Philologos wrote:
AG: Actually Marxism isn't that stagnant in my view.
I could have written more defensively. Not so much Marx per se, but a lot of literature informed by perceived Marxism is rather sterile.
Some Marxism might be, but, I am not going to say that Marxian ideas are close to dead. I mean, a lot of literature informed by a lot of things is rather sterile.
Quote:
AG: Chomsky's innate grammar ideas have been considered a variant of Intelligent Design kind of thinking as opposed to evolutionary incrementalism.
I have to think Chomsky and I would be equally disgusted by this. I can't see him liking being associated with the concept, and his version of "innate ideas" just feeds mind-free material determinism, in my view.
Well, except that innate ideas really doesn't. It's potentially neutral on the topic. I don't think that he is as easily disgusted on the matter, as his tension with evolutionary theory is well recognized by Dan Dennett in a number of examples (Darwin's Dangerous Idea Ch. 13, sec. 2) What Chomsky wants is a set of innate and complicated laws and rules, rather than anything with the complexity, and kluginess of biology and the simplicity to actually evolve, and his view of language is very opposed to evolution in many senses.
Quote:
I suspect you are thinking at least of sexual mores, substance ingestion and the like. But "Mens sana in corpore sano" - ergo I have to dress funny and kill myself running around a track in Texas sun and "Citizenship" with all the Borgish assimilation it involves seem tp me to fit in with "dead standards that only hurt individuals"
Some social integration is valuable. There is some waste.... but, I don't think we see anything on the same level with any of this. I agree on a lot of the citizenship stuff though, BUT, that doesn't really excuse religion. Two wrongs don't make a right or even a left!
Quote:
I am one hundred per cent with you on modern explicitly Christian usually Evangelical arts. These in many cases have the artistic merit of a second grade special ed school play I attended. I would argue that is not the THEISM - but people with more principles than talent and a captive audience who think ANYBODY can paint or do music or write a play. Case in point: Anti drug film shown in health class in 1958 [EVERYBODY laughed] Case in point: most cartoons pushing a policy [Sesame Street was not great but really not bad].
See, agreement!! Well, the problem I am pointing out is religion, not specifically theism.
Quote:
No contest. I did myself and am amazed at the unexpected boon in at least two ways of Number 1 son.
BUT - not only religious are celibate, not all religious are celibate - over history rather a minority.
I do not know of non religious equivalents of the Skoptsy. I do know some Qi Gong and such advises celibacy - that we could quibble definitions, but i do not se that as theism. And many societies have imposed celibacy for certain periods on some members. As do some non-theistic Buddhist orders
Lifelong celibacy entered into when rather young to have thought it out and not significantly supported can be a problem when something had to give. This was a constant concern with the Desert Fathers.
I was mostly thinking of the standard practices of the Catholic clergy.
Quote:
Ph Now: Sorry, I worded this poorly. You said religion introduces "unnecessary hierarchy". I am trying to object a. that ANY organization introduces hierarchy AND that in my view nearly all hierarchy is unnecessary. THEN I should have made it clear in words or punctuation I am TRYING to say "HAVING no religion" does nor eliminate hierrchy
Ok, but religions are social things, usually within the explicit framework of the theology. I mean, I have no problems with organizations, but people should have choice, but the goal of most religions is monopoly by any means possible. (and religions have had more success at this than other groups.
Quote:
Ph: Them is fighting words. I HONESTLY thought you were trying to point out ills caused by religion. If you are simply listing bad things religions have done, that is a very different thing. And THAT is misleading, potentially to the point of dishonesty, if you allege as wrongs of religions things that humans do constantly whether religious or not.
If I complain about vegans because they are bigoted bores it is not exactly a condemnation if half the people I know, religious and irreligious, academic and other, vegan and carnivore, republicans and democrats and ap;oliticals alike are bigoted bores. It turns into Humans do problematic things, which hardly strikes a blow for atheism or blood sports.
Well, if I believe veganism promotes people to become bigoted bores, then that is a real condemnation of veganism. This is "ills caused by religions" but we shouldn't have our causations be black and white issues, but rather we have to realize that "causation" is in a world of multiples causes. For the purposes of this thread, it wouldn't matter whether people CONSTANTLY do this, it's really a matter of whether religions cause the behavior or a higher degree of the behavior. I mean, I'll admit that dogmatism is everywhere, but being constantly taught that you have to hold to an inerrant scripture or dogmas x, y, and z to be saved, sure isn't going to help the matter.
Quote:
I will simply assert: The Fear of Hell or of Excommunication or of being a Disgrace or of Disinheritance or of Stupidity or Incompetence etc ktl usw - these when laid on those who are susceptible - some are more than others is wrong and evil, arguably one of the greatest evils. It is NOT - I can find you witnesses - the exclusive property of religion.
Hell is pretty exclusive. It's also pretty general across Christianity. It's also very hard to condemn. We can condemn excommunication pretty easily, but the people who question or condemn hell certainly are ignored, and on grounds irrelevant to the practical impacts of the psychology of hell.
20 May 2011, 11:22 pm
Biggest religion inspired perversion ever.
