Fundamentalism arises when a religious believer takes the mythic events of their religion and applies modern thinking to it.
This might only be your summary, but this produces such a false dichotomy. I, f.e can very easily explain all miracles in the bible, without hurting any natural laws. Allegorically. There - no natural law has been hurt, but the religious relevance is still maintained. The need for eliminate all mythic events, because of scientific advances is missing that a myth bring an aspect to the story that a scientific explanation can never capture, since it does not have the words for it. It is the old WHY? How is fine, that's what science is for. But WHY? Random, sure, one possible answer. But the fundamental question of why is there something and not Nothing. Cannot be answered by science. Or at least I am not aware of an answer.
I am not saying that the religious answer is necessarily the right one (You can still believe in your atheism) it is however an experience that is being shared by billions of people for the last couple of hundred thousand years.
The weak anthropic principle says that given that there is a universe with varying physical conditions in different localities, and that we are alive in that universe it is not surprising (despite asrtonomical odd s to the contrary) that we find ourselves in a locality suited to life as we know it. This is almost tautological, but not quite. It is accepted as a way out of the "we are too rare to be true" argument, but it is not an explanation of WHY, just possible of HOW.
The strong anthropic principle says that the universe exists for the purpose of spawning inteeligent observers within it. It is teleological, and hence explains WHY, but most people don't consider it properly scientific.
(more) (even more) guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/BookReviewTypeDetail/assetid/49558 The world's northernmost desert wind.
I understood your question why there had to be a why in the first place to literal..... (-:
but since I gentically are unfunny I had to try and make a serious point in conjunction with a joke.
consequence... belly flop.
I also might not have understood what exactly you were refering to
Serious point was, Why? is a most important question. especially with politicians.
snarky point was you seem to imply that the question is futile. ->"What would we talk about otherwise"
~Sorry a bad joke/snarke, does not get better by having to explain it - I then cannot even hide behind the
eh, that's just a snark..
But maybe not with the universe.
It might not have everyday consequences with regard to our existance, it might even be completely inconsequencial. but it still is strange.
At issue was the anthropic principle in cosmology, no more or less. The world's northernmost desert wind.
Contrary to popular conception, the purpose of particle physics is to understand the everyday world. The current theory of fundamental interactions among the quarks and leptons depends on eighteen parameters, which are a priori arbitrary. Were these parameters different, our world would be changed dramatically. By exploring the connection between these parameters and everyday phenomena we can better appreciate the challenges confronting contemporary particle physics. Until we can explain the origin of these parameters, we cannot say we truly understand why our everyday world is as it is.
So, how do you explain our incredible luck?
The weak anthropic principle is an attempt to "explain" this as an observation bias. That is, it is possible that many universes support life, but of very different kinds. In any one universe, living beings within it will reason that, for life as they know it to be possible, dozens of parameters need to be carefully tuned. But that does not mean that, for any kind of life to be possible the parameters need to be tuned. It only means that living things will look around and find the universe strangely suited to hosting them, all the more so if you thow in the insight that life evolves to adapt to its environment. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
What I meant was the believer accepts the modern devaluation of myth, applies it to their religion, says that myth is valueless, my religion is valuable, so my religion isn't myth - it's literally true.
Your point is exactly the one the fundamentalists miss.
I'm not sure that rejecting Vatican II qualifys you as fundamentalist, though there's a whole lot of batshit crazy stuff that the fundamentalist Catholics believe in. Including restoration of the European monarchies in some sections.
Nobody applied that label to you.
Exactly the opposite. I accept that some of the myths may not be true, but I don't mind. Taking everything at face value would be foolish.
The point is that the myths have value and religious significance even if they're not literally true. It doesn't matter that the book of Genesis is a myth: it has religious value anyway. It doesn't matter that the detail of Christ's life may or may not be true: it still has significance and value.
Remember I don't mean myth here as a pejorative.
modern devaluation of myth - check applies to my religion - check says that myth is valueless - no, rephrases, reapplies and attempting to regain the the myth to make it valuable again my religion is valuable - check my religion uses mythology - check my religion isn't myth - check
it is literal - no it is not. because the myth has been regained the outside support of literalism is not necessary.
You can still believe in your atheism
How? It's a lack of belief, not a belief. I really wish we could call a convention that would make sense of the word for people who don't believe there is a God but don't have a positive believe there isn't one.
Actually I want to call the people who have positive belief in the non-existence of God anti-theists.
Nope. Atheism is lack of belief, Agnosticism is belief in the lack of knowability. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Atheism is belief (or opinion, that's where it gets tricky) that there is no god.
Agnosticism is knowledge that there is no proof either way.
Mild forms of agnosticism and atheism intersect. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Atheism is lack of belief in gods. Some atheists will go as far as claim in some form that there are no gods, others won't. On atheist sites I frequented, the terms "strong atheist" and "weak atheist" were adopted for distinction when the philosophical battles raged.
Agnosticism is the opinion that the existence of gods is unknowable. There are differences regarding whether it is practically or theoretically unknowable, and what "to know" means. (The way you defined it, with "knowledge", implies a rather extreme form I rarely encountered.) Non-agnostics usually also reject agnosticism on the basis of one or another different concept of "to know" and "proof".
Theists, weak atheists, and strong atheists each can be either agnostic or non-agnostic. I met with ardent proponents of all six variants. But all six encompass a number of very different views. To just take non-agnostic strong atheists who'd seem a single strang to many: some think science disproves theism, others that the very definition of "god" is nonsensical, others are convinced of a general theory of the cultural genesis of religions, still others argue that a statement is false by default unless its maker presents proof (which in the case of gods didn't happen), yet again others make the Moral Argument (God is supposed to be moral + the world is immoral => God doesn't exist), still others argue with internal contradictions.
Myself, I am a non-agnostic weak atheist. (I won't detail my rejection of the various forms of strong atheism, as well as of agnosticism, but false dichotomies and special pleading to save what would be trivialisms would feature prominently.)
Actually, even the above classification doesn't encompass 'em all. Some atheists argue that belief is not the issue (the Sun is a god in some religions but we others still believe the Sun exists), worship is. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Weak atheist: you don't believe in god, but don't say there isn't one non-agnostic: it's possible to know whether god exists.
How can you both know and not know if god exists? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I don't believe in unicorns, but I accept it's possible someone could produce one. I don't not believe in unicorns, not do I believe it's impossible to prove they exist.
I'm not being entirely frivolous here: there are possible positive proofs that something god-like could exist - depending on your definition of god.
you don't believe in god, don't know if there is one of not, but are willing to be convinced either way if a good proof comes along.
That's me as well, then. What were we arguing about, exactly, throughout the day? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
whistle, whistle,
has the teacher gone, Colman?
Here take that, and you DoDO, buh, argh, uff, autsch
with regards to Jerome,
wouldn't know - don't feel competend to comment
...
hehe, another funny comment, as if that had ever stopped me...
Making a decision.
I am a weak atheist who even has time for the religious gnostic argument, that you can know the truth of a religion by faith. Only: as all kinds of religions have believers who think faith was a route to Truth for them, which one to try first?
Similarly, as long as none of them seems more well-founded than a couple of others, you don't need to pose 'absolute' standards of proof for various gods and religions.
A further issue is whether you see the knowability of the existence of gods as a question different from say the knowability of the existence of Saturn or giant squids or fairies or toothbrushes (and that would lead to a whole discussion about the meaning of "to know"). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Oh, sorry about that, I haven't even noticed (and put it better the second time without even realising I used a different word :-)) - it was sloppiness on my part. (On the other hand, in my experience, those emphasizing their agnosticism tend to call atheism a belief and vice versa - while some of both call their own views a knowledge which is an even stronger claim.) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
My trouble with this is that I don't find an answer in mythos either. I find mythos only gives a conforting anthropologism, which in truth pushes back the "why?" one step further - not explaining, in fact adding to what should be explained. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
But you're mistaking the function of mythos. It doesn't have to be explained: it provides comfortable furniture for the mind and soul rather than objective truth.
In fact, if I understood him correctly, I agree: myth can be used to explain things allegorically, and asking whether the myth is true or false (and what the factual truth of the myth would imply) is not to the point. For example, there is the story of the last strike against the Egyptians. Read literally, that is a horrible and anti-ethical story. But if you know the historical context you will realise that it is about people in a small nation standing firm even as they have that giant empire as neighbour/overlord, ruled by a ruler with very real and visible superpowers as opposed to the invisible JHVH.
However, I don't see mythos serving such a purpose regarding the Big Question in question. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
I was infact talking about the creation of the world and the big question about why we are here and so on, so I do think, that Colman understood what I was trying to say.
I think one reason (hehe) for mythological stories is to provide structure and shelter from the nasty world outside. It offers explanation that is comforting in a situation that is cruel.
When a car drove over our cat. I told my wife, that it was a gang of local rabbits that had put money together to bribe a car driver to become the contract killer for our "lovely Siamese" cat. Of course that is a both a rubbish story and not really what happened. But now everytime the cat is mentioned, it was killed by a contract killer out of revenge for the baby-rabbits the cat had killed.
Now that's how myths come about. They serve only limited purpose, and they make light of a situation, give meaning and divert attention. Are they scientific, no, but they provide a cover.
I guess you know that, but I wanted to tell the myth about the cat...
What I was trying to say is that if you're not wired or trained or whatever to use myth in that way it's quite hard to understand or empathise with those who do and possibly harder to retain sufficient humility to not feel superior to those who rely on such crutches.
The question I would always ask, what role does the narrative, the myth, plays in that persons life and in which context is it being told.
Consolation in grief - use any myth you like (even if I could vomit, when I hear some sWEEEEEEET one's)
political motivation - I would be very cautious, where the myth comes from, and what is behind it - conduct a proper deconstruction.
origin myths - again it is the question of why and not how. "how" myths are open invitation to riddicule.
Yes, specifically the last strike against Egypt. In more detail: A literalist has a hard time getting a moral out of the story that God "hardens" the Pharaoh's heart explicitly so that he can use the Pharaoh's lack of action as excuse for a further demonstration of power, which involves a painful punishment of children for something a tyrann ruling their parents did. (In fact, I saw literalists attempting that, and the result is either very disgusting or interprets words and sentences in rather strange ways.) But if you know that none of this happened, and furthermore that when this was written, Egypt was a giant empire that - led by a god-king - used to threaten and ultimately pillage and conquer small Judea, you will see that this story is really about giving self-respect and determination to Judeans (and others in a similar position) - by way of "my God is more powerful than this mighty god-king".
Ah! PeWi, then I took you more seriously than yourself :-) *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
As applied to individual conduct, we should be aware that we may reach a stage in our wayward refusal of God's will where He decides to push us further into folly and punish us. This acts as a warning to others and re-states the principle that punishment for sin may occur during our life on earth, not just after it.
I could go on, but I won't. Disgusting? Depends how brainwashed you are.
And "literalists" do interpret everything into unrecognizability.
Hang on, let's do this right. So, what's a theist? Is that similar to your definition of faith?
Fascinating thread, BTW.
