Radical Traditionalism

[speed]

Its already come in the islamic world--tradition that is. And we have become more and more conservative. God it is odd that I may agree with those religious fanatics on something. Can we stop science and progress from going to far though? And is the present Christian scheme up to the task? I doubt it.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Its already come in the islamic world--tradition that is. And we have become more and more conservative. God it is odd that I may agree with those religious fanatics on something. Can we stop science and progress from going to far though? And is the present Christian scheme up to the task? I doubt it.

the present christian scheme? i don't understand. the Christian religion has been the same for 2000 years. we have no scheme either. i simply disagree with unchecked progress, as well as unaccomodating tradition.

 

[the alumnus]

THis is a very interesting comment:
"i find that science has proved the best value on which to base an internal schema. it is based on rationality and the cold hard truth of empirical evidence, one should only believe what they can see. the west's spiritual vacancy is a problem of organized religion, not social structures."

In many ways I agree with you; the spiritual vacancy of the west is the result of antiquated organized religions--traditions that no longer have any relevancy in todays world. Yet what is to replace these traditions? Science? Empiricism?

The last one hundred years have born the fruit of this misguided idea. Science and Empiricism have yet to understand human beings; Science has made mankind nothing more than robotic slaves. In a sense, we have returned to the primordial ooze; man is now, and will forever be nothing more than an organic machine. Our souls have been betrayed to science; psychologists were the last straw. God knows what these men of science will bring us in the future with the increased knowledge of genetic engineering, artificial intelligence and robotics. Will we even be individuals anymore? Will we be total slaves? These aformentioned issues make up my fears, and my philosophical and intellectual devotions.

rationality has destroyed folk religions. magic cannot be empirically demonstrated, thus it has been shown to have no merits. likewise religions have simply avoided tough questions, relegating them to the abstract. do you believe in spirits? western religions say that one must simply ignore rationality and empirical evidence. faith must be created ex nihilo-out of nothing. so the first step for any 21st century religion, in order to tackle the problems of spirituality, is to prove that spirits exist, scientifically.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i disagree. to prove something exists is to destroy the nature of faith. true faith is trust. trust that is based on evidence without proof. you feel that something is true, because evidence has led you to believe it despite your questioning of it. you cannot find the final puzzle piece, but you trust that because of the evidence, you believe that this something is true. that is faith. it is not specific to whatever religion anyone follows.

with certain proof faith is unnecessary as it is simply replaced by unquestionable fact. therefore i argue that the problem with spirituality these days is not a lack of evidence, but a lack of faith and healthy questioning. people don't question what they are told enough, they don't seek the answers, and if they find evidence for something without proof, and that evidence is compelling enough, they lack the faith to trust in it. scientific proof destroys faith and thus also destroys spirituality. the nature of spirituality is closely associated with that of the spirit, a vastly unscientific entity.

 

[the alumnus]

1) "Quality of living" is an argument I will not agree with. It is relevant to only the bare essentials of life(food, water, shelter, etc.). This is an argument we've all heard a thousand times and which is widely accepted, but when pondered, it has an insidious nature. However, if breathing is enough for you, it will do.

what do you mean by "if breathing is enough for you"? quality of life issues means just breathing is not enought. though i admit, it doesn't address concerns on the emotional/philosophical/spiritual level.

2) Culture is lost through globalization and miscegenation. Culture doesn't need to be hereditary for it to be disrupted by these things. It's important to realize that culture is not geographical, either. There is nothing to protect cultural diversity if not an ideal of ethnic purity.

if globalization can destroy culture, how can ethnic purity prevent it?

3) We live in a world in which you can say anything you want, as long as what you say isn't unpopular enough. See, the government doesn't necessarily need to imprison you for "free speech" to be infringed on. The threat of being ostracized will do just fine. We're allowed to criticize George Bush, for instance, but if criticism cuts deeper than that(criticism of liberal democracy and egalitarian ideals, for example) then you're treading on dangerous ground.

i still don't agree with that. i suppose how much ostracism, or to what degree that takes, is also dictated by geography. the bible belt certainly allows fewer freedoms of expression than a liberal college town.

4) You cannot isolate the social condition from religious beliefs.

sorry, you lost me here. what social condition? i don't understand.

It would be false to claim that social conditions have no bearing upon science.

in what ways do social conditions have bearings on science?

 

[the alumnus]

i disagree. to prove something exists is to destroy the nature of faith. true faith is trust. trust that is based on evidence without proof. you feel that something is true, because evidence has led you to believe it despite your questioning of it. you cannot find the final puzzle piece, but you trust that because of the evidence, you believe that this something is true. that is faith. it is not specific to whatever religion anyone follows.

with certain proof faith is unnecessary as it is simply replaced by unquestionable fact. therefore i argue that the problem with spirituality these days is not a lack of evidence, but a lack of faith and healthy questioning. people don't question what they are told enough, they don't seek the answers, and if they find evidence for something without proof, and that evidence is compelling enough, they lack the faith to trust in it. scientific proof destroys faith and thus also destroys spirituality. the nature of spirituality is closely associated with that of the spirit, a vastly unscientific entity.

i take a different approach to the nature of faith and reason. specifically, faith is how one interprets the ideas of reason. for example, let us suppose that we find empirical evidence for souls. souls exist. the article of faith is then what happens to our souls when we die. do we go to heaven? do we go to hell? do we become reincarnated? do we wander the earth as ghosts? this is where faith becomes important. yet when we are supposed to base our faiths on souls, and we cannot prove that they exist, then we run into a quandry of faith vs. reason. i believe that faith and reason are not necessarily opposing ideals. einstein had faith in a unified field theory, though it could not be validated with empirical evidence.

 

[Demiurge]

what do you mean by "if breathing is enough for you"? quality of life issues means just breathing is not enought. though i admit, it doesn't address concerns on the emotional/philosophical/spiritual level.

The bolded was my point. I was not very clear in making it, unfortunately.

if globalization can destroy culture, how can ethnic purity prevent it?

The ideal of ethnic purity and pride can prevent people from embracing globalization and the resultant dissolution.

i still don't agree with that. i suppose how much ostracism, or to what degree that takes, is also dictated by geography. the bible belt certainly allows fewer freedoms of expression than a liberal college town.

A liberal college town presents a fundamentally similar problem, actually. The difference is the specifics. It's naive to think that because we're entitled to free speech by law that we can truly exercise it. Social punishment is severe enough to stop potential dissenters from being overly forthright.

sorry, you lost me here. what social condition? i don't understand.

You'd said that organized religion was the problem, not social structure. However, when people are religious, the values they get from their faith shape their social condition.

in what ways do social conditions have bearings on science?

Science is pursued by human beings. We are not capable of pure objectivity, hence, our biases find their way into scientific exploration. From Popper I got the idea that our empirical observation is not objective because observation comes from a perspective we already hold. Our observation is filtered through this theory-laden perspective. From Kuhn I got the idea that science tends to be a rather conservative field in which scientists structure their findings around their accepted paradigm and shun research that would seem to require the formulation of a different paradigm. Eventually, there are many situations that cannot be accounted for and a revolution takes place, usually led by a youthful person not yet indoctrinated. This happens after lenghthy conservative periods.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i take a different approach to the nature of faith and reason. specifically, faith is how one interprets the ideas of reason. for example, let us suppose that we find empirical evidence for souls. souls exist. the article of faith is then what happens to our souls when we die. do we go to heaven? do we go to hell? do we become reincarnated? do we wander the earth as ghosts? this is where faith becomes important. yet when we are supposed to base our faiths on souls, and we cannot prove that they exist, then we run into a quandry of faith vs. reason. i believe that faith and reason are not necessarily opposing ideals. einstein had faith in a unified field theory, though it could not be validated with empirical evidence.

i don't believe they are opposing ideals either, i just caution anyone who puts investment in faith without reason.

 

[Kenneth R.]

The ideal of ethnic purity and pride can prevent people from embracing globalization and the resultant dissolution.


A liberal college town presents a fundamentally similar problem, actually. The difference is the specifics. It's naive to think that because we're entitled to free speech by law that we can truly exercise it. Social punishment is severe enough to stop potential dissenters from being overly forthright.

You'd said that organized religion was the problem, not social structure. However, when people are religious, the values they get from their faith shape their social condition.

Science is pursued by human beings. We are not capable of pure objectivity, hence, our biases find their way into scientific exploration. From Popper I got the idea that our empirical observation is not objective because observation comes from a perspective we already hold. Our observation is filtered through this theory-laden perspective. From Kuhn I got the idea that science tends to be a rather conservative field in which scientists structure their findings around their accepted paradigm and shun research that would seem to require the formulation of a different paradigm. Eventually, there are many situations that cannot be accounted for and a revolution takes place, usually led by a youthful person not yet indoctrinated. This happens after lenghthy conservative periods.

1. that is not the only reason to justify such thought, and should not be thought as such. in fact, it could be cause to conquer the globe in hopes of solidifying that "purity" and remove the "unpure".

2. i definitely agree.

3. i don't think organized religion or religion at all is a detriment to current society, i think an abuse of it and manipulation of it is a severe issue, defaming the religion and degrading the society.

4. i agree

 

[Demiurge]

1) What I'm advocating is not racial supremacy, but recognition of the value of preserving ethnic traits and customs which have developed over the course of thousands of years.

3) My comment here was a direct response to The Alumnus' post and needs to be taken in its context(connection between social conditions and pervasive values). With that being said, it's the practical application of religion that I'm referring to, not exegesis of a particular holy book. Basically, the popular interpretation.

 

[Kenneth R.]

in that case i would agree...

 

[infoterror]

1) What I'm advocating is not racial supremacy, but recognition of the value of preserving ethnic traits and customs which have developed over the course of thousands of years.

It's amazing how many people want to toss this away so that commerce can rule the world.

 

[speed]

It's amazing how many people want to toss this away so that commerce can rule the world.

There is some serious resistance being waged in Europe and South America; so much resistance the French and the Dutch denied the EU constitution just for this reason. I suppose they dont like what has been called Anglo Saxon Viking Capitalism. We rape and pillage their culture for whatever plunder they have.

 

[Kenneth R.]

the maintaining of customs and tradition i would agree is important, but not to the extent that it prevents society from improving itself.

 

[infoterror]

the maintaining of customs and tradition i would agree is important, but not to the extent that it prevents society from improving itself.

What are society's recent "improvements"?

 

[Kenneth R.]

that is irrelevant to the post you quote. the real question is "why prevent society from improving itself by enforcing overly strict tradition?"

and also "why progress needlessly without improvement, and identity acquired from tradition?"

 

[infoterror]

that is irrelevant to the post you quote. the real question is "why prevent society from improving itself by enforcing overly strict tradition?"

and also "why progress needlessly without improvement, and identity acquired from tradition?"

No, it's not. For society's improvements to be improvements, they have to be impressive. What I see is increasing technology, and everything else declining.

 

[Kenneth R.]

No, it's not. For society's improvements to be improvements, they have to be impressive. What I see is increasing technology, and everything else declining.

again you misunderstand. my argument does not pertain to our society currently, but ALL society of any time period. that is why i said that your question about the achievements (or lack thereof) of current society is irrelevant. the point still stands regardless.

 

[infoterror]

3. i don't think organized religion or religion at all is a detriment to current society, i think an abuse of it and manipulation of it is a severe issue, defaming the religion and degrading the society.

Wouldn't that depend on the religion?

After all, a religion could exist in which dumping toxic waste in rivers was the path to heaven...

 

[Kenneth R.]

Wouldn't that depend on the religion?

After all, a religion could exist in which dumping toxic waste in rivers was the path to heaven...

clearly that is flawed logic and so such a religion would be false... hence my use of the word regards only those faiths of logical basis