Mike

In deference to Jobar I will do my best to edit. But alas, this discussion is too interesting to me! Rw's provocations--as all provocations I have experienced in the past--are helping me to expand my understanding of theology. If we must be moved then move us, but I hesitate to walk away when rw may not follow...

What I don't address, I have little argument with, but that is not to say that I did not thoroughly enjoy reading it. Rw, your language in the last post was truly poetic!

The kinds of religion that you still seem to be describing have in fact at times been destructive. And one of their worst forms of destruction is their destruction of the faith of the likes of you.

rw: Indeed, and what makes you think politics and religion are separate creatures?

mike: I don't. Neither do I think that science and religion are separate creatures, or science and politics. It's all humanities to me baby! But you speak of science with a reverence akin to religious devotion.

rw: And we should take care to distinguish between science and technology.

mike: As we should distinguish between spirituality and religion.

rw: but [science] is worthy of being rescued. Man has a moral obligation, if he desires to exist, to separate science from among its created brethren, (politics and religion) and give it the freedom it needs to work a resolution.

mike: OK, I will concur that science must be rescued and separated from politics and religion (and technology). But so must spirituality be rescued and separated from politics and technology (and religion), and law rescued and separated from technology and religion (and politics).
Politics:Law::Religion:Spirituality::Technology:Sc ience

The first three of each pair are all artifacts of the second. The artifacts must at least be cognitively separated both from each other and from their respective sources. However, Law, Spirituality, and Science are all inseparably a part of fundamental humanity. And this is absolute! (There Jobar, I'm back on topic)

rw: Of all the artifacts of man’s imagination, science has demonstrated the potential for genuine hope.

mike: Science is not an artifact, but a way of being. As you said technology is an artifact. It's beautiful man! Thanks. But Science as a way of being is no more a way of being then its twin sisters: spirituality and law.

rw: Science aught not have to compete with man’s prisons for the devotion of man.

mike: No, it aught not. Nor must it. Competition of a way of being with an artifact is but illusory and as such tends to muddy our intellects.

rw: He should make the effort to see that the majority of his resources are funneled into this

mike: I hope you aren't talking about government resources, but if so your complaint should be with Politics and not Religion (as prohibitions are--or should be-- in place to prevent religion from draining government funds). And if so you must admit that science would then become inextricably bound up with politics. And there would be no meaningful separation of Science and State as there has been Church and State. And if this were so, then all political machinations including war and slavery would be tied more to science than to religion.

rw: so his politics and religion continue to gobble up an inordinate amount of these resources and science is forced to compete where it aught not be.

mike: If you are talking about resources relating to popular support then you must wonder why science is producing such an inferior product (in the eyes of the populace) as to not be able to draw better support! And if you say religion and politics have drawn away their minds, then you say they have captured their imaginations. If Science is not sufficient to fully capture (or release, whatever the case may be) the imagination of the populace, then it is not sufficient at all, standing alone--because as we seem to have agreed, imagination may be the impetus for everything!

rw: Sounds like someone has issues ;^D.

mike: yes I admit. But I have issues with narrow-mindedness wherever I find it--I'm refering to the abuses of science I mentioned previously, not necessarily to you personally.

rw: Exempt science from the competition and such destructive forces, that whittle away at its vitality, will vanish.

mike: How will this exemption be accomplished? Through more mind control? "Science" has nearly captured education away from humanities, as it nearly has captured the treatment of the mind (as in psychiatry and medicine). What more do you want? Political force? If you want support it must be by practicing a science worth attending to. If you say everyone but scientists must simply be short-sighted, and leave it at that, then I suppose we will just have to wait and see which "way of being" is most adaptive.

rw: Man has no choice but to believe in something, but he has ample choice in what to believe in.

mike: And you are not the average atheist! Oh, the time I've spent trying to get atheists to realize that they DO believe in something! (I suppose I made the mistake of using the f-word--faith--and got on nerves, perhaps not entirely accidentally, but what is faith if not belief in the not-yet-seen?)

rw: If a god exists and created such a vast supply of resources, then they must exist for a reason…and perhaps they exist for man to assign a reason.

mike: That would be my guess.

rw: Indeed, yet there are justifications…a priori justifications, that turn assumptions into probabilities and probabilities into realities…

mike: Yes, and this is the path that I have followed in my religion. I first had assumptions based on a-priori justifications (illuminated first by my "professors" of religion, taken on faith and later realized), followed by probabilities, followed by realities. Not all of the realities that I have realized were made explicit by my "professors," however, and some of what many of them have assumed, I have re-evaluated.


rw: ...and this quite independent of interpretation.

mike: We're back to absolute morality Jobar, don't pull the plug yet! But here I disagree. Interpretation makes standing and walking meaningful in different ways for different people (your paraplegic example). All may wish to walk, but some to smell the roses and others to more easily get to their cubicle and sit down again!

rw: Yet how could this be [man be like God]? God is not mortal. Of what value would morality be to such a one? So how could our resemblance to a god be equated with our necessity of assigning value?

mike: My religious views are that He HAS been. Where we are, He was, and where He is, we may be. Remember that Christ said he did NOTHING but what he had seen his Father do. So according to the Bible, God has been there, done that, and thus knows the way. Our necessity of assigning value (absolute morality) is that we can either become more what we are intended to be or we can stop where we are. Damnation is very literally a stopping of progress. This view of damnation was illustrated by Christ's parable of the talents and the necessity of increasing our talents. Talents represent options. Choices. Some decisions tend to restrict choice, others to increase it. Absolute morality is the increasing of choice and thus the ending of damnation and the continuation of progress!

rw: But why does might make right?

mike: Might doesn't make right, wisdom does. But wisdom knows when to use might and when to refrain.

rw: And the answer religion offers is correct?

mike: The answer faith/belief/imagination offers is correct.

rw: I don’t think my car is purely an illusion…

mike: Not your car, but the idea that its meaning is objective. To an aboriginal tribesman your car, run as it might, may mean something entirely different.

rw: And why is it again that I am stuffing my face? To preserve my existence? And this preservation, you say, is derived from my being a descendent of the Father…who has no need of such decadent appetites?

mike: Not decadent...unless eating as the means to this existence becomes instead its end. The resurrected Lord himself ate--to show his disciples that he was tangible flesh and not a ghost (and perhaps you too, like Thomas, will wait until you feel his hands and his side before believing).

rw: Stick with your quantifying methodologies Mike…and do not waver.

mike: A bit narrow-minded I would think. Quantification has its uses, but it is as much an invention, a metaphor, as all symbolic representation. And as such, it is open to interpretation.

rw: And you are to be commended for this synthesis…pity all religious men could not follow your example.

mike: And scientists who cannot (or rather will not)?

rw: ...only because you have imagined that what it means to be human somehow transcends what it is to be alive. And where did you derive this imagined dichotomy but from your religion.

mike: Yes! First I imagined it. Like scientists first imagined the atom. And thus I have discovered it!

rw: Can a Jew not have a Jewish planet, and a Christian a Christian world, and a Muslim his own land from pole to pole?

mike: That such segregationism would continue to exist on such a scale would be a collosal failure of both science and religion! Is this what your science has to offer?!

rw: Or if a God were truly benevolent, rather than holding back the floods, making a way for man to find worlds where floods are not a natural phenomenon.

mike: You yourself have said that our apparent mortality is the impetus to progress. And what if all of our needs were provided without effort? There would be no progress--mental or otherwise. We would have no need to think beyond the level of bacteria on the surface of a primordial pond.

rw: And if [letting go of the need to control was] followed to its logical conclusion…extinction of man. Yet also a disregard for your god’s mandate for man to exorcise dominion.

mike: Not simply letting go of control per say, but letting go of the NEED--a "drive" to conrol--a desire to control. There is the fruit for us to pick. And pick it we must if we are to eat. But I do not need to either force or restrain you as I eat. The illusion of competition (fostered by Darwinian science) has given the impetus for wars and destruction. And a desire for control. Some modern scientists and religionists are happily discovering a more ecological view.

rw: And I should like to hear more of this possibility [of religion extending the life span], if you care to expand on it.

mike: I would certainly care to. Scripture makes reference to it, but I may have to address it elsewhere?

rw: New, and cleaner, energy sources are on the horizon. But they didn’t get their by prayer or faith.

mike: How then did they get there?

rw: And how did you come upon these solutions? By revelation?

mike: Depends how you define it.

rw: Then your “self” contemplations are made through the eyes of the “other”?

mike: How else to best see yourself? A mirror doesn't show much, and self contemplation is usually full of bias.

rw: Indeed, which forces us into the untenable position of deriving and sustaining our “selves” on the basis of acceptance or rejection by “others”

mike: It is just the opposite. We derive and sustain ourselves by accepting others. Waiting for acceptance or rejection is but another form of self-focus.

rw: Well, since I don’t know your specific persuasion I can’t say if I was a member or no.

mike: I've mentioned it in these discussions before, but usually then other "christians" and/or former members of my faith fiercely try to drag me off topic into a discussion of respective faiths. Which I would happily oblige, but then the atheists, for whom these forums seem to have been formed, become quite annoyed.

rw: I suggest, and not in any derogatory way, that you are perhaps unaware of just how much your religion has invaded your science. Are you as able to sustain objectivity under such influence? Judging from some of your replies…I would say not.

mike: My faith has certainly invaded my science, and I believe the notion of objectivity as you describe it is illusory. As would be any attempt at separating my science from my spirituality. Your beliefs just as certainly invade your science, and if I may use your discussion of finding other planets to inhabit as an example: apparently have caused your attention to be turned somewhat from solving the problems on this planet to finding a collection of others to inhabit. Which is not necessarily a problem, unless we simply suck those dry as well...

rw: Yet man has pulled himself out of an early grave and successfully extended his life span. So your assumption here is unwarranted.

mike: Again, your beliefs invade your science. What is length of life without quality of life? You may say science through technology has increased both length and quality. I say length, perhaps, but I question quality. And inevitably back to the realm of subjective interpretation we go.

rw: So this [implanting knowledge] is something God cannot logically do?

mike: There you go confounding cannot and will not again!

rw: …but a moral compendium that is allegedly superior aught not make such facts available to the statistical analyst for analysis in the first place…yes?

mike: Make available? What statisticians observe or imagine is their own business. The record is pubic.

rw: Then I should be most interested in hearing your take on what exactly “hell” represents?

mike: Oh, the temptations you present me! Jobar, it's not fair!! Regret. Remorse. Realizing that something valuable was in your hand and you let it drop. Realizing that you have not become what you might have become. These types of thoughts have been my greatest hells on earth, and I expect would be off of earth as well.

rw: I cannot walk on water, but I would if I could.

mike: Really? You're missing out pal! But indeed if you cannot, then "would" is irrelevant. But perhaps by your science you can devise a way--if you WILL.

rw: Interesting analogy…then, if god is not outside nature, he must be part of or maybe even one with nature. Are you advocating a sort of Pantheism?

mike: I am recognizing a sort of Parentism.

rw: Indeed…yet he is not outside of nature? Your description renders natural perception invalid. Thus you are describing “invisibility”.

mike: The womb is no more a permanent dwelling place then this planet is. And mortality not much longer lasting than gestation. As the child comes gradually to recognize it's mother, we will come to recognize our God. Birth is the perfect metaphor for this experience. Hence Christ's reference to being born again! If we will create anything meaningful ourselves we must be born, and hence begin the journey to find our own womb. And here I suppose I will answer your question about extending life. Death has its uses (During his three day death, Christ went and preached to those spirits--in their own mental prison--to offer them freedom as well. According to Peter, these were the folks who you say were so unfairly treated at the time of the flood--and yet here is Christ again holding out his hand to them), but "death" is temporary. There is indication in religious texts of a possible transformation that allows for movement from mortality to immortality without tasting death as we know it. This transformation may accompany a true re-birth. Such rebirth, it seems, may both represent a coming into the presence of God, and gaining power over physical death, and this re-birth is available both now in mortality and after physical death. That we don't experience it more often while in mortality could be a failure of the texts, or a failure of the imagination. But then so could the past failures of science be either of these.

rw: You mean the proffered “invisible” hand?

mike: He offered for his desciples to see and feel his hands. "Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." The experience will be available to you as well. It is up to you whether you take it sooner or later--he won't make you take his hand if you will not.

You may say "I will take it when I can see it." But to get out of THIS womb you first reach for the hand you cannot yet see, which draws you out into the light, and finally (as in your first birth) having first felt, you now see. Some babes may stay in the womb, nice a place as it is, for as long as mom will let them--but what they are missing they will not know until they "come forth."

NonContradiction

Please explain how I am doing that.



Nor can it be seen as moral if the purpose of morality is to maximize our survival advantages, which was my point to Jobar. As far as your comment that homosexual behavior would help with population control, there is no need to advocate homosexuality to control population growth since birth control seems to work just fine. The bottom line here is that heterosexual behavior is needed for the preservation of the species, whereas the same cannot be said about homosexual behavior.

Llyricist

By shortening the position to "maximizing survival advantage". The point is, that it would be more in line with naturalism to say that morals are derived from behaviors that EITHER helped OR did not hinder survival.

See above.

You are paraphrasing and changing meanings again, NOWHERE did I advocate or suggest advocating homosexuality. There is a BIG difference between allowing and advocating.

What? is everything either GOOD or BAD to you? You are presenting yourself here as advocating absolute moral standards instead of your own suggested unchanging moral standards. Which is it??

Cross Examiner

Suppose I'll jump in with a quick thought.

How does the objective moral value: murder is wrong help an individual survive (thus being naturall selected)? Sometimes murder gets you more food, women, power etc. Yet everyone knows in their conscience that murder is wrong. Why? That is, this behavior, moral revulsion to murder, helps an individual survive? How so? Survival of the fittest seems to cause males especially to kill other male challengers.

NonContradiction

I am not misquoting Jobar, as you are implying. Here is Jobar's quote:

I am pointing out that homosexual behavior cannot be considered to be moral behavior, according to his definition, whereas heterosexual behavior would be. Accusing me of paraphrasing and changing his meanings because you don't like the conclusion that I have arrived at isn't a good objection.

NonContradiction

You are advocating allowing homosexuality in order to control population growth and conservation of resources. Here is what you said:


Now, who is paraphrasing and changing meanings? Where did I say that everything is either good or bad? SOME things are good and SOME things are bad. Simply because a gray area exists doesn't mean that everything is gray. SOME things are black and white, and SOME things are gray.

I have found that MOST of the people here are arguing against the logical absurdities of Christian theology. An omnimax God, espousing moral absolutes, is nonsense as far as I am concerned. As I have said before in other threads, Christian theologians do not speak for all of the people who believe in the Abrahamic God. I believe in a non-omnimax God whose morality is non-absolute and unchanging.

rainbow walking

rw: Sorry Jobar, I didn’t see your request until after I submitted my previous post. I’m trying to stay as on-topic as possible, but you have to admit, the topic is broad.

mike: What I don't address, I have little argument with, but that is not to say that I did not thoroughly enjoy reading it. Rw, your language in the last post was truly poetic!

rw: Well thank you Mike, that was kind of you to say. Your own replies are equally as inspiring.



mike: The kinds of religion that you still seem to be describing have in fact at times been destructive. And one of their worst forms of destruction is their destruction of the faith of the likes of you.

rw: Indeed...and out of the ashes the Pheonix arrives.

mike: I don't. Neither do I think that science and religion are separate creatures, or science and politics. It's all humanities to me baby! But you speak of science with a reverence akin to religious devotion.

rw: Perhaps, if you define religion as dedication to a specific set of paradigms.

mike: As we should distinguish between spirituality and religion.

rw: Can you have one without the other? My use of “distinction” is not to isolate each as though they could stand alone. They are different sides of the same coin to be sure, but my reference to distinction is to facilitate discussion of their relevant value in comparison to other attributes of man’s quest to exist and find a moral foundation that facilitates that quest. So I make the distinction to facilitate comparison seeking the relevant value to man, derivable from each.

mike: OK, I will concur that science must be rescued and separated from politics and religion (and technology). But so must spirituality be rescued and separated from politics and technology (and religion), and law rescued and separated from technology and religion (and politics).
Politics:Law::Religion:Spirituality::Technology:Sc ience

The first three of each pair are all artifacts of the second. The artifacts must at least be cognitively separated both from each other and from their respective sources. However, Law, Spirituality, and Science are all inseparably a part of fundamental humanity. And this is absolute! (There Jobar, I'm back on topic)

rw: But which is more dependant on the other? For instance, does science require law to function? ( I’m assuming you’re referring to statutory law in reference to politics). Does science require spirituality to function? Between law, spirituality and science I do not think law and spirituality are so inseparable. Primitive man survived on his wits…hence his science…primitive as it was. Only after man became more socially structured did law and spirituality become an issue. In the most primitive settings it was “might makes right”. This has not changed and dressing it up with law and spirituality does not change it. Now, what is the mightiest attribute of man? His science. What wins wars, solves crimes, feeds, clothes and houses the most people? His science. What has the potential of resolving his most pressing need for existence and diversity of choice…? His science.

mike: Science is not an artifact, but a way of being. As you said technology is an artifact. It's beautiful man! Thanks. But Science as a way of being is no more a way of being then its twin sisters: spirituality and law.

rw: Science is a specific moral expression of man’s imagination. Law and spirituality are methods of dealing with man’s desire to exist after-the-fact. Science is the only method that attempts to negate some of the “ignorance of the future” you incorporated into your initial post. Science is about studying man’s material existence in this life and isolating predictive patterns of behavior. So man has satellites circling the earth to aid him in tracking weather patterns to facilitate prediction of future events that he would otherwise have remained ignorant of had he relied entirely on law or spirituality. This scientific ability addresses one of the gratuitous instances of suffering that man can experience in his existence on this planet. The suffering that comes from being caught un-awares by a tornado or hurricane. Man is also scientifically addressing many diseases that law and spirituality have no effect on. In fact, man’s science has allowed him to eradicate the threat of death by small pox. He has vaccinations against a wide variety of diseases that once threatened the lives of millions. This is something law and spirituality have no jurisdiction over. Science is man’s greatest moral expression and reflects his highest virtues. Science can also be instrumental in identifying predictable behavior patterns in the psychosis of the criminal mind. This aids in law enforcement and increases man’s ability to address premeditated evil actions.

mike: No, it aught not. Nor must it. Competition of a way of being with an artifact is but illusory and as such tends to muddy our intellects.

mike: I hope you aren't talking about government resources, but if so your complaint should be with Politics and not Religion (as prohibitions are--or should be-- in place to prevent religion from draining government funds). And if so you must admit that science would then become inextricably bound up with politics. And there would be no meaningful separation of Science and State as there has been Church and State. And if this were so, then all political machinations including war and slavery would be tied more to science than to religion.

rw: There is no meaningful separation of science and state. Without science there would be no state. Without science, there would be no church. Without science there would be no man. And government resources are human resources. Just because we attach a tag of “guvment” to them doesn’t make them any less valuable or assessable to the will of the populace.

mike: If you are talking about resources relating to popular support then you must wonder why science is producing such an inferior product (in the eyes of the populace) as to not be able to draw better support! And if you say religion and politics have drawn away their minds, then you say they have captured their imaginations. If Science is not sufficient to fully capture (or release, whatever the case may be) the imagination of the populace, then it is not sufficient at all, standing alone--because as we seem to have agreed, imagination may be the impetus for everything!

rw: There is nothing to wonder about. State and religion have always created all the distractions to justify their existence…period! Then, when they get themselves into difficulty and end up in horrific struggles with other states and religions, they turn to science to devise weapons to rescue their butts out of the messes they made. And, even worse, when these institutions converge, (which they necessarily have to in proportion to the people who begin to resist them), they will again turn to science to provide them a means to subjugate, spy on and dominate that same public. In doing so, they demonstrate that nothing but “might makes right” prevails in the final analysis. Now, even as I speak, any agent of any law enforcement agency, (lackies of the state, FBI, CIA, ATF, DEA, INF, Homeland Defense, Army, Navy, Air force, Marines, Coast Guard), for any provocation or the slightest suspicion of provocation against the guvment, can snatch you up out of your home at any hour and whisk you off to languish in a prison on foreign soil indefinitely without due process…and American lemmings seem oblivious to this. These same agencies can monitor every aspect of your private and public life, use any means to do so including interrogation of your friends, neighbors and co-workers, and create an aura of suspicion around your existence without due process. Just like Nazi Germany, the American public sees absolutely no connection between this current state of affairs and their guvments previous actions relating to foreign fiasco’s, attacks against groups in Waco, the Freemen, Timothy McVeigh, Rodney King, and countless inexcusable murders of private citizens by every arm of regulatory guvment. Americans appear content to stick their heads in the sands of law and spirituality as long as the bodies being piled up are not their own or one of their family members.
You mentioned the USA being a product of theist expeditions…is this an expression of theist morality? Why is it theism tends to demonize every human being that doesn’t agree to embrace its spirituality? The theistically minded American settlers theistically generated view of native Americans was that they were savages, so these settlers saw no reason to seek their permission to settle on lands that did not belong to them. It was their God given right. Then, when these people reacted to that arrogance they were summarily assassinated and subjugated and “might makes right” becomes the theists final arbiter and classic example of his superior moral foundation. The Christians who settled in Australia had this same mind set when they viewed the native Aborigine’s as savages and took their children away from them to be brought up in Christian environments. Australians are, to this day, still trying to resolve that horrendous affront to another group of human beings. I could go for hours relating historical account after historical account of what spirituality does to a man’s mind in relation to his fellow human beings but I think you get my message. The theist has no objective moral foundation and hiding his real moral foundation in an in-assessable god doesn’t fool anyone with half a brain. It has, and always will be, “might makes right”.

Shall I make this more explicit? Why not. In a recent meeting between our beloved theistic president, the leader of Israel and the appointed representative of the Palestinian people, Mr. Bush made a declaration that the reason we attacked Iraq was because God told him to. Not because Iraq may have been developing WMD’s or harboring perpetrators of 911, or because the people of Iraq wanted us to, but because God told him to. Now we have a guvment who has trampled the UN into the dust, violated international law, estranged our relations with once friendly nations like France and Germany, piled up the corpses of thousands of innocent human beings, ignored the protestations of millions around the globe…because God told him to. And this, my friend, is the net result of spirituality and law.

I realize you had nothing to do with these events Mike, and I imagine you are a very sincere man of faith, but I hope you can see that you have a mountain of evidence piling up against you that your worldview can or ever will improve the lot of humanity, or that the moral foundation upon which you claim to derive your authority is anything but a recipe for one continuous stream of blood with a banner chanting, “onward Christian soldier…”. Let’s cut to the chase here and just speak our minds. Spirituality and law have never, will never, cannot ever, resolve man’s mortal dilemma…period. All it can accomplish, is all it has ever accomplished…”might makes right”…period. Now you claim that wisdom makes right and infer that this wisdom is from above…perhaps if such wisdom exists it might actually be helpful, but if there is a God, he has not deemed our welfare to be among his priorities and thus this mysterious wisdom to which you allude remains just that….a mystery. Obviously, how to get man as governor or priest to follow this wisdom, (assuming they have any), is where your worldview drops the ball.
Isn’t it time we find the courage to ask ourselves if perhaps there isn’t another way?


mike: How will this exemption be accomplished? Through more mind control? "Science" has nearly captured education away from humanities, as it nearly has captured the treatment of the mind (as in psychiatry and medicine). What more do you want? Political force? If you want support it must be by practicing a science worth attending to. If you say everyone but scientists must simply be short-sighted, and leave it at that, then I suppose we will just have to wait and see which "way of being" is most adaptive.

rw: How about greater public awareness, especially in the area of mortality? How about political and spiritual acceptance and declaration of science as the key factor? How about raising the banner of science above government and religion, where it rightfully belongs? How about government and religion bowing before its master and the one that continues to make them possible? How about government and religion pulling off their own miracles without involving science? Let’s see that one for a change. Let’s see the shrubbery in the White House bully the world without the technology and science that turns an otherwise clumsy military machine into a mass monster in spite of its inability to carry out a campaign for two weeks without killing and crashing its own machinery. How about the Bushes explaining to the world the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians without the science of laser guided bombs that greatly reduced that death toll? Adaptation follows the trail blazed by science…and so does government and religion. Let’s see the Billy Graham’s and all the other televangelists sway the minds of the masses without all the technology of communications satellites, tv and radio stations, electricity and science enhanced music. Let’s see them build billion dollar kingdoms without the value added economy created by science. Let’s see them build a church without science, or start a van ministry or any other ministry you can imagine without science. Just for once…let’s set the record strait. Science does not need religion or government…period. They need science. Science alone can take a Texas ploughboy and turn him into a worldwide policy maker, or a heretofore never heard of country preacher into an internationally recognized evangelist. Science alone props up all these artifices of man’s chimera of culture and civilization. Jerk this prop out from under government and religion and watch it all crumble into the dust, taking with it every parasitical mind that has ever invested its security and future in such shams…along with every morsel of food ever stuffed into every such mouth that manipulates these shams to their own private benefit. Science can be your anti-christ, but it will never be your Jesus unless it first manufactures the cross and nails you need to crucify it, the tools you need to entomb it, the wax you need to seal the tomb and all the weapons you need to invest that wax with such authority, or the printing presses you need to proclaim its inevitable resurrection.
Science is man’s god. Always has been and always will be. Men of science are its ministers. They can be ministers of death or ministers of life, but when they are busy tending to its alters they are of one mind and one accord with nature. The miracles that are produced can be used for good or evil. The consequences of either elevate, not the men who partake, but the science that made partaking possible. So it’s high time we set the record strait. As you can see, it isn’t difficult to turn science into a religion and sweep aside every religion that came before it.
It isn’t difficult to turn science into a more perfect union either. We currently have the technology to allow every man and woman to decide their own fate in congress, to abolish the Executive branch altogether and return the courts to a level less than Supreme. But we just don’t have the will. Ah…but we have the means of shaping the will, of changing the public perspective…of causing men to think on these things, to talk among themselves about them, to wrestle with these issues until they rise above the din of all other issues and force man to a confrontation and resolution. Science can equalize the constituent to his representative, the people to the president and the adjudicated to the judge. Science has the power to become the most perfect union man has ever seen or ever will see. Why? Because science is the man in his most perfect state.

mike: And you are not the average atheist! Oh, the time I've spent trying to get atheists to realize that they DO believe in something! (I suppose I made the mistake of using the f-word--faith--and got on nerves, perhaps not entirely accidentally, but what is faith if not belief in the not-yet-seen?)

rw: It is belief in the possibilities of what can be seen through mortal eyes under the influence of the mortal mind.


mike: We're back to absolute morality Jobar, don't pull the plug yet! But here I disagree. Interpretation makes standing and walking meaningful in different ways for different people (your paraplegic example). All may wish to walk, but some to smell the roses and others to more easily get to their cubicle and sit down again!

rw: And continued existence, made possible by science, makes standing, walking, smelling the roses and sitting in a cubicle available as choices.

mike: Might doesn't make right, wisdom does. But wisdom knows when to use might and when to refrain.

rw: Then, when one resorts to might, it is because one deems it wise. And if they fail? Then they were not right. But if they succeed? Then they were right. Might makes right. Might is always the final arbiter in establishing moral edicts. The law presupposes might as a final arbiter. Religion presupposes might, god’s might, as the final arbiter…else no hell. But why does moral superiority have to be established by might or hell? Why not the syllogism? Or the evidence? Or the finished product? When two men both believe they are right and neither will concede, then they resort to might and one wins by muscle. So it isn’t wisdom that wins the day but muscle. Does this automatically make muscle right? So what brings two men to a state where they are willing to engage their convictions with force?


mike: Not your car, but the idea that its meaning is objective. To an aboriginal tribesman your car, run as it might, may mean something entirely different.

rw: But he can’t deny it exists and if he takes a ride in it, it’s purpose becomes immediately evident, thus its meaning becomes clear to him and does exist as an objective expression of the car.



mike: Yes! First I imagined it. Like scientists first imagined the atom. And thus I have discovered it!

rw: Can you describe the difference between being human and being alive?

mike: That such segregationism would continue to exist on such a scale would be a collosal failure of both science and religion! Is this what your science has to offer?!

rw: What segregation are you referring to? If these people volitionally choose to establish such a world how is that segregationist? They aren’t forced to, or forced not to leave or visit other worlds…so where’s the justification for this accusation?


mike: Not simply letting go of control per say, but letting go of the NEED--a "drive" to conrol--a desire to control. There is the fruit for us to pick. And pick it we must if we are to eat. But I do not need to either force or restrain you as I eat.

rw: But if you are eating all the food and leaving me none? Then I should let go of the need to exist? So if everyone played by the rule of fairness, “respected” everyone else’s right to exist…we’d have less “need to control”. So what breeds disrespect? What facilitates a notion that one person has a right to control another?

mike: The illusion of competition (fostered by Darwinian science) has given the impetus for wars and destruction. And a desire for control. Some modern scientists and religionists are happily discovering a more ecological view.

rw: Can you elucidate on what particular wars and destruction have been waged over Darwinian science?


mike: How then did they get there?

rw: By man’s scientific effort to extrapolate their usefulness from the raw products that exist in abundance. Hydrogen powered engines are in the test phase even now.

mike: Depends how you define it.

rw: revelation: Theology. A manifestation of divine will or truth


mike: How else to best see yourself? A mirror doesn't show much, and self contemplation is usually full of bias.

rw: Then you admit that we are subject to see what we want to see…and unless it’s confirmed by others it might not be true? But what if others are subject to see only what we want them to see? Does this make what they see true?


mike: My faith has certainly invaded my science, and I believe the notion of objectivity as you describe it is illusory. As would be any attempt at separating my science from my spirituality. Your beliefs just as certainly invade your science, and if I may use your discussion of finding other planets to inhabit as an example: apparently have caused your attention to be turned somewhat from solving the problems on this planet to finding a collection of others to inhabit. Which is not necessarily a problem, unless we simply suck those dry as well...

rw: And what of those problems inherent in this planet that may be irresolvable? Or if finding and populating other planets resolve more problems than not doing so?

mike: Again, your beliefs invade your science.

rw: Then you deny that man has almost doubled his average lifespan? If not, what is there to believe and how has that invaded the obvious?

mike: What is length of life without quality of life? You may say science through technology has increased both length and quality. I say length, perhaps, but I question quality. And inevitably back to the realm of subjective interpretation we go.

rw: I notice you have a computer and are connected to the web. Has this improved the quality of your life? You say that you learn something from all these exchanges and so enjoy them…as do I…thus has this learning improved the quality of your life?


mike: Make available? What statisticians observe or imagine is their own business. The record is pubic.

rw: My point exactly. If theistic morality is so superior, and Christians are suppose to represent its superiority, why are these divorce rates a matter of public record? Surely a superior objective morality would make for better relationships among its constituency…yes?

mike: Oh, the temptations you present me! Jobar, it's not fair!! Regret. Remorse. Realizing that something valuable was in your hand and you let it drop.

rw: Like…your existence on earth?

mike: Realizing that you have not become what you might have become. These types of thoughts have been my greatest hells on earth, and I expect would be off of earth as well.

rw: How does one come to this realization?

mike: I am recognizing a sort of Parentism.

rw: Okay, then God is…where?

mike: The womb is no more a permanent dwelling place then this planet is. And mortality not much longer lasting than gestation. As the child comes gradually to recognize it's mother, we will come to recognize our God. Birth is the perfect metaphor for this experience. Hence Christ's reference to being born again! If we will create anything meaningful ourselves we must be born, and hence begin the journey to find our own womb. And here I suppose I will answer your question about extending life. Death has its uses (During his three day death, Christ went and preached to those spirits--in their own mental prison--to offer them freedom as well. According to Peter, these were the folks who you say were so unfairly treated at the time of the flood--and yet here is Christ again holding out his hand to them), but "death" is temporary. There is indication in religious texts of a possible transformation that allows for movement from mortality to immortality without tasting death as we know it.

rw: Rapture…

mike: This transformation may accompany a true re-birth. Such rebirth, it seems, may both represent a coming into the presence of God, and gaining power over physical death, and this re-birth is available both now in mortality and after physical death. That we don't experience it more often while in mortality could be a failure of the texts, or a failure of the imagination. But then so could the past failures of science be either of these.

rw: Then if you admit or allow this doctrine, what prohibits this god from taking all people immediately to immortality by divine fiat? Why wait on so many to die natural deaths? If, as Paul and Jesus say, this time will be shortened, why allow this time at all? Why not just bypass the whole shebang and take everyone to heaven from their position prior to birth? It sounds like heaven is a wonderful place, far better than earth could ever hope to be, so what’s with this “womb” theology when a rapture was available all along?

mike: He offered for his desciples to see and feel his hands. "Handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." The experience will be available to you as well. It is up to you whether you take it sooner or later--he won't make you take his hand if you will not.

You may say "I will take it when I can see it." But to get out of THIS womb you first reach for the hand you cannot yet see, which draws you out into the light, and finally (as in your first birth) having first felt, you now see. Some babes may stay in the womb, nice a place as it is, for as long as mom will let them--but what they are missing they will not know until they "come forth."

rw: This Armenian theology is contradicted by Calvinist claims of predestination. You’ve been vacillating back and forth between these opposing doctrines now for several pages, and I suspect it has something to do with your private interpretations of the various text. You are definitely positing a freely chosen salvation as opposed to “election” so now I have more information upon which to proceed. Why did God harden the hearts of the Pharisees so they could not recognize Jesus as the son of God? How can one see a hand that has been withdrawn?

Jobar

NonContradiction, homosexuality is not, as best I can tell, a survival advantage, and therefore moral. To me it seems neutral, so long as a sufficient percentage of the population remains heterosexual. It seems plausible that a population consisting of 100% breeding individuals might be *less* successful than one which bred at a smaller rate, due to avoidance of population pressures.

Anyway, there have been plenty of societies which considered homosexuality immoral, sometimes to the point of killing them. It certainly seems to me that killing (or discriminating against)homosexuals is a good indicator of a bad society; I can't think of one which did that I would be willing to call good, at any rate.

[mod hat on]
Given the title, I expected this thread to walk the line between this forum, and our Moral Foundations & Principles forum. Lately it seems to be entirely in MF&P territory; it's too convoluted for me to break it up and put part of it in MF&P, so I am going to move the whole thing. Please, carry on there. MF&P mods, if you think it turns in the direction of an EoG debate, feel free to send it back!

As I said before, we have no rules limiting post lengths. I know that long and intricate posts are rw's style, and forte. (Mike, you'll type your fingers down to nubs if you want to outdo him *that* way!) I don't want to appear as if I was making any demands on anyone to limit post length; my remarks were intended as helpful criticism, to avoid the tendency of readers to hit a part of a post they find uninteresting, and from there skim over large sections. I try to keep my own posts as compact as possible, because most people (even the deep-thinking bibliophiles who post here) absorb complex ideas better if those ideas are presented in short segments. But that's just my own preference, and you are welcome to post in whatever lengths you like.
[/mod hat]

NonContradiction

Your statements lead me to the following: If homosexuality isn't moral and heterosexuality is, then obviously they are not equal. Therefore, why should homosexuality be treated the same as heterosexuality if they are not equal? Why is it wrong for society to prefer one over the other if they are not equal?

Most people, if not all, who advocate a homosexual political agenda want us to equate sexual preferences with racial preferences, but the truth of the matter is that race and sexual orientation are two very separate issues. I believe that it's wrong to prefer one race of people over another, but I don't see why it's wrong for society to prefer heterosexuality over homosexuality since one is moral whereas the other one is not.

Llyricist

well yes, but that is not what you said in the previous post. You said I was advocating homosexuality.... which I was not. Thank you for representing my position properly now.
And if you don't see the difference........ you are just reinforcing the impression you gave that led to the QUESTION.......
I was asking a question, not representing your words, I said it seemed that way and asked for clarification, because it apparently contradicted what you had said before.

Can you understand the concept of morally neutral or not??? if not, you are advocating an "absolute" morality.