The Appeal of Darkness

[marfrozzi]

i disagree with your last thought. i think that is an illogical argument. a persons needs are mainly objective (no food or water = certain death) but the subjective is no less important. if i want a new opeth cd, i want it becuase i want it. im the final judge in that regard, so it IS valid. its not the same as saying i want it because god wants me to.

Screw it, I'm responding now--I don't have much to say so it won't take long.

I think you missed the point of my analogy--I was in fact stressing how valid the subjective actually is. I was not defending subjective wants and desires under the pretext that they exist because they have been instilled by a deity: I simply meant that such desires are not "verifiable by science" and because of that, according to a strictly scientific view, they should be ignored. When I say they aren't "verifiable by science" (in the traditional sense) I don't mean that one couldn't trace the psychological origins of your desire (although this is in fact questionable), I just mean that because they don't have physical "proof of existence" they are unacceptable data for science. No doubt you would argue that because you are a conscious being, and you KNOW what you want, your wants are therefore valid--however, explicit science can't back you up on this.

Essentially I only used this point to draw an analogy with spiritualism & religion, in that just because you don't find any "convincing evidence" (although I have much more to say about this idea, perhaps too much to post on this board) for it, doesn't mean it's logical to assume it doesn't exist--it may be "hidden" in a manner similar to the way in which your subjective desires are "hidden" to science. You recognize the importance of objective rationality and yet you have no good reason not to believe that your invisible desires are "real"--even if the reason you believe this resides in say, faith in neuroscientific models of your brain, you nonetheless are making a jump to faith (only in this matter, it is to the logicality of a scientific theory).

 

[Katabasis]

The short of it is this; the existence of 'meaningful' prayer rests on the existence of a deity who would recieve it (if you take 'meaningful' to mean an interaction rather than a passive action or a mere placebo on the individual). And there is really no way way to 'disprove' the existence of diety/dieties. It's entirely nonfalsifiable. You could prove it, sure; you might have to be dead first, though. But there's now way you can actually DISprove it.

And Rose immortal is entirely correct; prayer could never be wholly (holy, hehe) scientifically testable as it would require total knowledge of variables, and we simply do not have knowledge of SOME of the variables that faith-based prayer could rest on (eg: effects that could occur on another plane of existence, in the afterlife, etc, etc).

Now, sure, you could say that by my saying the argument is nonfalsifiable is the same as me declaring it moot (which it probably is); but you still could in no way accurately and scientifically invalidate prayer due to a lack of observational power. Unfortunately (for Dorian Gray) one COULD show strong evidence FOR prayer, if significant outcomes were seen in our observable reality, but without access to the 'other' realities (that these systems have belief in) you could not prove beyond all doubt that prayer has NO effect.

I'm sure I repeated myself a bunch of times, but it's seven in the morning and I haven't slept yet.

My point is, we have only limited access to reality; and many of these belief systems rely on areas OUTSIDE of our normal, observable, Euclidean universe. Sure, these hypothetical 'areas' may not exist, but in no way can you scientifically 'prove' they do not.

So I guess you'd have to be god (omniscient) to prove that there was no god.
Now that's ironic.

 

[dorian gray]

Gentlemen: thanks for the thoughtful responses. ive enjoyed them. as the last post is still fresh in my mind, ill respond to it: i agree with you that one cant disprove a diety. however, one cant prove it either. supernatural is called supernatural for a reason. its above and beyond, or maybe "outside" is the word, of scientific inquiry.

i still, despite the arguments presented above, think that you can disprove a prayer. i simply dont see how if one prays that they live forever and they die, that their prayer wasnt proven false. i DO see where youre coming from, but i hold to the belief that i am the owner of the prayer and i say whether or not this or that is a factor.

i agree that you could show evidence for prayer. what happens however, is that people who read watered down versions of such a study leap directly to "well, that means theres a god". validating prayer only means validating prayer. it in no way suggests the existence of something supernatural.

finally, i noticed all three of you presume there exists something other than the observable universe. that interests me. i think rose immortal said something about being "called". called by whom exactly? or what? katabasis said, "another plane of existence..." why go through life thinking there are such things as other planes of existence? i dont think it does any harm but wheres the evidence for being "called" or the evidence for other "planes of existence"? dont get me wrong here, you may be correct in saying those things but what is the probability? i would think it somewhat improbable that we are "called" by something. comments?

a word on religion: during my recent struggles with christianity, ive learned about how to study it through archeology and cultural anthropology, evolution, and other disciplines. i am in by no means an expert but from what ive learned the existence of jesus (as a god) is pretty improbable. the historical record is very very scant (three, probably just two, references outside of the bible). ive also learned that most of the bible was gleaned or blatantly ripped off from older cultures. those older ones ripped off even older ones and so on. like i said earlier: humans were around a long time before language. where was god then? just watching?

what im getting at is that you may be right about not being able to disprove a prayer but one can still study RELIGION with the scientific method. you CANT study its "spiritual" facets, but who cares? if one can prove the bible is not historical, why bother believing in it? i guess faith is the answer to that question but why even bother with that?

 

[Static]

Personally, I find The Darkness to be terrible cock-rock, and I'm not into the whole 'glam revival', but hey I'll respect anyone elses opinion.

 

[marfrozzi]

what im getting at is that you may be right about not being able to disprove a prayer but one can still study RELIGION with the scientific method. you CANT study its "spiritual" facets, but who cares? if one can prove the bible is not historical, why bother believing in it? i guess faith is the answer to that question but why even bother with that?

Why bother with faith? Isn't that just the equivalent to ask why does religion exist? If so, I think the question has far outstepped the boundaries of this conversation...

 

[marfrozzi]

Personally, I find The Darkness to be terrible cock-rock, and I'm not into the whole 'glam revival', but hey I'll respect anyone elses opinion.

Funny.

By the way, The Darkness is sweet--sorry.

 

[dorian gray]

Why bother with faith? Isn't that just the equivalent to ask why does religion exist? If so, I think the question has far outstepped the boundaries of this conversation...

its not the equivalent at all. last time i checked this is 2004 AD, not BC. 4000 thousand years ago the bible was just starting to be written. i think its safe to say humans as a whole have come a long way since then. i think its reasonable to ask modern humans why it's necessary to bother with something that provides no obvious outcomes.
religion exists out of homo sapiens penchant for story-telling and our drive toward social structures. it (and its early predecessors) provided us with comfort for thousands and thousands of years and still does, but we now have objective approaches that reveal a slim probability of a gods existence (or wicca, or psychics, or paganism, or whatever). its not 100% denial. there just might be all that and more. im just saying its not very likely given all the information.
are you out of this topic the way?

 

[Rose Immortal]

I'm not sure that humankind would have practiced organized religion in its earlier stages, any more than any other species of animal would have, because we had not acquired conscious choice and speech then. Like any other animal, we would have been innocent of negative choices, and in that way directly in accordance with God's will. That, to me, is the whole point of the story of Eden, whether or not you interpret it literally (which I do not)--the acquisition of choice, and when we began to choose things that were negative and thus we were given a system in order to account for this new fact of our lives. I'm not sure how well I've articulated it, but I think this accounts for what would have happened prior to our acquiring language and choice.

About the existence of things beyond the observable universe, two notions intrigue me and lead me to this. First, what has always intrigued me is that I possess a spirit that is somehow separate from the rest of the universe, and conscious as "me". Why is it, I must wonder, that a lightning bolt (for instance)--which is electric-based just as the neural impulses in my brain are, does not have consciousness, yet I do? Or that a computer, which is even closer, does not have its own self-awareness? The second concept has to do with the inception of this universe itself. Perhaps, under some theories, it is possible to trace this particular universe to some other pre-existing conditions...but then you can trace back past them, and even if it does somehow go back in an infinite series, the question is, why does it exist at all, when there could just as easily be nothing? I know you may disagree, but to me there seems to be purpose and design in that--and somewhere, an origin.

I'm sorry if I've explained inadequately, as I'm sure I have. I am not a theologian by any means, even though I have tried to understand.

 

[marfrozzi]

its not the equivalent at all. last time i checked this is 2004 AD, not BC. 4000 thousand years ago the bible was just starting to be written. i think its safe to say humans as a whole have come a long way since then. i think its reasonable to ask modern humans why it's necessary to bother with something that provides no obvious outcomes.
religion exists out of homo sapiens penchant for story-telling and our drive toward social structures. it (and its early predecessors) provided us with comfort for thousands and thousands of years and still does, but we now have objective approaches that reveal a slim probability of a gods existence (or wicca, or psychics, or paganism, or whatever). its not 100% denial. there just might be all that and more. im just saying its not very likely given all the information.
are you out of this topic the way?

Hold the phone--are you trying to convince me that the reasons religion existed 4000 years ago have nothing in common with the reasons it does today? Because if you are--and I assume you are (despite that you acknowledged that religion offers some of the same comforts now that it did thousands of years ago, you seem to disregard this as important), considering you disagreed that I thought asking "why bother having faith" is the same as asking why religion existed and backed it up with references to ancient history--I strongly disagree with you.

First of all, I find your "evolutionary psychology" approach highly limited and therefore dissatisfying. Secondly, have you considered the possibility that the presence of modern "objective approaches" may not threaten certain belief sytems? Such things may be irrelevant to certain belief systems. For example, you seem to be evaluating the validity of religion solely through the example of Christianity--and although this may be the dominant religion in America, it is obviously not the only one. In fact, belief in a divine entity does not have to be tied to ANY religion--I personally am an agnostic, but I have theistic leanings. Nonetheless, I would not consider myself "religious" in the traditional sense.

Your statement that a god's existence isn't very likely is your own opinion, and I think it is grounded solely in scientific rationale. However, many people don't think this way--and even many of those that do concede that the "evidence" doesn't really give credence ( ) to one side or the other, considering the enormous amount of arguments & counter-arguments that can be utilized for either side of the question.

 

[marfrozzi]

About the existence of things beyond the observable universe, two notions intrigue me and lead me to this. First, what has always intrigued me is that I possess a spirit that is somehow separate from the rest of the universe, and conscious as "me". Why is it, I must wonder, that a lightning bolt (for instance)--which is electric-based just as the neural impulses in my brain are, does not have consciousness, yet I do? Or that a computer, which is even closer, does not have its own self-awareness?

You've touched on something that a lot of philosophers consider--the argument from "qualia"; in this context the argument that what science tells us about the human brain seems to have virtually no relation to the phenomenon of consciousness. Some very interesting thought experiments have come out of this line of thought, if you're interested, I'd recommend the textbook "Consciousness" by Susan Blackmore (a great and very holistic survey of different approaches to this problem and others that are related).

The second concept has to do with the inception of this universe itself. Perhaps, under some theories, it is possible to trace this particular universe to some other pre-existing conditions...but then you can trace back past them, and even if it does somehow go back in an infinite series, the question is, why does it exist at all, when there could just as easily be nothing? I know you may disagree, but to me there seems to be purpose and design in that--and somewhere, an origin.

Again, another popular argument among philosophers. I've often seen this one in connection with theories such as the Strong Anthropic Principle (which argues that the unlikelihood of a universe such as ours existing gives proof that mind & consciousness seem to have been a goal from the beginning of the development of the universe)--this is very controversial, and yet arguments such as yours that seem to be more directed at the "bare fact of existence" can be just as compelling in that they appeal to one's sense of logic and are thus not as empirically-based (and thus potentially vulnerable to science).

 

[Illuminatixvx]

It has a lot to do with many things.

People are naturally attracted to the darker side of nature. Whether we want to admit it or not, the darker side of nature exists in us all.

Music is a form of expression from the darkest depths of the human soul.

I think that Opeth’s music has times of pure beauty. I even find that the moments of brutality are beautiful to my ears, so calling Opeth “dark” all depends on your definition of darkness. What is so dark and evil about Opeth’s music? It stands alone. It is completely honest and does not try to cover anything up. It is honest music that was written from the heart. I think that Opeth is an emotionally exhilarating band. They take their listeners through soft acoustic interludes to explosive climaxes. In this day and age when so many banal, unoriginal bands plague the airwaves people look for something of aesthetic worth. People are sick and tired of listening to so-called happy music that is “constructed” and created to be played in the background of parties. Opeth’s music, on the other hand, is an introspective listening experience shared by a single individual.

For some people music is nothing more than something that needs to be produced and sold. There are countless bands out there who create music with the “intentions” of striking it big. The more artistic, pure bands like Opeth who stay honest to themselves and create music for personal aesthetic value create music of higher “quality.” They create music that explores various themes and emotions. Like that one guy said, they create something more in a society bent on conformity and emptiness. I imagine that the band members go through a cleansing process when they create, record, and play music. It is a form of artistic expression.

And I get back to my original point. Heavy metal has always been associated with rebellion. It is rebellion against society and superficial pop music. As human beings we are violent, chaotic animals. No matter what we do or how far we push our civilization our darker tendencies are always going to exist under the surface. Opeth and bands like Katatonia bring these tendencies to the surface and express them through their music whether it is in the form of aggression, sorrow, or hatred. I think that is why people are attracted to them.

 

[Nico]

Since that last post is back on topic, I'll add another point. Since darkness, in it's most frequently identified form, is something obscure, mysterious and elusive, it becomes pretty clear that, since we are such an inquisitive race, we cant help but feel drawn to such things in hope of discovering new things.

Just another coin in the well.

 

[marfrozzi]

Since that last post is back on topic, I'll add another point. Since darkness, in it's most frequently identified form, is something obscure, mysterious and elusive, it becomes pretty clear that, since we are such an inquisitive race, we cant help but feel drawn to such things in hope of discovering new things.

I think while this theory applies to the "darkness" concept, Illuminatix may have touched on the "aggression" concept (because as I've shown, they're not codependent--hardcore music, for example, is not typically considered "dark" in the sense that much metal is)--metal I think is an expression of the merging of these two natures.

In fact, I'm going to leave off with this--perhaps dark themes in metal are in a way an active "investigation" into hostile, "negative" aspects of human nature. Whereas other music considered "angry" like rap or hardcore is simply expressive of the emotion, I think that metal is concerned with struggling to understand these impulses. It makes sense in light of the fact that most metal revolves around deeply philosophical themes, and in that
most metal musicians are typically very down-to-earth outside of their "dark personas"--it is as if they recognize this hidden nature within themselves, but only give it form when exploring it through music.

 

[dorian gray]

I'm sorry if I've explained inadequately, as I'm sure I have. I am not a theologian by any means, even though I have tried to understand.

i totally disagree with everything you said, but i thought you explained it very adequately and it was quite interesting. i enjoyed reading your post.

 

[dorian gray]

First of all, I find your "evolutionary psychology" approach highly limited and therefore dissatisfying. Secondly, have you considered the possibility that the presence of modern "objective approaches" may not threaten certain belief sytems? Such things may be irrelevant to certain belief systems. For example, you seem to be evaluating the validity of religion solely through the example of Christianity--and although this may be the dominant religion in America, it is obviously not the only one.
Your statement that a god's existence isn't very likely is your own opinion, and I think it is grounded solely in scientific rationale. However, many people don't think this way--and even many of those that do concede that the "evidence" doesn't really give credence ( ) to one side or the other, considering the enormous amount of arguments & counter-arguments that can be utilized for either side of the question.

first of all, i find it interesting that you think my use of evolution as limited when you reference one of the most laughable theories of all time (the strong anthropic principle) in another post. evolution is fact and is backed by an endless amount of physical evidence while the strong anthropic principle is basically just the idea that humans are the center of the universe. ive never run across any actual evidence that lends credence to the SAP.

disclaimer: i see your point about evolutionary psychology. i dont think psychology holds much water. its more an art than it is a science.

secondly, i apologize for only using christianity. i felt it was the only religion that i could effectively comment on.

thirdly, i dont think my saying that god probably doesnt exist is an opinion. i think that is based on sound scientific principles (which you duly noted). and i know alot of people dont think "this way". what is the significance of saying that? i didnt understand what you were getting at. my opinion is that alot of people are uneducated couch potatoes who would rather watch nascar than pick up a book on cosmology. i also think alot of people would much rather be spoon-fed unproveable ideas about supernatural phenomenon than face a reality that there is no common denominator of a reason for our existence. i experience these people daily but i guess its still just an opinion.....

opeth rules

 

[Static]

This is one insane convo by the standards of the Opeth forum.

 

[dorian gray]

This is one insane convo by the standards of the Opeth forum.

heh! its the most interesting convo ive ever had here. usually the threads are "how big was mike's morning shit?" followed by hundreds of posts from annoying trolls who roamed over from SOT.

 

[Nico]

^Agreed

We should realy thank IAmEternal for pulling this topic out of the obscurity of another thread. Cant remember who brought up the topic though... I think it was dorian gray.

 

[Rose Immortal]

You've touched on something that a lot of philosophers consider--the argument from "qualia"; in this context the argument that what science tells us about the human brain seems to have virtually no relation to the phenomenon of consciousness. Some very interesting thought experiments have come out of this line of thought, if you're interested, I'd recommend the textbook "Consciousness" by Susan Blackmore (a great and very holistic survey of different approaches to this problem and others that are related).

I do apologize for my delay on this, but that does seem very interesting. I have even heard theories that suggest (although I know nothing about their credibility) that the brain is the conduit of consciousness/of the spirit, not the source itself. That's one example. At some point, if I get a chance to look at that book, I think I will, because it sounds quite interesting.

Again, another popular argument among philosophers. I've often seen this one in connection with theories such as the Strong Anthropic Principle (which argues that the unlikelihood of a universe such as ours existing gives proof that mind & consciousness seem to have been a goal from the beginning of the development of the universe)--this is very controversial, and yet arguments such as yours that seem to be more directed at the "bare fact of existence" can be just as compelling in that they appeal to one's sense of logic and are thus not as empirically-based (and thus potentially vulnerable to science).

Sometimes it seems to me that especially as you move into areas like string theory, even science itself is starting to take on a more philosophical bent (consider that at this point, string theory is not testable at all)...which may well suggest an interconnection of the kind that I have always perceived in the universe. Of course, I could well be proven wrong on that particular count, but it's interesting to contemplate.

 

[Rose Immortal]

i totally disagree with everything you said, but i thought you explained it very adequately and it was quite interesting. i enjoyed reading your post.

I thank you for your respect...that's not something you see too often these days.

Plus, it's nice to know that I didn't manage to make an idiot of myself in the process (as I feared!). I know there's a lot I don't yet know how to explain, and even as I reason my way through more, all that will do is generate a new series of questions, ad infinitum. But, my thought is that one grows in life by the exercise, even if only death will actually give the answer.