Comments on World Religions Theology God Pantheism Morality

[Chris Wright]

Hi Karene,

I have already had a debate on this with Geoff ages ago, but I strongly disagree about the etymology of the word 'religion'.

[haselhurst]

Hi Chris,
Below is a post from WSM Yahoo group from about 12 months ago. It covers more than above comments of yours but is still pretty relevant. I would no longer write it quite so absolutely, and i agree that there are two ways of considering morality, from metaphysics (dynamic unity of reality), and from evolved human emotions (feelings of right and wrong, pleasure and pain). I think the best moral outcomes will occur if we take both aspects into account - so i am glad that you made me think more carefully on this.
Hope you find it interesting,
Geoff

----------------

Chris - But surely you are trying to spread this theory to everyone in the world? New ideas do not get anywhere if they remain only as debates between scientists! In the twenty-first century, the aim should be to bridge the gap between the scientific community and the public. Where then should I and others like myself go to further our knowledge of this theory and to discuss its implications?

Geoff - Well said, I agree. Knowledge is useless if it is not known by many people. As I said above, we need time at the beginning to get our knowledge better understood amongst us, particularly the main handful of independent theorists of which I am one. So we don't want you to go anywhere else, we want you to stay and help us, and also appreciate the early difficulties as we sort things out.

Chris - I have said before that science is objective and has to be as objective as possible if it is to make any respectable assertions. But your claims and web-sites are far from objective. It therefore seems natural to me that you should expect people to respond in a manner that is not entirely objective. Take this paragraph from your web-site for example:

[karene]

Hi Chris,
Thanks for your comment - your 'religiously brushing teeth' example made me laugh.
hope you made it thru Geoff's long post!

[Teric]

Science and Religion the two great antagonists of our times? You know, I think what we’re really talking about is knowledge of the physical universe and knowledge of the “spiritual” (for lack of a better word) universe. They represent the two sides of the head of an arrow and they both converge at the point, whether we like it or not. Then again for some there is no spiritual side to the arrowhead.

I extracted the following statements given by Chris in this forum, I would like it to be clear though, I don’t agree entirely on all the concepts published by Geoff, I do see things in a similar light.

Chris says- I have said before that science is objective and has to be as objective as possible if it is to make any respectable assertions. But your claims and web-sites are far from objective. It therefore seems natural to me that you should expect people to respond in a manner that is not entirely objective.

OBJECTIVE and SUBJECTIVE are defined as follows, the objective, having to do with material objects, uninfluenced by emotional or personal prejudice, based on observable phenomena. The subjective, proceeding from, or taking place within an individuals mind. If you look at these two definitions you’ll see that in reality one can’t exist without the other. Subjective and objective thinking only define the methods used for the acquisition of knowledge or awareness.

The quest of science is to unravel the fundamental truth, the reality we are conscious of, by observing and understanding the physical universe, utilizing as a prime tool the mind’s analytical abilities to manipulate and relate numbers to physical phenomena.

In contrast the quest of “the spiritual” is to unravel the fundamental truth, the reality we are conscious of, utilizing as a prime tool the minds (brain’s) ability of spontaneous awareness, intuition. Both methods are valid, one recieves, reflects upon the universes discrete nature and the other recieves or reflects upon the universes non-discrete (wave) nature.

Chris says- Incidentally, I asked a teacher of Classics what she thought the significance of the etymology of the word 'religion' was, and she agreed with me that the essence of a religion is that one binds one's self to it.

So then as your definition would have it, the knowledge you profess is of a very religious nature as you are very much bonded to it, subjectivity.

The scientist or philosopher must be both objective and subjective. Only machines can be purely objective. I believe the religion called objectivity is gradually taking man towards the stale and stagnant waters of materialism and skeptism. This religion prophesizes that a god will come in the future and this god will have a silicon brain and a mind conceived of algorithms. In such a future, man will find he can only play the role of a slave.

It is a human birth-right to be in tune with knowledge in its non-discrete form. Also, that we should posses the ability to classify it into discrete units or subsystems, only a balance of the two forms of knowledge can produce real knowledge.

Chris says- Why am I refuting most of the information in the above quoted paragraph? To illustrate a point. Anyone of a less romantic and more realistic temperament than yourself will be repelled from this theory because of your supposedly profound spraff. The WSM theory simply comes across as the centre of some religious cult. My warning is this: your quest will fail if you do not differentiate between emotion and fact.

I must say Chris, you definitely know which words to hurt with, religious cult!!!! Is this the pre-qualification quiz of an INQUISITION, was something similar said to Galileo or maybe Copernicus.

GEOFF, BE BOTH A SCIENTIST AND A PHILOSOPHER, it is an error to be one or the other, that which you must seek is always the middle path.

Again, I’m not in agreement with all of your concepts, Geoff, but the world is in dire need of real thinkers, such as your selves, women and men that attempt to see through the veil and with all sincerity try to convey what they see to others. Don’t get me wrong, I also acknowledge the great contributions made by all the women and men of science.


Sincerely, TERIC

[Chris Wright]

Hi Geoff, Karene and Teric
I have been bombarded by objections - which is most enjoyable - so I will respond in a few post on different issues.

First: etymology (to Karene and Geoff).
I must say that I agree with you (though with some qualifications) about what religion is and what it is for.
However, there is something fundamental at stake here - the only assertion I made was that your presentation of the etymology of the word 'religion' was false. Clearly, this is debatable (as your quotes show, even Cicero wasn't sure on the issue), but you cannot, nevertheless, choose which etymology you like on the basis of the way you view religion!
I think the word comes from 'religare' not 'relegere' or anything else - so do most scholars, and so do you. Then next step is to explain how this word 'to bind strongly' relates to religion today and in the past. Where we disagree is that you inteerpret this as a binding to God or even to the universe - I think it much more likely that it is a binding to a set of beliefs.
This is for the simple reason that Greek and Roman state religion - the systems to which the word would originally have been applied - were very much less spiritual than the seperate Gnostic mystery religions that later merged with Judaism to create Christianity and Islam.
This, as I wrote a long time ago, is backed up by a teacher of Greek and Latin.
Therefore, I would suggest you change that particular aspect of your section on religion - though I have no objections to the rest of it.
Chris
[/i]

[Chris Wright]

(To Geoff and Teric).
Nice to hear from you, Teric.
Please, first of all, understand that what you are responding to was written by me well over a year ago and pasted into this discussion by Geoff in response to this issue of the etymology of the word 'religion'.
This was, if memory serves, the first ever direct communication I had with Geoff, and it was - in its own way - a highly subjective response to a misunderstanding (Geoff, I though, had meant to ask me to leave the old WSM forum because I was not a scientist). As it turned out, this was not the case.
This, I hope, provides some context to my agressive writing-style and to my general argument that Geoff's website was too subjective for the presentation of a scientific theory.
I love philosophy and I love science, and I think the two should go together. I agree with Geoff's scietific views (or, at least, I find them attractive, but have not enough knowledge in physics to argue for them scientifically), and happen to disagree with some of his philosophical views.
One example of this: his belief that it is possible to logically extrapolate 'do unto others' morality from his (and others') scientific theory. I do not associate ethics with empirical knowledge - I think a study of methics is nothing more that sociology, psychology and politics.
Morality (from latin 'mores' - customs) is just how people behave - there is no objectively correct answer to the question 'what is right?'. That is just my view, and I presented it somewhat angrily to Geoff in that letter he quoted in his post.

[robertkernodle]

_____________________________________________________________

Fact Without Passion Is Immobile

Whenever people are approached in a manner as to be inspired to action, then those trying to inspire are looked upon with suspicion, called names, distrusted, feared.

Facts seldom have this effect. Facts alone without passion are cold and are not the devices that shape human cooperation.

Science and philosophy that can have passion moves people. We should not fear motivating or inspirational language. Neither should we be swayed by it blindly. But the programmed reaction to avoid passionate language simply because it shows feeling should be retrained.

If people cannot embellish their facts with feeling, then the world certainly will remain immobile, content in its dispair and destruction which facts alone seem to engineer.

And, yes, I speak here from feelings


Robert

[Chris Wright]

Hi Robert,
I agree - but think it's important not to displace accuracy with rhetoric. Sometimes ideas sound more convincing when they are vague - without full definitions, it can be impossible to argue against a given proposition. But if it is unclear and vague then, even if the masses except it, they will not have any significance.
So sometimes we have to be boring and make sure we are talking sensibly as well as stylishly.
Chris

[robertkernodle]

Yes Chris,

I know where you're comming from. My observation is that people respond more to tone than to fact--- a funny thing about human nature. And, yes, this can be bad. But it also can be good sometimes. The trick is to know when the good of passion-over-reason outweighs the bad.

I know this sounds suspect to you, but people as actors or performers or physical entities use language differently than strict thinkers. That's the wonder of language--- it is so much more than the words alone or the supposed facts that the words encompass. Natural language has a depth or richness beyond its content, propelled with what stage actors call "the IT factor", meaning the unique performance factor of its delivery.

This scares scientists, but THIS IS TRUTH, if I may allude once again to Geoff's appeal to truth in my own twisted sort of way

You see, scientists have this other aspect of language to deal with, which many times they seem to be in denial of. But I embrace this aspect of words and aim to use it responsibly, which I believe should be the goal of fact finders and reporters.

Sometimes our passion gets the best of us, and that's where the fact police can keep things in check. Sometimes passion is projected through this nubulosity that you mention, but strangely people can lock into it nonetheless, which might serve better than a total void in the absence of 100%-agreed-upon fact. In leu of total agreement, sometimes all we have is the passion of nubulosity--- this too gives purpose and focused energy to a group of individuals. Again, scary stuff, in the wrong hands.
But in the right hands, a way to color life where otherwise it might be bleak.

This is sort of what religion does, would you agree?


Regards,

Robert

[Chris Wright]

Hi Robert.
I think you've hit the nail on the head - religion gives colour to otherwise bleak situations. The danger comes when these colourful stories are taken literally, and when the resulting literal interpretation supports a religious body that has enough poltical power to crush intellectual opposition. Gnostic Christianity was a spiritual, beautiful, peaceful way of teaching a way of life, with striking similarities to Buddhism. It made up allogrical stories to teach people philosophy, and over time these stories became unquestionable, historical truth. A man was nailed to a cross. A great being in the sky created the Universe. And now people argue over whether these things are true! Truth is not something we can apply to fairytales, but that doesn't make them worthless.
And then, with religion, there is the issue of life-purpose. We all must have a life-purpose. The best ones are those that cannot be acheived in this life - a Socialist Utopia, finding acceptance for your particular theory about life, the Universe and everything, or even entering into the Kingdom of Heaven. If you have a realistic life-purpose, there is always the danger that you might acheive it, and thereby destroy any significance that your life had. It's all about competition, see, and wanting to be better than everyone else. In the past, we had tribal wars; now we have ideology. Colour? Yes: violent, lustful, bloody red.
Ironically, original religious teachings were about transcending this ever-lasting war that feeds on illusion - in Buddhism you escape reality to Nirvana, in Gnosticism you are reborn by acheiving Gnosis, in Platonism you must free yourself from the cave, etc. Now these ideas are the very basis for those battles that they tried to end.
Chris

[Beers]

Religion, and more specifically western religion, has done more damage to the world and to humanity than anything I can presently think of. The foundations of Christianity, Judaism and Islam are the ideas that humans are somehow seperate and better than the rest of the natural world. They see themselves as caretakers ( stewards) and more dangerously as having dominion over the Earth and all it holds.
This idea is a faulty foundation for anything let alone the most powerful religions in the world. It encourages a false sense of privlege and power.