[Aj_]

Originally Posted by rlpw

Isn't it! But it is becoming what happened to Russia back in the late 80s. Sooner or later the people will get sick of not having a say in their government while finally realizing that Communism is an overly corruptible system. They will either try to clamp down, collapse, or have a civil war.

Russia! An another example of how capitalism is making life wonderful for people... How is it possible for someone to state communism to be "an overly corruptible system", while preaching the brilliance of capitalism? It's ridiculous.

[rlpw]

Well, for one thing, Most capitalist nations are based on a true representative government. These governments along with true freedom of speech (Like the US and most European Nations) are as close to actual freedom and equality as you will ever get. I hate to say you can't never make everyone happy but at least, unlike Communism, the minority has a voice

Russia has slid from bad to worse but by in large they let their country atrophy to the point where Putin will probably become a dictator due to his ties with the FSB (it replaced the KGB) and the peoples inherent fear of it. We'll see

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by rlpw

Well, for one thing, Most capitalist nations are based on a true representative government. These governments along with true freedom of speech (Like the US and most European Nations) are as close to actual freedom and equality as you will ever get. I hate to say you can't never make everyone happy but at least, unlike Communism, the minority has a voice

Non-communist, doesn't mean that nations are fully capitalist, not even the US, and definitely not the European countries you cite. Capitalism as an economic system isn't related to democracy, capitalism also emerged with fascism. If these neo liberal democracies is the closest thing to freedom that we can achieve then we're in trouble, and equality is a joke.

[rlpw]

If their is one thing I love Aj, it's your cheery outlook on life. I admit I lean toward the Libertarianism than most (I despise the governments intrusion into our homes, lifestyles, and bedrooms as long as it doesn't directly effect anyone) I am happy you share your beliefs openly.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

A proper loving relationship, when one values proper things and integrates them into their own self fully (e.g. valuing honesty, one must become honest, valuing rational independence, one must not be co-dependant) will blossom into an amazing and easily life long relationship full of complete admiration and respect. A proper loving relationship, since to say "I love you" one must have a clear concept of "I" and a clear concept of "you" can not come from two people who fear being alone, who don't like spending time with themselves, who perpetually seek to be distracted from dealing with their own innate boringness, it must come from two independent intelligent people sure of themselves both doing what they most want to do.

A proper loving relationship comes from where the individual rational self interest of two people meet, no one giving up any part of themselves for the sake of a 'relationship' but both of them forming a profound and amazing relationship based on the thing most important to each of them.

Very interesting. I completely agree with the above, myself; it reminds me of one of Rainer Maria Rilke's Letters to a Young Poet, actually. That being said, what the account appears to lack is a rational justification for why we seek to love others. It's true that we're biologically hardwired to mate and perpetuate the species, but if that were the justification, we'd all be seeking relationships based solely on whether a person would be a good father/mother for our children. Obviously, though, this isn't the case, as there are plenty of other reasons to care for someone than for the purpose of mating with them, as I'm sure you know very well.

There are also rational reasons for loving humanity as a whole, and perpetuating a society in which everyone is safe from harm and science and technology can progress. Still, they fail to take into account the close relationships we have with particular others that transcend this generalized regard for the well-being of one's society. Close friendships, if you will.

Going back to the objectivist account you quoted (I haven't read the entire forum post; just skimmed through it, but I might get back to it later. I also noticed some Aristotle in there... fascinating.), loving particular others because they possess certain character qualities that we either see in ourselves or want to develop in ourselves does make sense to me, but the argument for rationality seems a bit circular. Honesty, independence, kindness, integrity, and even the very ability to reason are not manifestations of the material world, and their existence cannot be proven through scientific means. They are qualities that you have to believe in, and in a sense, they do not even exist until you believe in them.

The concept of God, in my personal, subjective understanding, functions in a similar way. Of course, it's ridiculous to believe that God is an anthropomorphic dude in the sky telling people to do stuff; that outdated conception was indeed created by humans in an attempt to put a concrete face to the abstract. In this sense, I do very much agree with your sentiment that "man created God in his own image". That said, I do believe that we do come from something, though it's impossible for us humans in our limited capacity to understand exactly what that something is. We get closer and closer, but never quite get there, like the asymptote that approaches infinity. Science seems like it can explain everything, but then another theory comes along and disproves everything we've taken for granted two hundred years later.

I'm no better at describing God than anyone else, but I'm more inclined to think that God isn't a being, but something much more abstract - the source of our being. The origin of all these character qualities we hold dear to our hearts, even the ability to rationalize. Like gravity, we don't sense it, but we do sense its effects. And also like gravity, we could be wrong about it at this point in time, and Einstein's account of relativity might be closer to describing the true nature of this phenomenon; however, the physical manifestations of such a phenomenon remain one and the same, no matter how we describe their origins.

Am I making any sense, here?

[SnorkleCat]

Oooh I have arrived late, but I did read all four pages of debate...

A thought. It's easy to criticize communism without recognizing that some of its very same flaws affect capitalist nations as well- namely the old "poor people nickel and dime their way through life while the leaders live like fat cats" example. What burns me up is that people don't realize that for capitalism to work, some people MUST fall through the cracks. Not everyone can be a thinker, an artist, a leader, or a business owner. When conservative leaders talk about cutting extracurricular programs like art, drama, language, sports, and music in favor of "getting back to the three Rs"...what they are REALLY saying is that they want to ensure that the box stores, restaurants, and factories have an army of marginally educated people to mind tills and turn screws and feel very, very grateful for $6 an hour. Interestingly, Christianity also applauds this kind of placid, plodding humbleness with promises of big rewards at the end. It seems to me that the Religious Right is mainly concerned with limiting people and forcing folks into places they may or may not want to go. As a woman, suffice it to say I'll never, ever in a million years (or is it 6000? )embrace much of what is written in the Bible and I can't imagine why any self respecting woman would want to.

Also...I agree that a democratic system is the most fair, but it is more complicated than just "Hooray- everyone has a right to vote!" People need decent educations and they need to be encouraged to think and ask questions- only then can they really enjoy the benefits of having a vote. I know people who DON"T vote; generally, they are nice, inoffensive, complacent. unastounding people who don't think it's their duty to fret over anything except who might get voted off the island next.

Personally, during the last election, I felt done in by uneducated voters- the ones who said "Rah rah! Go George! George is a strong leader who is going to clean up all the terrorists!" I feel like many of those people did NOT have a realistic view of the political situation and they lacked the critical thinking that was necessary to deconstruct what was really going on in Iraq (eg. Was the war in Iraq REALLY linked to the war on terror? Did it have anything at all to do with the Taliban? And...sayyy...what IS going on at home in the Senate these days anyway and why am I so concerned with Iraq that I have no idea what's going on in Congress? etc etc.)

I interviewed hundreds of people at political rallies, college campuses, and National Guard homecoming celebrations, and the picture I got was pretty depressing.
Sure, everyone in America has a right to vote...but SHOULD they?

I think people should have to qualify to vote by taking a test which would quiz people on certain facts- how government works, who are the candidates...what are the candidates' platforms, what powers do various elected/appointed positions hold, what does Proposition Whatever the Hell mean? etc etc etc. Just because one has a pulse and a marginal grasp of the language doesn't mean one is going to have a beneficial effect on the country by opening one's yap and "expressing AN OPINION." Americans are very fond of that. Expressing OPINIONS. I wish more people would do the damned research and think critically before just: "votin' Republican coz we always vote Republican and I like Mr. Y better anyway than Congressman X because Mr. Y has got a wife and stuff and Mr. X don't and I got a family so I think that Mr. Y is gonna have my interests at heart in Congress more than Mr. X does." (real example by the way- I was covering elections in Maine at the time. If this guy had taken the time to actually look at POLICIES he would have seen that Mr. X's entire platform was FAR more progressive toward working families than his opponent's which was all about stuffing the coffers through regressive taxes.)

Blah! I'm ranting now. Just color me cynical!

[SnorkleCat]

Am I making any sense, here?

Perfect sense. Pardon the double post, but this one will be much shorter...

People often talk of spirituality- or of sensing something "greater"...or special... I don't know if I even understand what people are talking about. For me, life is as matter-of-fact as it gets. I do not feel that there is any higher meaning or reason behind anything...no destiny, no kindred spirits, no paths crossing for a reason...none of that. Nor do I need there to be. I am simply happy letting things be just the way they are. The only things you can really expect are change and death. I'm okay with this. I would really hate it if the universe were ruled by the Christian god; it would be truly tragic to be subjected to the petty tyrannies of Someone Like That.
I rather like the open ended vastness of the universe as it is and all that blank space makes me happy.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by SnorkleCat

I would really hate it if the universe were ruled by the Christian god; it would be truly tragic to be subjected to the petty tyrannies of Someone Like That.

Me too. I know I'd certainly be burned at the stake if that were to be the case.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Honesty, independence, kindness, integrity, and even the very ability to reason are not manifestations of the material world, and their existence cannot be proven through scientific means.

*spits tea* What!?! Those things aren't magical, they're very much explainable through science.

Science seems like it can explain everything, but then another theory comes along and disproves everything we've taken for granted two hundred years later.

Isn't it great? It makes an attempt at explaining something.

The origin of all these character qualities we hold dear to our hearts, even the ability to rationalize.

Evolution?

Am I making any sense, here?

Not really, I understand the "God is love" liberal religions less than the fundamentalists. They're a lot less harmful though.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Over half of the US don't believe that evolution has happened. There are states where performing abortions is dangerous, and more difficult than it's worth to the doctors. Bans on stem cell research have popular support. And get this, about 80% of them believe someone was born of a virgin, was able to fly, and had the ability to become undead! Over half believe the rapture will happen, many in the next 50 years. It's only a Straw man fallacy when it's a misrepresentation of their position.

Sam Harris quoted something like 53% of Americans believe this (20% that Jesus will come in the next 20 years, 30% in the next 50 years - depending on who you side with that's 2-3 decades to repent your sins). And yes, these people vote.

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Aj_

*spits tea* What!?! Those things aren't magical, they're very much explainable through science.

*sits down and waits for explanation*

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Science seems like it can explain everything, but then another theory comes along and disproves everything we've taken for granted two hundred years later.

I think most scientists would disagree with you about wanting to explain everything, or at least acting like it can. And Richard Dawkins would most likely be the first to. What science is about, I think, is figuring out how things work, not by empirical observations alone, but also by formulating ideas based on them, asking 'what if..', etc.

And that's one of the profound differences - a VERY critical difference - between science and the Bible (or the Koran, etc.). Science is and will always be up for improvements, open ended, flexible. Religion (as in dogmatic belief in God) is not, and furthermore is based on systems laid down during the Bronze Age and fundamentally unchanged and unchallenged ever since.

Oh, and Squinky, thanks for the Matrix Origami gif. That seriously made me chuckle.

EDIT: If you really think about it, it is religion (as in dogmatic belief in God) that claims to explain everything (that is, an end all be all explanation), not science.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Squinky

*sits down and waits for explanation*

What do you think neuroscientists like Sam Harris do? You also think that science can't inherently explain those things, why?

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

I think most scientists would disagree with you about wanting to explain everything, or at least acting like it can. And Richard Dawkins would most likely be the first to. What science is about, I think, is figuring out how things work, not by empirical observations alone, but also by formulating ideas based on them, asking 'what if..', etc.

And that's one of the profound differences - a VERY critical difference - between science and the Bible (or the Koran, etc.). Science is and will always be up for improvements, open ended, flexible. Religion (as in dogmatic belief in God) is not, and furthermore is based on systems laid down during the Bronze Age and fundamentally unchanged and unchallenged ever since.

I won't argue with that. It just bugs me how a lot of laypeople do (or seem to) claim that everything is explainable by science. Also, thank you for clarifying "dogmatic belief in God" as your definition of religion. I disagree with it just as much as you do.

Originally Posted by Aj_

What do you think neuroscientists like Sam Harris do? You also think that science can't inherently explain those things, why?

I haven't really read Harris, but neuroscience only appears to explain "how", and not "why". Asking "why" would be delving into the realm of philosophy.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Okay, I'm all for respecting other people's beliefs and all, but any religious person who actually believes the above in a literal sense ought to be smacked.

This prompted me think on how I feel about religious moderates. I think that they're practically even worse than the fundamentalists and the current trend of pushing for interfaith dialogue, I think, can't work in the long run.

Religious moderates refuse to allow their beliefs to be questioned, it's taboo to challenge them. Why is that? This refusal pretty much applies to all belief systems, but I'll focus on Muslim beliefs as an example. Moderate Muslims purport to follow the Koran faithfully and without any kind of public zealotry. In fact they go out of their way to distance themselves from their fundamentalist kin, condemning their terrorizing acts, violent behaviour, and murderous ways.

But look into it closer. The Koran practically brims with proclamations on jihad and martyrdom *. If you are a Muslim you are required by your god to literally follow the 'wisdom' in this book. You MUST follow it unquestioningly. Anyone and everyone not doing so is an infidel, therefore you must destroy them. For your succesful effort, for your self sacrifice, you will be forever and ever rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins and other eternal delights. Now, you tell me who are the most faithful ones. Is it the moderates, who passively worship Islam and cherry pick from the Koran? Or is it the men who followed - perfectly and precisely - the book's teachings, and magnificently wiped out the World Trade Center and 'successfully' annihilated over 3000 infidels?

In the end, in the long run, I think the most frightening of the two are the moderates, behind whom the actual fundementalists can safely hide. And they can hide in luxury precisely because the moderates refuse to let us challenge their beliefs, unflinchingly, and time and time again, claiming that God is untouchable so back off.




* Historically those passages in the Koran were written millenia ago, of course, when there were very bloody, very violent religious wars between various factions split from the original tribe. Again I emphasize that these ideas remained fundamentally unchanged and unchallenged ever since. We're talking about present day terrorism and martyrdom based on principles from thousands of years ago, never taking into account the progress that we, as civilizations and as societies, have made since.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Squinky

I haven't really read Harris, but neuroscience only appears to explain "how", and not "why".

Perhaps you want evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins then. Our brains developed through evolution.

[SnorkleCat]

I do think that emotions, feelings, love and so on all have logical, unromantic, and often harsh sounding explanations. Why people feel the need for the romance is a bit more of a mystery to me, but I imagine it has to do with being primates living in social groups.

I think lots of people deceive themselves into thinking they are more special, memorable, talented, and loved than they really are because they need to believe they are special in order to feel secure and to thrive. Humans need to believe they are special and deserving of love, even if they accomplish nothing of value (a very personal definition, that) and prove to be inept (again, a highly personal definition) in every way.
Having the love and respect of your family, peers, and society means you don't go hungry or lack for shelter. It means people are glad to see you and that you're part of a working community. You contribute something. You get something.
Those people who don't have any such love or regard from their fellows might well find themselves homeless for a variety of reasons, especially if they are perceived as inept or unmotivated. I think some people never fully embrace their own reality-whatever that is- and end up quite lonely and bitter because they feel unjustly censured by those around them despite the fact that they may not have produced or accomplished anything that would draw praise from the very people whose love and praise they seek, and mistakenly believe they are entitled to unconditional love and respect. (the midlife crisis, cynicism, disillusionment etc) Sounds pretty harsh, I know, but I don't think there can be true unconditional love between humans- we have too much evolutionary baggage for that. I do think that lack of productivity, ineptitude, or perceived uselessness will erode any type of love eventually (even parental love).

Humans need to believe they are worthy of love at all costs and entitled to it.

So my question is this...are they?

[Squinky]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Perhaps you want evolutionary biologists like Richard Dawkins then. Our brains developed through evolution.

Again, another "how". *sigh*

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Squinky

Again, another "how". *sigh*

That's confusing use of language, I thought you meant a question like, "why is the sky blue". I guess you want meaning. There doesn't have to be a meaning, you don't have a reason to believe there is, or what that meaning might be. You demand one, and perhaps try to invent one, but that's irrational.

[Intrepid Homoludens]

Originally Posted by Aj_

That's confusing use of language, I thought you meant a question like, "why is the sky blue". I guess you want meaning. There doesn't have to be a meaning, you don't have a reason to believe there, or what that meaning might be. You demand one, and perhaps try to invent one, but that's irrational.

Yes, Richard Dawkins touched on this very point. He stated that once you scratch a believer in God she could easily blurt out, "But I have to believe in something, I just have to. I need meaning in my life, I need meaning in this world. Without it I can't live."

If you think about it, the universe (beyond believing in a god) owes us nothing, and it certainly doesn't owe us any meaning. I'm sorry but that's just tough. It's tough. To claim that you have some kind of contractual agreement with everything out there is just silly, isn't it?

However, that does NOT necessarily mean that life is completely and utterly pointless. It seems that one of our coping mechanisms for survival, hell, one of our sources to rely on to not only survive, but actually thrive, prosper, and eventually evolve - and when I thought about this I almost wept, it's SOOOO GODDAMN BEAUTIFUL! - is our innate ability to create meaning!!! We can then work with that meaning in whatever way we choose: our family and loved ones, our art, the natural world in which we live, the science we do and improve upon.....anything and everything!