Subject: Re: music as a process of religion
From: Robbie (shok@netcom.com)
Date: Sun Jan 09 2000 - 05:31:27 EST
ya said:
<< I think you're creating a fiction here. It is true that our only
knowledge of religions is in societal contexts. No argument there. But
we have no knowledge of what individuals would "come up with on their
own" apart from a societal context. So your comments about an
individual "not being able to come up with religion on their own" lack
support and credibility. We simply have no way of knowing. If a person
lived apart from all society, we would never hear of them, would we? If
a person had lived so separate from society, in fact, that he or she did
not develop speech, on what rational, factual basis can we assert
"anything" about what they "would think"?
It seems more reasonable to go with the evidence we have (societal --
which keeps coming up with religions) rather than evidence we're
inventing (the imaginary individual that we have no evidence of). >>
Fine. So dump the "raised by wolves" scenario. I wasn't trying to
construct something very elegant there, I was only trying to demonstrate
that one may survive, perhaps even thrive, without religion and that on
these grounds, it is unnecessary. One needn't stick to this single
senario in order to establish this fact.
<< I think a lack of experience and reading is working against you
here. The guy who created "formal logic" (Aristotle) did so within a
very specific cosmology and theology (read his Metaphysics). The
Scientific Method was only capable of being developed because of the
intellectual rigor of Monks ranging from St. Augustine to William of
Occam, to Anslem...the list goes on. Many of these guys had more in
common intellectually with people like Darwin than they do with people
like Falwell. But you have to read them to understand that. >>
I'm not denying that something good may have come from people who were
religious, even devoutly so. The principles modern science stands on
may well have come from people trying to understand "God's World." But
as science lays out reasonable explanations of the Universe, a belief in
god(s) becomes more and more redundant.
<< But why is "necessary" a "necessary" trait? >>
That strikes me as such silly word-play. What we are discussing is
belief in god(s). The notion that some omniscent spiritual force (or
some group of them) zapped the Universe into existence and is continuing
to run the show from behind the curtain is quite a leap. If that leap
is not necessary, why would I make it? I don't.
<< On what grounds do you determine what is "necessary" and what is
not? >>
If B exists, and it could not exist without A, then A is necessary.
Religion and god(s) are not necessary.
<< I think you're having trouble with the whole concept of nature. If
nothing but nature exists, why is a nurturing mother on any different
grounds than a killing one? >>
In a sense, she isn't. There are two different types of "nature"
causing us trouble. "Nature" as in, a general inclination toward, and
"nature" as in the world, the Universe, all that exists.
It is unnatural for a mother to kill her child insofar as mothers
typically have an inclination to protect their children.
It is not unnatural for a mother to kill her child insofar as such
events exist in nature.
<< What I meant to say is that I've never met arguments presented by
atheists against the existence of God that were thoroughly rational. >>
I have never made a real argument against the existence of god. I never
could make a real argument against the existence of god. Nor could I
make a real argument against Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth
Fairy.
An Atheist needn't prove that there is/are no god(s); the lack of proof
for his/her/their existence by Theists is all the proof we need.
I was born with no belief in the supernatural. That is my default
mode. If the supernatural is proven, then I will acquire a belief. If
it is not, then I will remain in default mode.
<< You need to read more. Read Hume. Read Kant. I don't think you
really know what logic is. You're mistaking premises for the methods we
use to process the premises from which we work. Logic can't tell us
anything. We tell it first, and it tells us from there. The premises
are always supplied by faith.
Think about how much faith you're working on here. You are assuming
language is adequate to process these issues. You're assuming the
English language, specifically, is adequate. You're assuming your
sensory perceptions -- the ones that you're relying on to read my post
and respond -- aren't fooling you.
You can't logically "prove" any of these things. You have to assume
them a priori. There is no thought system, no matter how rigorous, that
does not proceed on some a priori beliefs. So there is no system of
thought that does not rely on some degree of, gasp, faith. >>
This is what I assume: the things that I can see, hear, smell, taste,
and feel are real unless I have some damn good reason to believe my
senses are fooling me. The laws of nature which humankind has
documented and appended names to(but not invented, mind you) are
absolute and unchanging, otherwise documenting them would serve no
purpose and our microwaves and airplanes probably wouldn't work.
And if this discussion turns into one on the subjectivity of reality, I
will politely excuse myself from it as I have a policy of leaving the
postmodernism to effete snobs.
<< You believe in much that you cannot prove. You do so on a daily
basis. >>
I believe in that which I can perceive directly and that which I can
prove using that which I can perceive directly.
The supernatural falls into neither of the above categories.
<< However (and again it would pay you to read an introductory
philosophy textbook), there have been logical proofs for the existence
of God. One -- the ontological argument -- has even been declared
airtight by logicians after being subject to computer analysis. >>
The only textbooks pertaining to philosophy that I have read are "The
Story of Thought: The Essential Guide to The History of Western
Philosophy" by Bryan Magee and "A Short History of Philosophy" by Robert
C. Solomon and Kathleen M. Higgins. Perhaps they are lacking. Both of
them mention about everything you have mentioned thus far, and both of
them have been interesting and enlightening reads. But neither of them
has significantly changed my views or has laid out what I consider to be
reasonable arguments for the existence of god(s).
So still, I resort to my good ol' Default Mode.
<< But that's just it -- if we try to define what a Homo Sapiens is
simply based on what we observe in nature (and that is all you can do if
there is no supernature) -- then you have to admit we may be very
sociable, but usually not very compassionate. >>
No, I don't have to admit. I don't, actually. I would have to admit
that we are not ALWAYS very compassionate, but I do not have to admit
that we USUALLY are not. I entirely disagree.
<< Most of human history is bloodshed, rape and murder.
On a scale unmatched anywhere else in the observable natural world. >>
Interestingly, an overwhelming percentage of this bloodshed, rape and
murder occured directly because of, and not in spite of, religion and
theology.
<< You can only value compassion because you were raised in a tradition
that believes there's more to being human than just nature. Just as
every atheist who has ever lived... >>
This is simply not so. I can value compassion because I am a social
animal and like all social animals, I have evolved through Natural
Selection to harbor compassion. I am not necessarily compassionate all
the time (I have also evolved anger and jealosy), but being biologically
programmed to survive in social groups and propogate my genes, I value
compassion by evolutionary necessity, not merely by social custom.
Emotions, like every other part of us, evolved into us because at some
point or other they helped us survive. When there are nasty
sabre-toothed tigers about, a feeble little Homo sapiens won't last long
without a herd to turn to for protection. And he won't survive long in
the herd unless he's sociable. Thus, human beings are innately
compassioniate unless they have some severe (and rare) psychological
disorder.
<< You're mistaking modern American cultural norms for something
absolute... :) >>
That's funny, I was about to tell you that you are mistaking something
absolute for modern American cultural norms. :)
-- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |+-+-+-+-+-+-+-sanity is relative+-+-+-+-+-+-+| -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Mon Feb 28 2000 - 08:38:06 EST