Atheist Blogger Decides to Become Catholic

Zillah

We're talking at cross purposes here at this point. We say truth, meaning verifiable facts, Mardy says Truth, meaning grand and total metaphysical understanding of the nature of reality that requires proactive cooperation between all disciplines positively swooping together into a bright, enlightened future. It is a lovely notion, but I fear you don't quite grasp the nature of the scientific method and your vague understanding is leading to vague sounding comments. I honestly think you would benefit from reading some Karl Popper on the philosophy of science; you've got some nice positive ideas but I think they need to be hammered out on an anvil for a bit, if you get me.

Along those lines, I was quite tired yesterday and the mobile boards site was not behaving itself at all, so I maybe have been a bit more, erm, direct, than I should have been.

Dades

Zillah wrote: »

Along those lines, I was quite tired yesterday and the mobile boards site was not behaving itself at all, so I maybe have been a bit more, erm, direct, than I should have been.

I didn't notice any difference in style.

oldrnwisr

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Ok to get to Truth (an ultimate understanding we will never reach, this may not sit well with some however it is the easiest way of describing it) we need cooperation, courage, freedom and some sense of morality. Now obviously there is an argument that collective religion has served to destroy these goals (which I fully agree with; it started as a tool for the weak to control the strong) however an individual spirituality can be cultivated where these goals can be reached which can aid scientific discovery.

Now you may argue it doesn't take a spirituality to cultivate courage which I agree with provided you have a moneyed and educated background. However in the case of apartheid in South Africa or the history of white supremacy in America singles acts of supreme courage brought about huge change for the betterment of humanity (hopefully someday Tibet can liberate itself also). Where did this courage come from? I would argue in part it came from individual spirituality. By getting over these differences (forcing others to take account of their actions and highlighting their wrong doings) we can begin to forge ahead in areas like science also. Science works its way toward Truth by forming smaller truths through empirical examination and this process can aided by courage in other areas which may not be empirical in nature also leads to Truth.

I am not saying for one minute that collective religion is of benefit to society just to clear that up. The rules of individual religions are by and large a load of crap. However the cultivation of a courageous self can be found in an individual spirituality - not a specific religion.

OK, first off, it's a bit clearer to me now that you are using this term "Truth" to mean a particular concept which you have outlined above. However, I take issue with the concept itself. The first problem I have is that making such a broad and yet definitive statement, especially in the negative ("we will never reach") is a dangerous road to go down. Proclamations like these have more often than not been dead wrong throughout history, so much so in fact that Arthur C. Clarke has a very good treatment of them in his book Profiles of the Future.
Secondly, I'm not sure that saying we will never reach a full understanding of everything is entirely correct. I agree that there are things about our universe which we may never be able to fully explain like the big bang or abiogenesis but I don't think that this failure rests on our understanding.
Let's take the big bang for example. At the moment, the furthest back in time that we can examine in the history of our universe is planck time (~10^-43 seconds) after the big bang. Beyond that point any theories about the origin of our universe are necessarily speculative. However, we can and have developed a number of cosmogenical models to explain the origin of the universe in light of the characteristics of the universe at present. It is unlikely, for the moment though, that we will every be able to determine which model is correct because the information to make that decision is unavailable to us.
To put that another, simpler way, let's imagine you have a murder victim who has been cremated. You may be able to posit different possible causes for death given the available evidence such as strangulation, stabbing etc. but the means to determine which one is correct is unavailable and so the problem remains unsolved but not for a lack of understanding.

As for your characteristics (cooperation, courage, freedom, morality) which you say are necessary to further our search for truth, I'm not at all sure what you mean by those terms in the context of your overall argument so you might please clarify.

It seems to me that the core of your argument is that a sense of individual spirituality can foster in someone a set of characteristics which can then help them to further their search for truth. Is that right?

If that is the case then there are still some flaws in your argument. Firstly, you haven't demonstrated that a sense of spirituality is needed to foster those characteristics which you say are essential. Secondly, you haven't (and this would help your point no end) demonstrated any previous example in history where such a situation has contributed to our knowledge of the universe.

There are still quite a few things in your post which are unclear so perhaps when you clarify those we might be able to resolve this question.

ScumLord

Improbable wrote: »

So it's science that provides all the knowledge and you agree to that. You also think that religion and spirituality provide a method by which people can overcome their base natures.

Do you think that people cannot overcome their base natures without religion or spirituality?

To be fair I think religion and spirituality initially was a great revelation to the human race. I think it did elevate humans above thinking like basic animals. We realised nature was a complex system and that our instincts could be overcome. I think it was the start of something great but I also think science is the ultimate continuation of that ideal. Religion was the concept, science is the practical application.

Improbable

ScumLord wrote: »

To be fair I think religion and spirituality initially was a great revelation to the human race. I think it did elevate humans above thinking like basic animals. We realised nature was a complex system and that our instincts could be overcome. I think it was the start of something great but I also think science is the ultimate continuation of that ideal. Religion was the concept, science is the practical application.

Only if you believe that any attempt to explain a physical phenomenon without the proper evidence is religion.

tommy2bad

Improbable wrote: »

Only if you believe that any attempt to explain a physical phenomenon without the proper evidence is religion.

But we don't just deal with physical phenomena, we deal with morality, relationships, guilt, pride and lots of other stuff that couldn't then or cant be now explained by evidence based research.

Truth as in verifiable facts is a misdirection, the word doesn't mean that, (thats why we have the word facts.:p ) Truth is the narrative we build with those facts. Without all the other disciplines science is just train spotters list of observations.

CerebralCortex

tommy2bad wrote: »

But we don't just deal with physical phenomena, we deal with morality, relationships, guilt, pride and lots of other stuff that couldn't then or cant be now explained by evidence based research.

Truth as in verifiable facts is a misdirection, the word doesn't mean that, (thats why we have the word facts.:p ) Truth is the narrative we build with those facts. Without all the other disciplines science is just train spotters list of observations.

What on earth do you mean by that?

Improbable

tommy2bad wrote: »

But we don't just deal with physical phenomena, we deal with morality, relationships, guilt, pride and lots of other stuff that couldn't then or cant be now explained by evidence based research.

Truth as in verifiable facts is a misdirection, the word doesn't mean that, (thats why we have the word facts.:p ) Truth is the narrative we build with those facts. Without all the other disciplines science is just train spotters list of observations.

Actually, I was just referring to the statement that religion and spirituality was a tool by which we realised nature was a complex system and that our instincts could be overcome.

As to your post, evidence based research can explain all of those things. A lot of them are explained by evolutionary biology. Morality for instance stems from the fact that until recently, we lived in smaller groups of genetically closely related groups, and it was in our best interest (and by that, I mean in the best interests of the survival of our genes into the next generation by the process of natural selection) to look after those people who most closely shared the same genes. The same can be said for relationships. Guilt for example might be an evolutionary trait that tries to keep you from acting in a negative fashion towards those in your group, again, for the survival of people who are most likely to share the same genes as yourself. Pride may stem from a desire for status or group acceptance.

oldrnwisr

tommy2bad wrote: »

But we don't just deal with physical phenomena, we deal with morality, relationships, guilt, pride and lots of other stuff that couldn't then or cant be now explained by evidence based research.

In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again?

We can and do have evidence based research to rely on to explain everything on your list above but I'll just take morality as an example.

*"First of all, the ability to explain something is worthless. The fact that religion is able to generate an explanation for the origin of morality doesn't mean that the explanation it provides is valid or correct.

Secondly, science can and does give us an insight into how we have developed and continue to develop our moral compass. Morality is a function of social behaviour and communal existence. There is a significant body of research regarding the evolution of morality. I have posted some links for you below, some books as primers and some peer-reviewed research as well:


Books

The Origins of Virtue

Adaptation and Natural Selection

The Moral Landscape


Research

The evolution of reciprocal altruism

Fairness vs. reason in the ultimatum game

Five rules for the evolution of cooperation

The evolution of the golden rule

Volunteering as Red Queen mechanism in public goods games"


*Excerpted from this post.

Sonics2k

I'd thank that more just for the 'Snatch' reference

Mardy Bum

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again?

We can and do have evidence based research to rely on to explain everything on your list above but I'll just take morality as an example.

*"First of all, the ability to explain something is worthless. The fact that religion is able to generate an explanation for the origin of morality doesn't mean that the explanation it provides is valid or correct.

Secondly, science can and does give us an insight into how we have developed and continue to develop our moral compass. Morality is a function of social behaviour and communal existence. There is a significant body of research regarding the evolution of morality. I have posted some links for you below, some books as primers and some peer-reviewed research as well:

You are 100% correct. Peter Skinner has some excellent books on the evolution of the mind as well. He put it perfectly in this quote, “The geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously wrote that nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. We can add that nothing in culture makes sense except in the light of psychology. Evolution created psychology, and that is how it explains culture”.

My argument has been that spirituality can be used to summon courage to cause change (and also the other side of the coin are the negatives but these generally came about through religion hierarchical domination). Seismic changes have occurred in the world as a result of single men and women's courage in the face of adversity. I am just trying to explain that not every single thing about it is negative.

I accept evolution and I also reject the notion of a god in any sense however an individual spiritual life for those who need courage as a result of phenomenal oppression (Tibet, parts of Inida etc), however hypocritical that sounds, is important for the advancement of humanity. I will leave it at that for this thread.

Improbable

Religion and spirituality can of course influence people, both for positive and negative. But anything that people can do with religion and/or spirituality, they can do without it.

Pushtrak

Mardy Bum wrote: »

My argument has been that spirituality can be used to summon courage to cause change (and also the other side of the coin are the negatives but these generally came about through religion hierarchical domination).

See, in your head, I'm sure you have this fully formed image when you think "spirituality" and whatever form or substance this nebulous word has for you is what you try to invoke in the discussion.

Me though? I see spirituality and I just have no clue what it is that is being discussed. The matter will be made worse should any other person come in and try to invoke "spirituality" as the vast scope of difference between both definitions would likely only add to the confusion.

I'm inclined to ask if we could try and find language that would be descriptive, but most likely to you, "spirituality" is descriptive. I've been following the thread, but can't really offer much here other than my confusion to be honest.

I accept evolution and I also reject the notion of a god in any sense however an individual spiritual life for those who need courage as a result of phenomenal oppression (Tibet, parts of Inida etc), however hypocritical that sounds, is important for the advancement of humanity. I will leave it at that for this thread.

What is it to you though? Is it some intangible ethereal thing or is it some sort of resilience of an individual?

Mardy Bum

Pushtrak wrote: »

I'm inclined to ask if we could try and find language that would be descriptive, but most likely to you, "spirituality" is descriptive. I've been following the thread, but can't really offer much here other than my confusion to be honest.

What is it to you though? Is it some intangible ethereal thing or is it some sort of resilience of an individual?

Resilience would be a suitable word to describe it.I don't have any call for spirituality. I have no real need for outstanding courage in my day to day life as it is. The only time someone would need to call upon it serves to benefit humanity i.e Apartheid, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Ann San Suu Kyi etc. Some may call it a delusion of the mind which I would partly agree however it is still an extremely powerful medium for some individuals.

Pushtrak

Mardy Bum wrote: »

Resilience would be a suitable word to describe it.I don't have any call for spirituality. I have no real need for outstanding courage in my day to day life as it is.

This is getting in to semantics, but what you call spiritual isn't something I think many people would. It is very common for people to refer to themselves when in to the woo of religion to call themselves "very spiritual" and a lot of atheists feel the need to say they don't believe in a god but are "very spiritual" people. Clearly what you refer to is not whatever is meant by such people.

The only time someone would need to call upon it serves to benefit humanity i.e Apartheid, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Ann San Suu Kyi etc. Some may call it a delusion of the mind which I would partly agree however it is still an extremely powerful medium for some individuals.

If you are just talking about being highly motivated by the things one sees around them to want to bring about change and a strength of character to be able to do so, or even to make the attempt, that isn't a delusion. I wouldn't call it spiritual, either though. Honestly, I'm not really sure what I'd call it. So, no label (as such), but would say simply something worthy of respect.

[-0-]

shizz wrote: »

I see you are having a little trouble with the theory of evolution.

Are you having difficulty with the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

MrStuffins

[-0-] wrote: »

Are you having difficulty with the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

I don't think shizz said it did?

shizz

[-0-] wrote: »

Are you having difficulty with the difference between abiogenesis and evolution? Evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life.

I never said it did.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

But we don't just deal with physical phenomena, we deal with morality, relationships, guilt, pride and lots of other stuff that couldn't then or cant be now explained by evidence based research.

Everything you just listed can and already is explained by evidence based research. That has never been the issue. The issue is that these explanations are not "magical" enough for some people, who prefer to imagine the world in terms of inspiring but ultimately nonsense platitudes, such as nonsensical statements as "There is nothing more powerful in this world than a child's wish".

Humans have always confused poetic flourish with real world application, which leads to perfectly reasonable people rejecting perfectly reasonable explanations for things like love and morality because they are not poetic enough for them, not inspiring enough for them.

The ironic thing about this is that the inspiring poetic explanations (which religion's often embrace) end up being complete non-explanations. Stating something like Love is the most powerful force in the world means nothing other than to sound nice and inspire. It has no reflection in the real world, it is not explaining anything real. No one has measured the force of "love" against the weak nuclear force and decided love is stronger. In fact as soon as one would even suggest something like that they would be attacked for missing the point, the point being that it is not supposed to be a statement about how things really are, but a fuzzy statement to inspire other humans.

The problem is that religion and other areas of spirituality are full of such nonsense. How many times have you heard someone say something silly like "Science cannot explain a child's smile". Well yes actually it can, in huge detail. What the person means when you get to the heard of it is that the explanation is not inspiring and to them and thus has no value as their focus is not on actually understanding what is happening, but in being inspired by what is happening.

When ever someone starts of saying "Science cannot explain ... " what they tend to be saying is that the explanation given is not inspiring or poetic, and thus has no value, because the focus is not on explanation and understanding, but on stirring human emotions.

And that of course is a completely separate area to knowledge and understanding. It is just unfortunate that people confuse the two, thinking that if they are hearing a dry explanation that they don't find inspiring that they are not actually gaining understanding or knowledge.

tommy2bad

oldrnwisr wrote: »

In the quiet words of the Virgin Mary, come again?

We can and do have evidence based research to rely on to explain everything on your list above but I'll just take morality as an example.

*"First of all, the ability to explain something is worthless. The fact that religion is able to generate an explanation for the origin of morality doesn't mean that the explanation it provides is valid or correct.

Secondly, science can and does give us an insight into how we have developed and continue to develop our moral compass. Morality is a function of social behaviour and communal existence. There is a significant body of research regarding the evolution of morality. I have posted some links for you below, some books as primers and some peer-reviewed research as well:

I didn't say they couldn't explain these things (OK I did, but I didn't mean it:p)
Proving the explanations is going to be difficult controlled experimentation on the past is more difficult that you'd think.
Thats not the point though, everyday life requires more than a factual explanation, theirs not enough time for starters, a quick 'god made the world' can provide enough answer to solve the problem being faced. No it's not enough to run a fusion plant but it'll do for how I get by day to day.
The problem with saying that religion has nothing to offer because science can answer everything better is that your assuming religion was answering the same questions.

Zombrex;
The ironic thing about this is that the inspiring poetic explanations (which religion's often embrace) end up being complete non-explanations.

Zombrex sort of gets it but again atheist arrogance get in his way.

In fact as soon as one would even suggest something like that they would be attacked for missing the point, the point being that it is not supposed to be a statement about how things really are, but a fuzzy statement to inspire other humans.

Or shorthand that we understand, it's not about explanations or accounts of what happened, we are human beings and relate to one another in an emotional way.
Keep the cold facts for where they belong, in the user manual, but if life is to be lived we need a more encompassing means of relating to one another, art, poetry and yes religion provide this.
As to whether this casts any light on the existence of a god or if it's better to abandon religion or embrace it, I don't know.
I do know that for me life without a community, a shared sense of purpose and an ability to connect emotionally with people would be useless.

Pushtrak

tommy2bad wrote: »

I do know that for me life without a community, a shared sense of purpose and an ability to connect emotionally with people would be useless.

One doesn't need to even think about the "big questions" to have emotional connections with other people. I don't see why it being linked as if they are inseparable.

oldrnwisr

tommy2bad wrote: »

Proving the explanations is going to be difficult controlled experimentation on the past is more difficult that you'd think.

Well in the case of morality, I've provided you with links to the research. Is there some flaw you'd like to point out about this research?

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thats not the point though, everyday life requires more than a factual explanation, theirs not enough time for starters, a quick 'god made the world' can provide enough answer to solve the problem being faced. No it's not enough to run a fusion plant but it'll do for how I get by day to day.
The problem with saying that religion has nothing to offer because science can answer everything better is that your assuming religion was answering the same questions.

First of all, I have to say that I'm far more interested in how unlike you who seems to be all about the why. Since we're still scratching the surface of what there is to learn about the universe I think that the why, for the moment, is bull****.

I would have to agree that science offers better explanations assumes that they are answering the same questions but then that is what religion did for thousands of years, tried to answer how. Now that religion has, to paraphrase Matthew 15:27, been reduced to feeding off the crumbs from science's table, it has become about the why instead.

This idea you have that the explanation science offers, because it only offers physical facts, has no practical value to emotional people has already been dealt with by Richard Dawins in Unweaving the Rainbow which I recommend that you read.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Keep the cold facts for where they belong, in the user manual, but if life is to be lived we need a more encompassing means of relating to one another, art, poetry and yes religion provide this.
As to whether this casts any light on the existence of a god or if it's better to abandon religion or embrace it, I don't know.
I do know that for me life without a community, a shared sense of purpose and an ability to connect emotionally with people would be useless.

You see, here's the problem with that notion. Religions make distinct testable claims about our origins, the universe, our future etc. which can and have been shown to be dead wrong or at least completely unsupported. Because of that, the argument you're making, that the sense of community and connectedness that religion provides should allow us to overlook those problems, is straddling two major logical fallacies, the appeal to emotion and the appeal to consequences of a belief. That's a problem for me. Like I have said on other occasions, I prefer to state what I know and can show to be true and answer "I don't know" to everything else and I haven't had to sacrifice community, connectedness or a sense of purpose in doing so.

Zombrex

tommy2bad wrote: »

Or shorthand that we understand, it's not about explanations or accounts of what happened, we are human beings and relate to one another in an emotional way.

Under the surface its not about explanations. The problem is that people pretend it is. So they claim we are ignorant as to say for example what love is, or what the mind is in relation to the brain, or how morality might evolve naturally. The reality is that we are not ignorant to these things at all, but the explanations given are not inspiring to some people (personally I find the explanations provided by proper research and science far more beautiful than any nonsense religion can come up with, but to each their own) so they pretend we are ignorant to these things because they prefer to hold out for the inspiring poetic explanations, rather than the mundane (in their view) reality.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Keep the cold facts for where they belong, in the user manual, but if life is to be lived we need a more encompassing means of relating to one another, art, poetry and yes religion provide this.

Depends on what you mean by "need". We don't need this to understand concepts such as morality, love, emotion etc.

Some people may need such poetic explanations in order to feel inspired, but as I said in the earlier post that this is an entirely different requirement than any requirement to understand these concepts.

Again the issue is when people confuse not getting what they personally need with what is required to understand something. We can understand something like the emotion of love entirely using our understand of natural biology. The fact that this might be unsatisfactory for some is irrelevant to whether we can or not.

tommy2bad

oldrnwisr;
I prefer to state what I know and can show to be true and answer "I don't know"to everything else

Who said religion doesn't do this, God made the world = I don't know but what I do know is....

Religions make distinct testable claims about our origins, the universe, our future etc. which can and have been shown to be dead wrong or at least completely unsupported.

No, Religion makes no such claim anymore than Asoep claimed to be a news reporter. That our perspective is one of explanation and exposition doesn't mean that the stories were written with that perspective.
It's about tools for the trade and science can do one job, religion another, art another and so on.
Why throw away a perfectly good tool because someone used it for the wrong job.

Richard Dawkins and Unweaving the Rainbow ; Read it, liked it, made the mistake of reading the God delusion after that. Dawkins has issues.

oldrnwisr

tommy2bad wrote: »

No, Religion makes no such claim anymore than Asoep claimed to be a news reporter. That our perspective is one of explanation and exposition doesn't mean that the stories were written with that perspective.

Really?

Let's take Christianity as an example.

Does it make a claim about the afterlife? Yes.

Is there evidence to support such a concept? No.

Does it claim that God created the Universe? Yes.

Evidence? No.

Does it claim that God created humans? Yes.

Evidence? Dick.

And they're just the big questions, they're before we get to the questions which are less important to the human race as a whole but important for your particular religion like evidence for the resurrection.

Of course religion makes testable claims. Even you could argue that certain authors of the bible didn't intend to make certain claims, that still leaves two problems: a) the claim is still being made unintentionally and b) there are definite claims made with intent such as Paul and James' contradictory soteriological claims in the New Testament.

gbee

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Really?
Of course religion makes testable claims. Even you could argue that certain authors of the bible didn't intend to make certain claims,.

The Bible made after Christ's alleged ministry was increasingly motivated by political struggles. It was accompanied by disputes and leadership battles within Christ's Apostles themselves as well as being infiltrated and eventually completely taken over by Rome as a rescue boat, after the same factions were used successfully to contribute to Rome's Western Empire demise.

In the following years many attempts were made to unify the story and destroy any evidence of anything that would contradict the new agreed texts.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church reinvented itself many times and made up the story of the passion in it's current form hardly 400 years ago. Christ's wife and Leader of his Church was initially banished by Peter in a power struggle and over a thousand years later she is vilified by the Church as a prostitute.

And so on. One cannot take any of the 'evidence' of the time to be reliable, the Eastern Roman Empire's accounts are proving more credible.

Nodin

tommy2bad wrote: »

Who said religion doesn't do this, God made the world = I don't know but what I do know is....

No, Religion makes no such claim anymore than Asoep claimed to be a news reporter. That our perspective is one of explanation and exposition doesn't mean that the stories were written with that perspective.
It's about tools for the trade and science can do one job, religion another, art another and so on.
Why throw away a perfectly good tool because someone used it for the wrong job.

Richard Dawkins and Unweaving the Rainbow ; Read it, liked it, made the mistake of reading the God delusion after that. Dawkins has issues.

What "job" does religion do?

JoseJones

I read the title as "Atheist Bogger Decides to Become Catholic". Sorry, carry on!

tommy2bad

gbee wrote: »

The Bible made after Christ's alleged ministry was increasingly motivated by political struggles. It was accompanied by disputes and leadership battles within Christ's Apostles themselves as well as being infiltrated and eventually completely taken over by Rome as a rescue boat, after the same factions were used successfully to contribute to Rome's Western Empire demise.

In the following years many attempts were made to unify the story and destroy any evidence of anything that would contradict the new agreed texts.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church reinvented itself many times and made up the story of the passion in it's current form hardly 400 years ago. Christ's wife and Leader of his Church was initially banished by Peter in a power struggle and over a thousand years later she is vilified by the Church as a prostitute.

And so on. One cannot take any of the 'evidence' of the time to be reliable, the Eastern Roman Empire's accounts are proving more credible.

Oh stop channeling Dan Brown.
Most of your post is nonsense, the only semblance of truth is this; "increasingly motivated by political struggles." and it's the politics that grabs peoples attention rather than the faith.

Originally Posted by Nodin;
What "job" does religion do?

Creates a structured narrative.

pauldla

tommy2bad wrote: »

Creates a structured narrative.

So does 'The Smurfs'.

Life-affirming and life enhancing, the Smurfs teaches us that we all have a talent, we all have a place in the village of life, and a large wizard is trying to eat us.

That last bit is probably a metaphor for something; but it doesn't change the real truth contained therein!

I do know that for me life without a community, a shared sense of purpose and an ability to connect emotionally with people would be useless.

Well smurfed, sir, very well smurfed. I couldn't have smurfed it better myself.

tommy2bad

pauldla wrote: »

So does 'The Smurfs'.

Life-affirming and life enhancing, the Smurfs teaches us that we all have a talent, we all have a place in the village of life, and a large wizard is trying to eat us.

That last bit is probably a metaphor for something; but it doesn't change the real truth contained therein!



Well smurfed, sir, very well smurfed. I couldn't have smurfed it better myself.

Well yes, thats what I'm saying. Man has always created narrative and always will. It's a necessary part of getting on with life. The beauty of this is the actual images don't matter as much as the message.
We are talking about a person who abandoned atheism in favor of catholicism, the atheists seem to presume this a foolish swap but I contend maybe the person is just as satisfied and maybe more satisfied with the narrative of catholicism as they were with the atheist narrative. Is their an atheist narrative, is it even possible to create a narrative based on what you don't believe?

pauldla

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well yes, thats what I'm saying. Man has always created narrative and always will. It's a necessary part of getting on with life. The beauty of this is the actual images don't matter as much as the message.
We are talking about a person who abandoned atheism in favor of catholicism, the atheists seem to presume this a foolish swap but I contend maybe the person is just as satisfied and maybe more satisfied with the narrative of catholicism as they were with the atheist narrative. Is their an atheist narrative, is it even possible to create a narrative based on what you don't believe?

If religion is a narrative created by man, it should be treated as such. Religionists maintain that their narrative isn't created by man, but comes from a higher power, and that there are penalties for rejecting, or even questioning, that narrative.

IMO, the blogger in question has decided that there are fairies living at the bottom of the garden. If she's satisfied with that, good for her: but that doesn't make it true.

Is there an atheist narrative? I'm not really sure what than means: but if you are asking whether it is possible to live a rich, happy, fulfilling life without reference to a self-proclaimed holy book, without fear of a deity or everlasting punishment, or without deference to a priesthood, well then yes, of course it is.

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by pauldla;
but if you are asking whether it is possible to live a rich, happy, fulfilling life without reference to a self-proclaimed holy book, without fear of a deity or everlasting punishment, or without deference to a priesthood, well then yes, of course it is.

I wonder?
Self-proclaimed holy book? So you never use any book as a guide? written or unwritten?
Fear of a deity or everlasting punishment? No fear of anything at all?
Without deference to a priesthood? OK now your taking the p1ss.

Sarky

It's a bit of a leap comparing a holy book to, say, a street map of Edinburgh.

We all fear things. It's just more sensible to fear things that can actually happen though. This hellfire bollocks is a bit quaint and, well, dumb.

And yes, there are a depressing amount of people who need the thumbs up from a man in a dress and/or silly hat before making an important decision.

pauldla

tommy2bad wrote: »

I wonder?
Self-proclaimed holy book? So you never use any book as a guide? written or unwritten?
Fear of a deity or everlasting punishment? No fear of anything at all?
Without deference to a priesthood? OK now your taking the p1ss.

It's good to wonder. Wondering is the first step.

I have had occasion to use reference and guide books before, and I usually try to check the credentials of the author. Usually it isn't hard: on the flyleaf, for example, or a note about the author and their qualifications/experience inside the cover. I have yet to see that on any holy book.

I have yet to read an unwritten book.

I no more fear god than I fear being abducted by UFOs; however, I am probably more likely to see evidence of UFOs in my lifetime. It better be pretty good evidence, though.

No urine-extraction taking place here. Many religions have a caste that instruct and guide the faithful in matters of belief, and this caste is often afforded respect and deference by their followers. This caste can be referred to by a number of terms, including 'clergy' and 'priesthood'. Why do you think I am taking the pee?

Nodin

tommy2bad wrote: »

..............


Creates a structured narrative.

.....by dint of (a) making things up and (b) deferring and referring to the supernatural. Meanwhile its quite possible to lead a structured focused existence completely sans religion.

I'm not seeing what it has to offer still, I'm afraid.

pauldla

Nodin wrote: »

.....by dint of (a) making things up and (b) deferring and referring to the supernatural. Meanwhile its quite possible to lead a structured focused existence completely sans religion.

I'm not seeing what it has to offer still, I'm afraid.

Amen.

Blowfish

Sarky wrote: »

It's a bit of a leap comparing a holy book to, say, a street map of Edinburgh.

Actually, in a way I would compare them.

When a map/gps conflicts with your own observable reality, trusting the 'guide' rather than what you can see leads to extreme stupidity.

Sarky

True, but at least the creators of the guide will accept feedback. The bible gps would tell you "No, you're wrong, there's no cliff there, and how DARE you suggest we got it wrong."

Pushtrak

tommy2bad wrote: »

We are talking about a person who abandoned atheism in favor of catholicism, the atheists seem to presume this a foolish swap but I contend maybe the person is just as satisfied and maybe more satisfied with the narrative of catholicism as they were with the atheist narrative. Is their an atheist narrative, is it even possible to create a narrative based on what you don't believe?

A drunk man might be happier than a sober person, but that is no more to the point than the above.

As for an atheist narrative, no there isn't, as an atheist is only the position on a belief in a deity. And even that isn't the same exactly among all atheists. There is the hard atheists who make the statement of not believing there is a god, rather than the weak atheist position which is just not believing.

What kind of narratives are you interested in? Lets get more specific here. Are you talking about how we got here? How we ought to live our lives? Both? A bit of precision in the discussion wouldn't go astray.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I wonder?
Self-proclaimed holy book? So you never use any book as a guide? written or unwritten?
Fear of a deity or everlasting punishment? No fear of anything at all?
Without deference to a priesthood? OK now your taking the p1ss.

I'm one of those cliche guys who isn't inclined to use actual maps for going to actual places. So, when going for books in an actual type of guide, er, can't say that I have. Nothing consciously anyway. If there were any interesting lessons in books that I have read, which could very well be possible, I'm not exactly going to be able to come up with examples of the fact.

Unwritten? Wut?

No, no fear of a deity or everlasting punishment. I don't want to die too soon, and I don't want it to be a drawn out, painful process, but at this moment I wouldn't say either are fears.

Deference to priesthood? You expect this to be the default? Please, let that at least be trolling.

tommy2bad

Pushtrak;
What kind of narratives are you interested in? Lets get more specific here. Are you talking about how we got here? How we ought to live our lives? Both? A bit of precision in the discussion wouldn't go astray.

Well as we are discussing the value of religion, mythological narratives will do.

Unwritten? Wut?

As in Populism, groupthink, and conventional wisdom “the tyranny of the majority.”

Deference to priesthood? You expect this to be the default? Please, let that at least be trolling.

Trolling is a bit harsh, teasing maybe

Pushtrak

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well as we are discussing the value of religion, mythological narratives will do.

I like science fiction novels, if that counts :pac:

As in Populism, groupthink, and conventional wisdom “the tyranny of the majority.”

I'm fecked if I can think of examples on this one, so can't really say anything on it.

tommy2bad

Pushtrak wrote: »

I like science fiction novels, if that counts :pac:

Well Starwars is written with the monomyth as a template, he used The Hero's Journey in the Star Wars films (IV, V, and VI) to re-invent the mythology. No wonder 'Jedi' appears on census forms under religion.

monomyth : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth

pauldla

tommy2bad wrote: »

Trolling is a bit harsh, teasing maybe

I'm willing to go with trolling at this stage.