| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"robin" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2006 03:57:05 PM |
| Object: |
a role for 'inspiration' |
Is there a valid place for the Eureka-ism that science disparages?
Edward O. Wilson declared that right or wrong, "Religious belief is one
of the universals of human behavior, taking recognizable form in every
society from hunter gatherer bands to socialist republics. Its
rudiments go back, at least, to the bone altars and funerary rites of
Neanderthal man." (quoted by Matthew Alper)
.
|
|
| User: "WhewNotSaved" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
10 Apr 2006 04:04:28 PM |
|
|
"robin" <rs2405@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144702625.564443.180250@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Is there a valid place for the Eureka-ism that science disparages?
Edward O. Wilson declared that right or wrong, "Religious belief is one
of the universals of human behavior, taking recognizable form in every
society from hunter gatherer bands to socialist republics. Its
rudiments go back, at least, to the bone altars and funerary rites of
Neanderthal man." (quoted by Matthew Alper)
I worship Cartman and Tweak
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
10 Apr 2006 10:15:41 PM |
|
|
On 10 Apr 2006 13:57:05 -0700, "robin" <rs2405@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1144702625.564443.180250@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Is there a valid place for the Eureka-ism that science disparages?
Edward O. Wilson declared that right or wrong, "Religious belief is one
of the universals of human behavior, taking recognizable form in every
society from hunter gatherer bands to socialist republics. Its
rudiments go back, at least, to the bone altars and funerary rites of
Neanderthal man." (quoted by Matthew Alper)
Are you able to give examples of where "science" has disparaged
"Eureka-ism"?
While you are at it, please explain exactly how an abstract noun is
capable of disparaging anything, let alone another abstract noun.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "robin" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
12 Apr 2006 03:40:10 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray remarked on Science versus "Eureka-ism"
Speaking only for myself, I have thought that one of the great values
of Darwinism, even despite the "racism" that it seems to (for whatever
reason) reflect, has been that it is a great "explaining tool" for
origins of life, and for their diversity yet similarity.
But obviously there are other superb explaining tools, in other fields
of curiosity. For example, the right brain, left brain researches.
If art and music and more "Freudian" interests can be pursued using our
intuitive side (Eureka-ism), why should that "side" be considered
hostile to "science"???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
13 Apr 2006 02:49:59 AM |
|
|
On 12 Apr 2006 13:40:10 -0700, "robin" <rs2405@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1144874410.289253.299180@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Michael Gray remarked on Science versus "Eureka-ism"
<snippage restored>
Are you able to give examples of where "science" has disparaged
"Eureka-ism"?
While you are at it, please explain exactly how an abstract noun is
capable of disparaging anything, let alone another abstract noun.
Speaking only for myself, I have thought that one of the great values
of Darwinism, even despite the "racism" that it seems to (for whatever
reason) reflect, has been that it is a great "explaining tool" for
origins of life, and for their diversity yet similarity.
But obviously there are other superb explaining tools, in other fields
of curiosity. For example, the right brain, left brain researches.
If art and music and more "Freudian" interests can be pursued using our
intuitive side (Eureka-ism), why should that "side" be considered
hostile to "science"???
What relation does this febrile response bear to my very clear
questions?
Are you able of attempting a response to say, the first question of
mine, with at least a modicum of clarity?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "robin" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
13 Apr 2006 02:17:36 PM |
|
|
Hi Michael.
Yes, to you probably, I am a bit confusing. We probably speak different
"languages" and perhaps to you I am not intelligent, or scientific.
I do not know that you would say it this way, but then, we do not seem
to be reaching the merits of the others argument.
The point I was trying to make (which you seem to knock) is that there
can be people who claim to be anointed by "God" perhaps, or have the
final answer, have the whole Truth (from Mount Sinai or whereever), and
thus they are the ones who demand answers. There is an arrogance, a
sort of holier-than-thou, or smarter-than-thou attitude.
Why waste time with them? Because one always hopes one is mistaken.
'The greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism.'
The Christian Bible translates a Greek phrase (the word gnosis) as,
"science falsely socalled"
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"
Of course, is that how Paul the Jew first wrote his protegee? The Bible
we have today had to be recopied countless times, over and over again,
when one copy wore out, someone had to recopy it. Even when they used
leather, it only lasts so long. Especially in a moist or temperate
climate.
So after being copied and recopied scores of times, little errors could
creep in. Just as with Homer and Euclid, Archimides and Socrates
(Plato), Ceasar and Cicero, etc.
Christians often pretend they are no longer bound by their parents
sacrifices, now they are so much wiser than the previous generations,
and owe nothing to them.
They see the achievements of western civilization and then pat
themselves on the back!!!
They are ashamed of their humble origins. Ashamed even to admit the
striggles of their own people, their tribal subconscious, their genetic
reality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
13 Apr 2006 08:49:41 PM |
|
|
On 13 Apr 2006 12:17:36 -0700, "robin" <rs2405@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1144955856.664467.24400@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Hi Michael.
Yes, to you probably, I am a bit confusing. We probably speak different
"languages" and perhaps to you I am not intelligent, or scientific.
I judge only by the content of your posts.
So far I have not had enough coherent input from you to decide one way
or the other.
What is your primary language?
I may be able to read it, if not write it.
I do not know that you would say it this way, but then, we do not seem
to be reaching the merits of the others argument.
I have yet to spot an argument from you.
You appear to skip all over the place, avoiding answering my simple
questions, and not quoting them in your responses.
For intance, I asked 2 questions, the first of which was:
Are you able to give examples of where "science" has disparaged
"Eureka-ism"?
You have yet to address that question.
I cannot see an attempt in this rather lengthy reply of yours.
Can you see why I am feeling frustrated?
The point I was trying to make (which you seem to knock)
I was trying to get you to clarify a bold statement.
If you see that as "knocking", then I cannot help that.
So far, you have not answered my request.
is that there
can be people who claim to be anointed by "God" perhaps, or have the
final answer, have the whole Truth (from Mount Sinai or whereever), and
thus they are the ones who demand answers. There is an arrogance, a
sort of holier-than-thou, or smarter-than-thou attitude.
Eh?
How does this admittedly admirable observation answer or even attempt
to address:
'Are you able to give examples of where "science" has disparaged
"Eureka-ism"?'
Are you able to stay on the one logical thread until it is resolved,
before moving aimlessly onto another?
Why waste time with them? Because one always hopes one is mistaken.
'The greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism.'
The Christian Bible translates a Greek phrase (the word gnosis) as,
"science falsely socalled"
1 Timothy 6:20?
The phrase is "pseudonumos gnosis", not the word "gnosis".
The word "gnosis" is translated as "science" here, NOT "science
falsely socalled".
It is the "pseudonumos" bit of the phrase that means "falsly named".
"O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called"
Of course, is that how Paul the Jew first wrote his protegee? The Bible
we have today had to be recopied countless times, over and over again,
when one copy wore out, someone had to recopy it. Even when they used
leather, it only lasts so long. Especially in a moist or temperate
climate.
So after being copied and recopied scores of times, little errors could
creep in. Just as with Homer and Euclid, Archimides and Socrates
(Plato), Ceasar and Cicero, etc.
Christians often pretend they are no longer bound by their parents
sacrifices, now they are so much wiser than the previous generations,
and owe nothing to them.
They see the achievements of western civilization and then pat
themselves on the back!!!
They are ashamed of their humble origins. Ashamed even to admit the
striggles of their own people, their tribal subconscious, their genetic
reality.
I think I can see what you are getting at, in a way, and mostly agree
with you, if my interpretations of your somewhat impenetrable writing
style are at all accurate.
Now, could you please have another stab at answering my question:
'Are you able to give examples of where "science" has disparaged
"Eureka-ism"?'
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "robin" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
19 Apr 2006 03:29:51 PM |
|
|
I looked up 1 Timothy 6:20, and the translation I found used the
phrase, the "oppositions of science falsely so called."
Is there a discrepancy?
There is a theory they cram down our throats, in the semiotic
discipline, claiming that every word is abstract to the degree that all
language is symbolic, and to that extent indefinite (representative).
I tried to express an uneasiness I have felt with the so-called
LITERALISTS, who (to me) swagger and boast (merely by their attitude),
a kind of sneering pose, that everyone else are women, fools, or the
less favoured races destined for extermination.
Am I accusing someone of something? Yes, my accusation is this. I sense
a kind of dogmatism. Perhaps I am wrong, but why exacerbate things by
foolishly rushing into an exchange like that?
Eureka-ism is the wrong word. A more proper word might be
"unscientific"
If Saint Francis was God's fool, then what is Christianity? Easy
answer, Thomas Paine, godfather of the American Revolution, felt
Christianity is a vast obscenity.
Freud, perhaps the most brilliant and innovative pioneer in the science
of the interprestation of the output of the subconscious, said religion
is the product of weakness, an infantile neurosis with sexual
overtones.
I see post after post after post with criticism of religion in general,
and Christianity in particular.
I happen to think there is more than a little truth to the criticisms
of both Paine and Freud. Certainly any attachment I have nourished in
the realm of instinct and the unseen realm of dreams and faith and the
intuitive, I have done so not so much from self-sufficiency, as from
need and from weakness, from frailty, perhaps, or probably, from my
lowly nature.
Paine criticized the Bible for its metaphorical style. He wanted
directness, not hidden meanings.
It is a tragedy of the culture passed down to us, that slaves had to
transmit their secrets by means of ambiguities, and multiple levels of
meaning.
The powerful sensed something was being communicated which they were
not privy to.
Paine specifically mentioned Ezekiel, and he might have included the
Apocalypse.
The irony is, the answer may have been there all along .....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
19 Apr 2006 09:19:43 PM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2006 13:29:51 -0700, "robin" <rs2405@hotmail.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1145478591.690142.78390@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
I looked up 1 Timothy 6:20, and the translation I found used the
phrase, the "oppositions of science falsely so called."
Is there a discrepancy?
:
In that you claimed that this entire phrase was translated from the
single word "gnosis", yes.
100% wrong.
Please re-read what I wrote on this topic before proceeding to other
matters based on incorrect translations.
You would do yourself a favour in your reply, to stick to one single
short issue at a time.
It is likely my problem: I have enough trouble interpreting one of
your paragraphs, let alone several pages, so please be kind to me and
keep your replies to a paragraph, or at most: two.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "robin" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
21 Apr 2006 12:59:23 PM |
|
|
What can I say. Yes, I appreciate the input, the reactions of
thoughtful and intellegent people. But (perhaps my prejudice), I would
rather see a sermon, than hear one any day. This is not a white versus
native issue, I think it is a human issue. People sometimes use their
intelligence not as an open door to discovery and self-understanding,
but as a cudgel to beat others down.
Michael Gray chides me, perhaps not unfairly, for my headlong rush
among a range of thoughts and subjects. I am sorry that I tend to do
this. Things I have struggled for, oh so laboriously, now seem much
easier, and exciting, and like a premature ejaculationist I speed along
the ice, a daredevil of intellectual self-absorption, forgetting that
others are doing me the courtesy of trying to follow my banshee-paced
energy.
I shouldn't beat myself down. Some of what I have learned on my own, I
could not have even attempted without the huge assistance of persons
(teahcers), who at one time may have been somewhat exasperated at my
own difficulty in comprehending the obvious. I am not a natural
learner, you should see me pound my head over declensions of nouns and
conjugations of verbs, of tenses and cases and number.
I truly value having people respond, react (and offer impressions) who
are, likeme, interested in the enigmas of faith and doubt and paradox,
of human origins and the vast stretches of time, beginning with the
lowliest primeval inception of organic life on this planet among
planets from the last reaches of unrecorded time.
Evangelicals, whether Catholic or Protestant or the ever-incresasing
number who may fall somewhere in between, have much to offer, but we (I
feel) do well when we are able to open our ears and open our minds to
what the so-called "heretics" and outsiders have to say. We learn most
from those who question most deeply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
10 Apr 2006 09:04:58 PM |
|
|
On 10 Apr 2006 13:57:05 -0700, "robin" <rs2405@hotmail.com> wrote:
snippage
Is there a valid place for the Eureka-ism that science disparages?
Edward O. Wilson declared that right or wrong, "Religious belief is one
of the universals of human behavior,
A simple acknowledgement of human history except that today,
religion is the hair on the hairless ape.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Buck" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
10 Apr 2006 09:43:42 PM |
|
|
<piggybacking>
On 10 Apr 2006 13:57:05 -0700, "robin" <rs2405@hotmail.com> wrote:
Is there a valid place for the Eureka-ism that science disparages?
Of course. We still need writers of fiction and people with a talent for
brainstorming. Just because science doesn't have much use for it doesn't mean
it has no place in the rest of society. Even from a scientific standpoint, life
is about far more than the simple binary facts of existence. To say that
science "disparages" it is to state a falsehood. Science no more "disparages"
your so-called "Eureka-ism" than children's stories "disparage" macrobiotic
chemistry - one simply has nothing to do with the other, that is all.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
************************************************
The true mark of a civilized society is when its
citizens know how to hate each other peacefully.
************************************************
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robin" |
|
| Title: Re: a role for 'inspiration' |
12 Apr 2006 03:34:12 PM |
|
|
"religion is the hair on the hairless ape."
A nice turn of phrase.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
