Philosophy: books and discussion

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

If you release those aspects of religion that don't stand up to scientific method then what exactly is left?

For many, the feeling that life is more than the sum of its parts is sufficient. I would say that the awe felt by astronomers when they survey the skies or the beauty mathematicians find in an elegant formula could be considered a type of religious sentiment.

Even the mere suspicion that there is an overarching intelligence at work, past or present, is at heart a religious sentiment. It certainly isn't subject to falsification, it certainly isn't necessary to explain the inner workings of evolution, but it isn't inconceivable.

Personally, I am agnostic in such matters; but it seems remarkable to me that we live in a universe capable in any degree of comprehending itself. Why this should be, I have no clue. I am under no delusion that human beings are the central reason for the existence of the cosmos, nor do I think it evident that humans are its unique concern. If this present reality in any sense has a creator, it seems more likely that this creator is an experimental scientist rather than an omniscient shepherd.

[kennyc]

Beppe, you've become fruity.

Or veggie or something.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

For many, the feeling that life is more than the sum of its parts is sufficient. I would say that the awe felt by astronomers when they survey the skies or the beauty mathematicians find in an elegant formula could be considered a type of religious sentiment.
...

I would call that Spritual or Sense of Wonder moreso than religious. I make a special effort to separate this from what I call religion -- which is as I explained belief without proof.

Dang maybe we should start a different thread on this whole topic eh?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

.... If this present reality in any sense has a creator, it seems more likely that this creator is an experimental scientist rather than an omniscient shepherd.

or maybe a warped kid with a very strange sense of humor...

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

or maybe a warped kid with a very strange sense of humor...

That would explain much!

[beppe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Beppe, you've become fruity.

Or veggie or something.

It is the diet. That is Verdemus.

You will like this
http://www.khanacademy.org/

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

For many, the feeling that life is more than the sum of its parts is sufficient.

I'll take that, but without the religion, thank you

I am currently not reading (started it but got sidetracked ) a book by Edgar Morin, who is a French thinker of complexity. Probably not the most adequate wording, but I hope you see what I mean. Some atoms get together and you get a molecule, whose properties are not the same as the sum of the atoms' properties. Some of these molecules somehow got together and formed the beginning of a cell. Then some cells got together and a living organism was born. Living organisms can sometimes form incredibly rich and complex societies. And here I am, typing this when I should be working (again).

Isn't life wonderful?

[recluse]

I have a question.
Although it appears that organized religon in general has become unpopular, the concept of a clear set of moral guidelines with which to live by seems, to me, to be increasingly important. It is almost as if society, as it turns it's back on religon, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Where does one find moral guidelines in a religon free world?

[mike_bike_kite]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

I am currently not reading (started it but got sidetracked ) a book by Edgar Morin, who is a French thinker of complexity. Probably not the most adequate wording, but I hope you see what I mean. Some atoms get together and you get a molecule, whose properties are not the same as the sum of the atoms' properties. Some of these molecules somehow got together and formed the beginning of a cell. Then some cells got together and a living organism was born.

I'll have a look at that book. I quite liked Seven Clues to the Origin of Life by Cairns-Smith which covered the transition from chemical to biological life. The selfish gene by Dawkins is also required reading. I currently have Genome by Riddley on my reading list and this is also suppose to be a good read.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by recluse

I have a question.
Although it appears that organized religon in general has become unpopular, the concept of a clear set of moral guidelines with which to live by seems, to me, to be increasingly important. It is almost as if society, as it turns it's back on religon, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Where does one find moral guidelines in a religon free world?

... or in a global world where many religions and moral standards co-exist? Remember the thread about the boobquake?

Traditionally morals and religion are closely linked, but that only works in a world where everyone has the same religion.

I think that in fact all the different moral standards have a common ground that is not so small (murder is a no-no in all moral systems, although the definitions of murder may vary). The details are what kills us.

The problem is not the death of religion leading to the death of moral standards. We all have moral standards. This is something that is deeply ingrained in us, in part by genetic coding (chimpanzee have some seeds of moral standards, according to some studies), but mostly by education. These moral standards are shaped partly by religious traditions, but they survive them.

The problem is finding a common ground that allows us to live together in a world where different cultures and moral standards are constantly in contact. I'm not saying it's easy, but it doesn't need religion. In fact, we do it every day. It's not easy and unfortunately, too often it leads to violence. But on the whole, we do it.

Drat. Have to go back to work again.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by mike_bike_kite

I'll have a look at that book. I quite liked Seven Clues to the Origin of Life by Cairns-Smith which covered the transition from chemical to biological life. The selfish gene by Dawkins is also required reading. I currently have Genome by Riddley on my reading list and this is also suppose to be a good read.

Unfortunately Edgar Morin doesn't seem to be very popular in the English-speaking world, I think very few of his books were translated to English. It's a shame, but I'm sure there are other thinkers in the English language world that have related preoccupation. Don't know any names though

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Does religion ask, or does religion tell?

Or does religion seek to explain that which is otherwise unexplainable?

One of the issues I have with religion is the changes the message has undergone over centuries. Changes in interpretation, errors in translation, decisions by copyists to adjust statements so that they conform to the accepted morals/ideals of the age. How can we, now, be sure that the events now written in the sacred scriptures say the same as their original author, and messages not twisted to suit, especially as the author themself may be transcribing an event that happened many years before.

Science, on the other hand, tends to adjust earlier assumptions by further investigation, experimentation and realisation. Building on the shoulders of giants .....

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by recluse

I have a question.
Although it appears that organized religon in general has become unpopular, the concept of a clear set of moral guidelines with which to live by seems, to me, to be increasingly important. It is almost as if society, as it turns it's back on religon, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Where does one find moral guidelines in a religon free world?

I don't think religion provides moral guidelines.

All it seems to do is say if you want to get to Heaven then you must do x.
The justification for doing x is the purely selfish one of getting yourself into Heaven - the morality of doing x doesn't enter into it.

Abraham was prepared to kill his son because his god was telling him to.

One reason I'm not religious is because, even if many religions' Gods did exist, I don't think any are worth worshipping.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I don't think religion provides moral guidelines.

All it seems to do is say if you want to get to Heaven then you must do x.
The justification for doing x is the pureley selfish one of getting yourself into Heaven - the morality of doing x doesn't enter into it.

Abraham was prepared to kill his son because his god was telling him to.

Who said so .... can we believe that to be true ?

[TimMason]

Someone who may show a penchant similar to Morin's for synthesizing biological and sociological approaches to human behaviour is WG Runciman - he writes about memes here - although his writing is rather more accessible than Morin's.