Living Dead Chipmunk

Demigawd said:
Wouldn't it be more logical to use that time for something that aids humanity in a physical sense? People are dying while you paint your pictures. If you're bored, and have time on your hands, wouldn't sheer rationality dictate that you use that time for the betterment of others?

Or, if you reject that premise, shouldn't such time be used for the betterment of yourself? Paint pictures if they can make you more money, for instance. Read a book that increases your knowledge base. Exercise. Logically, that would be a better way to spend your time no matter what meter stick you're using to measure "better".

~
DC said:
Two points.

1) If HD is using Atheism to describe something it's not intended to describe, and that truly bothers you, I'd like to suggest that you look at the atheist's use of the word "religion" to find a similar problem. The re-defining of words to apply the workings of a small fragment to the entire whole is not a uniquely theistic problem.

2) It's very logical to come to the conclusion that Atheism implies the things HD says it implies. With no soul and no (for lack of a better word) "higher purpose", we become nothing more than DNAs way of creating more DNA. We can give our own lives meaning, but when one follows that out to the universal extreme, even a secular meaning is just as much a fantasy as a religion. With the exception of creating more humans, an atheistic belief system can very easily be seen as one which permits no sense of purpose.

In fact, I wish someone could explain to me how it could *not* work that way, because it's troubled me greatly for some time. I simply take your word for it that it doesn't, and move on from there. But that would be a whole 'nother topic, or else it'd be me firing my patented Red Herring Cannon(tm).

~
galel said:
They might indeed be straw men, but it's very easy for someone to see them as valid. As I said to DC, the way atheists react to the idea of anything beyond objectively discovered scientific data seems to indicate that there's absolutely no way anyone could have a "higher purpose" than to produce offspring and die like a good mammal. After all, such a purpose or meaning would have to come from *somewhere*. God is right out, and when we create one for ourselves we simply seem to exchange an externally created fantasy for an internally created one.

Also easily understandable. Emotions are not logical. Logic leaves no room for emotion when it comes to making decisions. Emotionally, I like to paint. Logically, it's a complete waste of time, and time is a VERY limited resource. Primarily because I'm not good enough to get paid for it, nor am I skilled enough for my work to inspire others.

I'd venture to guess that if the entire world were Methodist, or Irish Catholic, or Buddist, the world *would* be a better place. It's only the diversity that makes things difficult. *Any* world-wide homogeny would engender the same results when it comes to peace and tranquility. Life expectancies might be shorter for some than others, but as long as you live past breeding age, why worry?

~
Starboy said:
I'm relatively sure that there are a number of unique characteristics that technically "makes us human". Most of them will be the physical definition of the species. Further, any animal can live a rational existance. Ants have no irrational beliefs, for example, but can exhibit signs of logical/critical thinking when faced with problems.

I can posit, on equally solid grounds mind you, that *emotion* is what makes us human.

lunachick

Hmmmm, I wondered less about the western Abrahamic faiths and more about eastern mysticism when reading this thread. (I already think of the Abrahamics as being foolish and regressive).

But years ago I read Fritjov Capra's The Tao of Physics and it was a fascinating book. Changed a few of my world views at the time, and made me wish I'd paid much more attention to physics and maths at school.

In the book, Capra (a physicist) draws parallels between 3 schools of modern physics (quantum mechanics, theory of relativity and sub-atomic physics) and eastern mysticism (Tao, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc).

Is this an instance of a critical thinker discovering his spirituality through critical thought; using his scientific knowledge and heightened awareness to make the connection between two seemingly opposite world views and/or 'dimensions'?

Gemma Therese

Lunachick, ever heard of Thomas Aquinas? Does "Summa Theologiae" ring a bell?

Gemma Therese

ImGod

Well, since I’m a mechanical engineer by profession, I thought I’d chime in with my own anecdotal evidence regarding critical thinking and engineers. I’ve worked at three consulting engineering firms and have been surrounded by 95% male engineers for about 10 years. The companies have ranged from 2000 to 10000 employees and I’ve been in buildings with engineer populations ranging from 400 to 2000.

First,

There are many professions that tack engineer to their description in an effort to add more credibility the profession. I’ve always wondered how engineer became the catchall phrase that adds a sense of technical knowledge to a profession. So my garbage is picked up by a sanitation engineer, I flush and the waste management engineer takes care of it, I call the building engineer to get my light bulb in my cube changed, etc., etc.. Therefore, having a title of engineer can be rather misleading in my opinion.

Second,

Most engineers have personality types of amiable-analytical or analytical-analytical. It is a prerequisite to do some of the tedious work required to complete design calculations. These personality types lead to the following traits common to most engineers; they can’t make an important decision without first researching it, they feel good when surrounded by information and/or ideas they are familiar with, they are uncomfortable with change, and they do not challenge other people unless they are “experts” in the subject. The engineers I know that fall outside these common personality types are what we like to refer to here as “management”.

My experiences are that engineers think so cautiously that it appears they are not doing it in real time and they will go along with an idea until they understand it in detail. That is why you never call an unexpected meeting at my company to brainstorm for ideas. You schedule your meeting with a brainstorming session on the agenda and allow them to research ideas and bring brainstorming lists.

The amiable and analytical personality traits cause most engineers to submit to those with more expressive personalities, because a typical engineer only speaks up when they are the “expert”. Therefore, and expressive person can fool an engineer into believing they are the expert, unless a true expert is there to prove the expressive person wrong. The “I’m always right” engineer you run into is an expert in his field, and is uncomfortable with change or outside opinion.

Finally Religion,

I was religious based on the personality types I’ve given above. My parents/church and later my own church were the “experts”. Non-expert engineers are easy to herd. I converted to my wife’s brand of christianity without giving it a second thought. Never even bothered to find out the differences in history, doctrine, political views, etc. Here’s were the educational deficiency mentioned comes into play. My personality was one to not question the expert if I hadn’t researched the answers and it was reinforced by the way things were taught to me in the schools I attended. Good grades in high school and in the engineering fields can be achieved by memorization of the material. I was able to go through engineering college by learning where to find the right material in the right textbook. Regurgitation was the key. My thought processes due to my personality allowed me to trust the experts. It wasn’t until I decided to become an expert by doing a comparative religious study that I can to this site. When comparing the atheist viewpoint to the rest of the religions, I suddenly had the data I needed. I stopped following and made my own conclusion.

I’ve always been on the outer fringe of the engi-nerd world. That’s why I was able to think outside the box enough to get me to this point in management and, thought embarrassingly late, to this point in my critical thinking towards religion. Had I been taught critical thinking processes years ago, I think my ability to understand the processes of nature, math, and science would have lead me to atheism much sooner. I was just a marginal christian and never thought about it much until pushed by intellectual curiosity.

I think personality traits factor heavily into how much you go along with the crowd outside of your level of expertise.

Starboy

Living Dead Chipmunk:

Without getting into a discussion about the difference between reason and logic I will for the sake of argument grant your point that perhaps other creatures exhibit reason to some extent. There is no creature on the face of the planet that does it to the extent of humans. Our use of reason in mainpulating our environment is how we survive. Take that away and we are nothing. No other creature has that limitation or strength, it makes us one of a kind. It makes this discussion possible.

Starboy

galiel

Sadly, no. I went through a "Quantum Tao" phase too. The more I learned about actual science, the more I realized that a) there were some outright falsehoods in this book and others;b) correlation does not imply causation. There are all sorts of coincidental similarities in our world. That does not mean they are connected. This was exacerbated by extreme poetic license. I find the Tao te Ching to be a beautiful work of philosophical poetry, and it contains much wisdom which is the natural result of profound thinking. (By the way, it will, of course, resemble other products of similar thinking in other cultures, which is no more proof of connection or divine affect than it is proof that thinking humans come to similar conclusions about similar things) c) Capra's approach is really no different than other "start with the conclusion and select facts to match" approaches: focus on similarities and ignore dissonances. With so many examples to choose from in so many complex processes, it is no harder to find parallels between quantum physics and Taoism than it is to find prophesies about Bill Gates in Bible Code. It is all part of human ability to find patterns even when there are none; d) the actual physics and science taught in these books is so oversimplified and partial (since its sole purpose is to find evidence that fits), that I had to unlearn most of it and start all over again to glean useful principles from it.

Final point: I highly, highly recommend gaining at least basic familiarity with systems theory. Many seeming correlations are no more than the natural similarities between systems of similar complexity. Understanding system principles helps one to understand how our infinitely complex world can arise, of its own accord, from simple natural processes without requiring intervention.

I just opened the Tao Te Ching (Stephen Mitchel's beautiful literary translation) to a random page.

It says:
"The Tao is like a well:
used but never used up.
It is like the eternal void:
Filled with infinite possibilities."

Now, if I were writing a popular book about relativity, I could interpret this as a precient statement about the second law of thermodynamics; if I were writing about the theory of multiple universe I could interpret this as a statement worthy of Stephen Hawking. If, on the other hand, I were writing about "zero stage energy" devices and cold fusion, I could interpret this as support for perpetual motion devices and infinite sources of invisible energy.

NONE of these interpretations have any utility at all, any more than the fact that the words "Sun" and "Son" sound similar in English is evidence that Jesus went supernova at the dawn of our Solar System.

[ November 06, 2002: Message edited by: galiel ]</p>

Kassiana

DC, I merely stated my opinion that Ronin was, and has continually, been behaving like an asshole. When he behaves like one, and then complains about how he's treated...I think he has less credibility than Jerry Falwell.

If that's "having a chip on my shoulder," then so be it. That chip is staying. If someone asks for ill treatment by refusing to treat others well, they shouldn't bitch about how they're being treated in return.

Kassiana

HD:
...life isn't all about rationality, and I can still believe in gods no matter what the scientists say.

Kass:
Darn right.

Demigawd

<strong>Wouldn't it be more logical to use that time for something that aids humanity in a physical sense? People are dying while you paint your pictures. If you're bored, and have time on your hands, wouldn't sheer rationality dictate that you use that time for the betterment of others?</strong>

How is the betterment of others over oneself more rational, or logical as you say, than placing oneself first, others second?

<strong>Or, if you reject that premise, shouldn't such time be used for the betterment of yourself? Paint pictures if they can make you more money, for instance. Read a book that increases your knowledge base. Exercise. Logically, that would be a better way to spend your time no matter what meter stick you're using to measure "better".</strong>

Or painting pictures for the pleasure gained from painting pictures, or reading books for the pleasure of reading books. Rational behavior does not automatically equal always racing rats.

Starboy

Kass & HD:

You are free to believe as you wish, but do not claim it makes any sense or that it is reasonable or logical. Do not force your point of view on others through violence, indoctrination or government. If the religious would understand this, the world would be a much nicer place to live.

Starboy