darcy
Member
Mantis, I think the main difference is that what you see as a thinking entity, I see as a poetic personification of the forces and phenomena that make up our universe.
Religious question
- Thread starter valy
- Start date
Mantis
Naturmistikk & Folktale
Alec Walter Conway
Mother North's Lover
@Mantis
Yea I know what that concept is : antropomorphism. We apply it to pretty much everything, unconsciously. From possible alien races (who says aliens necesarily have arms, legs, eyes, a nose, a mouth?) to ships and vessels (boats being refered to as ladies by the navy in britain and other countries). Just saying your dog is happy because he shakes his tail is antropomorphism, even if the base concept we try to express is true, you're still projecting a human based concept onto another specie.
Yea I know what that concept is : antropomorphism. We apply it to pretty much everything, unconsciously. From possible alien races (who says aliens necesarily have arms, legs, eyes, a nose, a mouth?) to ships and vessels (boats being refered to as ladies by the navy in britain and other countries). Just saying your dog is happy because he shakes his tail is antropomorphism, even if the base concept we try to express is true, you're still projecting a human based concept onto another specie.
EGOR
Member
- Jun 14, 2006
- 150
- 0
- 16
Apologies in advance for the lengthy reply, and the many reiterations. It's just such an interesting subject. 
The M-theory predicts several elementary particles that has not been observed, but as it has been correct in so many other predictions, and as it so accurately describes the universe in other areas, we have a reason to believe it to be correct in this matter too. The theory's credibility, together with the lack of confuting proof, is what I call a convincing reason to believe in the existance of these particles.
But I don't see how man's inaccurate atempts at describing nature could be a plausible reason believe in the supernatural. I can not follow your chain of logic here.
An attempt to use an analogy:
A bird presented to a mirror might become confused after searching for its reflection behind the mirror, not findig it.
Likewise, a caveman watching a thunderstorm might stand confounded. He might perhaps try to explain what he sees as the wrath of an angry god.
But the bird's and the man's inability to comprehend the phenomena they witness has nothing to do with the existance, or the lack thereof, of supernatural divinities.
I can not see why the belief of those who believe in abstract beings would weigh more than the one of those who believe in corporeal ditto.
I see proof, which I deem credible, strongly supporting the theory that hippopotamuses and platipuses do wander (and swim) the earth. The same can not be said about unicorns. This does not unprove the unicorn's existance, but lacking both proof and a plausible reason to believe in them, I must deem them to be nothing but tales.
But if I was to drop the scientific mindset, then surely I could both utterly dismiss unicorns as unexisting, or claim them to be real. Because I could then chose to believe in things refuted, and not believe in things proved.
About the falling tree. I know sound to be waves of condensations and
dilutions of molecules. I know that a falling tree will produce these waves. I have no observations or credible theories that these laws of physics would be void in the precense of a non-deaf human or a recording device. Hence I am forced to believe that a falling tree will produce sonic waves even when I am not there to hear it.
Personally, there are many things I dislike about the world. I think the universe could have done great without the relativity of time, and some of the more chaotic quantum state phenomena. But I have to accept that's the way it seems to be, and the same goes for death. But one can always hope.
An example:Alec Walter Conway said:
The M-theory predicts several elementary particles that has not been observed, but as it has been correct in so many other predictions, and as it so accurately describes the universe in other areas, we have a reason to believe it to be correct in this matter too. The theory's credibility, together with the lack of confuting proof, is what I call a convincing reason to believe in the existance of these particles.
There's no denying man has an inclination for superstition and belief in the supernatural, poetically described as nature having imprinted the mind of man with the idea of God. This inborn superstition is manifested as belief in everything from mountain giants, Aesir and astrology, to Allah, ghosts and leprechauns.Alec Walter Conway said:
But I don't see how man's inaccurate atempts at describing nature could be a plausible reason believe in the supernatural. I can not follow your chain of logic here.
An attempt to use an analogy:
A bird presented to a mirror might become confused after searching for its reflection behind the mirror, not findig it.
Likewise, a caveman watching a thunderstorm might stand confounded. He might perhaps try to explain what he sees as the wrath of an angry god.
But the bird's and the man's inability to comprehend the phenomena they witness has nothing to do with the existance, or the lack thereof, of supernatural divinities.
I disagree. There are plenty of people who believe (or have believed) in very physical gods. Even the Abrahamitic god and minor dieties have been imagined as very real by some. Not to mention those who believe or have believed in folkloric creatures such as trolls, goblins and fairies (which is, just as the belief in gods, also a belief in supernatural beings), all seen as non-abstract creatures.Alec Walter Conway said:
I can not see why the belief of those who believe in abstract beings would weigh more than the one of those who believe in corporeal ditto.
Firstly, I can't state that unicorns definitely don't exist, I can only say that their existance seems highly unlikely to me. That's the difference between science and religion. Religion gives you what it claims to be the ultimate truth. Science only offers its best guess.Alec Walter Conway said:
I see proof, which I deem credible, strongly supporting the theory that hippopotamuses and platipuses do wander (and swim) the earth. The same can not be said about unicorns. This does not unprove the unicorn's existance, but lacking both proof and a plausible reason to believe in them, I must deem them to be nothing but tales.
But if I was to drop the scientific mindset, then surely I could both utterly dismiss unicorns as unexisting, or claim them to be real. Because I could then chose to believe in things refuted, and not believe in things proved.
About the falling tree. I know sound to be waves of condensations and
dilutions of molecules. I know that a falling tree will produce these waves. I have no observations or credible theories that these laws of physics would be void in the precense of a non-deaf human or a recording device. Hence I am forced to believe that a falling tree will produce sonic waves even when I am not there to hear it.
Hehehe. I'm very appealed by the theory that the stories of trolls are the distant memory of the neanderthals. If this was true, than trolls would actaully have existed in a way.Mantis said:
I think almost everyone hopes for an afterlife, the thought that ones "soul" will be utterly destroyed well within a century isn't all that uplifting. Being part of the beautiful cycle of life, and the grand process of the universe, is not always much comfort. I can't speak for other infidels, but probably it is as you say; Some search for an afterlife-theory they can believe in, and some simply accept that they'll end up feeding worms.Mantis said:
Personally, there are many things I dislike about the world. I think the universe could have done great without the relativity of time, and some of the more chaotic quantum state phenomena. But I have to accept that's the way it seems to be, and the same goes for death. But one can always hope.
Alec Walter Conway
Mother North's Lover
@ amf
You seem to have completely misunderstood me. I know that unicorns are unlikely to exist, I know a tree will make sound as it falls in a forest even with no witnesses to confirm the sound.
You need to drop the scientific "matter-of-fact" type of perspective and enter the metaphysical world of "thought for the sake of thought".
I'll try to make myself clearer. Lets start with something you said when answering me as I was stating that "because [...]nature has imprinted the mind of man with the idea of God[...]" makes a totally acceptable argument to support the existence of "something" called God.
To this you answered :
A better way to express my point would be best described by something Boris Vian said about his books. That being Everything you will read in this book is totally real because I imagined it.
Entering that transcendental mode of thought, I can argue that since no one was there to hear the tree fall, maybe it did not make any sound.
Yet another way to express this would be to oppose two views of a same event : Mr. V. looking at a grandiose swedish landscape (lets give the man some credit here ).
First way to look at it : Mr. V. is able to look at the grandiose landscape because it exists. Thats the scientific point of view.
Now try to enter my realm of thought and look at it this way : the grandiose landscape exists because Mr. V. is there to look at it.
Then the sound of the falling tree might be there because someone is there to hear it. With no one there to hear it, the sound looses its reason to be and thus ceases to be. Hence, if no one is there to hear the sound of the falling tree, there is no sound.
Following that train of thought, I hope you can follow the the chain of logic I used to justify that "because something can be imagined" is a valid argument to support its existence.
The tree makes sound because someone was there to hear it. Something exists because someone was there to think of it.
EDIT: On a side note here, mainly for amf, but for everyone also.
A few years ago I was very versed into science and I pretty much held it, as you(amf) do, as the ultimate way to pile up facts and therefore, truthful knowledge.
But I progressed in school, I came to have philosophy courses. I'm now 21, I had my first philosophy course at 17 I believe. The teacher I had appreciated my scientific, rigorous pattern of thought, but she clearly showed me, probably without knowing it, that I was chained to the "I knock on the table therefore I know its real" kind of mentality.
Then I started reading up on various philosophers. Nietzsche and Kant had quite an impact on me.
Once you accept to split your mind in half, to keep one side on the earthly empiric world and to propel the other half nearer to the noumenal side of reality, its such a grand feeling! Just like Nietzsche said about his Übermensch : its like having our mind arrive on the shore of a great open sea and BREATHE.
I know Nietzsche said that aiming towards beyond, as is the case with the noumenal world, is nihilistic in itself. And thats one place where I disagree with him, at least in certain places. Anyway this would have to be taken to the Nietzsche thread.
This was all to say, and this is for everyone, open your mind, make up your rules, and explore everything you can, even if it means redefining your rules. There's nothing wrong is changing your view of the world. Whats wrong is to refuse to admit that your mind has changed direction.
If I may add something, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, I feel very lucky to have understood this so early in my life.
You seem to have completely misunderstood me. I know that unicorns are unlikely to exist, I know a tree will make sound as it falls in a forest even with no witnesses to confirm the sound.
You need to drop the scientific "matter-of-fact" type of perspective and enter the metaphysical world of "thought for the sake of thought".
I'll try to make myself clearer. Lets start with something you said when answering me as I was stating that "because [...]nature has imprinted the mind of man with the idea of God[...]" makes a totally acceptable argument to support the existence of "something" called God.
To this you answered :
A better way to express my point would be best described by something Boris Vian said about his books. That being Everything you will read in this book is totally real because I imagined it.
Entering that transcendental mode of thought, I can argue that since no one was there to hear the tree fall, maybe it did not make any sound.
Yet another way to express this would be to oppose two views of a same event : Mr. V. looking at a grandiose swedish landscape (lets give the man some credit here
).First way to look at it : Mr. V. is able to look at the grandiose landscape because it exists. Thats the scientific point of view.
Now try to enter my realm of thought and look at it this way : the grandiose landscape exists because Mr. V. is there to look at it.
Then the sound of the falling tree might be there because someone is there to hear it. With no one there to hear it, the sound looses its reason to be and thus ceases to be. Hence, if no one is there to hear the sound of the falling tree, there is no sound.
Following that train of thought, I hope you can follow the the chain of logic I used to justify that "because something can be imagined" is a valid argument to support its existence.
The tree makes sound because someone was there to hear it. Something exists because someone was there to think of it.
EDIT: On a side note here, mainly for amf, but for everyone also.
A few years ago I was very versed into science and I pretty much held it, as you(amf) do, as the ultimate way to pile up facts and therefore, truthful knowledge.
But I progressed in school, I came to have philosophy courses. I'm now 21, I had my first philosophy course at 17 I believe. The teacher I had appreciated my scientific, rigorous pattern of thought, but she clearly showed me, probably without knowing it, that I was chained to the "I knock on the table therefore I know its real" kind of mentality.
Then I started reading up on various philosophers. Nietzsche and Kant had quite an impact on me.
Once you accept to split your mind in half, to keep one side on the earthly empiric world and to propel the other half nearer to the noumenal side of reality, its such a grand feeling! Just like Nietzsche said about his Übermensch : its like having our mind arrive on the shore of a great open sea and BREATHE.
I know Nietzsche said that aiming towards beyond, as is the case with the noumenal world, is nihilistic in itself. And thats one place where I disagree with him, at least in certain places. Anyway this would have to be taken to the Nietzsche thread.
This was all to say, and this is for everyone, open your mind, make up your rules, and explore everything you can, even if it means redefining your rules. There's nothing wrong is changing your view of the world. Whats wrong is to refuse to admit that your mind has changed direction.
If I may add something, at the risk of sounding presumptuous, I feel very lucky to have understood this so early in my life.
South Appalachia aka East Tennessee.
All the stereotypes of the south, appalachia, and Tennessee converge here.
and amf described the people here, "birds smacking into windows"
In case you were interested, their denomination is/was "Church of Christ"
I have been to Utah...strange place that is. Braighs canyon is beautiful, though.
EDIT - YIKES!! Watching CNN now... Warren Jeffs (the leader of the polygamist Church of Jesus of Latter Day Saints) is wanted with a $100,000 bounty. He has been stealing children from families to live in his ranch in Texas beacause the world will end soon and only his followers will be spared.
Damn, I'll take Tennessee over Utah anyday!
darcy
Member
Alec, I agree with what you've said. Belief in something doesn't cause it to manifest itself in the physical world, but it still causes it to be real and true regardless.
Alec Walter Conway
Mother North's Lover
darcy said:
EXACTLY
Now say that to amf **elbows amf**
Well sometimes it does happen to manifest in the physical world, but thats usually either
1- a misconception from the person who percieves (a.k.a. miracles, turn water into wine when its the lie of the wine amphora that dissolves into the water)
2- a sign that the person who percieves the physical manifestation is schizophrenic :Smug:
Im neither "religious" or atheist really, for the moment, i kinda believe anything is possible, and that the universe is alot bigger, and tehre are many laws that we dont know. I Def believe in "higher beings" wether they be gods, aliens or whatever. The whole Christianity thing looks incredibly dumb, atleast nowadays, just a bunch of people following how they are raised without no reason to believe god, they just do so because there parents did. And they hope some miracle will happen cos they do some prayers. If we do have a god, im not even sure hed be that nice. Why would he cure us from hunger etc? Besides, if there was this good god, why are africa starving? So im somewhere in between, every thing is possible, but im not binding myself to a "god" if i dont personally find something convincing that REALLY makes me believe. And that can vary, for some people, making them win a loterry is enough to believe in god lol. I require more than that.
Mantis
Naturmistikk & Folktale
I think reducing Christianity to an amount of cliché is numb not the contrary, you cannot say "the whole" if you don't have a complete spectrum of the phenomenum and suppose you cannot have it with a thing as wide and various as the entire world, so beware next time to label something you don't know from side to side.
This is my most humble opinion, hope you're enough inteligent to not take offence...
This is my most humble opinion, hope you're enough inteligent to not take offence...
EGOR
Member
- Jun 14, 2006
- 150
- 0
- 16
Mantis said:
No offense taken mate... I always label my Jars from side to side anyway... wether its pickled onions, small carrots or prunes....its a great way of instantly finding out whats in em.............. its good to hear some inteligent advice from a fellow gardener. many thanks.
www.Agankast.com
