Australian Politics Forum - Life, The Universe and everything

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23042
A cat with a view

Life, The Universe and everything
Nov 24^th, 2009 at 4:35pm

muso wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 3:38pm:

1/ Above all, our Western civilisation has to survive, and we need to start looking at other challenges to maintain the spark. Such challenges may ultimately include the colonisation of the Moon and Mars.

2/ There will always be poor people, but unless we can continue to advance our world economy and civilisation, as a species, we'll suffer a worse kind of poverty - a poverty of spirit.

I'm not ready to throw in the towel just yet and say "It's all too hard"

3/ I sometimes wonder if humanity is worth saving, but in the end, what else do we have?

#1
Why???
Doesn't the theory go, that those organisms which [do] survive [in nature], are supposedly 'fit' to survive?
i.e. Their survival, demonstrates their 'merit'.

If humanity [or a particular human culture. i.e. Western civilisation] is not fit to survive, shouldn't it be 'let go', by 'mother nature', or be subsumed /overcome by a different, more 'meritorious' human culture?

Surely, a humanist would agree???

#2
Poverty of spirit.
imo, Everything which is worthwhile [which we bring into the world], comes from within us.
There is no merit in the world per se [imo].
The world is there, merely to test our spirit [imo].

#3
It is.
We will survive.

Reading your mildly 'altruistic' post muso, reminded me of this,

All reformers, however strict their conscience, live in houses just as big as they can pay for.

Logan Pearsall Smith

Meaning of course, that even the best of us, are basically selfish creatures.

Isn't this true, of us all?

To me this raises another consideration.

For humanity to advance, spiritually, culturally, we somehow must overcome the baser instincts, within our nature.

Greed, ruthlessness, etc.

But how do we overcome the worst aspects of our nature?

Realistically, how can we overcome the worst aspects of our nature?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 25^th, 2009 at 9:28am by muso »

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Life, the Universe and Everything
Reply #1 - Nov 25^th, 2009 at 8:15am

Yadda wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 4:35pm:

#1
Why???
Doesn't the theory go, that those organisms which [do] survive [in nature], are supposedly 'fit' to survive?
i.e. Their survival, demonstrates their 'merit'.

If humanity [or a particular human culture. i.e. Western civilisation] is not fit to survive, shouldn't it be 'let go', by 'mother nature', or be subsumed /overcome by a different, more 'meritorious' human culture?

Surely, a humanist would agree???

Why? - because I think that civilisation has a lot going for it. I would prefer not to give up my deodorants and toothpaste and little things like computers and soft toilet paper - the trappings of civilisation.

- because for one thing I find the mindset of the camel jockeys of the turn of the first millennium CE (as characterised by Paul of Tarsus) to be particularly odious (it probably came from their lack of soft toilet paper) and for another, the end of civilisation in a world with resources that are depeleted to the extent that they are, would probably spell the end of mankind.

- and I have this misguided notion that our species is important. Let's start a new thread.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 25^th, 2009 at 9:03am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #2 - Nov 25^th, 2009 at 8:43am

muso wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 8:15am:

Yadda wrote on Nov 24^th, 2009 at 4:35pm:

#1
Why???
Doesn't the theory go, that those organisms which [do] survive [in nature], are supposedly 'fit' to survive?
i.e. Their survival, demonstrates their 'merit'.

If humanity [or a particular human culture. i.e. Western civilisation] is not fit to survive, shouldn't it be 'let go', by 'mother nature', or be subsumed /overcome by a different, more 'meritorious' human culture?

Surely, a humanist would agree???

Why? - because I think that civilisation has a lot going for it. I would prefer not to give up my deodorants and toothpaste and little things like computers and soft toilet paper - the trappings of civilisation.

- because for one thing I find the mindset of the camel jockeys of the turn of the first millennium CE (as characterised by Paul of Tarsus) to be particularly odious (it probably came from their lack of soft toilet paper) and for another, the end of civilisation in a world with resources that are depeleted to the extent that they are, would probably spell the end of mankind.

- and I have this misguided notion that our species is important. Let's start a new thread.

Muso, you are such a technological instrumentalist! As if civilisation was merely a measure of material production. As if the Greeks, lacking all your trappings, didn't have a magnificient civilisation. Or the medievals or the modern of th 18th and 19th centuries.

Being a scientist as well as a muso, you appear unsure about where to hang your hat. You can't quite bring yourself to saying that matters of the mind, heart and spirit are primary. That would be skating too close to 'soul' talk. It does not fit into the scientitic view of the world, or is admitted only as a remnant from the pre-intrumentalist era.

But all this is for a different thread, as you say.

Data:
"turn of the first millennium CE (as characterised by Paul of Tarsus)" - the turn of the first millenium CE was in 1000 AD - a thousand years after Paul (you are fiddling with the data, Muso...)
Interpretation:
But it did have the 'end-of-the-world-is-upon-us' conviction that is shared by some people today.
Conclusion:
The data you resent does not fit the conclusion you draw - an increasiongly familiar occurance, I fear...

Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #3 - Nov 25^th, 2009 at 9:01am

Quote:

Conclusion:
The data you resent does not fit the conclusion you draw - an increasiongly familiar occurance, I fear...

OK - typo. I meant the first century CE, or the beginning of the first Millennium. I would have spotted it and changed it.

Talking of typos, do you mean resent or present?

I won't quibble about a few hundred years here or there.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why is this statement true, but irrelevant?
Reply #4 - Nov 25^th, 2009 at 9:18am

Soren wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 8:43am:

Muso, you are such a technological instrumentalist! As if civilisation was merely a measure of material production. As if the Greeks, lacking all your trappings, didn't have a magnificient civilisation. Or the medievals or the modern of th 18th and 19th centuries.

Being a scientist as well as a muso, you appear unsure about where to hang your hat. You can't quite bring yourself to saying that matters of the mind, heart and spirit are primary. That would be skating too close to 'soul' talk. It does not fit into the scientitic view of the world, or is admitted only as a remnant from the pre-intrumentalist era.

I'm just a product of my age. I like being civilised, and if I lived in Ancient Greece, I'd very quickly end up like Socrates because I'd rebel against the hypocrisy of the age.

If I lived in the 18th century, I'd probably be a Voltaire wannabe, but both the 18th and 19th centuries were by far too unhygienic for my liking. I just wouldn't be able to maintain the level of personal hygiene that I am used to.

Matters of the heart mind and soul are all very well, but if you're living a life infested by fleas and you only wash once a year (on a good year) and your children are dying off at an early age because of Smallpox or Tuberculosis, the dubious virtues of heart and soul that comes from living in a culturally splendid era, albeit with a precipitous social gradient, just don't compensate for the lack of basic amenities that we take for granted.

Note: I have spliced together all the posts relevant to this more philosophical aspect in this thread.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 25^th, 2009 at 9:32am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23042
A cat with a view

Re: Life, The Universe and everything
Reply #5 - Nov 25^th, 2009 at 12:03pm

Relating to the theme of this thread, good and evil [and how these motivating spirit 'entities'? seem to be struggling for control of mankind in this reality ??? ], i came across this observation on an ABC forum, which made a lot of sense to me,

"Author GME
Date/Time 24 Nov 2009 7:35:15pm
Subject Re: Did Darwin kill God?
People are capable of good and bad things, they always have been and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. People do these good and bad things with many justifications but it usually comes down to individual self interest. Religion like all other endeavours is a human endeavour. This applies even from a religious perspective because we have the freedom to exercise our free will and so if we choose to do bad and destructive things in he name of God, God will not prevent us from doing so. Eradicating religion will not stop bad things from being done. Religion is a means not a cause and there are many other means to fulfill self interest, and destructive self interest will continue to be exercised through these means to the same degree if we have religion or not.

GME"

http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=87&m=10157&ps=20&dm=1&pd=3

Like i said, this observation made a lot of sense to me.

GME is obviously 'on the path' to 'enlightenment'. Wink

Good on him/her.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Life, The Universe and everything
Reply #6 - Nov 25^th, 2009 at 1:21pm

Quote:

Religion is a means not a cause and there are many other means to fulfill self interest, and destructive self interest will continue to be exercised through these means to the same degree if we have religion or not.

I think we have a lot of common ground in that last statement. Although I don't subscribe to your religion, it makes a lot of sense. In fact, I'm slightly surprised that you agree with it.

The way I regard it, religion can be quite a useful tool. It can provide comfort and a degree of spiritual 'nourishment', as well as being a medium for mass 'indoctrination'. Mass indoctrination can be both sinister and useful, especially if the masses are provided with something that will benefit them. Perhaps 'eduction' is a better term.

In light of what we know about climate change and global warming, it will continue to be a very useful tool in the future, especially for those who are religious.

Others may prefer alternatives. Ok I know I'm out of synch with 'shouting, froth at the mouth neoatheists', but that concerns me as much as the 'him crazy bugger' evangelists.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Life, The Universe and everything
Reply #7 - Nov 26^th, 2009 at 12:00am

muso wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 1:21pm:

The way I regard it, religion can be quite a useful tool. It can provide comfort and a degree of spiritual 'nourishment', as well as being a medium for mass 'indoctrination'.

Useful tool for who? Used by who? Religion is not a tool for people who believe. Nor is it a tool for those who do not believe.

Who's left? The limits of instrumentalist thinking are reached very quickly.

Back to top

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Life, The Universe and everything
Reply #8 - Nov 26^th, 2009 at 6:37am

Quote:

Religion is not a tool for people who believe.

Really??
Really, really, really?

I have seen religion used as a tool to distract, divert, mislead, and misdirect people, for both benign, and malevolent purposes, but most often I have seen religion used as an extraction tool.

I do not need to tell anyone what they try and extract from people, 'cos we all know it is not evil, lol. Roll Eyes

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Life, The Universe and everything
Reply #9 - Nov 26^th, 2009 at 8:16am

Soren wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 12:00am:

Useful tool for who? Used by who? Religion is not a tool for people who believe. Nor is it a tool for those who do not believe.

Who's left? The limits of instrumentalist thinking are reached very quickly.

Simplistic and naive. Religion is a tool on many levels.

One one level, religion is just a tool for facilitating a personal relationship with God (for God, read gods etc).

On another level, it has been used as a tool by those in power for many centuries. It can be used as a tool by anybody, regardless of what their own private beliefs may be. Like any tool, it can be used for good or bad purposes. If a political opponent had to be disposed of, just whisper 'heresy' and it was 'off with his head'. Henry VIII realised how dangerous a tool religion could be if he wasn't controlling it personally, so he abolished Roman Catholicism and brought in Henry Catholicism instead.(aka C of E).

It doesn't really matter if you are religious or not, as long as the people to be controlled are religious. The combination of religious and superstitious (differentiate between the two to your taste) works best of course. Add in a few extra elements, such as poverty stricken, obsequious, poorly educated and gullible, and religion becomes a totally ripsnorting control mechanism for societies.

On a positive note, it can be used to motivate the millions of adherents around the world into backing efforts to combat anthopogenic induced climate change.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Nov 26^th, 2009 at 9:27am by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23042
A cat with a view

Re: Life, The Universe and everything
Reply #10 - Nov 26^th, 2009 at 10:07am

muso wrote on Nov 25^th, 2009 at 1:21pm:

The way I regard it, religion can be quite a useful tool. It can provide comfort and a degree of spiritual 'nourishment', as well as being a medium for mass 'indoctrination'.

muso,

I think that yes, from your perspective [as an atheist], in a benign form, religion can be seen as serving a form of 'utilitarian' function, for society / humanity.
And therefore religion will be seen, by some, within the broader community as serving a 'useful' function.

But to someone like myself, [my] belief in God [not so much organised 'religion' per se], becomes fundamental to my perception, as to the reason for our existence.
i.e. 'Religion' [personal belief] in the hands of somebody like myself, can become a personal expression of religious 'fundamentalism'?

Though in my own case, i don't [and would never] propose 'pressing' people into my 'religion' [using worldly, or 'societal', or secular means, 'pressure', or violence], as that would be totally antithetical to my own 'religious beliefs'.

Though i am an advocate of societal sanctions like capital punishment, for offences like murder.

And am an advocate for other harsh sanctions being brought upon other 'evil doers' [e.g. against people who use violence in commission of crimes, against people who cause the death of others, by driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, etc, etc.].

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23042
A cat with a view

Re: Life, The Universe and everything
Reply #11 - Nov 26^th, 2009 at 10:19am

mozzaok wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 6:37am:

Quote:

Religion is not a tool for people who believe.

Really??
Really, really, really?

I have seen religion used as a tool to distract, divert, mislead, and misdirect people, for both benign, and malevolent purposes, but most often I have seen religion used as an extraction tool.

I do not need to tell anyone what they try and extract from people, 'cos we all know it is not evil,
lol. Roll Eyes

The love of it is though, supposedly. Grin

"He that serves God for money, will serve the Devil for better wages."

Sir Roger L’Estrange

IMO, one of the best 'religious' quotes ever. Grin

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Life, The Universe and everything
Reply #12 - Nov 26^th, 2009 at 10:51am

Yadda wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 10:07am:

Though i am an advocate of societal sanctions like capital punishment, for offences like murder.

And am an advocate for other harsh sanctions being brought upon other 'evil doers' [e.g. against people who use violence in commission of crimes, against people who cause the death of others, by driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, etc, etc.].

Yes, I think we understand each other's positions while differing in many irreconcilable aspects.

What about mass murder as a result of a deliberate act or omission that doesn't occur until after the perpetrator's death?

For example - a scientist who misrepresents the damage being done to the environment, with the consequence that a considerable number of people suffer premature death as a result of society failing to take appropriate actions? Is harm to society as bad or worse than murder?

In that particular case, the consequences may not occur until long after the scientist has died a natural death.

How do you mete out justice in such a case? I somehow think that your response will be 'appeal to authority' Wink

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23042
A cat with a view

Re: Life, The Universe and everything
Reply #13 - Nov 26^th, 2009 at 11:03am

muso wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 10:51am:

Yadda wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 10:07am:

Though i am an advocate of societal sanctions like capital punishment, for offences like murder.

And am an advocate for other harsh sanctions being brought upon other 'evil doers' [e.g. against people who use violence in commission of crimes, against people who cause the death of others, by driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, etc, etc.].

Yes, I think we understand each other's positions while differing in many irreconcilable aspects.

What about mass murder as a result of a deliberate act or omission that doesn't occur until after the perpetrator's death?

For example - a scientist who misrepresents the damage being done to the environment, with the consequence that a considerable number of people suffer premature death as a result of society failing to take appropriate actions? Is harm to society as bad or worse than murder?

In that particular case, the consequences may not occur until long after the scientist has died a natural death.

How do you mete out justice in such a case? I somehow think that your response will be 'appeal to authority'
Wink

Well such an example(s), discovered 'after the fact', and after the death of the principle perp. would be out of human hands.

Yes?

I think that we could restrict ourselves to 'pursuing' those who are still 'with us', who's actions are premeditated, malicious, or reckless acts/behaviour, which cause harm to others.

Yes?

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23042
A cat with a view

Re: Life, The Universe and everything
Reply #14 - Nov 26^th, 2009 at 11:12am

muso wrote on Nov 26^th, 2009 at 10:51am:

For example - a scientist who misrepresents the damage being done to the environment, with the consequence that a considerable number of people suffer premature death as a result of society failing to take appropriate actions? Is harm to society as bad or worse than murder?

Where such omission would cause deaths / harm to others, it must be considered serious.

And people should be held to account for their recklessness, or deliberate intent?, imo.

But often, proving the case, in such instances, can be subjective, yes?

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged