Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[CiG]

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't really know how a spiritual and/or religious person thinks about meaning and how much of an impact science has on the meaning they derive from their faith and the teachings/standards they choose to live by in relation to said faith, I've been an atheist since childhood, but I have a gut feeling that the development of science is rather irrelevant to those deeply held beliefs that inform their everyday actions and more broadly the way they conceptualize meaning in their lives.

I mean (), that's what I was saying. I do believe there are spiritual people who reflect on the parameters of belief, but the vast majority do not. And the thought of doing so would be earth-shattering. This is why I asked my post not to be seen as "crude"--because it's a particular kind of narrow-minded individual who can't themselves to reflect on the structure of their conviction.

I don't think science has much impact on people of such conviction; but part of Bakker's point is that the universe doesn't care what you believe. And when it threatens us existentially--by one means or another--science will be the only protection we have. People can choose to keep believing whatever they want, but there comes a point when meaning (especially hermetically sealed meaning) simply can't stand against the horror of matter.

I think in some respect the modern phenomenon of young western white males running off to join jihadists is a product of the meaning-hole left in the west by the death of Christianity.

I think that people need to differentiate between "meaning" and "awe." You can be awed by something in a very experiential way and not need to conceptualize it in a meaningful way. My very religious family has told me that God creating humanity was a miracle. But I quite simply find it infinitely more miraculous that no one created humanity--that humanity just happened. That sounds like a miracle to me, and I'm awed by it. But I don't find any meaning in it. It's a meaningless accident.

In the wake of the "death of Christianity," people are scrambling to find new ways to conceptualize our place in the universe. I think this is a misguided practice, and I agree with you that it leads to extreme behaviors. These behaviors are people's attempts to devise meaning for an increasingly complex modern world.

 

[CiG]

I mean (),

I don't think science has much impact on people of such conviction; but part of Bakker's point is that the universe doesn't care what you believe. And when it threatens us existentially--by one means or another--science will be the only protection we have. People can choose to keep believing whatever they want, but there comes a point when meaning (especially hermetically sealed meaning) simply can't stand against the horror of matter.

I think a flaw in this line of thought is that, unlike the irreligious, those people aren't as fundamentally opposed to the eradication of life or even the planet itself due directly to their religious belief in the afterlife. "Take no thought for the morrow" and so on. This is a big part of why you probably won't ever see religious people or religiously governed countries making a big deal about climate science and environmentalism.

Even the more progressive Christians have shown that theories like evolution don't shake the faith, they just incorporate it into "God's plan" and go on with their day.

I think that people need to differentiate between "meaning" and "awe." You can be awed by something in a very experiential way and not need to conceptualize it in a meaningful way. My very religious family has told me that God creating humanity was a miracle. But I quite simply find it infinitely more miraculous that no one created humanity--that humanity just happened. That sounds like a miracle to me, and I'm awed by it. But I don't find any meaning in it. It's a meaningless accident.

I definitely agree with you here. Again, this just speaks to the massive lack of similarity between how the religious and irreligious think about these things. They see God's hand in something and derive meaning from the idea that God does everything for a reason and we all have our purpose etc etc and you and I see a meaningless event that inspires a similar amount of awe. I'm not sure how we can ever bridge such a chasm.

In the wake of the "death of Christianity," people are scrambling to find new ways to conceptualize our place in the universe. I think this is a misguided practice, and I agree with you that it leads to extreme behaviors. These behaviors are people's attempts to devise meaning for an increasingly complex modern world.

I think this also explains much of the highly energized political activism which seems to take on a hyper-personal character with many people. Humans imo by their nature will create meaning when they inherit none from their family or society at large. It seems to be part and parcel of consciousness.

 

[Dak]

For many there is a desire to be a "part of something bigger than themselves", and all sorts of organizations appeal to this explicitly.

 

[CiG]

I think history shows that while meaning via collectivism is a constant and seems to come naturally to most people, finding meaning via an individualistic approach takes much more convincing. Just because majority of atheists and secularists don't belong to a church it doesn't mean they never attend churches by other names.

 

[The Ozzman]

Thoughts on QAnon?

 

[Dak]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45183049

BBC sorta agrees with Bakker.

 

[Einherjar86]

In this case, the peers were robots. When children aged seven to nine were alone in the room, they scored an average of 87% on the test.

But when the robots joined them, their scores dropped to 75% on average. Of the wrong answers, 74% matched those of the robots.

Those algorithmic fucks...

 

[Dak]

Those algorithmic fucks...

Well it's not explicit AI but the principle.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

For many there is a desire to be a "part of something bigger than themselves", and all sorts of organizations appeal to this explicitly.

And this is why I participate in the GMD yearly polls.

 

[Einherjar86]

I think that's the funniest anyone has ever been in the "Dakryn's Batshit Theories" thread.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Aside from Dodens when he edited the thread title to what it is now.

 

[Dak]

Live-in-his-basement-man was always funny.

 

[Einherjar86]

They see God's hand in something and derive meaning from the idea that God does everything for a reason and we all have our purpose etc etc and you and I see a meaningless event that inspires a similar amount of awe. I'm not sure how we can ever bridge such a chasm.

Peter Watts (another writer, similar in ways to Bakker) has a theory (may not be his, but he promotes it) that belief in gods/deities was, intriguingly enough, actually an adaptive measure.

He says to consider two primitive homo sapiens on the African steppe, and both of them notice some odd, unnatural motion in the tall grass. One of them says it's nothing, just the wind, but the other says there's a predator in there, and he runs. Maybe the movement is nothing, and one of the men just gets a good workout. But if there is a predator in there, one of the men survives, and the other is dinner.

So people began seeing faces in clouds and meaning in the winds, because it was more dangerous to assume that it was nothing.

 

[CiG]

I think that's more or less the evo-psych theory no?

 

[Einherjar86]

Very well could be, I'm not familiar enough w/ evo-psych. Dak might know.

Speaking of Watts, he posted something interesting about a recent paper published in the journal Aging:

Naturally, the paper’s got a fair bit of attention in the popular science press. There’s one thing that none of those articles have mentioned, though. This is not the first time hydrogen sulfide has proven useful in a medical— even in a life-extension— context. Way back in 2005, Blackstone et al exposed mice to 80ppm H2S and reduced their metabolic rate by 90%, with no ill effects. So now we have a simple compound, endogenously produced, which is instrumental both in extending life and in suspending animation.

Or, if you want to be lurid about it, in conferring “immortality” and inducing an undead state.

http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=8183

This could actually go in the "weird science" thread, but I don't want that thread to become nothing but Watts re-posts.

 

[Dak]

The "undead state" comment seems a bit clickbaity, but otherwise interesting.

 

[CiG]

This is somewhat of a batshit theory I suppose, but I was having a small debate with a friend and this came up:

The concept of cultural appropriation is unintentionally nationalistic (or at the very least perpetuates basic nationalistic concepts) in its desire to maintain borders around cultures which are closed off from people based almost entirely on racial and ethnic criteria. It's the very opposite of the concept of free movement and internationalism.

 

[Dak]

Almost all ideas are appropriated.

 

[Einherjar86]

This is somewhat of a batshit theory I suppose, but I was having a small debate with a friend and this came up:

The concept of cultural appropriation is unintentionally nationalistic (or at the very least perpetuates basic nationalistic concepts) in its desire to maintain borders around cultures which are closed off from people based almost entirely on racial and ethnic criteria. It's the very opposite of the concept of free movement and internationalism.

All things being equal, yeah I would agree. But all things aren't equal. I think there's a significant difference between physical bodies crossing national borders and privileged white people dressing in blackface at Halloween. And I think that makes a difference for qualifying the "nationalism" of cultural appropriation.