The Age of Stealth and Existential Cannibalism

The Age of Stealth and Existential Cannibalism: "Kevin P. McElroy - 08:35pm May 27, 2005 EDT (#88 of 88)

If Bush is 'incoherent and irrational', it is only becuase he accurately reflects American culture which is quickly becoming 'incoherent and irrational' at its heart. How can we not be, when we believe ourselves to be Gods' gift to liberty, yet we now find ourselves economically forced to become a police state? America is facing its worst cultural shock since WWII or that missile crisis. The land of endless indulgence suddenly wakes up to no more jobs, no healthcare, and a system custom-made to encourage successful terrorism. Yes, we are in shock and Bush reflects us perfectly. Our motto by necessity is now 'Liberty Through Repression', hence our understandably irrational schizophrenia. Just as Clinton reflected our sense of shallow, self-absorbed indulgence and entitlement. "

===================
http://forum.theatlantic.com/WebX?50@217.C5FeaKfMmkc.1@.4a826849
Economically and internationally, I agree with Bush/Rush Limbaugh about 10% of the time, and I can respect them at those times, even though 90% of the time I find them ill-informed (or dishonest) blowhards with no understanding of what our outsourcing-friendly economic policy means to the jobs of the middle-class, who carry the economy of America on our backs. (Duh! People on Unemployment do not pay the same kinds of taxes of people who work!)

I agree with the economic principles of Democrats about 90% of the time although I am aghast at their abandonment of their historic principles to protect the weak and powerless by adopting an anti-life platform that puts my tax dollars to use killing innocent children.
==============
http://forum.theatlantic.com/WebX?50@217.C5FeaKfMmkc.1@.4a826bc8
To illustrate this point we might juxtapose the European Pope (who suggested, as Dr. Bloom writes, that we think of heaven as "a state of being in relation to God" rather than a physical place) and our American President ("I don't do nuance.") Now, it's fashionable in liberal circles to think the President doesn't do nuance because he's an ignorant slob, but that's really not the point. The point is he doesn't do nuance because it's not in his best interest. It would stymie his ability to make strong choices, to live his life as he wants to live it and take action in a way consistent with his self-image. This is a very clear and striking exception to Steven Pinker's (paraphrased) observation that "we typically don't get solace from propositions we don't already believe to be true." In matters metaphysical, "truth" is not apparent in the same way that food or no food is apparent to a hungry person. And let's not even get started on sexual desire's ability to let us "believe what we want to."
----------------
Kevin P. McElroy - 09:56pm Nov 13, 2005 EDT (#10 of 54)

Science and religion do get semantically involved with each other at times. If God exists, then is this not a physical fact of reality that science would be prudent to accept as part of the whole data, rather than reject out of a purely emotional prejudice? Likewise is not religion obligated to accept the observable facts of physical universe, such as certain elements of evolution? Evolution in no way indicates that God does not exist, only that His medium of creation is partly through the finite, limited forms of physical matter.

If miracles also exist, then science is only prudent to take them as part of the whole of natural data. Today's "spiritual" or occult knowledge can often become tomorrow's science. It only benefits science to keep an open mind toward non-physical realities, and it is healthy for religion to encounter and interpret new physical data. The weakness of both sides is to wish to have monolithic authority over reality, which is really an act of hubristic pride, not honest science or religion.
-----------------------

pdan - 07:18am Nov 15, 2005 EDT (#13 of 54)

Not to disparage any religion...

While Budhism is fine as a philosophy, I would not be too fast to discard some features of other religions.

Monotheism carries with it the concept of brotherhood, equality, social justice and compassion. It also carries with it the righteous indignation when our concept of justice, including social justice, is not met. It rejects suffering as a necessary condition of existence and challenges us to craft a better world.

All religions and philosophies are open to corruption and exploitation by those driven by gried and thirst for power over others. In the past, passivity in some religions and philosophies has been exploited by autocrats. The righteeous indignation in other religions allowed for revolutionaries to sow mayhem and impose a similar autocratic rule.

No religion, as far as I know, truely advocates the abridgement of civil liberties by the state.
-----------------------
eclat - 12:42am Nov 16, 2005 EDT (#20 of 54)

In Response to Peter

Peter's take, that as we evolve as a species, our need for God will diminish, is a mainstay argument among atheists. The curious thing about this idea is its buried assumption: that we are in fact evolving as a species. Having just finished a century where more wars were fought than in all previous centuries of recorded history combined, it certainly begs the question of what they mean by "evolved." I don't see us getting any better as a species at all. While it appears we make gains in some areas (the treatment of women, the abolition of slavery, advances in technology), we regress in others (our destruction of the environment, the rise of ethnic cleansing, child slave labor, etc).

C.S. Lewis once characterized the idea that we're improving as a species as "chronological snobbery," which is the assumption that we know better than our ancestors just because we happen to be walking about. He considered it the height of naivete and hubris. So do I. But I'm sure Peter is a very nice guy.
==============

leoemyers - 04:52pm Nov 23, 2005 EDT (#38 of 54)

Oh My!

Well actually when it comes to western religions, I will agree that they are in general pathological expressions of this dichotomy of the brain(s).

The whole notion of committing on day 1 to a confirming believe that God was born by a Virgin, died and was resurrected with a presumably worthless human body, and sits in judgment of my personal behavior, commutes my transgressions by virtue of a sincere belief that he is real and I don't want him mad at me and that I am afraid to burn in some undefined Hell for a very long time, etc... is basically preposterous. We have Fathers without Mothers, Sons without Daughters, and Ghosts all separate but still one. We have a Father God part which was willing to destroy the world because there not enough righteous folks around, but is willing to forgive and indeed promote the sinful creations of his own hands to eternal bliss for believing the Son God part is real in spite of the most brutal murder possible by his fellow humans, and apparently the Ghost God part is needed to keep the righteous folks from altering the Father God part?s inspired words when translated, rewritten, and generally reinterpreted of their true meaning by the oral pronouncements of the righteous followers of the various disciples some of which had no personal contact with Son God part but were persuaded by holy visions. Judaism and Islam are little better.

However the Eastern spiritual views and some western mystical traditions have some possibilities which sort of fit into this mind/soul split. After all, there is the possibility, no matter how small, that the brain dichotomy is actually reflection of a basic reality.

I like the one where the universe that we experience is the manifestation of this self-aware consciousness and through some spiritual practices it is possible to sneak around the limitations placed on our personal portion of the universe and identify with the wholeness which is this universe and of course all that is not this universe, etc. Meditation and other eastern practices do open ones consciousness to other modes of experience which reflects something. What of course is the issue!

I find it of some interest that while I expect most spiritual experiences share a common content, it is the expression of these experiences that differences come about. As Joseph Campbell so carefully stated, the spiritual is beyond language; so by necessity when we speak of the unspeakable we are forced to use the language metaphors of our personal experiences and language. Hence Christians see Jesus and Mary while Hindis see Krishna and Radha.

============================

Here's some recent unofficial commentaries on ID from the RC Church:

Vatican Cardinal: Listen to What Modern Science Has To Offer (Nov.3):

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_051103_vatican.html

Pope Weighs In on Evolution Controversy (Nov.12)(Creation was an "intelligent project", not purposeless or directionless):

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_051112_pope_evolution.html

Vatican Astronomer: Intelligent Design Is Not Science (Nov.18):

http://www.livescience.com/othernews/ap_051118_ID_vatican.html
=====================
pdan - 01:09pm Nov 26, 2005 EDT (#45 of 54)

The Revelations

.../... .../...

“…God saw that the light was good…God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering of waters He called Seas. And God saw that this was good… “

Was God (according to these Revelations) just experimenting ? If He were so smart would He not have known that it would be good before he created it ? You can see the answer to this in many ways, but to me it makes sense in only one way. The purpose of the Revelations is to infuse morality into the world. In a world where people were worshipping fire, earth and winds the Revelations pose the proposal that all these are the creations of one source. More than that, in a world where people were fearing and worshipping angels, demons, monsters, good as well as evil, and indifferent deities, the Revelations pose the proposal that not only are all the creations from one source, but that they are all good, none are inherently evil. Most importantly, the creator force is itself good.

When you think about it, it is a powerful message, and a powerful opening to a book of revelations.

While many are stuck on memorizing the literal interpretation of the Bible, Jews are commanded to study it in every generation. To some this may mean memorizing the literal text, to some this means memorizing literally the interpretations of others. To most, study means a search to understand, and that in turn means to interpret into the language and context of the present age, and into each and every person’s own personal vocabulary.

Hence these people believe that not only is one permitted to interpret, one is in fact commanded to do so.
---------------------------