tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post2592775973726741830..comments2024-01-11T07:17:00.531-05:00Comments on Dem Bones: "Spiritual but not religious" and rigid truth claimsDrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-16470794780090176722008-12-29T02:51:00.000-05:002008-12-29T02:51:00.000-05:00Sorry guys, gotta call bullshit. Loved your conver...Sorry guys, gotta call bullshit. Loved your conversation, and you did well by each other. But Drew has done the same thing he always does:<BR/> All religions answer these questions. Even non-religions answer these questions with their own data set. An athiest would say that we are evolutionarily complex animals made up of elements from previously exploded stars; there is no over-arching purpose to our lives and there is no life after death. All valid and respectable answers.<BR/> I call bullshit because there is only one valid and repectable answer, that is to say the true answer. There were simple organisms that gradually over a process of millions of years evolved into us. We know what we know as humans (if you read the scientific research), the rest is just guess work. I can, however, assure you that the answers are not in a book written thousands of years ago by a group of illiterate bronze age sheep herders.<BR/> It is in this sense that I evaluate "truth claims", i.e, things that are actually true. <BR/><BR/>PeaceMatt F.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18246998355550525395noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-18244559332654755862008-12-24T14:39:00.000-05:002008-12-24T14:39:00.000-05:00Ah. I'm getting a better sense of what you're disc...Ah. I'm getting a better sense of what you're discussing here. Sorry about the misinterpretation.<BR/><BR/>As a former Latter-day Saint, and someone who went through a very difficult period of weeding through my faith and making a break with what I "knew" to be true, I agree with you on the purpose of religion and the danger of absolute dogmas created by some.<BR/><BR/>I equated these absolutes with axioms programed into the though processes of people. Truths whereby all encountered is interpreted. I wrote about this in a couple of posts on my personal blog. <A HREF="http://joel-junior.com/wp/2007/07/11/challenging-axioms/" REL="nofollow">Challenging Axioms</A> & <A HREF="http://joel-junior.com/wp/2007/07/12/guilty-axioms/" REL="nofollow">Guilty Axioms</A>. I also touch on this in <A HREF="http://joel-junior.com/wp/2007/07/12/guilty-axioms/" REL="nofollow">Religion & Rational Thought</A>.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments about <A HREF="http://vbprogressives.com" REL="nofollow">Virginia Beach Progressives</A>. I'm still tweaking and adding to it, but I like what's come together so far.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-48306167603142535072008-12-23T16:31:00.000-05:002008-12-23T16:31:00.000-05:00p.s. Joel, your Virginia Beach Progressives websi...p.s. Joel, your <A HREF="http://vbprogressives.com/" REL="nofollow">Virginia Beach Progressives website</A> is absolutely gorgeous. Everyone involved in VA politics needs to check it out.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-53472671469443165912008-12-23T16:13:00.000-05:002008-12-23T16:13:00.000-05:00Joel,I guess in my haste to get to my rant on rigi...Joel,<BR/><BR/>I guess in my haste to get to my rant on rigid truth claims, I wasn't exactly clear. Although I am personally bothered by "spiritual but not religious" people, for my own reasons, I am not against them or their understanding of reality. I really just used the "spiritual, but not religious" article to move into my soapbox rant, perhaps irresponsibly.<BR/><BR/>I was very hasty in saying that every human being needs to have an organized epistemological framework to understand reality. We have to make sense of the environment (and universe) around us and how we fit in. We need to have certain existential questions answered: who are we? where did we come from? were are we going? what is our purpose? is there life after death? <BR/><BR/>All religions answer these questions. Even non-religions answer these questions with their own data set. An athiest would say that we are evolutionarily complex animals made up of elements from previously exploded stars; there is no over-arching purpose to our lives and there is no life after death. All valid and respectable answers.<BR/><BR/>The set of answers that we posit to these existential questions provides us with a framework to interpret reality and then a worldview in which we navigate our environment and relate to those around us. As an athiest, I would relate to you differently then as a Christian (sure, the actions might be the same, but the underlying thought process would be different). As a Muslim, I would understand the world around me differently than as a Buddhist. These frameworks and worldviews are necessary for each human being.<BR/><BR/>So interpreting "reality as reality" or believing in "some unseen force" are certain respects the same thing, a necessary organized epistemological framework.<BR/><BR/>Organizing a community of like-minded people is human nature; birds of a feather flock together. Institutionalizing these communal beliefs and creating rigid dogma, perhaps, is also inevitable, but it is potentially dangerous.<BR/><BR/>Does all of that even make sense?Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-70870091318091497852008-12-23T15:31:00.000-05:002008-12-23T15:31:00.000-05:00I don't get it. I understand your thinking on trut...I don't get it. I understand your thinking on truth claims and how the absolution of those claims is dangerous, but I'm not quite understanding why you're against "spiritual but not religious" or why organized religion is really needed. Your argument is that cultures and government would collapse without religion?<BR/><BR/>Shouldn't reality be interpreted as reality, and not something caused by some unseen force; or, even worse, some unseen forced defined by an institution and then used to push forward the agenda of that institution "in the name" of that unseen force?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com