 2013 04:11 WolfintheSheep wrote: No, I understand perfectly that the concept of God with a name, form or even abstract definition doesn't have to exist. I just can't see how any sort of concept that could be remotely considered "God" is an automatic inclusion into any knowledge framework. For example, if you were to place one million newborns into the wilderness in complete isolation, and every single one was to survive, you're saying that by the age of, say, 5, every single one of them would have God somewhere in the framework of their knowledge. No, you're right, the babies would be positivists. How stupid I am. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:14 sam!zdat wrote: No, you're right, the babies would be positivists. How stupid I am. So really, the problem is that you can't conceive of a knowledge base that doesn't involve a concept of God? | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:21 WolfintheSheep wrote: So really, the problem is that you can't conceive of a knowledge base that doesn't involve a concept of God? I can. But I'm a fucking postmodern subject! somebody's already done the hard work for me! edit: note that I conceived of it, and then, after a period of trying to understand what such a thing could be, found it to be cracked beyond repair. but this is not the point. | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On March 04 2013 04:22 sam!zdat wrote: I can. But I'm a fucking postmodern subject! So then, under what conditions would someone lack God in their knowledge base? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
OSC
OSC
WardiTV Weekly
The Patches Monday
Sparkling Tuna Cup
PiG Sty Festival
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Kung Fu Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
