Member 1373
1 entry
4255 views

 RSS
(M, 35)
Espinho, PT
Immortal since Jan 4, 2008
Uplinks: 0, Generation 3

loligovulgaris.com
personal blog
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From lula_assassina's personal cargo

    Shoot up: God's everywhere, you'll hit Him.
    "Life should be a construction of doubts."
    Antónia de Sousa, Dialogues with Agostinho da Silva

    In Homer's Iliad, Aquiles tells that the Gods are jealous of humans' mortality, that immortality is a incommensurable burden for them.
    On second thought, maybe we're jealous of the Gods for it's irresponsible puppeteering.

    Some months ago, I got astonished when I found that there is this world-wide debate on Science vs. Religion, Atheism vs. Faith, and so on. The religious side attacks atheism, telling that religion spreads words and practices of peace, while the other side tells us that such beliefs are simply illusory and irresponsible.

    Well, I personally believe that to be certain of anything is one big illusion. Or not. Then again, I believe in it. First, Earth was plan, then squarish, then round, then ellipsoid and now is potato-like, filled with ups-and-downs. Hey, what's next?

    So, for centuries, religious people had faith relying on the existence of God, while scientists had faith relying that there is actually order in the universe.

    If this is so, why do people argue about this? And I'm choosing the word "argue" because it seems that this phenomena as reached far beyond the meaning of "discussion". Well, it's seems that the most logical evidence is that "isms" fight "isms", that there is this human characteristic of reason imposing, developed throughout millenniums.

    Are that self centered? I personally find fascinating on finding really different approaches to life than my own, so why does difference seems to be a postcard from other planet, requesting our departure for what we cherish? It isn't, it's just a gathering.

    I have Muslim friends, Christians, Atheists, Jews and never heard them telling "my God is better than yours, you should try my own.". Instead, I heard many times "How interesting, it's really beautifull!" or "we do it too.".

    There is no such thing as cultural dominance or cultural development, there are only cultures, as rich as our own. Please don't make it standard, I'm not excited about a mono-colored world where everything is already found and decided.

    Fri, Jan 4, 2008  Permanent link

      RSS for this post
    3 comments
      Promote (4)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (1)
     
    Comments:


    Orizyn     Fri, Jan 4, 2008  Permanent link
    Good thoughts/questions as far as I can see.
    I like to believe in paradoxical thinking myself. If I feel like holding two opposing beliefs I allow it. I don't have to be set on one belief. And I won't dismiss one if I am not sure and I am not sure about many things. Hey, I have been proved wrong a time or two and I like to think I am still open.
    Again, I have to say the tension of opposites is what, I believe, helped to create life itself. Bring on the diversity! It seems a good thing in religion and politics that we continue to have opposing sides. It is from the back and forth movement that we may grow.
    Don't get me wrong, I believe truth exist. Hopefully we are getting there. It is not a miracle that we send probes around planets and receive information back. We planned it like that and some truth about how things work is most certainly known (as one small example). We have to wonder though how the flood of knowledge that we have ammassed in the last 100 trips around the Sun is weighing on us. We take so much for granted, the things we know these days. Some times I would just like to rise above it all.
    Thanks for your thoughts
    fetherston     Fri, Jan 4, 2008  Permanent link
    Discussing the many paradigm shifts throughout history is incredibly fascinating to me.

    They so often deal with addressing the fundamental questions of man. Who am I? Where am I? etc... Ideas form based on the collective understanding that exists at the time derived from observation. The collective understanding at one time believed the world to be flat, and a supreme being governs it as the best answer based on the observations available.

    Now our collective understanding has expanded exponentially, and I believe we are right in the middle of a clash of the scientific and religious paradigms.

    However, to truly think openly about it is to understand that one day, the scientific paradigm will one day clash with another idea.

    Zukzuk     Fri, Jan 4, 2008  Permanent link
    I think the whole Theist/Deist - Atheist discussion really kicked in after 9/11 and is mainly propagated by people who fear a curious cocktail of bronze age dogma and 20th century firepower.
    People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christoffer Hitchens, comically calling themselves "The Four Horsemen", drove the discussion to new heights of aggitation (mainly Hitchens and Dawkins) and sophistication (Harris and Dennet) through countless discussions and lectures in universities and on other podia. The mainstream media picked up on some rather succesful atheist/naturalistic books that followed this interesting explosion of criticism on faith-based lifestyles, and launched the discussion into the mainstream domain.

    If this is so, why do people argue about this? And I'm choosing the word "argue" because it seems that this phenomena as reached far beyond the meaning of "discussion". Well, it's seems that the most logical evidence is that "isms" fight "isms", that there is this human characteristic of reason imposing, developed throughout millenniums.


    I think you hit the nail right on the head. Even the most interesting discussions on the topic (I'll include this one as an example) end in a sort of intellectual stalemate; what I mean by that is that none of the parties is able to succesfully convince the opposite side of any of their numerous points. I think that is partly because of the innate incompatability of the rivalling worldviews, but also, or even mainly so, because it takes a lot of time, energy and courage to break through self imposed barriers in your consciousness, which you have grown to love and charish.
     
          Cancel