patrick.net

marcus says

Rin says

Here's the thing ... I'm so secure in my beliefs concerning that particular topic, that Dan simply doesn't phase me.

That doesn't make much sense. Unless you're suggesting that the only reason you would ever take issue with a point of view, is when you are insecure about your own view.

Considering that I have no scientific proof that things like a Qi field exists a/o that meditation, prayer, or Tai Chi forms have some spiritual, as well as a neurological/endocrinogical, dimension then yes, Dan is right.

Until a science can be formed, explaining current phenomena like Morphic Field theory, etc, then a lot of this stuff is conjecture which goes back to the form of thought known as religion. This is why we need Dan.

Otherwise, we'll have a mass of cult leaders, religious Pharisees, etc, taking credit for events and gaining political advantage, and going back to the days when a person would be charged for heresy or witchcraft. I'd rather we have a society of independent heretics. And in that society of heretics, Dan is our secular hero.

Rin says

Otherwise, we'll have a mass of cult leaders, religious Pharisees, etc, taking credit for events and gaining political advantage, and going back to the days when a person would be charged for heresy or witchcraft.

I find the idea that it has to move toward one of two extremes, either atheism, or cults and fundamentalists to be a false dichotomy.

In fact, I believe that if we have any hope of evolving as a species, which would include having less fundamentalists and less ignorant superstition, that can best be accomplished incrementally by having better religions.

If a fundamentalist, only has a choice between sticking with his fundamentalist religion or total atheism, then the change won't happen.

IF on the other hand secular arguments are made by a growing middle, many of whom are members of more sophisticated religions, then ignorance might be diminished. This is why the attack of moderate or liberal politicians who claim to be believers are misguided. IT's not like there isn't any history to back up what I'm suggesting here.

Haven't we learned enough lessens yet about the downside of growing polarization and the divide and conquer tactics used by the ruling class ?

THe fact is that there has been a decline in recent decades in the practicing members of the more moderate religions in this country and an increase among the fundamentalists. I don't believe the Dans of the world are helping that at all. IF anything it only pushes the decline in the traditional and more moderate religions.

marcus says

THe fact is that there has been a decline in recent decades in the practicing members of the more moderate religions in this country and an increase among the fundamentalists

On the whole, I don't believe that ppl are all that intelligent or even in touch with their common humanity. Ask yourself back in 2000 ... what percent of the urbanized western population would be addicted to smart phones and devices by 2015? Would you have guessed 2/3's or more? Nowadays, ppl don't even talk on the phone, they text almost everything. What does that say about the value of basic human connections?

Let's say the membership of the Unitarians, the most moderate of any denomination, don't rise in contrast that of the fundamentalists, because Unitarian gatherings are *too worldly* and have ppl who're interested in stuff like Tai Chi. In contrast, the Fundies have fire brand speakers who attract ppl who're basically intolerant, in pain, or simply hateful but then, turn around and talk about JC's love, as if they're special just because they belong to that *special* congregation.

So yes, we need Dan to keep those ppl out of politics. As for the Unitarians, do they even need to worry about Dan? It's obvious that their members are somewhat normal and keep their beliefs within their respective households and ecumenical gatherings.

Rin says

On the whole, I don't believe that ppl are all that intelligent or even in touch with their common humanity.

I agree with this completely. And it's partly the basis of the pov I'm expressing here.

Rin says

So yes, we need Dan to keep those ppl out of politics.

Those people are already in politics and are going to continue to be in politics on the religious right.

Who is going to represent the middle ? And who best do that in a way that grows a secular middle ?

Promoters of atheistm ? I don't think so.

marcus says

Who is going to represent the middle ? And who best do that in a way that grows a secular middle ?

Promoters of atheistm ? I don't think so.

Dan's role in my hypothetical "Scopes" witch trial is not Clarence Darrow/Spencer Tracy but more that 2nd attorney, who digs up all the dirt on the opposition.

The diplomat, who let's say attends a Unitarian gathering, is the arbitrator whose job it is to show that Dan's got valid points, however, the Fundies don't because of X, Y, Z and at the same time, he's wise enough not to preach Unitarianism because hard proselytizing is not their game.

A little history:

http://atheism.about.com/od/secularismseparation/a/ReligiousOrigin.htm

Early on, it was emphasized that these two spheres of knowledge actually constituted a united continuum, but this alliance did not last long. Eventually a number of theologians, most notably Duns Scotus and William of Ockham, argued that all doctrines of the Christian faith were fundamentally based upon revelation, and as such were necessarily filled with contradictions which would cause problems for human reason.

As a consequence, they adopted the position that human reason and religious faith were ultimately irreconcilable. Human reason must operate in and on the realm of empirical, material observation; it might arrive at the same conclusions as religious faith and the study of supernatural revelation, but they could not be united into a single system of study. Faith could not be used to inform reason and reason could not be used to structure faith.

The final push towards widespread secularization was not caused by anti-Christian secularists but by devoted Christians who were aghast at the devastation caused by the religious wars that swept across Europe in the wake of the Reformation. In Protestant countries there was initially an attempt to translate the principles of the religious community into the wider political community; that, however, failed due to the growing divisions between Christian sects.

As a result, people needed to find a common ground if they wanted to avoid civil war. This forced a reduction of overt and explicit references to specific Christian doctrines — reliance upon Christianity, if it remained, became more general and more rationalized. In Catholic nations the process was slightly different, because members of the Church were expected to continue to adhere to Catholic dogma, but they were also allowed a degree of freedom in political affairs.

Over the long run, this meant that the Church came to be excluded more and more from political affairs as the people found that they appreciated having a realm of action and thought where they could be free from ecclesiastical authorities. This, in turn, led to an even greater separation between church and state than existed in Protestant lands.

Rin says

On the whole, I don't believe that ppl are all that intelligent or even in touch with their common humanity. Ask yourself back in 2000 ... what percent of the urbanized western population would be addicted to smart phones and devices by 2015? Would you have guessed 2/3's or more? Nowadays, ppl don't even talk on the phone, they text almost everything. What does that say about the value of basic human connections?

Same argument could be made for every technological advance - especially those that improve communication.

Technology has kept friends who are separated by space and time connected. This is a good thing. People being "addicted' to this technology may or may not be real. If you suddenly took away everyone's smart phones, most folks would be fine after a few days of getting used to it. Of course, the economy would tank, but that's another debate.

Long before modern times, during the decline/fall of the western Roman Empire, a senator-scholar, Boethius who was attempting to correct the growing schism between the Church of Rome and that of Constantinople wrote 'Consolation of Philosophy',

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Consolation_of_Philosophy

Excerpt: In the Consolation, Boethius answered religious questions without reference to Christianity, relying solely on natural philosophy and the Classical Greek tradition. He believed in the correspondence between faith and reason. The truths found in Christianity would be no different from the truths found in philosophy. In the words of Henry Chadwick, "If the Consolation contains nothing distinctively Christian, it is also relevant that it contains nothing specifically pagan either...[it] is a work written by a Platonist who is also a Christian, but is not a Christian work."

meanwhile, on Reddit...

http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/2v31f1/a_lighthearted_moment_from_a_childrens_bible/

rooemoore says

This is a good thing. People being "addicted' to this technology may or may not be real. If you suddenly took away everyone's smart phones, most folks would be fine after a few days of getting used to it.

Until the day when the phone has an A.I., personal digital assistant. When that happens, that app will most likely end up becoming one's best friend. I think that was a big part of the movie, 'Her', where the guy actually falls in love with his PDA.

Rin says

rooemoore says

This is a good thing. People being "addicted' to this technology may or may not be real. If you suddenly took away everyone's smart phones, most folks would be fine after a few days of getting used to it.

Until the day when the phone has an A.I., personal digital assistant. When that happens, that app will most likely end up becoming one's best friend. I think that was a big part of the movie, 'Her', where the guy actually falls in love with his PDA.

So you are saying that it is not a problem now? But... you just said it was a problem. Now you are saying it will only be a problem when we live in a world that may never exist? Explain.

rooemoore says

Rin says

rooemoore says

This is a good thing. People being "addicted' to this technology may or may not be real. If you suddenly took away everyone's smart phones, most folks would be fine after a few days of getting used to it.

Until the day when the phone has an A.I., personal digital assistant. When that happens, that app will most likely end up becoming one's best friend. I think that was a big part of the movie, 'Her', where the guy actually falls in love with his PDA.

So you are saying that it is not a problem now? But... you just said it was a problem. Now you are saying it will only be a problem when we live in a world that may never exist? Explain.

It starts with the decline of *human* communications.

Today, unlike only two years, I seldom speak to ppl on the phone.

Before, there was a voice and some chemistry which went back/forth. And this was good because given everyone's busy schedule, meeting up at the pub wasn't always doable. Thus, the first wave of cell phones became the CB radio but for the masses than just the trucking community.

In time, 1 or 2 sentence texts, started to replace whole conversations. Now sure, I know that the person is alive but my interactions have turned into newsreel highlights than a conversation. Thus, the amazing benefit of a cell phone, for the sake of human communication, has deteriorated into making each person, look like line item, not too different from a bakery's coupon specials.

Now, add a few years to the narrative ... the PDA becomes that human voice, which was missing during the earlier age of texting. And then, that PDA can actually text my friends for me. And vice versa, their PDAs will be conversing with mine via texts or multi-media files. Finally, my main friend will be a PDA given enough time.