logo Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
2023-02-05 06:36:08 CoV Wiki
Learn more about the Church of Virus
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Donations now taken through PayPal

  Church of Virus BBS
  General
  Church Doctrine

  Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
previous next
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
   Author  Topic: Revisiting the Great Faith Wars  (Read 19331 times)
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.76
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #15 on: 2009-12-17 19:13:53 »
Reply with quote

So here's my reckoning here. Hermit and David want Faith as the first sin, largely because they've always been committed to those positions, but not dogmatically so of course . . . or would that be faithfully so? Who's to say? We resolved this once, but not to be dogmatic its been a while so David stirs the pot so to speak. So why not? For a short while Faith had a triumphant return, but now its a bit more even. Oh the drama!! yes you can change your votes, indeed I don't think there is any limit on vote changing unless and until David locks the poll. It could go back and forth before the end. So lets hear all the filibusters. Its not as complicated as health reform or climate science, but that's no reason to not pretend it is for entertainment sake if nothing else. We actually have those archived somewhere. I have never read it over since. I think KMO was more active then, and he and I agreed on a few different things which seemed to stand out at the time. It was ages ago. I'm not even sure I could remember for sure what I even meant about some of that. Something about embodiement of metaphors, manifesting the meaning. Certainty perhaps, the Bayesians will simply guess or calculate a percentage number like Lucifer does with we hope some implicit understanding of an always more complex underlying reality. I suppose we should take the fact that he sticks around to answer questions some evidence of that, but as an attorney I know better. Personally I cunningly opt out with a three letter two word acronym PanCritical Rationalism. Which actually translates into the more standard Engrish as "Alright everyone, good job, anyone have questions?"(someone else suggested the shorter "bullshit, bullshit, anyone have questions?" interpretation and I'm still thinking on that)

Somehow through our great collective memetic struggles and grand community building experience we solved the puzzel, we finally said "Dogmatism" and hugged. And now David wants to ruin everything we ever shared!!!

just kidding, but don't let that stop you if you're still feeling the faith, . . . or was that dogmatism? Or simply .75?

-Mo

« Last Edit: 2009-12-17 19:20:37 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Walter Watts
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.92
Rate Walter Watts



Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #16 on: 2009-12-18 00:31:20 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Hermit on 2009-12-17 03:20:24   

And as far as faith and belief are concerned, that war is won.

Consider that a Jesuit will not argue with you unless you accept his axioms, and once you accept his axioms, you have lost. If you use his words, then you have accepted his axioms too, as part and parcel of the package.



Actually, I took his exact words (the Hebrews 11:1 definition of faith) and clearly showed him that they were arranged wrongheadedly.


All the silly season sentiments.

NOT!


Walter 
Report to moderator   Logged

Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.


No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
Hermit
Archon
*****

Posts: 4269
Reputation: 8.96
Rate Hermit



Prime example of a practically perfect person

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #17 on: 2009-12-18 00:54:35 »
Reply with quote

Sorry Walt, I can see how you construed my comment as applying to you, but it didn't in the slightest.

As you observe, you tossed out his definitions and went for the jugular. I agree.

My comment was aimed at the idea of trying to use words as loaded as "faith" and "belief" in the midst of a discussion about them and trying to imagin that your pureness of heart allows you to make them mean something quite different from that which those "wickedly competent" memeticists bequeathed to the world.

Kindest Regards
Hermit
Report to moderator   Logged

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.47
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #18 on: 2009-12-18 13:20:43 »
Reply with quote

who cares?

here a little something for perspective> http://curvedwhite.com/post/288623557/the-known-universe-by-the-american-museum-of


Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2009-12-17 19:13:53   

So here's my reckoning here. Hermit and David want Faith as the first sin, largely because they've always been committed to those positions, but not dogmatically so of course . . . or would that be faithfully so? Who's to say? We resolved this once, but not to be dogmatic its been a while so David stirs the pot so to speak. So why not? For a short while Faith had a triumphant return, but now its a bit more even. Oh the drama!! yes you can change your votes, indeed I don't think there is any limit on vote changing unless and until David locks the poll. It could go back and forth before the end. So lets hear all the filibusters. Its not as complicated as health reform or climate science, but that's no reason to not pretend it is for entertainment sake if nothing else. We actually have those archived somewhere. I have never read it over since. I think KMO was more active then, and he and I agreed on a few different things which seemed to stand out at the time. It was ages ago. I'm not even sure I could remember for sure what I even meant about some of that. Something about embodiement of metaphors, manifesting the meaning. Certainty perhaps, the Bayesians will simply guess or calculate a percentage number like Lucifer does with we hope some implicit understanding of an always more complex underlying reality. I suppose we should take the fact that he sticks around to answer questions some evidence of that, but as an attorney I know better. Personally I cunningly opt out with a three letter two word acronym PanCritical Rationalism. Which actually translates into the more standard Engrish as "Alright everyone, good job, anyone have questions?"(someone else suggested the shorter "bullshit, bullshit, anyone have questions?" interpretation and I'm still thinking on that)

Somehow through our great collective memetic struggles and grand community building experience we solved the puzzel, we finally said "Dogmatism" and hugged. And now David wants to ruin everything we ever shared!!!

;) just kidding, but don't let that stop you if you're still feeling the faith, . . . or was that dogmatism? Or simply .75?

-Mo


Report to moderator   Logged
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.76
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #19 on: 2009-12-18 18:29:58 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-18 13:20:43   
who cares?


[MoEnzyme]:Who's . . . whose asking? 



:::Mo Shrugs:::
« Last Edit: 2009-12-18 18:33:45 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.47
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #20 on: 2009-12-18 20:05:23 »
Reply with quote

that little footage is a matter of faith too...the flu vaccine? faith. gardasil?? FAITH. the children of science are no different from the children of god. so who cares?


Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2009-12-18 18:29:58   


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-18 13:20:43   

who cares?

[MoEnzyme]:Who's . . . whose asking? 



:::Mo Shrugs:::
Report to moderator   Logged
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.76
Rate MoEnzyme



infidel lab animal

View Profile WWW
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #21 on: 2009-12-18 21:07:09 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-18 20:05:23   
that little footage is a matter of faith too...the flu vaccine? faith. gardasil?? FAITH. the children of science are no different from the children of god. so who cares?

Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2009-12-18 18:29:58   

Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-18 13:20:43   
who cares?


[MoEnzyme]:Who's . . . whose asking? 



:::Mo Shrugs:::



I seem to have misunderstood the questions. Thanks for clarifying.

seasonal flu - check (September 09 shot - $20)
H1N1 - check (November o9 vaccine - free)
gardasil - not applicaple
Dogmatism - check (Dec 09 booster)

Faith? meh

[Mo]: hands his answer sheet in and sits back down with satisfaction. 

« Last Edit: 2009-12-18 21:31:36 by MoEnzyme » Report to moderator   Logged

I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme


(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.96
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #22 on: 2009-12-18 23:08:33 »
Reply with quote

[Lucifer] I don't think the addendum adds anything to my definition because it is logically implicit. If there is a mountain of evidence against some assertion, then there is necessarily sufficient evidence to believe the logical inverse of the same assertion.

[Hermit] I don't think it is this simple in logic or in common language usage (which often are at loggerheads suggesting a deliberate effort to prevent logic from being applied). For example, I think you may need to think hard about the paradox of material implication and its impact on your conclusions. For example, "If DNA alteration occurs during transubstantiation then the babble is true" is a logically true statement because DNA change does not occur. Even so, as the if clause is not satisfied, the sentence, though true, does not make a statement about the truth value of the babble because the statement does not assert, "if DNA alteration does not occur during transubstantiation then the babble is false". Remapping the problem domain to a social problem as suggested by "Wason's selection dilemma" might help you think about it further.

[Lucifer] I'm not sure what your objection is here. Here's an example to clarify my point: consider the assertion "the earth is less than 10,000 years old". I think we can agree that there is scant evidence to support the assertion and a mountain of evidence against it. The logical inverse of the assertion is "the earth is not less than 10,000 years old" or equivalently "the earth is older than 10,000 years".  I see this as simple in logic and in common language. 
Report to moderator   Logged
Blunderov
Archon
*****

Gender: Male
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.93
Rate Blunderov



"We think in generalities, we live in details"

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #23 on: 2009-12-19 02:04:39 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] I have been fortunate enough to acquire a rip of Richard Dawkins' "The Enemies of Reason".

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

We have watched only the first part so far but  in the context of this thread I would like to venture the following quotations from it:

"Science frees us from superstition and dogma and enables us to base our knowledge on evidence..."

"previously I've explored how organised faith and primitive religious values blight our lives..."

"the fault line lies deeper even than religion..." [Bl. My emphasis.]

"There are two ways of looking at the world; through faith and superstition or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence - through reason..."

"reason is facing an epidemic of superstition that impoverishes our culture."

[Blunderov] " The fault line lies deeper even than religion". Yes.

I kow that I have said that "faith" is too broad a term for what it is the we at the CoV intend to convey in our priciples. Paradoxically though, the meaning is also not broad enough. We disavow also numerology, astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui and trickle-down-economics amongst many other things which are not religions.

Dawkins points out the nature of this deeper fault line. He explains that all creatures depend for their survivial on the ability to recognise patterns. These patterns may be real or not, but there is a strong tendency for creatures to retain unreal patterns if it appears to them (from a slippery slope of random coincidences for instance) that it is a real pattern. The only antidote to this is the scientific method.

So, our enemy is that mechanism which permits persons  to be deceived into believing that unreal patterns are real. "Dogma" works for me in this regard, but I wonder if replacing both faith and dogma with "superstition" might not be even better? Superstitious thinking is at the root of all religion after all, so the word would satisfy on that score. And it would address so much more besides. (I seem to recall that the Soviet meme machine also found the word appropriate for their intentions to build a scientific body politic but perhaps we better not go there...)

So, if the choice is either/or, my vote remains that "dogma" to be retained.

Best regards.

Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.47
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #24 on: 2009-12-19 02:40:57 »
Reply with quote

i still dont get how science frees one from dogma. can someone please explain that to me?

superstition:

  1.  An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.
  2.
        1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
        2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.
        3. Idolatry.

everytime someone sticks a coin into a vegas slot to whirl lemons so they can win the jackpot, falls in love, has a baby, acts out of jealousy/anger/fear, invests in the stockmarket...they are being irrational...they are taking a chance...they are acting on belief that is not rational at all.

on the other hand, alchemy, herbalism, magic and even astrology is on more solid ground..dare i say, scientific grounds.. than whatever it is that any number of science infected godless people who indulge in the human activities mentioned above.

i have come to believe that religiousity and anything else that slipped into that fault line was born to assist evolution so that we can handle the condition of being human. faith..even religious faith...is a coping mechanism. you, me and the pope are here today because our ancestors were able to continue to procreate while bearing the terrible burden that is humanity with all it's attendant quirks like pity, violence, kindness, jealousy..etc. religion..superstition..all that mr.dawkins shun were assistants to human evolution.

i think superstition is wonderful(and i must add..i dont think astrology, magic etc necessarily fall under the 'superstition' category..the earliest mages were mathematicians and astronomists..alchemists and astrologists john dee was "a mathematician, astronomer, astrologer, occultist, navigator, imperialist and consultant to Queen Elizabeth I of England. He devoted much of his life to the study of alchemy, divination, and Hermetic philosophy"..do look him up..its all about how you want to define superstition)...its a soothing balm to deal with the uncertain murky crystal ball that shows life. the world would be a better place without religion, yes...but the world would also be a poorer place without god and religion. and superstition. which makes faith an acceptable liability.

on the other hand, there is no excuse for dogmatism. of any stripe.

Quote from: Blunderov on 2009-12-19 02:04:39   
[Blunderov] I have been fortunate enough to acquire a rip of Richard Dawkins' "The Enemies of Reason".

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

We have watched only the first part so far but  in the context of this thread I would like to venture the following quotations from it:

"Science frees us from superstition and dogma and enables us to base our knowledge on evidence..."

"previously I've explored how organised faith and primitive religious values blight our lives..."

"the fault line lies deeper even than religion..." [Bl. My emphasis.]

"There are two ways of looking at the world; through faith and superstition or through the rigours of logic, observation and evidence - through reason..."

"reason is facing an epidemic of superstition that impoverishes our culture."

[Blunderov] " The fault line lies deeper even than religion". Yes.

I kow that I have said that "faith" is too broad a term for what it is the we at the CoV intend to convey in our priciples. Paradoxically though, the meaning is also not broad enough. We disavow also numerology, astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui and trickle-down-economics amongst many other things which are not religions.

Dawkins points out the nature of this deeper fault line. He explains that all creatures depend for their survivial on the ability to recognise patterns. These patterns may be real or not, but there is a strong tendency for creatures to retain unreal patterns if it appears to them (from a slippery slope of random coincidences for instance) that it is a real pattern. The only antidote to this is the scientific method.

So, our enemy is that mechanism which permits persons  to be deceived into believing that unreal patterns are real. "Dogma" works for me in this regard, but I wonder if replacing both faith and dogma with "superstition" might not be even better? Superstitious thinking is at the root of all religion after all, so the word would satisfy on that score. And it would address so much more besides. (I seem to recall that the Soviet meme machine also found the word appropriate for their intentions to build a scientific body politic but perhaps we better not go there...)

So, if the choice is either/or, my vote remains that "dogma" to be retained.

Best regards.


« Last Edit: 2009-12-19 02:42:50 by Mermaid » Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.96
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #25 on: 2009-12-19 11:22:57 »
Reply with quote

[Blunderov] " The fault line lies deeper even than religion". Yes.

I kow that I have said that "faith" is too broad a term for what it is the we at the CoV intend to convey in our priciples. Paradoxically though, the meaning is also not broad enough. We disavow also numerology, astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui and trickle-down-economics amongst many other things which are not religions.

[Lucifer] In my view faith is not limited to religion, it also plays an essential part in numerology, astrology, etc., wherever belief deviates from evidence.

To answer Mermaid's question, empiricism in general and science in particular is the method used to align belief with evidence.
Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.47
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #26 on: 2009-12-19 12:57:51 »
Reply with quote

dear lucifer, i thought you were a scientist. what is the basis of your beliefs re "astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui"? (i am not touching trickle down economics)

not for argument's sake, but asking you pointedly:

have you hired an astrologer to draw your chart?
have you been to a psychic reading session?
have you considered studying tarot to understand it?
have you had an ailment that was alleviated through crystal healing?
have you lived in a feng shui'd house and a non-feng shui'ed house so you can compare?

have you aligned your beliefs with evidence or are you simply repeating what others have quipped famously and loudly?

for argument's sake, consider this: if i have had a positive experience with crystal healing and it matches the claims of healing it made(for me), why should i be loathe to believe in crystal healing? if i do, am i not a better with aligning belief with evidence than you were with the list above? i should get a gold star and you shouldnt!

not for argument's sake,

i have tried astrology. it fascinates me. i have had good experiences with astrology. i have also seen the ridiculous newspaper variety of astrology and consider it entertainment. on the basis of the evidence i have gathered, i believe that astrology is indeed science. unlike you, i have actually studied it and was tutored by my grandfather.

i also believe, based on my experience, that not all those who claim to practice astrology are indeed astrologers. there are charlatans. there are the uneducated and then there are the astrologers who study the subject and approach it with the reverence it deserves as a science.

if i reject astrology, isnt that dogma? especially if i have had evidence of it being legit. for me.

think of the flu vaccine. millions of people benefit from it. a small fraction react badly. millions of people enjoy shellfish. a small fraction get violently ill. should the flu vaccines be banned or shellfish deemed toxic?

on the other hand, homeopathy works for a handful of people(including yours truly) and i am willing to bet that majority of cov'ers would consider the remedies placebos. how does your evidence stack up against mine? especially if you have never tried homeopathy to cure any of your ailments...existing or past..?

my belief that you would label a superstition has proved it's validity to me and within the realm of my experience, my belief has weight...yours doesnt.

my point is that, your beliefs are true only to YOU based on your evidence and your experience. just as a fundie xian cant go about stuffing his opinion about creationism on impressionable children, a scientific minded rational person cannot go about trashing "astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui" without evidence or having experienced it themselves.



Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-19 11:22:57   

[Blunderov] " The fault line lies deeper even than religion". Yes.

I kow that I have said that "faith" is too broad a term for what it is the we at the CoV intend to convey in our priciples. Paradoxically though, the meaning is also not broad enough. We disavow also numerology, astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui and trickle-down-economics amongst many other things which are not religions.

[Lucifer] In my view faith is not limited to religion, it also plays an essential part in numerology, astrology, etc., wherever belief deviates from evidence.

To answer Mermaid's question, empiricism in general and science in particular is the method used to align belief with evidence.
Report to moderator   Logged
David Lucifer
Archon
*****

Posts: 2641
Reputation: 8.96
Rate David Lucifer



Enlighten me.

View Profile WWW E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #27 on: 2009-12-19 14:36:54 »
Reply with quote


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-19 12:57:51   

my point is that, your beliefs are true only to YOU based on your evidence and your experience. just as a fundie xian cant go about stuffing his opinion about creationism on impressionable children, a scientific minded rational person cannot go about trashing "astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui" without evidence or having experienced it themselves.

You're joking, right?
Report to moderator   Logged
Mermaid
Archon
****

Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.47
Rate Mermaid



Bite me!

View Profile
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #28 on: 2009-12-19 14:59:07 »
Reply with quote

never mind. i guess this discussion is over.


Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-19 14:36:54   


Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-19 12:57:51   

my point is that, your beliefs are true only to YOU based on your evidence and your experience. just as a fundie xian cant go about stuffing his opinion about creationism on impressionable children, a scientific minded rational person cannot go about trashing "astrology, psychic readings, tarot cards, crystal healing, feng shui" without evidence or having experienced it themselves.

You're joking, right?
Report to moderator   Logged
the.bricoleur
Archon
***

Posts: 341
Reputation: 8.46
Rate the.bricoleur



making sense of change
  
View Profile E-Mail
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #29 on: 2009-12-19 17:25:17 »
Reply with quote

That was post 666 mermaid.

It's a sign. No, a Sign. No, wait. The Sign. Or even better. The True Sign.


Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Reply Notify of replies Send the topic Print 
Jump to:


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Church of Virus BBS | Powered by YaBB SE
© 2001-2002, YaBB SE Dev Team. All Rights Reserved.

Please support the CoV.
Valid HTML 4.01! Valid CSS! RSS feed