The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[Larry]

Interesting thesis statements. I particularly am curious to read what you will write on #4. #6 is going to be very hard to adequately complete. How will you ever understand the perspectives of people from ages ago without specific written accounts to work from? 9, 10 and 11 are also very interesting to me.
What exactly do you see as so compelling in the oral/written distinction? I brought it up previously simply because today's youth approaches things so differently than in ages past (even decades past) by virtue of the flood of visual media that has supplanted other forms, to the extent that even music is a multimedia experience. But, what aspects of it do you see as important? How different is it really to read or to be read to, unless of course, as in ages past, most people couldn't read? Does this issue have the same level of importance as the others you have listed?

This is a much bigger subject than I think anyone here realized when we started discussing the issues.

Now some of this I haven't decided myself how I'm going to tackle, but I'll try to address a few of the questions:

For #4, I'm very much influenced by the E.P. Thompson school's modification of the Marxist model to allow for cultural interaction (and clashes, of course). I'm not strictly a neo-Marxist or cultural materialist by any means, but I plan on exploring the strengths and weaknesses of that model as it relates to discuss the influences of epic ideas on a populace.

#6 will indeed be very tough, but sometimes just acknowledging that is what is required.

As for the differences between oral/written cultures, I have some extensive training in recognizing patterns. When reading epics like The Illiad, note that the repetition was purposely done to reiterate a point spoken aloud. When reading The Aeneid, there's a rhythm there that's part of a patterned written/read aloud sequence.

As for its importance, I'd say this might be the most important. You raise a good point about today's culture. I don't know if I really want to get into the characteristics of a post-literate culture, but I'll consider it at least.

Feel free to ask more, but I'm about to go to bed! I work graveyard shifts these days at a residential treatment center and I've been up since 6PM. So if I'm late in replying, that's probably the reason why. Hopefully, this will lead to a new set of angles to explore in this fascinating topic

 

[Scott Bakker]

Then I guess the hiccups went away pretty quickly. Good, those can be a real nuisance.

I was laughing at your joke! Dirty pool, Texmex... You had me sifting through my prior posts looking for where I called your views laughable.

Science is different in that it attempts to understand the physical -- not the metaphysical. One can believe everything that is replicable in science and still hold religious beliefs. The two do not necessarily conflict.

I have no problem with this whatsoever. But analogy suggested by this

In practice I compare religious theory to the theories of medical science or biopsychology and say that the complicated nature, the inability to test and replicate under tight controls, has to do with the human element.

strikes me as very implausible, and for a reason you yourself give. The explananda of religion are, as you put it, metaphysical. As a result - and this is almost a matter of principle - whatever evidence you adduce faces the problem of interpretative underdetermination. Even if you were allowed to present all your evidence, all I need do is shrug and give you alternate interpretations. You could reinforce your positions with further interpretations, of course, but once again, all I need do is reinterpret. And this in fact is what happens in such debates, back and forth, up and down, this side convinced of the veracity of their interpretations, that side convinced of theirs, on and on and on, without definitive resolution of any key issue.

Wouldn't you say this is an honest description?

Because if so, then you agree with me, because really, this is all my point is: institutions such as philosophy and religion have incredible difficulty generating theoretical truth-claims that command rational consent (or any other of the theoretical 'virtues' I listed) - at least in the way science does.

I mean think, really think, about the amount of 'consent' - both from individuals and from the world - involved in making the computer you're reading this message on possible. It really is extraordinary. Or think about the difference between the ancient Assyrian understanding of the world and our own - it really is mind-boggling how much more we know. A modern doctor could decisively show an ancient doctor why his beliefs are faulty, but a modern priest or pastor, I suspect, would have much more difficulty when faced by his ancient counterparts.

Precisely because the subject matter of the latter is, as you say, metaphysical. It simply can't be tested in any manner that practically closes down the problem of interpretative underdetermination.

This is the model of hypothetico-deductive method you need to give me - one that can provide regress enders, that can resolve issues and move on. Otherwise it's bound to sound like ad hoc rationalization - as if you have a handful of cherished and comforting conclusions you simply cannot relinquish, and so must argue after the fact.

To give you an example of the type of interpretative see-saw we could get on:

As far as near death experiences go why invent 'souls' and 'afterlives' and 'deities' to explain something that can be more easily explained by similar hallucinations produced by structurally similar brains under similar kinds of profound duress, given that we already know neurophysiological duress produces hallucinations?

My half of this argument is actually pretty easy, since I don't have to definitively 'prove you wrong,' only show that you can't definitively prove yourself right. Since this is metaphysics we're arguing about, my point pretty much makes itself.

I will bring this all back to fantasy - I promise!!

Addendum: Thanks for the titles btw, Texmex! (Another example of my bad manners!)

 

[Scott Bakker]

The grist has finally arrived! How would you model the relationship between 1, 4, and 10, Aldarion? Doesn't the repetition of the form means that it is trans-cultural, which would suggest that our hardwiring has a powerful role to play?

 

[Dawnstorm]

The grist has finally arrived! How would you model the relationship between 1, 4, and 10, Aldarion? Doesn't the repetition of the form means that it is trans-cultural, which would suggest that our hardwiring has a powerful role to play?

Imitation of form (re. surviving artefacts: scrolls, books...). + 5 & 6

Would that make sense?

 

[Bond]

The problem is that it's evidence and not self-interest that warrants factual beliefs.

But there is evidence isn't there: The universe we are in. Its existence ultimately narrows down to two possibilities: design or fluke. Either way, the problem as formulated is based on factual observation. Or are there other possibilities you have in mind?

Also in the absence of external fact what else is there to go upon? We're back to Descartes and cogito ergo sum.

By the way I must take issue with your earlier simplistic assertion as to the cheapness of belief. The value of belief in relation to knowledge I would contend has similarities to the value of water in relation to diamonds. The faith/knowledge dichotomy has aspects similar to a water/diamond paradox.

On another note, probably directed mainly to Gemquest, why the fascination with Nietzsche? I haven't really read much of him but aside from providing a much needed respite and gifted cynical snide counterpoint to the idealistic ivory tower kind of philosophizing finds of others, what does Nietzsche have to recommend him? For me he seems to share a niche with Marx and between the two he seems the lesser. Marx created Das Kapital and the communist movement. Nietzsche wrote less known works and his ideas were co-opted by fascism and nazism. What's the draw?

 

[Larry]

The grist has finally arrived! How would you model the relationship between 1, 4, and 10, Aldarion? Doesn't the repetition of the form means that it is trans-cultural, which would suggest that our hardwiring has a powerful role to play?

Tough question, one of the main reasons why I've been so slow in the actual writing stage so far. If I had to use a metaphor to develop the connections, I would equate it to being like the waves, flowing inwards and outwards within a society, staying mostly the same, but with just enough differences to reflect the changes that have occurred over time.

One of my best friends just challenged me on the assumption that what I've written smacks of selective inclusion. She thinks that non-Western cultures have often radically different interpretative/associational models (if I'm understanding her correctly, and I believe I am, based on prior discussions - she's an anthropology grad student at UF) and that I better be very careful not to make a sweeping universal model without acknowledging those differences at least. She has a point, although as you point out in your question, what I'm pondering here are the trans-cultural elements.

So for me to develop a workable model, I'd certainly have to think about how we transmit our ideas. In most oral cultures over time and space, repetition was used as a method of imparting not just the basics of the culture, but also served to provide an underlying sense of stability to the stories by creating those wave-like patterns that repeat, but with differences, what has come before. I'll be working on this more later, obviously, as it's a bit rough and unclear in spots. Also, I do believe that the modified Marxist model I mentioned above would serve this paper best because its focus on cultural dynamics allows for a concise and understandable working of the tensions that propel and repel cultural interaction and change. It's often flawed in its presumptions, but I just haven't seen a better workable model for what I want to discuss.

As for hardwiring, I'm like you in believing that it's a main force, although I always add the caveat that for certain people, places, and times, certain elements are going to be emphasized more than others, although the underlying elements are always present.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Bond - I actually think he was one of the most profound (and poetic) philosophers of all time. I spent years studying him and I wrote my master's thesis on him. Popularity, notariety and profundity are not necessarily related concepts.
His Joyful Wisdom and Twilight of the Idols, as well as Beyond Good and Evil are absolutely brilliant, though perhaps not as organized or 'clinical' as most german scholars expected from their philosophers. His perspective was new and unique, and before he totally lost his mind, just before, his level of insight into human nature was incredible.

He was one of the more abused and misunderstood thinkers of all time, thanks to the Nazis and the Catholic Church. But when you write a philosophy text titled, The AntiChrist, I guess you have to expect to make some enemies.

I cannot begin here to go into any detail that would be meaningful, short of saying what I have just said. For me, he was the most refreshing philosopher whom I studied extensively. He changed my entire perspective totally.

 

[Scott Bakker]

Bond: So you're saying, all things being equal, then self-interest does count?

But if you come to the conclusion that the question of God's existence cannot be answered, isn't that actually what you believe? Deciding to believe in God simply to cover your bets smacks of bad faith, don't you think?

I've always joked that being honest to what you know has simply got to be good enough, and that if there is a deity waiting on the other side, and he punishes my honesty with oblivion or hellfire or the like, then the Cathar's were right: the greatest trick Satan ever played on humanity wasn't convincing them he didn't exist, but convincing them his name was 'God.'

By the way I must take issue with your earlier simplistic assertion as to the cheapness of belief.

All I meant by 'belief is cheap' (and I'm sure I stated this at the time) is that anyone can believe anything anytime, and that this is what makes our ability to rationally arbitrate between beliefs so important. I'm not sure how this fits into your diamond analogy. Did you think I was saying belief in general has no value?

 

[ironchef texmex]

You know, with the debate seeming to be heading in the direction of tail-chasing, I had decided to let your last post be the final word on the subject... Then I got bored.

My half of this argument is actually pretty easy, since I don't have to definitively 'prove you wrong,' only show that you can't definitively prove yourself right. Since this is metaphysics we're arguing about, my point pretty much makes itself.

Gosh, No Dog, that doesn't sound very open-minded.

Feel free to laugh at that. That one actually was a joke.

Do you remember how this got started? You said that it was impossible to know the meaning of ones own existence. I said that I knew mine. I think this last post was another example of your dropping into the 'institutionalized' mode. I was never trying to prove to you that God exists. The only way I know of to truly convince someone of the existence of God is to commit murder, and since my particular set of absolutes has a commandment against that very thing... well, it just won't happen.

My purpose all along was not to out-debate you, I never do that. I don't debate on this site with a win-lose philosophy. I'm just here to read the comments and run my head. My purpose was to defend my statement in regards to knowing ones own existence -- I can and I do.

Oh, Aldarion's earlier point still holds, and, I think, relates to yours. I can't 100% know. No, that's right, I can't. But between what I've studied and experienced in my own life, it's at least 99.44% Ivory pure in the direction it is pointed at now. If you think that I can't say the word 'know' because of the .56, well I disagree.

Science is a wonderful thing. That's why I spend so much time studying it. That's why I write sci-fi, not fantasy (at least so far). But the realm of science is constructed largely from the beliefs of its scientists (theories), and as unbiased and 'scientific' as they may try to be, the simple reality is something that you've already mentioned -- it is just astounding how people can convince themselves of things that they truly want to believe. It usually doesn't matter. Usually nobody cares whether gravity is a particle or not, or whether human DNA is programmed strip it's own telomeres beyond a certain age. But every once in a while....

Scientists don't sound very much like scientists to me when they start saying that NDE's are the result of a mass hallucination. They start to sound more like people who want to convince themselves. Of course I can't convince them to change their minds. Not without... you know. But based on all I've seen and experienced I say again about my meaning -- I CAN AND I DO. No wishful thinking about... Well, .56 wishfullness, but that's about as good as I really think I can hope for.

 

[Archren]

Science is a wonderful thing. That's why I spend so much time studying it. That's why I write sci-fi, not fantasy (at least so far). But the realm of science is constructed largely from the beliefs of its scientists (theories), and as unbiased and 'scientific' as they may try to be, the simple reality is something that you've already mentioned -- it is just astounding how people can convince themselves of things that they truly want to believe. It usually doesn't matter. Usually nobody cares whether gravity is a particle or not, or whether human DNA is programmed strip it's own telomeres beyond a certain age. But every once in a while....

Scientists don't sound very much like scientists to me when they start saying that NDE's are the result of a mass hallucination. They start to sound more like people who want to convince themselves. Of course I can't convince them to change their minds. Not without... you know. But based on all I've seen and experienced I say again about my meaning -- I CAN AND I DO. No wishful thinking about... Well, .56 wishfullness, but that's about as good as I really think I can hope for.

A book you might enjoy is "Passage" by Connie Willis. You may not like the extremely ambiguous ending, but her character portrayal of the main character is worth the price of admission alone. Anyway, it deals with the NDE issue (in fact, if she hadn't won so many Hugos, I think most people would call it a mainstream fiction work. )

If scientists don't sound scientific when postulating that NDEs are simply what happens when a hominid brain goes through the death process, they also wouldn't sound terribly scientific when saying that it proves the existence of an afterlife. What is needed to decide between these two *interpretations* of the data is another testable hypothesis. Something that would ONLY be true if one of the interpretations is true, and could NEVER be true if the other one is. I'm sure there are many people out there working on the problem. Until then, as No Dog would say, we're not *compelled* to choose one way or the other. You like your interpretation, and that's cool. I like the other one, and that's cool too.

Frankly, science is at its weakest when dealing with questions that get the general public really, really emotional. Medicine and psychology fall prey to this most often, and I sure don't envy them. On the other hand, since their issues raise such a brouhaha, they get lots of notice and lots of funding. Physics doesn't raise anyone's ire quite the same way, and it is often ignored. Still, I think most physicists (particularly myself) prefer it that way.

I almost think that the world would be a poorer place if science could ever absolutely prove or disprove the existence of a soul. (Especially since I'd hate to be on the wrong end of the Great Scientist Massacre if we ever disproved it.) I'm glad they can't. And it is OK that science has limits and that there are things that it can't do. Those limits are precisely the reason that they can (again to paraphrase No Dog) compell belief in truth-claims.

BTW, Ironchef, I really enjoy your posts and I hope you don't get offended by all the misunderstandings and poor phrasing and talking past each other going on around here. Such is the nature of the internet, eh?

 

[Archren]

But between what I've studied and experienced in my own life, it's at least 99.44% Ivory pure in the direction it is pointed at now. If you think that I can't say the word 'know' because of the .56, well I disagree.

I have to say that my life experience (limited as it is... I'm working on expanding it ) leads me to lean about 75% in other directions from yours... that's where that difference between the physical and metaphysical comes in, right? I mean, despite all our differences in life experience, we probably both figure that if we drop something, it'll fall. Or that things that are heavier than air can fly. But we believe (I imagine) totally different things about metaphysical stuff, right? If I'm correct in my thinking (ah, hypothesis testing!) this is a fact that you & No Dog both agree on, right?

Do you guys even differ on interpretations of the above fact?

 

[ironchef texmex]

that's where that difference between the physical and metaphysical comes in, right? I mean, despite all our differences in life experience, we probably both figure that if we drop something, it'll fall. Or that things that are heavier than air can fly. But we believe (I imagine) totally different things about metaphysical stuff, right?

I think you misunderstand what I mean by experience. I'm not talking about some vague I-feel-God-inside-of-my-left-earlobe existentialism. I've seen the miraculous, Arch. I've seen something so absurd that if I even told you half of it you'd dismiss me for crazy. The .56% of doubt for me is that I hallucinated the whole thing... me, Mr. Milktoast no drugs, no alcohol, no anything, and felt perfectly lucid at the time.

To me, metaphysical doesn't mean that it has no basis in this world, only that it can't be measured for the usual physicalities like speed and temperature. It doesn't mean that there won't be times when it can be seen or felt.

I actually went to a couple of NDE web sites today. I used to be big into the God/no God debate, but I hadn't had much use for it in the past few years, so I just wanted to see if anything had changed. Alot of them are including the experiences of coma patients and "almost" dead people in their lists. That seems odd to me. And yes, there certainly are plenty of people working hard on debunking them. I read a couple of articles assuring me that even the most outlandish tales (blind guy describes visual details while floating) would be proved as elaborate hoaxes and that once we understood consciousness we would understand this as well. I'm thankful for their assurances; I feel better now.

Your part about science's dealings with the general public was exactly what I was trying to say earlier. I couldn't agree more.

I even agree with the part about science discovering the existence of the soul.

If I'm understanding his stuff right, the main point of disagreement between No Dog and myself is the notion that science can prove things 'better' or with more 'validity' than religion can. My belief is that it proves things 'differently'. And while we here in the "enlightened" Western world certainly view a printout of test results as being more trustworthy than a batch of people who say that "their lives have been changed", I just don't see it that way. Numbers can mislead too.

And to anyone who thinks that whatever science says, goes in the minds of modern man, here's a little hypothetical from my side of the thought-line: What if science DID come out and say that they had found absolute proof that there was no God? Had the *printouts* and everything. How many believers do you think would change their views based on that proof, no matter how 'compelling'?

 

[Grantaire]

Ah, I'm diving into the fray rather late here. Yes, I'm new to the site, and Aldarion pointed out this thread to me.

If I'm understanding his stuff right, the main point of disagreement between No Dog and myself is the notion that science can prove things 'better' or with more 'validity' than religion can. My belief is that it proves things 'differently'. And while we here in the "enlightened" Western world certainly view a printout of test results as being more trustworthy than a batch of people who say that "their lives have been changed", I just don't see it that way. Numbers can mislead too.

And to anyone who thinks that whatever science says, goes in the minds of modern man, here's a little hypothetical from my side of the thought-line: What if science DID come out and say that they had found absolute proof that there was no God? Had the *printouts* and everything. How many believers do you think would change their views based on that proof, no matter how 'compelling'?

Science is based off of critical reasoning. Hypotheses are tested, and if they're found to match the results of experimentation, they are *true* (I am NOT looking to get into an argument about truth right now though , but if you feel like attacking me on that front No-Dog, go for it ). That is because they are quantitative analysis. You can look at the results of even the simplest scientific experiments, and draw exact conclusions, and replicate it. Drop an apple and an orange from the exact same level, time how long it takes them to hit the ground. From such a simple experiment, you can draw quantitative conclusions about various things (acceleration, gravity, etc). However, can you do that with things such as philosophy, religion, and psychology?

I argue that those are only open to qualitative analysis, which is why nothing in them can truly be agreed on. In those subjects, you can only think about the qualities of them- the typical person on thinking about the idea of a "God" can only think of the qualities, such as benevolence, almightiness, etc. Can you think of the size of God? Say "oh, God is 20 cubic kilometers?"? You can't effectively quantitatively analyze ideas like those. Take other things- love, hate, thought, morality- can you put numbers to those? Can you give an exact description that is not open to interpretation? You can certainly give qualities of them, but not numbers. Numbers are not open to interpretation. If someone tells you that a piece of string is exactly a metre long, you know how long that is, because it is numeric and unarguable. But if someone says that there is no such thing as good and bad, that can be argued, because there is no precision, only opinion that can be interpreted. And thus it is with all philosophy, religion, etc. Nietzsche gave us his ideas about morality, the Overman, and others, and we can certainly give debate to his ideas, can we not? When you read Thus Spake Zarathustra, his words are only interpreted by you, and conflict with your ideas. But if you read a scientific paper, you know (excepting error of course) that it is correct, because numbers can be proved . You cannot prove God because the very idea makes him unmeasurable. Something that is unmeasurable can always be argued.

I think I got the bulk of my ideas across. Go at it No-Dog, Aldarion, texmex, and Gemquest

 

[ironchef texmex]

Welcome to the site Gran, always good to see a new face. NOW PREPARE TO BE DESTROYED!!!

Just kidding.

Actually I agree with almost everything you said. Just a couple of quibbles.

"Numbers are not open to interpretation."

In a sense this is true. The only way to debate 2 + 2 is with the kind of pure relativism that doesn't allow for any debate whatsoever. But 2 + 2 isn't science. It's arithmatic. Science comes up with a great many things that are true. I think we all agree on that. The question is whether science is the only institution which makes valid truth claims. My usual tactic in this discussion has been to point out that once you get into the far more complex ranges of science (we're not talking 2 + 2 anymore) you tend to lose the unanimity. For example:
Taking the minimun number of base pairs that are required for the DNA of the most simple organisms, scientists have proposed that the odds of life occurring spontaneously on any planet in the universe are roughly a percentage point of the number one with a few dozen zeroes in front of it. A while back Carl Sagan gave his own number -- one in three.... per planet.

Religion is about relationships, the most important being the relationship with your creator. There is nothing of a 2 + 2 type simplicity about relationships. Does the fact that religions don't use the scientific method automatically disqualify them from the ability to make truth-claims? I say it doesn't.

 

[Grantaire]

Always nice to be greeting with destruction

Okay, okay, I know that I automatically connected arithmetic and science- but science is backed by mathematics (thus the quantitativeness).

I know that what you're really arguing is whether science is the only institution for valid truth claims. I guess that what it comes down to is if you only accept cold hard numbers, or you accept ideas- whether you can accept a quantitative description over a qualitative one and vice versa. That depends on the person.

Religion is about relationships, the most important being the relationship with your creator. There is nothing of a 2 + 2 type simplicity about relationships. Does the fact that religions don't use the scientific method automatically disqualify them from the ability to make truth-claims? I say it doesn't.

You say this, and like I said, it is a perspective that truly depends on the person. Myself, I like to see numbers on a page before I truly believe anything. You can believe things without that type of proof- I respect that, it's just a difference in the type of person someone is.

The very concept of relationships is something that can only be described subjectively, and if that is what religion is about, doesn't that mean that religion can only be proved subjectively? If something is entirely subjective, I simply don't see how it can be proven. We claim all the time that things are true without using the scientific method, and we see that they are true. However, I don't believe that that means the scientific method can be bypassed for truth, rather that they are the simplistic truths.

 

[ironchef texmex]

The very concept of relationships is something that can only be described subjectively, and if that is what religion is about, doesn't that mean that religion can only be proved subjectively? If something is entirely subjective, I simply don't see how it can be proven. We claim all the time that things are true without using the scientific method, and we see that they are true. However, I don't believe that that means the scientific method can be bypassed for truth, rather that they are the simplistic truths.

I'm not sure I understand what your saying in the last sentence. As for the rest, I agree with everything else you said except for the part about relationships being described subjectively. I would say that they are described allegorically. No numbers on a page, true, but for them to be subjective we would have to be talking about things that are not universal, not common to the human condition.

We've branched off into something that I'm saying is more complicated that calculus, so bear with me. This won't be easy to explain.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that there is no divine plan of creation; evolutionary forces are the only ones that have shaped humankind. evolution (namely survival of the fittest) being what it is, our brains would be hardwired for specific patterns of relationship, all with a purpose of continuing the species. Men would be 'programmed' to seek out as many sexual partners as possible, thus spreading their genetic material far and wide. Women would be programmed for intimate relationships, thus improving the survival chances for their young by hopefully garnering a helpmate in childrearing. By this model, women would be posessive, men would be deutshebags (yes ladies, you were right all along ). And the only exceptions would be the genetic anomalies that come from random mutation. The various facets of their relationships would be things that could only be described figuratively, but they still wouldn't be subjective. The genetic 'rules' would still apply.

I don't believe every part of that, but that's about as simple a model as I can think of. Like I said, people are complex. Every person has unique qualities, but I believe that most aspects of our natures are comman to the human condition: People want to feel important. Tell a woman that her clothes make her look fat and prepare to have a bad day.

It's easy to look at unique appearances and mannerism and think how different everyone is, but I think that in most respects people are alike. Basic things, the 2 + 2's of humanity. Pain hurts. Obvious things like that. I don't think that relationships are subjective at all. And I've got Dr. Phil to back me up on that one!

..............................uh, just ignore that last line.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Part of the problem is the attempt to compare science and belief to begin with. They are two totally different animals, by definition. Who would try to argue that facts are facts and beliefs are beliefs?

we have decided that one plus one equals two, so one plus one does in fact equal two. so what?

We have not all agreed that god exists. We have no factual basis for that agreement, only belief. Belief does not, by definition, require facts to support it. Call it irrational then. So what?

But the subject is values, not belief, and value systems are generated by societal need as much as anything else. That does not have to render them always relative. Humans from age to age have more in common and more that differs than just the structure of their society. Humans from age to age are animals that must live and breathe in the proximity of other humans. So, values arise from that premise naturally. Much of behaviour is psysiological, but we are still rational beings, so we try to make sense of behaviour, and we still hope and dream, so we try to plan for the future. How could science ever measure what has not yet occurred?

Science does much for mankind and it functions in its own realms. Ethics and science are distinct and separate, and when they meet, we have issues. Cloning, abortion, the definition of life etc. We all know them too well.

 

[Grantaire]

I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was aiming for: if you have a relationship with someone, and then two different people look at that relationship, they won't be saying the same thing to describe it. So I'm saying that if religion is about relationships, shouldn't people looking at religion describe it differently, thus making it only able to be described qualitatively?

For the argument that you're presenting, I think that it would definately depend on if someone was a strict materialist or not. If you think that the mind is something more that simply matter, then you would likely think that interpretation isn't totally rooted to the human condition. A lot of your argument there was based on your misunderstanding of what I said, so I apologize for that.

Yes, humans are for a part unique. There are the superficial differences (skin, height, weight, etc), and the personality, but you're correct, for the large part we're all basically set on the same template. We all generally react in similar ways (if a stranger came up to pretty much any human and slapped them, I'm sure most humans would be pretty angry), and have similar desires and such. But, as I'm not a strict materialist, I think that the mind and personality set us apart, and perhaps free us from following only the human condition and what our genes program us as/for.

Oh, and what I was saying in the last sentence of my previous post, about simplistic truths is that they are truths that are easily objectively qualified (i.e. a car sitting in front of you is blue, and someone says "the car directly in front of you is blue").

 

[Larry]

Re-reading the more recent posts brought two images to mind: one being that of a photograph and what that photograph represents to the Masai people of Kenya and surrounding countries. For the Masai, a photo is more than just an image captured on a two-dimensional glossy surface. Instead, that photo is the sign of a theft, of the removal of part of a person's soul.

The other image is that of the squared circle, as postulated by medieval philosopher Nicholas of Cusa. The more sides we add to a polygon, the closer it approaches resembling the circle, without ever fully managing to cross the line. He used this metaphor to discuss how we can approach, yet never truly reach, the fullness of knowledge and wisdom.

I would like to turn Nicholas of Cusa's metaphor on its imagined head. Let's say we have a image, like the photograph, and let's call that image Fantasy. Keep in mind that this image is more than just a likeness, it is the representation of elements stolen from peoples' lives, namely their human qualities. Let's place this image within the circle/polygon matrix. Let's say the polygon will represent human meaning, while the circle will represent non-meaning. The sides of this polygon will be the facets of human knowledge, with the opposite sides representing contradictions and debates within and without the various branches of human knowledge.

What would happen if we were to add more and more knowledge (and its conflicts and misinterpretations) to this image? Would we find this polygon of meaning starting to resemble that of non-meaning/non-understanding? What if one of the side effects of increased human exploration is the loss of the ability to construct defined meanings of what we experience?

While this model is far from perfect, I think the basic idea should be easy enough to imagine. The problem that No-Dog and I (and likely others) see with the expansion of scientific knowledge over the past 400 years is that as more elements are added and as more apparent contradictions are encountered, the more likely we are to undermine the previous structures that gave meaning to what we found in this world of ours. Science, as a perceived entity (although most probably it is more akin to a fragmented group of very loosely allied components bound by a common discourse of skeptical inquiry), has been so busy counteracting "ignorance" that in the process, its very methods have led to the mostly unwitting destruction of much that gives meaning to our lives. The stars, instead of being rotating objects that helped the learned forecast one's future (for good or for bad), are now just incandescent centers of fusion heat. Instead of witches and other agents of the Devil causing sickness, we have tiny microorganisms, which don't quite make for such a compelling story of how to combat certain elements in our lives.

Much of what humans used to cherish has now been devalued. Scientific inquiries have led to inventions and discoveries that have enabled us to live longer and relatively healthier lives. But at what cost? The discussion of Life and Meaning have gone from "Why has God created this system?" to "Who am I?" It is a very existentialist crisis that we're facing these days. The fabled Meaning of Life question didn't have that much importance in the days of the Malleus Malificarum, because Life just was, with its set orders of existence along a Great Chain of Being. Yet now, we humans seem to be struggling to place ourselves in some sort of working context, one that cannot be destroyed by the next round of scientific discussions. It is definitely that proverbial hard row to hoe for us now.

And how does epic fantasy fit into this? Out of the various forms of fantasy, epic fantasy appears to be the one that is more acutely attuned to millenia's worth of exploration of the "human condition." Within its outsized bounds, listeners and/or readers can encounter characters that are undergoing the same emotional conflicts (whether it be betrayal, being forced to do an onerous task, unrequited love, duty, etc.) that many of us feel on a larger scale. There are (mostly) clearly defined heroes and villians, with decisive action being taken, although often at a tragic cost. The best epics tend to use recurring emotional themes to reach across eras and cultures to address those concerns that we might have here and now. It is catchy, luring us in with its promise of a meaningful world and story, leaving us pondering the messages we've perceived within the tale.

I have much more to say on this, especially on the historical developments that spurred cycles of epic composition, but I think this should be enough to get people talking, even if it's only the weekend

 

[ironchef texmex]

For the argument that you're presenting, I think that it would definately depend on if someone was a strict materialist or not. If you think that the mind is something more that simply matter, then you would likely think that interpretation isn't totally rooted to the human condition. A lot of your argument there was based on your misunderstanding of what I said, so I apologize for that.

I would agree with that except to point out that materialism isn't the only factor involved. One can be a strict materialist and still be either an absolutist (with a set of 'natural' laws or somesuch) or an relativist, and those two subheadings would definately effect the way in which the individual looked at the question.

I'm still not sure I've totally got my brain wrapped around your argument. Tell me if this sounds right: are you saying that as a non-materialist you think that the existence of the 'soul' creates a level of subjectivity beyond any genetic differences... The reason I ask is that although I certainly believe in the soul, I also believe that each soul is similar in much the same way that each physical body is similar. So, for me, the existence of the soul doesn't so much create a layer of subjectivity as it does an additional layer of common denominators.

As for the overall debate, I don't really think I'm arguing against 'science as the purveyor of exclusive truth' so much as I am arguing against the scientific community. For example:

Evolution has at its core a simple principle that we see in every biotic system - Natural Selection. However, Darwin didn't stop there and neither do modern evolution theories. 'Evolution' is essentially a doctrine that says that living organisms are the way they are because of chance and biochemistry and physical laws and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ELSE.

Now if science produces truth that is categorically more valid than religion then just based on Evolution's claims the existence of a personal God (one that gets involved in things like his living creations) is disproved. It's a simple matter of connecting the dots -- 1) evolution says what is does, 2) science is what it is 3) therefore debating against it is illogical.

I'm not arguing against 2 + 2. I'm arguing against 2 + 2 = 4, therefore there is no God. I don't believe that the fact that Evolution is based on Natural Selection and Creation is based on Genesis 1:1 gives Evolution's theories instant credence and should cast Creation's in an automatic shadow of suspicion. If you can't disprove either Natural Selection or Genesis 1:1, then I say that the two theories begin on an equal plane and must then be examined purely on their relative merits. If Evolution's claims explain humanity and Creation's don't, then fine. If Creation's claims explain humanity and Evolution's don't, then no matter if it's foundation (Natural Selection) is 'repeatable' and 'observable' or not, Evolutionary theory is debunked.