Pennywise the clown

Mr. T:

Pardon my jibba-jabba, I'm my own entertainment and invariably my humor gets on peoples nerves. I will try to "modulate" but I may not be able to hold back a pie or two. Regardless, my comments were not directed at Rational and I thought that was fairly obvious.

Despite all that, does this site have any readings on what you speak of? I have dabbled in the martial arts and yoga and still practice meditation on a regular basis. I have several books on meditation but evidently I'm missing something as far as eastern thought goes. Meditation was practiced in my Aikido class as well as some basic concepts of eastern thought but we never talked about religion--or lack of.

I believe in a higher power and believe each can find their own path to spirituality--though I don't think that would make me an atheist!

[quote] It's fairly lame to point at other posts and say "They behave like that, why can't I?" Even my seven-year-old doesn't dare use that argument with me. I'll take it as evidence for your own ethical stance that you reached for that argument so quickly. [quote]

Ethics are relative and opinions are subjective—this is proven by the very fact that this site (and the moderators) appear to allow such behavior that I observed. Not to criticize though, because I have seen some boards that have heavy moderation. So, I guess I'll agree to disagree with your evaluation of my ethics and leave it at that.

Putting the katanas down for the moment, I am seriously interested in the literature you speak of though I am pressed for time so getting to the local library may be hard. Any online sources would be appreciated.

IvanK

And mine is that metaphysical naturalism, considered as a philosophical standpoint, does not strongly assert that the natural world is all there is. It merelyt confines itself and its inquiries to the natural world and the evidence pertaining to the natural world. Of what else there might or might not be it does not speak.

Some may. The "big bang" theory, indeed, seems to be the best available in terms of most efficiently describing the observed nature of the universe.

(Pay attention to this next part, bozo, it's important.)

But the difference between a belief and a theory is that a theory can be changed or even abandoned based on evidence that later comes to light. The Pope's recent reconciliation of evolution with Catholic theology is an example of how a belief, as opposed to a theory, works; new facts are incorporated into a pre-existing system. "There is evolution but God runs it." Material naturalism says that if the new facts don't fit the theory then change the theory, don't just add a complicated explanation of how the new facts don't actually challenge your unprovable assumptions. "There is evolution regarless of whether there is or is not a god or gods."

Pennywise the clown

Mr. Ivan,

Bozo retired, my name is Pennywise thank you.



*Some* naturalists are as emphatic as any theist that their theory(s) are the *only* answer. When metaphysical naturalism is coupled with a strong a priori confidence that all things are explicable in terms of the physical, the adherent of MN becomes as bad as the religious zealot.

As I wander through the SW's threads, I have seen more than a few MN's that would fall into this category. This narrow-minded (my opinion) view tends to spawn an impressive array of non-sequiturs, some of which go something like this: "since science cannot study a divine purpose, there is none," "since science can’t study ethics, they are purely subjective," "since science has disproven religious theories, they're all wrong", etc. Granted, on a certain level I *suspect* that the religious experience may be beyond the ken of science; but, I do encourge the lens of science to be applied to the religious experience.

When scientists define the game of "science" in such a way that only naturalistic theories are open to consideration, and present the *best* naturalistic theory as fact without putting other notions to the test; then, the proposition that *naturalistic theories* are correct becomes a foregone conclusion.

In short: in this clown's opinion, limiting MN to the confines you describe does science a disservice.

But I'll still give you a big red balloon because I'm feeling nice today!

Beep! Beep!

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Pennywise the clown ]</p>

jdawg2

how exactly does one test "supernatural" things anyway? If one can perform tests on it, and get results to "prove" the supernatural thing occurred, then doesn't that technically mean it was natural to begin with? (Just not natural in a way we previously understood it to be)

Then again, I could be confusing definitions, but supernatural kinda seems like a pointless term to me. Sort of like when people say "outside the universe" If it's outside the universe, then it doesn't really help us much if we're "in" the universe, does it? *shrug*

Rational Ag

Supernatural experiences tend to be personal, and often emotional. Naturalists like myself tend to look at people's personal supernatural claims and discount them because we have not personally experienced them ourselves or we have seen evidence that the supernatural experience can be explained in more naturalistic means.

In my experience, supernatural claims generally fall into one of many categories, but most often are solely dependent on a person's thoughts or feelings. If someone feels like God is talking to him or her directly (through voices, dreams, etc), I cannot say that it is untrue, but can only say that because I have no experience with it, I don't understand it. “Personal feelings” is an argument that has no meaning to me. Generally the people that I speak with that say that God is talking to them or leading them sound like they are doing what they feel is right and justifying it to themselves with the notion that God wants it for them.

Some people feel as though God works in their life by showing them things in the natural world or affecting the physical aspects of their life. I would respond to that by saying that our lives are filled with incredible amounts of events and random occurrences, and some people are more "trained" to see certain coincidences as acts of God. The same things happen in my life happen in the lives of the Theists that I know, they just see some greater meaning behind coincidences. I think this is because people tend to find what they are looking for. I personally enjoy literature on the psychology of religion, which explains these concepts.

Concerning comparing Christian zealots with militant naturalists/scientists, I agree with you somewhat. I think everyone should be free to come to their own conclusions on things that are not clearly understood by science. I think science should hold it's ground when it is rooted in a firm understanding (such as the creation/evolution debate), but to be militant and state that there is no supernatural is relatively speculative. I personally don't believe in the supernatural, but I don't force my opinion on anyone else either.

I don't think science ignores supernatural possibilities, but I don't think the evidence that you claim science ignores when coming to naturalistic conclusions is particularly overwhelming either. Science isn't about considering everyone's feelings and taking a poll. Science is about repeatable, testable, fact-based theories that can be changed, recalled, and adjusted based on new evidence. Anything that falls outside of that set of "measuring sticks" can't be determined with science. Where that is the case, I believe science should be silent. However, there is little in this world (outside of other people's personal experiences and feelings) in which a naturalistic explanation is not sufficient for me.

-Rational Ag

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Rational Ag ]</p>

Pennywise the clown

Wow Rational Ag, my clown hat is off to your response! Your light burns the brightest so far though your posts are few!

Yes indeed, science has shown us that the species human is a pattern seeking beast!

Let me clarify: I was refering to *some* of the posters I have seen while lurking at the SW. Science big picture is a mixed bag. There are theistic scientists (few I think) and an odd mix of other types.

Never thought of it that way. Perhaps I'm *barking* up the wrong tree? I know the field of parapsychology is more or less riddled with failure. Maybe one day I will end up with egg on my face and maybe one day science will find all the answers. Though I often wonder if it can fill the gap that religon and spiritulaity seems to? (At least for those of us who are not metaphysical naturalists.)

IvanK

There we can agree (though I might quibble over calling such people "adherents" of MN rather than closed-minded hard materialists).

sighhswolf

To IT, scuse me Pennywise,
I have never seen or experienced anything that I would consider as being a "Supernatural" event/occurrance.
Because of that lack of "experience" concerning
any supernatural events I am limited in my understanding of the supernatural and have no reference point on which to base a concrete opinion but I do have a few thoughts.

If....... you were to define the "supernatural" as events outside of our "reality", I would say that thus far in human history, no one has ever proven that there is a reality outside of the one in which we inhabit.
But... I have no set dogma or doctrine or set of beliefs that would not be fluid enough to be changed if the proper evidence could be presented
and verified by objective observation.
I dont consider myself to be a "Strong" atheist,
and I have a real dislike for labels.
I dont seek to prove or disprove the existence of the christian god, simply because it is beyond my capabilities to do so. However I have a strong adversion to the following words:
"supernatural" "Mythology" "Superstition"
"Ghost" "Devil" "Angel" "Gods" "Godess" "supreme being" "omnicient" "omnipotant" "omnipresent"
all words that I dislike because they are all diametrically opposed to the words "TRUTH" and
"Reality".
To use the word supernatural indicates (in my small mind) non-existance, because everything in our reality has
definable parameters and characteristics.
Everything that exists has it's own nature and attributes and cannot operate "outside of it's nature".
It would seem that a definition of supernatural
would endow the subject with the ability to alter reality as we understand it, but once we use the defining term of supernatural, it then assumes
an identity and develops it's own set of operating parameters and attributes and disqualifies itself from being "outside" of reality, sort of like the tail chasing the dog.

I think that we should as a species seek truth, whatever that "Truth" turns out to be.

Knowledge is the real supreme power in the universe, and the terms like "supernatural" only
serve to discourage the search for truth and the advancement of knowledge.
But I am also aware that each individuals perception of truth, is not usually universal and therefore truth will always be subjective, but the "search for truth" is "reality" and as long as there are those who will scoff at the word "Supernatural"......................
the human race will continue to advance and aquire
the knowledge we need for our long range survival.

If we were to give in to the "unseen" "unknowable"
"inconceivable" "holy" and denounce the search for knowledge and truth, we would find ourselves
in a state of de-evolution and a downward spiral such as we have seen in many fundamentalist religious states that are in constant turmoil as we speak with genocide and intolerance and bigotry
being the normal way of life/existence.

I for one do not relish that thought.
I would hope for an enlightened future, whether or not mankind is capable of reaching that future will depend in large part on our ability to discourage the use of words such as "Supernatural".
Lets look to reality and develop humanistic values that will ultimately be the vehicle to the progression of this species to a new and brighter future.
Stop dealing in death...after all that is the ultimate goal of christianity isn't it?
The preparation for death and the afterlife?
Rewards...punishments..
It would seem that the teachings of the man once known as Yeshu haNotzri are being perverted into something he would have never claimed to be a part of anyway....just an opinion.
Wolf

Pennywise the clown

Beep! Beep! The Wolfy has a long howl!
This clown is pressed for time but such a long response deserves a response:
Do you consider “spiritual” as supernatural?
Hmmm, and I would say that no atheist, naturalist, or scientist has proven what happens to us after we die as of yet so I guess we’re at a draw.
Ok, there’s hope for the sighing canis lupis! Beep! Beep!
You seem to have reached a forgone conclusion despite your earlier comment:
I have no set dogma or doctrine or set of beliefs that would not be fluid enough to be changed if the proper evidence could be presented
and verified by objective observation
Quoting myself from another thread:
This narrow-minded (my opinion) view tends to spawn an impressive array of non-sequiturs, some of which go something like this: "since science cannot study a divine purpose, there is none," "since science can’t study ethics, they are purely subjective," "since science has disproved some religious theories, they're all wrong", etc. Granted, on a certain level I *suspect* that the religious experience may be beyond the ken of science; but, I do encourage the lens of science to be applied to the religious experience.
When scientists define the game of "science" in such a way that only naturalistic theories are open to consideration, and present the *best* naturalistic theory as fact without putting other notions to the test; then, the proposition that *naturalistic theories* are correct becomes a foregone conclusion.
In short: in this clown's opinion, limiting naturalism to the confines you describe does science a disservice.
BTW, I’m not dealing with the Christian God here. I liken the “god experience” to spirituality or a higher power and it’s too bad you’ve never experienced it. What a dreary black and white world you must live in.
But don’t waste time on the “supernatural”? The God experience? Tut, tut, some scientists think we may be wired for God belief. Should they give up their work?
Boy, you sure sound like a strong atheist to me. Again, I refer you to my view of naturalism. Beep! Beep! Forgone conclusions! Baby with the bath water! Bad Christian God! I have an open mind so long as we discount the “supernatural”!
[quote]I for one do not relish that thought.
I would hope for an enlightened future, whether or not mankind is capable of reaching that future will depend in large part on our ability to discourage the use of words such as "Supernatural".[\QUOTE]
One opinion Wolfy, one opinion! I do not think you will EVER eliminate religion. Perhaps we can help it to evolve away from fundamentalism but I think most of humankind is a spiritual beast. If science is right (as some atheists have told me) and we are “wired” for God belief, then what you are doing is trying to go against your own genetic make-up—your own hard wiring. Of course, perhaps there is a “atheist” gene? In that case I guess you’re kosher! Beep! Beep!

I agree with humanistic values and agree that no one religion should dictate how the species progresses but I DO NOT agree with elimination of religion. I think it could be possible for religion to co-exist with humanistic values if one could fix the fundamentalists—including fundamentalist atheists.
I think for the most part we are one on certain opinions relating to Christianity but you do seem to be fixated on it. As for Christ, I do not see how atheists in general can even make an opinion on him if the only record we really have of what he said is the Bible. After all, I even question which statements are true and which are false so how can you be sure that his teachings were “righteous” and “just”. There’s another picture of Jesus, which I believe is chronicled in your own SW library; a document by your D. Morgan about Christ’s character I believe. I don’t know if I’d want to follow that chap, but I digress…
Naturally, I discount the bible’s divine inspiration though I wonder if some of the writers may have experienced the “God experience” (I know, you have not experienced such things, etc., but work with me here!), Paul in particular.
Anyhow, I get the impression you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing because you sure seem to dislike Christianity and sure seem like a strong atheist to this clown. But, I could be wrong!
Beep! Beep!

This clown has to fly, Blad II calls! Final thought: I see why you sigh. If I had never experienced anything even remotely spiritual I'd sigh too. Have you ever thought about meditation?



(If the quotes tags don't work, well, I don't have time to fix. Don't live java so I'm punching by hand here. Beep! Beep!)

sighhswolf

Have you ever thought about not jumping to invalid conclusions concerning someone else's
qualifications?
You seem quite adept at that particular characteristic.
As far as the character called "Jesus" I am of the opinion that this person as related by the NT
never existed.
That does not mean that Jesus never existed, only that the image presented by the NT of this person
was not an accurate depiction.
It is the opinion of many that the Jesus of the NT
was not the messiah, was not the son of god, and wasnt even a very nice person.
As for your comment about the depiction of Jesus, you are correct in a way, the Jesus seminars stated that it was certain that fully 85% of words attributed to Jesus in the NT were never spoken by him.
I dont know if that is a valid conclusion but it
makes perfect sense to me being that Christianity
seems to make a huge error in it's view of the icon when they discount or ignore the relevant fact that Jesus was first and foremost a Jew.

You dont have to be an atheist, to have strong adversions to christianity.
I make no apologies for my disdain for christianity as I feel it has been the root cause of much suffering and death in it's history.
And it is based on a lie.
As for Paul, it has been widely circulated among
theologians and researchers that Paul may have been:
1. A repressed homosexual, which would explain his views on women in general.

Or a victim of mental illness:
2. Suffered from a condition known as Temporal Lobe Epilepsy that results in the symptoms that we understand today as "religious ephiphany" and
NDE's and Alien abduction stories.
I think that Joan of Arc is also included in the list of possible victims of the above disorder.
Religion itself destroys the average persons self esteem and provides them with pat canned answers to every conceivable moral question so that individual thought is avoided at all costs.
It is a plague, a virus that is eating away at the inhabitants of this planet and it removes humanistic points of view and absolves the followers from responsibilities to anyone who does not bow to their particular sect.

Religion is defined by elitism, intolerance,bigotry, and the loss of mental awareness of your surroundings.
If you had read any of my posts, you would have seen that I believe in a form "spirituality" but it has nothing what so ever to do with religion.
My personal definition of "spirituality" is not the standard dogma.

I have my own conception of spirituality, which in the eyes of christianity damns me to eternal torment, and labels me as being self absorbed
and self serving.
And it never fails that through the course of a week I will be accused by christians as being
rebellious, and ungrateful for my situation in life.
I believe that we are all responsible for our own actions or inactions, that we are also responsible for leaving this planet in a condition suitable for those generations yet to come.
If I should get a raise in salary tommorrow, it will be because I have worked hard and performed my job to the best of my ability, not because I was recieving blessings from some non-existent
god in the sky.
Conversely, If I do something to hurt someone or violate someone elses space, the devil did not make me do it, I did it.
And I mus accept responsibility for my own actions.
Repentance is only due to those you may have inadvertently wronged, not to a religious icon.
Wolf