Are there phenomena which simple rationality cannot adequately explain?

[noyen]

i'm drunk as shit

[yo soy el mejor]

hey sean, im about to watch this right now: first internet serial killer

it was suggested with the first 48. i've pretty much seen all of those.

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

is this thread the death of the simplistic science bro mentality that prevails in liberal 20-something circles

it's hilarious that this concept has to be called something like trans-rationalism though. sorry the mooslems and jebus freaks are way ahead of you on this

kinda reminds me of those "atheist churches" that are popping up

It's entirely possible to interpret the bible in a literal way and therefore miss the implicit meaning in the teachings. Not sure that the mooslems and jebus freaks who've reduced the book to mere ritual are way ahead of anybody. But yeah, plenty of them are onto something.

So what's your non-simplistic liberal 20-something mentality?


Reprise, really liked your responses, will respond more adequately soon.

[null123]

there are certainly a lot of misguided and/or evil people in the world, and religious people aren't an exception. but religion isn't the problem, and ritual is definitely not the problem. both of those things are great and important. but people want everything custom tailored to themselves in the name of Freedom, so they're mad because religion represents the opposite of individual free choice. (of course, in the west wrt christianity at least, increasingly liberalized versions of the religion have been multiplying since Protestantism first showed up.)

my mentality is that of course science doesn't satisfy human understanding in every way. great mysteries can be and often are more illuminating than great scientific observations.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

is this thread the death of the simplistic science bro mentality that prevails in liberal 20-something circles

it's hilarious that this concept has to be called something like trans-rationalism though. sorry the mooslems and jebus freaks are way ahead of you on this

kinda reminds me of those "atheist churches" that are popping up

Muslims and Christians are not godless. This is about finding meaning in a godless world, and how death being inevitable and everything you stand for and accomplish will be wiped out within a few generations does not mean life is meaningless.

[null123]

i read most of the OP and nothing in there said "this" is about godlessness. God is an inherent part of this topic, killtrocity himself couldn't help but throw some ignorant commentary in there about jebus and magic

[reprise85]

It's about that for me, and if you re-read his post where he brings up Jesus and magic, he's basically saying the teachings of Jesus were ahead of their time and believing literally in the miracles of the bible (which constitutes believing in "magic") obfuscates the meaningful messages that are in it. For most people, they will throw the baby out with the bathwater, because the bathwater is dirty as fuck (and you get smug atheism and other bro-things as a result of this).

So according to the proposed dichotomy, those people are operating at a pre-rational level. I liked the example of literal interpretation of bible myths versus meaning extracted from bible myths, like jeebus for example. The examples jeebus set through his life and death I think are far more meaningful when interpreted as examples of how to live or metaphors for living in a "good" way than reducing it to a bunch of magical occurences, because we know magic is not real (well, some of us anyway). It's actually kind of insulting, it's like here's this guy who was way ahead of his time and had all these awesome ideas and we're like fuck that, we like money in our temple, we like neglecting outcasts, we like magic, we like wars, and not sharing with people. and if we believe in magic we get to live forever.

[null123]

the teachings of Jesus as written in the Bible are but one, albeit important, part of the beautiful and rich religion and TRADITION of Christianity, and frankly if you try to extricate them from their rightful place in the story, you're distorting them for a 21st century liberal fantasy of what Christianity is. you're just projecting.

on top of that, i don't appreciate the minimizing and simplistic portrayal of the minds of the religious, as if scientificism is the updated, modern version of religion. or as if Christians are incapable of understanding the value of Jesus' teachings. not until someone comes along and trims off what they don't like about Jesus, or Judeo-Christian philosophy, and does a lil revisionist history to turn Jesus into a fucking Unitarian Universalist. only then can we all bask in how "ahead of his time" he was (duh because you just projected your whole agnostic philosophy onto him retroactively).

many of the greatest scientific minds have been devoutly religious ones, and many have had a lot to say on the role of science as it exists alongside faith and a comprehension of the limitations of human understanding and therefore the importance of mysteries. so to act as if you're inventing the wheel because you figured this out while being disrespectful towards those who precede you in all regards except your unwillingness to accept the exsitence of God, and whose perspective you're, frankly, probably gonna wind up at if you follow this trail all the way down, seems silly to me. carry on

You should watch pen and teller bullshit...really opened my mind to how god doesn't exist and it is truly the Christians who deny the existence of magic and wonder not the other way around

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

hey sean, im about to watch this right now: first internet serial killer

it was suggested with the first 48. i've pretty much seen all of those.

Are you trying to say something about me here

[null123]

christians are so fucking simple and narrow minded. so glad we got enlightened so now we can all take personality quizzes, do yoga and contemplate our own suicides

INFP here!

[null123]

hell ya. i'm a intp that means we're like 80% the same person. i'm gonna go alphabetize my personality disorders and cross reference them with my natal chart. it's all coming together

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

the teachings of Jesus as written in the Bible are but one, albeit important, part of the beautiful and rich religion and TRADITION of Christianity, and frankly if you try to extricate them from their rightful place in the story, you're distorting them for a 21st century liberal fantasy of what Christianity is. you're just projecting.

on top of that, i don't appreciate the minimizing and simplistic portrayal of the minds of the religious, as if scientificism is the updated, modern version of religion. or as if Christians are incapable of understanding the value of Jesus' teachings. not until someone comes along and trims off what they don't like about Jesus, or Judeo-Christian philosophy, and does a lil revisionist history to turn Jesus into a fucking Unitarian Universalist. only then can we all bask in how "ahead of his time" he was (duh because you just projected your whole agnostic philosophy onto him retroactively).

many of the greatest scientific minds have been devoutly religious ones, and many have had a lot to say on the role of science as it exists alongside faith and a comprehension of the limitations of human understanding and therefore the importance of mysteries. so to act as if you're inventing the wheel because you figured this out while being disrespectful towards those who precede you in all regards except your unwillingness to accept the exsitence of God, and whose perspective you're, frankly, probably gonna wind up at if you follow this trail all the way down, seems silly to me. carry on

Charmbag, I'm not debating religion here. I don't believe in God, and maybe I will one day. I'm not saying Christians can't understand the value of Jesus' teachings, in fact many of them do.

My "unwillingness to accept he existence of God", when you say it like that it is as if to say God is real, there is no doubt about it, and I'm just being stubborn by not believing. That is not true. I have not seen evidence to say God exists in my mind. I have had experiences I cannot explain. And I don't disagree that this trail may end up with a belief in God or a creator of some sort. I'm fucking 28, my perspective is going to change a lot as I age and learn.

So I'm not sure why you are attributing all of these things to me, when I am not saying religion or Christianity is bad, only that it is not my belief, and that some of the superstitions and magical beliefs are silly IMO.

There was also a lot of philosophical and moral discussion before Christianity, and so your attribution that Christianity must be the start of the story or at least the start of meaning related to spirituality is overstated. But I am not a religious scholar.

I also don't think religion and science can't exist together.

[reprise85]

And I do think this entire aside is mostly besides the point, as I said, this entire thing isn't about bashing religion, it is about ideas that are related in some sense, but let's not turn this into tradition vs. science, or that science is the natural progression of religious thought, because no one has said that.

[null123]

you came to the defense of killtrocity, and really my post is just an extrapolation of my problem with his posts. (he also engaged me and asked for my perspective) I don't expect you to debate the existence of God, that would be pointless. I also don't mind us disagreeing, but I do mind the distortions that I perceived in killtrocity's posts.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

hell ya. i'm a intp that means we're like 80% the same person. i'm gonna go alphabetize my personality disorders and cross reference them with my natal chart. it's all coming together

yeah because this is what killtrocity and i believe in

[Future Boy]

whats your mbti reprise

[Trotskilicious]

can you guys just be atheist and shut the fuck up

[Order 66]

i am a god hurry up wit my dam croissants

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

whats your mbti reprise

infp

i think the mbti has uses but is obviously flawed, i mean starting with the premise that everyone fits into 16 basic personality types is just the first flaw

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

you came to the defense of killtrocity, and really my post is just an extrapolation of my problem with his posts. (he also engaged me and asked for my perspective) I don't expect you to debate the existence of God, that would be pointless. I also don't mind us disagreeing, but I do mind the distortions that I perceived in killtrocity's posts.

ok fair enough

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

but religion isn't the problem, and ritual is definitely not the problem. both of those things are great and important. but people want everything custom tailored to themselves in the name of Freedom, so they're mad because religion represents the opposite of individual free choice. (of course, in the west wrt christianity at least, increasingly liberalized versions of the religion have been multiplying since Protestantism first showed up.)

my mentality is that of course science doesn't satisfy human understanding in every way. great mysteries can be and often are more illuminating than great scientific observations.

you aren't wrong, and I think that ritual developed as an important part of society i.e. rituals perform important utilities in community, family, etc. But I also think it is a mistake to see religion as the way to fulfill these personal and societal needs. I think religion is a kind of institution that has developed to serve these needs, but it's also vital to realize that the good of the community and the individual is not the only function of religion. Organized religion is also a power structure like any other. As such a power structure it lends itself to corruption, manipulation and repression of information, and leaders which prey on the weak and the easily swayed for the good of the people at the top. Basically what I mean is that I see religion as a neutral thing, which can be used for good or for ill and does not innately belong more to one than the other.

one thing which we probably cannot agree on though is that I ultimately don't see literal belief in myth as a positive thing for people. I don't like arguing religion with people because I feel like realistically the best we can do is to try and live together without killing each other, but literal belief in Jesus rising from the dead, multiplying fishes, and expelling hordes of demons is not good for critical thinking. Magical thinking is not a good way to navigate the world and people would be less swayed by those trying to manipulate them if they resisted it.

I also am not really down with your hating on the view that Jesus was a liberal radical. You try to frame this view as something invented by college kids last year while they were smoking mad weed, but I think from a historical perspective there is a lot of evidence for him as this kind of figure, although I wouldn't go as far as to anachronistically apply ideas from modern times to him. Jesus was a guy who was seen as a threat by the Romans and by the Jewish establishment. He was a real mixer of trouble in the eyes of the authorities, hence his fate. What he probably preached in his actual life was a radical reform of Judaism influenced particularly by the cynical school of philosophy. Honestly I don't have it in me right now to formulate a whole big argument on this, but I just don't think it is accurate to portray this view of Jesus as some sort of co-opt by young people who want to feel empowered.

Also also also the teachings of Jesus from the Bible are the only common thread in all strands of Christianity, so examining them out of the context of history may distort their meaning in the Catholic tradition, or the protestant tradition, or whichever one you personally go for, but in terms of looking at what Christian teachings are at their core and where they came from, the new testament is a pretty good picture of that. Its shortcoming is that it only takes us back to fifth century or so because the powers that be worked so hard to destroy competing views of Christianity before that.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

my answer to what I think you are asking is basically no. I don't think it is very likely that any sort of sub or super physical levels of reality exist in any kind of spiritual sense, i.e. there are no ghosts, no deities, no destiny or karma, no divining future events by reading omens, etc. The things which we perceive in the universe as defying rational explanation either are just in our heads or actually can be explained using the same (or similar) enlightened methods of scientific investigation into truth that we apply to anything else, and the complexity of such phenomena simply escapes what we are able to understand currently. But in theory, everything in the universe can be explained rationally given sufficient human knowledge and understanding.

Science is a lie. An accurate one, but only because its beholden to the definitions of the day, not of the future. Or simply put, it's always playing catch up to the truth, so its no more trustworthy of it then a person's intuition for it.



or try this on for size...presuming its not CGI, explain this:

So you aren't even trying to pass as an actual person now

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by Charmbag

the teachings of Jesus as written in the Bible are but one, albeit important, part of the beautiful and rich religion and TRADITION of Christianity, and frankly if you try to extricate them from their rightful place in the story, you're distorting them for a 21st century liberal fantasy of what Christianity is. you're just projecting.

So we should just ignore the advancement of knowledge and cling to antiquated beliefs because the traditions are beautiful? Isn't gaining a more accurate or complete understanding of the bible more important than tradition? Interpretation of the book is EXTREMELY important, as the multiple atrocities in the past few hundred years allegedly (but not correctly) committed in the name of god are testament to. Take Columbus' genocide of the Arawaks. He and his crew may have truly believed that they were committing those atrocities in the name of the one true god, but that obviously cannot be true. There is a very crucial misunderstanding of the book. If looking at those acts as a misinterpretation of the bible is considered "distortion through a 21st century liberal fantasy", then what "Christianity actually is" is justification for atrocities, and I know that you don't believe that unless you're even more sardonic than you accuse me of being.

Originally Posted by Charmbag

on top of that, i don't appreciate the minimizing and simplistic portrayal of the minds of the religious, as if scientificism is the updated, modern version of religion. or as if Christians are incapable of understanding the value of Jesus' teachings. not until someone comes along and trims off what they don't like about Jesus, or Judeo-Christian philosophy, and does a lil revisionist history to turn Jesus into a fucking Unitarian Universalist. only then can we all bask in how "ahead of his time" he was (duh because you just projected your whole agnostic philosophy onto him retroactively).

Literal interpretation of the bible is not rational. I never said all religious people are simple-minded, rather that there are rational interpretations and simple-minded interpretations. There are some who simply have it wrong, unless you think Jesus was a promoter of genocide, it's really that simple. So far it's becoming obvious that what you're really opposed to is the "removal of tradition" aspect vis-a-vis your attack on the Unitarian Universalists. You're probably going to ream me for mentioning an Eastern religion, but I'm going to do it anyway: "ritual is the husk of faith and loyalty, the beginning of confusion." Keep in mind that Kierkegaard expressed similar sentiments.

Originally Posted by Charmbag

many of the greatest scientific minds have been devoutly religious ones, and many have had a lot to say on the role of science as it exists alongside faith and a comprehension of the limitations of human understanding and therefore the importance of mysteries.

That's what this entire thread is about. You got all bent out of shape over a flippant comment I made about the folks who take the bible literally, which yes, I'm sorry, is quite literally a magical view of the world. Do you really think John Lennon is in hell? Do you think Einstein believed in transubstantiation? Is trying to gain a more complete understanding of the universe such a deplorable offense?

Originally Posted by Charmbag

so to act as if you're inventing the wheel because you figured this out while being disrespectful towards those who precede you in all regards except your unwillingness to accept the exsitence of God, and whose perspective you're, frankly, probably gonna wind up at if you follow this trail all the way down, seems silly to me. carry on

I'm not doing that at all. Ken Wilber is doing that, sure, and in that regard your criticism is perhaps valid. I'm just trying to ascertain whether his ideas have any validity and broaden my perspective as opposed to clinging to old traditions. The post you're referring to was indeed incendiary, but I harbor no respect for those who trample over the rights of others while invoking what they perceive to be god as vindication for heinous acts.

[The Omega Concern]

Originally Posted by Aeris Hilton

So you aren't even trying to pass as an actual person now

What makes you know Elon Musk is real? You ever met him?

[redbreegull]

hello pick up the phone, it's me, indrid cold

I know you're there

[slunken]

Originally Posted by The Omega Concern

Science is a lie. An accurate one, but only because its beholden to the definitions of the day, not of the future. Or simply put, it's always playing catch up to the truth, so its no more trustworthy of it then a person's intuition for it.

I can agree with this. How many times in just our own short lives of 20-30 years have scientists completely changed their ruling on 1. how old man is 2. how old the earth is 3. what was really up with the dinosaurs (they think they had feathers now?)

[redbreegull]

omega on the off chance that you are answering seriously, science cannot be a "lie," it's a method of investigation that determines probabilities. no real scientist would tell that science is "the truth" like it is some sort of index of objective facts or something, and also no real scientist would believe science is capable of identifying objective facts to begin with