Philosophy: books and discussion

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

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 .....

We can't, but why would they be more or less right than their successors? Is a religious belief only valid in its very first version? Then we're all doomed, or we should be studying Lascaux. But not even Lascaux is a reflection of the first religious beliefs.

For me that invalidates the whole thing. If beliefs can evolve over time, can be different for different people at the same time, even in the same country or city, what makes one belief better than the other? Since there is no external validation...

It's fascinating how Christians (and, I suppose, also Jews and Muslims) built a whole set of rules based on a book that says completely different things. Even when we have access to the original text, we keep sticking to traditional interpretations that have nothing to do whith what the text says. So who's right? In my view, neither. The Bible is a fascinating set of stories and an insight into the history and tradition of a group of people, nothing more.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

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

It's in the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
but I guess you might be asking if we can know it really happened.

As I don't think there is a god - I don't think it's true.
But it's still part of Judeo-Christian teaching whether it's true or not.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by 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.

Thank you Tim, and welcome Do you think Morin is difficult reading? So far I don't think so, but on the other hand I did stop reading this book... (Still planning to finish it though.)

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

It's in the Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac
but I guess you might be asking if we can know it really happened.

Just because it's in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean anything. Just imagine the World as we now know it was devastated and in a few generations hence, all the surviviors had in book form was (say) Lord of the Rings or The Da Vinci Code; might either of these books affect that future in terms of creating a new religion?

[beppe]

This discussion on religion is so interesting, and it is multifold pleasant thanks to the calm discussion, and the interest of the contributions. I will download the thread and put it on my reader.

I do not believe in God, although I would like to

I go to Church from time to time

I am working to bring up LD(3) as a Catholic.

Spoiler:

I had her baptized and soon I will go tho Church with her and her mother. A serious problem will arise when she will take her First Communion and I will not be allowed to, me being divorced and remarried.

Why I say all this?

Spoiler:

It is not a stream of consciousness, but the manifestation of my profound believe that the relation with the transcendent has to be on an individual basis. So every one has his own approach to it, ranging from active aversion to all encompassing adhesion, passing through absolute indifference.

If there are comments on my post I will expand it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by beppe

Well I am talking about apples falling. To predict exacty where they will fall you need to know at least:

a) detailed knowledge of mass distribution underground
b) detailed and actual state of air between end points
c) complete and accurate description of shape and surface properties of the said apple
d) detailed and accurate description of the detachment of said apple from branch of tree.

Are you Mandrake, my friend?

or you can do assumptions ...

What is the point with this argument? You always do simplifications and assumptions when you apply a theory. That does not mean that the theory is in any way less accurate or worse.

[tompe]

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 do not think that religion in any way give clear moral guidelines. But I do not understand why you need them. The rule of thumb to follow the laws that we have agreed on seems enough to me. And looking at the consequences and see if they are what you want.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

Just because it's in the Bible doesn't necessarily mean anything. Just imagine the World as we now know it was devastated and in a few generations hence, all the surviviors had in book form was (say) Lord of the Rings or The Da Vinci Code; might either of these books affect that future in terms of creating a new religion?

I'm probably missing the point , but I'm not sure why establishing the literal truth of the events in a religious text matters. Isn't the significant thing that adherents believe in the texts?
Christians believe in the Bible, they believe the story of Abraham because it is in the Bible.
So it's presence in the Bible does mean something - it means that Christians (and those of other religions that relate the story) believe it.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not think that religion in any way give clear moral guidelines. But I do not understand why you need them. The rule of thumb to follow the laws that we have agreed on seems enough to me. And looking at the consequences and see if they are what you want.

Good point. But the law is much more efficient when it is based on shared values. And the law cannot cover all aspects of living in society - or should not, although sometimes it seems people would like it to.

There is a discussion in my country right now to make a law forbidding people to wear a veil hiding the whole face. I am horrified, but most people seem to agree with this idea.

[TimMason]

Hello FlorenceArt. I found Morin rather heavy going, but perhaps that was because I came to the French language rather late in life. But I think that in general French intellectuals seem to practice a greater density of language than their anglo-saxon peers.

The story of Abraham is, I think, usually understood allegorically. God is both demanding - and his demands must be obeyed (down on Highway 61) - and merciful. At the time the text was written, this may have been a rather startling idea : after all, human sacrifice was by no means unknown. Another French intellectual who argues that the tradition out of which Jesus came was liberating, and that Jesus's death on the cross is a moment of importance to all humans is Rene Girard, whose book "On Things Hidden Since the Beginning of Time" is quite impressive.

Another book which argues that religions aren't just arbitrary collections of rules, but that they express something deeper, is Chris Knight's "Blood Relations." Knight finds critical knowledge in the myths of the people of Central Australia, the Arrernte.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

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

Doesn't matter. It is the story that is held up to be true by the believers, thus to them is "the word of God."

[mike_bike_kite]

I preferred this thread when it stayed on philosophy, having a logical discussion on religion is impossible as you either believe or you don't but an interesting book by Keith Thomas on the advent of religion is Religion and the Decline of Magic. It would of been particularly interesting if they extended the book to include science.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by tompe

What is the point with this argument? You always do simplifications and assumptions when you apply a theory. That does not mean that the theory is in any way less accurate or worse.

The point is my statement of the factual impossibility of representing reality
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...2&postcount=60

to which it followed a passionated reply by Florence
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...0&postcount=64

and an other, apparently more challenging by WTS https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...164#post950164

My post is applicable only to an apple, that particular apple, falling.

And my conclusion is that the actual falling of that particular apple escapes an accurate description.

If you compare the observations on the falling of that apple with the one computed with the theory, you only learn something about the limits of the theory. (mind you, nobody expressed the theory, just vaguely invoked it, except me who said apples fall downward). If you care, follow the chain of the posts.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by beppe

The point is my statement of the factual impossibility of representing reality
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...2&postcount=60

to which it followed a passionated reply by Florence
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...0&postcount=64

and an other, apparently more challenging by WTS https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...164#post950164

My post is applicable only to an apple, that particular apple, falling.

And my conclusion is that the actual falling of that particular apple escapes an accurate description.

If you compare the observations on the falling of that apple with the one computed with the theory, you only learn something about the limits of the theory. (mind you, nobody expressed the theory, just vaguely invoked it, except me who said apples fall downward). If you care, follow the chain of the posts.

When you talk about impossibility of representing reality you need to specify if you mean in principle or in practice. I do not see at all why it is impossible in principle to represent reality to any chosen accuracy.

It was pointed out the Newtons laws are approximate correct so event if the input data is totally accurate the result will not be totally accurate. So therefore I did not get why adding inaccurate input data changed anything from what was said in the text you quoted.

[TGS]

How about we go back to the beginning. Plato's Cave Simile has been mentioned and it's important in the history of Western philosophy because it articulates an intuitive distinction between "things as they are in themselves", and things as we take them to be. It represents the beginning of transcendentalism - the belief that behind this veil of illusion there is a transcendental reality, which, if we are lucky and we use the right practices, we might get a glimpse of, but even if we get no insight into the nature of this ultimate reality, we still, at some deep level, believe in it's existence. Kant called it a necessary category of thought. In a sense then we are all intuitive Platonists.

But what if the world isn't like that - check out this link at the Stanford Encyclopedia on process philosophy for an interesting summary of an alternative - non-religious - view.