Theists just LOVE to play fast and loose with pronouns:

"A big challenge for the New Atheists is to engage not just our minds but also our hearts. If you like, our right brain as well as our left.

What seems to be missing from the atheist accounts of the human condition is an acknowledgement of our vulnerability and frailty, along with our sense of wonder and awe."

Who is 'we'? Who is 'our'? The New Atheists have already done an excellent job of engaging my 'heart' -- if by that you mean drawing out an emotional commitment to a secular world. A world in which four-year-olds no longer carry banners demanding that people be beheaded seems to me a goal worth fighting for, and I have no trouble committing myself to it emotionally. Nor, judging by the steady growth of atheism, do many other people.

Putting religion forward as a solution to our 'vulnerability and frailty' is particularly cheeky, since religion is largely responsible for much of what people perceive as their own weakness and guilt. Manufacturing an imaginary problem in order to provide an imaginary solution is what religion does best.

But let's agree that it can be reassuring to believe nonsense, even if that belief makes you riot in the streets when someone questions it. Is it a GOOD thing? Who here will vote for comforting lies over the disturbing truth? And is the truth really all that disturbing? There are millions of atheists who seem to have no problem with it whatsoever.

It consistently amazes and frustrates me that those who believe in a god seem to assume that those who don't are lacking in emotion, the capacity to feel wonder and awe, and a sense of 'the whole', whether it be the whole human or the whole universe.

On Sunday I attended a Conversation between Ian Robinson, former President of the Rationalist Society of Australia, and Rev. Paul Tonson of the Uniting Church in Nunawading in Melbourne, talking about "Spirituality without God". Ian described an experience he'd had many years ago which he said he could only describe as being like 'falling in love with the universe'. But, he went on to say, despite being intensely emotional and awe-inspiring, he felt no 'need' to ascribe to this experience any supernatural source or transcendental association.

Those who heard Richard Dawkins speak at the first Global Atheist Convention would remember that his topic, far from being a rallying call to stamp out religion and religionists, was a lyrical speech on "Gratitude" - gratitude at the beauty of nature, gratitude for the human capacity to understand and thereby appreciate both the complexity and the simplicity of nature. Such feelings of gratitude do not however imply that there is someone or something to which thanks are due. It's just the feeling of gratitude that the universe is so incredibly, wonderfully beautiful.

The human heart is not separate from the human mind, and reason is not separate from emotion.

The author is attacking a straw man. A straw man is an object ascribed to those who one is attacking which is not the product of the person or philosophy attacked but is the creation of the attacker. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God. An atheist can have feelings of awe at seeing a baby or looking upward at the stars

The feeling of awe is neither the product of religion or atheism. It is simply a sense of wonder at being alive and realising the wonder of it. The straw man is the author's assumption that atheism claims to incorporate a sense of awe.

As Doestoyevsky said there is more to life than two times two equals four. However, one need not appeal to Christianity or any other religion to know that. Roughly half the world is not Christian. Would the author claim that among that half there are none who feel a sense of awe and wonder.

The item is merely another puff piece for Christianity which is merely one of many supernatural beliefs among humans. We can have a great sense of wonder when we reflect that we each grew from a single cell and the ancestors of that single cell reach back into the immensity of time. Elements in our bodies are the creations of the stars. Religious superstition by presenting fairy tale biblical explanations for the process denies our sense of wonder at our origins.

An appeal to emotion is fallacy, especially when applied as a de-facto appeal for belief in god/s.

Appealing to a couple of "authorities" such as Pascal or, 'god-forbid', Alain de Botton, is also fallacy, especially when appealing to emotion.

The heart as a focus for cognition of emotion is a straw-man - it is our brains and aspects of our sub-conscious & learned responses that determine emotion.

The Universe inspires awe in many, especially for the complexity and the simplicity of the basic chemistry and basic organo-chemistry that underpins it - there are 6 key elements to organo-chemistry of biology: C,H,N,O,P & S.

Throw in some Na, Cl, K,Ca, Fe, Mg, a few more in-organic elements, a few billion years, and hey presto!

The regular appearance of articles such as this - that claim awe as the exclusive province of the religious - indicates to me a growing sense of discomfort within their flock. It seems that the very existence of rational thought worries them, and they secretly long for the days when the default option was an automatic belief in some kind of God or other.

It is unsurprising that they are getting nervous, and an interesting process to observe.

But it will not be the humourless "New Atheists" that change their views, but their own gradual realization that imagining an "author" of the universe is not only a pointless exercise, but it is entirely counterproductive. The atheist approach specifically permits a higher level of wonder and mystery at our amazing universe than that of someone whose approach comes to a grinding halt at the "it was God wot dunnit" level.

This attitude necessarily inhibits enquiry. After all, if you know the score of a football match ahead of time, you are far less inclined to watch it. What would be the point of exploring the origins of our universe, step by step getting closer to its starting-point, when you actively fear finding out anything that contradicts your preconceptions?

The other striking element of the piece is the reference to the "New Atheist" as their target for derision. Paradoxically, these folk are not the enemy of the religious. They are only an obvious target for comparison simply because they are so alike. Having organized themselves into a recognizable clique, "New Atheists" demand the same kind of loyalty to their cause that religious groups are so famous for.

The folk that theism should truly fear is not the self-promoting pseudo-intellectuals that join a club in order to big-note their supposed rationality, but the quiet, and growing, army of small-a atheists, who have come to their own conclusions, for their own reasons.

These are the people that will eventually render religions redundant.

This is very typical of the kind of essays that get published in the Australian in defense of Christianity. And of course the kind of naive simplistic posturing that the Centre For Public Christianity promotes. And the IPA too for that matter.

Appealing to "Pascal" (who lived 350 years ago) is a very common gambit with Christian apologists.

This is evidence of how spiritually bankrupt the Christian tradition has been ever since, so that it has not produced another authoritative voice to appeal to.
If Christianity is supposedly true in the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries why arent there some authoritative voices who exemplified the tradition. Spirituality awake men or women who gave us reports based on their own direct experience of the Spiritual dimensions of their existence-being.

Experiences that were self-authenticating in and of them-selves. Experiences which did not require any reference to the Bible or the writings/rantings of long dead "authorities", whether Pascal, Aquinas or Augustine - that is all of the long dead half-imaginary comic-book "prophets" etc of the past.

Never mind that if anyone does the necessary serious homework they will find that there is no truth to be found in any of the usual religious propositions.

And of course the very last place that you will find the Living Divine Reality is at Ridley College, the Centre For Public Christianity or any of the "theology" outfits or organizations that are associated with them

...Tut-Tut to the parade of the “super intelligent” atheist posters above…maybe it’s time to exercise some scientific research on your shrunken brains. I mean to say…Atheism and homosexuality march hand in hand, surely that fact must give you a “twig” to a problem!

<can a materialistic worldview account for the human heart?>

Yes indeed!
Marx asserted that the whole Western narrative of epistemology was delusional; that rather than pursuing the conundrum of metaphysics we abandon it; that thought can be none other than the expression of its respective mode of life, or cultural florescence; that all our pontificating is hubris.
To insist on anything other is to insist on the concept of individual, spiritual-integrity or "soul". Marx devoutly believed in individualism, but for him it was vested in our physical, exigent relationship with nature and the biologoically-adapted uniqueness each one of us brings to that condition. Consciousness cannot be objective in that way; it's derivative and ideologically conditioned. Modern Marxists tend to think our "sophisticated" consciousness is the constructed product of language; psychologically, each one of us is a unique collection of cultural verbiage--though we delude and flatter ourselves there's a centre to it.
Just as we cannot know whether we're conscious or dreaming, we cannot credit the mere yearnings of the human "heart".
This is why I think the proper course is to investigate the motivation behind the faith. In many cases it will be seen to be vested in nothing--and manifested in complacency and "dull routine", rather than spiritual practice--but there are also cases where unexplainable phenomena is compellingly experienced. The New Atheism is too dismissive of this. Whereas as William James said, we should seek "the pattern-setters to all this mass of suggested feeling and imitated conduct. [In the] individuals for whom religion exists not as dull habit, but as an acute fever".
My own position is of course agnostic; the only thing I find truly compelling is my ignorance of such matters. Indeed I scorn conceited, self-centred attentions--though I'm open to unbidden experience--in favour of my concern with the real and tangible problems of the "physical" condition and this world.

On the New Atheist side; they need to be just as suspicious of their vaunted "reason" and its diverted, partisan and/or insidious motivations and political advocacies.

Diver Dan you really need to talk to a secular counsellor, about your obession with homosexuality.

No mention of Pascal's Wager? I always liked Pascal's Wager. It's a nice little bit of philosophy. Although I must confess that I prefer the atheist's wager:

>>You should live your life and try to make the world a better place for your being in it, whether or not you believe in god. If there is no god, you have lost nothing and will be remembered fondly by those you left behind. If there is a benevolent god, he will judge you on your merits and not just on whether or not you believed in him.<<

Cheers,

Tony

'This is why I think the proper course is to investigate the motivation behind the faith'

Indeed...

' mean to say…Atheism and homosexuality march hand in hand, surely that fact must give you a “twig” to a problem!'

There really seams to be a pathological fear going on there. I cringe at how embarrassing it must be when a homophobic person realizes that everybody knows where their fear really comes from...

Tony Lavis,

I prefer Homer's wager. 'Why can't I worship the Lord in my own way, by praying like hell on my death bed'.

It's much smarter. If you plan to become a believer in your death bed as a just in case, god cant reject you, and if he did, he wouldn't be god in the first place.

This is assuming you don't die suddenly rather of some disease as is increasingly likely these days.

Yes and no.

Yes, atheism/humanism does overstate the function of reason, attributing it with powers of motivation/drive that it does not have. Hume is correct: our emotions do drive us and reason is their "slave" as he says. Atheists would do well to learn this. Reason can inform us, reason can suggest behaviour, but ultimately only emotion/feelings can move us. Prominent atheist Betrand Russell said likewise: "all human activity is prompted by desire". So humanism is all about satisfying human desires and atheists should move on to the topic of human wellbeing/satisfaction rather than simply criticising religion all the time. The "father of secular humanism", Paul Kurtz, recognised the same problem. Can humanism fill the void left by religion? Have we evolved with a dependence of religious thought. All good questions. Only time will tell.

No, emotions do not lead to faith/beliefs. Whatever feelings of awe and whatnot we may have buried within us, they constitute zero evidence for any supernatural being. None. A simpler and more reliable explanation is that all our feelings are of and for this world, and religion mistakenly interprets them as evidence of gods.

@mralstoner: "Hume is correct: our emotions do drive us and reason is their "slave" as he says. Atheists would do well to learn this."

Since Hume was an early atheist and is still venerated by the atheist movement, it's redundant to suggest that we should 'learn' one of his discoveries.

In any case, isn't it the theists who spend their time twisting the real world out of shape to manufacture some 'objective' basis for their desires? All the atheists I know just get on with deciding what they think is best and then doing it.

John J writes

'A world in which four-year-olds no longer carry banners demanding that people be beheaded seems to me a goal worth fighting for, '

Many from the secularist parents would be murdered before they get to 4 years old. Something conveniently forgotton or explained away by pseudo science. No true rational. Thankfully Christ taught us to value life.

But those that DO get to be four years old, Runner -- would you encourage them to carry banners calling for the execution of those who oppose their religion? Let's get your response on record.

I'm sorry Brian, but if God is everything he's cracked up to be in the brochures then Christian faith leads inescapably to religious determinism… So any yearnings about the messiness of life are a waste of time.

Your claim that "What seems to be missing from the atheist accounts of the human condition is an acknowledgement of our vulnerability and frailty, along with our sense of wonder and awe." doesn't accord with the accounts of any atheists – or indeed of any atheists of account – in my experience.

That experience being an honest acknowledgement of our vulnerability and frailty, along with our sense of wonder and awe.

For a mind funking perspective of the scale of individual ego, 'Star Size Comparison' is 2:30 minutes well spent…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q

>>For a mind funking perspective of the scale of individual ego, 'Star Size Comparison' is 2:30 minutes well spent…<<

Well I'm convinced. You can have my liver.

But I still think Douglas Adams put it best:

>>Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.<<

Cheers,

Tony

Diver Dan come out from the closet it will do you good and you'll find peace.

JonJ

'But those that DO get to be four years old, Runner -- would you encourage them to carry banners calling for the execution of those who oppose their religion? Let's get your response on record. '

It does lead me to wonder why you would ask such a stupid question. How many Salvos, Baptist, Happy clappers have you witnessed herein Australia holding up such signs? You are far more likely to see secularist calling for the right to murder their babies in the name of 'woman's'right. That is closer to the barbaric signs held up by the protestors and violence held in Sydney. In actual fact it was very similar to a trade union protest minus the signs.

Runner, are you aquainted with the name Major Andrew Craibe of the Australian Salvation Army, who was quoted by the media in June this year saying "Gay people should be killed" !

So, Tony, a shared love of poetry (sometimes my major intestine feels like it's insistent on trying to throttle my brain) and Douglas Adams… You might also have offered:

"There is a theory which states that if ever for any reason anyone discovers what exactly the Universe is for and why it is here it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another that states that this has already happened."

Dear runner,

Christ taught us to value life? How ridiculous! "Thou shalt not murder" was one of the Ten Commandments which Christ who was not a Christian knew.

Of course the idea that one should not murder existed before the Jews. Clay tablets found in Sumer tell of a murder trial around 1850 BCE. Pages 56-59 of "History Begins at Sumer" by Kramer tells the story of the trial.

Christians with their history of Crusades, burning of heretics at the stake, Wars of the Reformation, support of the death penalty etc. have shown a disregard for life.

Of all religions the Jains apparently have the greatest regard for life including all animal life. They are vegetarians and may carry a broom to whisk away small creatures in front of them and wear a mask so they will not accidently swallow small life.

When one believes in an afterlife as many superstitions teach this life can be disregarded as one can be rewarded in heaven. Atheists know that the mumbojumbo of an afterlife is nonsense. Atheists know that pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by simply isn't so. Death is forever. This life is the only life we have so it is precious.

Runner, Christianity is only one of many religions, and Christ is only one of the many supernatural entities worshipped by those religions.

No he didn't Kipp.

Kipp

'Runner, are you aquainted with the name Major Andrew Craibe of the Australian Salvation Army, who was quoted by the media in June this year saying "Gay people should be killed" !'

Really Kipp? Is this another of your misrepresentations and slanderings with no evidence to back your claim? Or is this something quoted on the ABC or 'gay ' express?

davidf

your Christophobic rants and distortion of Jesus teachings are well documented throughout OLO.

I would hope if a child and dog was drowning at the same time you would have the decency to save the child first. Your dogma of putting animals on the same level of value as a human is idiotic. No wonder you believe in the evolution fantasy. At least you can't be accused of being a cannibal like others who hold to the fairytale and still eat meat.

Google Major Andrew Craibe Salvation army

Kipp again you are so deceitful. Yes 'gays ' deserve death just like fornicators, liars and every other sinner on earth. Thank God that He had mercy on humanity.

You know their is a large difference between someone who deserves death and someone saying 'all gays should be put to death '.

Do you lie awake wondering how you can display your Christophobic nature?

>>Major Andrew Craibe of the Australian Salvation Army, who was quoted by the media in June this year saying "Gay people should be killed" !<<

>>No he didn't Kipp.<<

GrahamY is right. Major Craib said gay people deserved to die not that they should be killed:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8488793/salvation-army-apologises-over-on-air-comments

Apparently this is an important distinction.

Cheers,

Tony

"Do you lie awake wondering how you can display you Christophobic nature?"

runner,

And do you lie awake composing the insulting labels your paste over other poster's on OLO....as in deceit, hatred, Christophobic? (to name a few)

For anyone who cares, the podcast of Serena Ryan and Pete Dillon's interview with Major Andrew Crabe on their program 'Salt and Pepper' on 21 June on JOY 94.9-fm is here:

http://www.cpod.org.au/download.php?id=9182

runner wrote:

davidf

your Christophobic rants and distortion of Jesus teachings are well documented throughout OLO.

Dear runner,

You have continued to accuse me of distortions but never point out any distortions I have made. There is a very simple reason for that. I don't distort. Apparently you are allergic to facts.

Runner your callous attitude towards fellow human beings, is beyond contempt

<When one believes in an afterlife as many superstitions teach this life can be disregarded as one can be rewarded in heaven>

Thank you David, I've been hammering this point forever.

However: <Atheists know that the mumbojumbo of an afterlife is nonsense. Atheists know that pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by simply isn't so. Death is forever. This life is the only life we have so it is precious>
They "know" no such thing. They are perfectly justified in their disbelief but knowledge is another matter. This is not splitting hairs.
What's lost in some of the above is that Hume's empiricism cannot account for human consciousness, that is not if we are to credit its surmise (reason) as going beyond a kind of working-rationale peculiar to the species. Bumble bees and goldfish no doubt have some kind of concept of their universe, but its laughable to imagine they can infer the depths of "reality" (not just their own reality) from that perspective. How is it we assume the fidelity of our own perspective? Hume devoted his life to empiricism in despair at the passions, but he forgot that the empirical findings of the senses are vetted by the same impassioned mind. The concept of consciousness I canvassed above is compelling (to me), but it's been found wanting recently and there are now numerous analytical thinkers prepared to ponder the possibility of idealistic/spiritual realms to account for it, or at least to not rule them out. How indeed can they be ruled out? Are we in a position to arbitrate? Humans are either inexplicable smart (in which case for atheists the universe is becoming self-conscious, or has that propensity), or irredeemably thick.
I'm sceptical of the former and tend, intuitively, to back the latter, but maybe there's a third option.
As I say, in any event I'm concerned with the hear and now, but sometimes the purveyors of reason seem as narrow-minded to me as their opponents.

Dear Squeers,

There is absolutely no evidence or no reason to suspect that consciousness can exist without the physical brain. There is absolutely no reason to assume that death is not forever. We certainly do not know the mechanism for human consciousness or that of other creatures. We do know that it requires a physical brain.

"There is absolutely no evidence or no reason to suspect that consciousness can exist without the physical brain"

You're missing the point, David, that we can't account for the humanist, or anthropocentric, mind/brain on empirical/materialist terms, except along reductionist lines that preclude the very sagacity we anoint ourselves in.
I agree there's "no reason to assume that death is not forever"--indeed I rule out all "assumptions"--except the testimony of a great many of our highly intelligent (by human standards) forebears. If we may denounce all of them as deluded in their convictions, why not ourselves?
My point is that there's no reason to assume our powers of reason are decisive, or even reasonable.
"We certainly do not know the mechanism for human consciousness or that of other creatures. We do know that it requires a physical brain".
Do we?
How do we "know" that?

Kenny/Kipp

...Do you suggest I come out from under the alter (boy)? Sorry…I deny any connection! If I were homophobic I would take great offense at some rude imputations being “bandied” around this site.

...No, It is a sad reality that atheists and homosexuals have harnessed themselves together in an advance against Christianity, and more recently Islam.

Squeers: is onto it !

#...On the New Atheist side; they need to be just as suspicious of their vaunted "reason" and its diverted, partisan and/or insidious motivations and political advocacies…#

Well david f: You say…

#...There is absolutely no evidence or no reason to suspect that consciousness can exist without the physical brain…#

You may if you wish, debunk your own flawed theory with some scientific evidence. Darryl Reanney (dec’d), a molecular biologist, proposed a timeless consciousness from scientific proof.

...Two of Reannies’ books worthy a read are:
“The Death of Forever” (A new future for human conciousness)…ISBN 0 285 63271 X (paperback). Maybe “Kindle”?

And..

“Music of the mind”
ISBN 08 5572 2401

...Both books a must-read for all atheists, (and homosexuals too), I believe; before making utter fools of yourselves.

.

Dear Brian, if I may,

That is a thoughtful and analytical article. I agree with much of your vision and would like to project it a little further.

My understanding is that the protective and all powerful father or god image we have developed has served us well in our fight for survival and continues to do so, not just in times of woe and severe distress, but even in our ordinary everyday lives. Intelligence, love, empathy, altruism and self sacrifice are all faculties we share, of course, with other living species to varying degrees.

Faith, confidence, belief, or whatever you like to call it, are probably, also, I suspect, faculties which are not exclusively human. They, too, assist us and, I suggest, other living species, in facing the unknown and contribute to our well being in what might otherwise be interpreted as a hostile environment.

Religion and justice, on the other hand, appear to be more sophisticated concepts which serve to maintain peace and harmony within human societies whose members have attained a far greater degree of individual autonomy than all other species, though the behavioral patterns of servitude and self sacrifice among insect colonies such as ants, wasps, bees and termites, are, in some respects, comparable to religious practices among human societies. This raises the question as to what extent, if any, religion shares common roots with the primeval instincts of certain insect colonies.

I fully agree with you that tolerance of others is a highly desirable and realistic objective for present generations and those of the immediate future. Whereas acceptance of others remains pure utopia and, I suspect, will do so for a few more hundred million years or so. By that time, I doubt that anybody will believe in the existence of a god or gods any more, even the most remote savages still living on the planet at that time

.

I find it uncomfortable to attribute human balance to 'religion'.

We all, no matter our colour, creed, religious denomination, spiritual enlightenment, biased incorrect view, truth faculty or whatever you wish to call it, fail to acknowledge that we are a finite being, like those simple animals and plants that are currently abundant, but rapidly declining on our finite planet.

Do you really care what others believe? or are you so set in 'your ways' that the bigger more important picture becomes obscured.

We all need to learn tolerance for others, their beliefs, notwithstanding the hatred that so many above put forward, despite indoctrination and family based brain-washing.

Life is a gamble, nature is a marvel and beyond simple understanding.
Science, in my view, provides many of the myriad answers that require investigation, analysis and application for the betterment of a sick species that by all comparison is becoming plague like in a petri dish of our own making.

Christian. Muslim, Buddhist, call you whatever, the real reality is we just may never know and the myopic views posted above attest to the infinite reasons why we will never really progress as a species in situ.

Pericles nailed it on the head, get with the new mantra, leave your bias at home and hopefully, sometime in the distant future we can have a species that is not ranked, scaled or truly biased to a fundamental mantra that breeds hatred, intolerance and ethnic myopia that currently is the malaise of this planet.

Where is the good old, "treat your neighbour (minus the human, biological racism, etc) that would see our collective union work toward a more progressive and harmonious future for all.

Over to you all....

Why is there even a term "atheist" ? Do we have a term for people who do not believe in astrology for example, a term for people who don't believe in the tooth fairy ?

Why are we told to prove there is no God when no proof of his existence is offered ?

I once thought the way was to be respectful of their beliefs but I now realise this was naive as they weave their evil into the community through their whacky moral codes and make no mistake, that's what makes them all intolerably evil.

The main thing that I find astounding is, if god doesn't like the way I live, let him tell me, not you.

"We certainly do not know the mechanism for human consciousness or that of other creatures. We do know it requires a physical brain."
"Do we?"
"How do we "know" that?"

Good question....sometimes reason can only take us so far.

Take Bell's Theorem for instance:

"In 1935, several years after quantum mechanics had been developed, Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen published a paper which showed that under certain circumstances quantum mechanics predicted a breakdown of locality. Specifically they showed that according to the theory I could put a particle in a measuring device at one location and, simply by doing that, instantly influence another particle arbitrarily far away...which Einstein later called "spooky action at a distance."

Just a little food for thought. Bell's Theorem is illogical, but it is true for quantum physics. Particles seemingly communicating "information" - at a distance, merely from the consequence of being measured.
http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/kenny/papers/bell.html

.

Dear Brian,

.

Just a brief comment on the title of your article "Reason has its place, but the human heart yearns for awe":

As you may be aware, recent research on the human heart reveals that it is not just a pump. It seems it also contains an intricate network of several types of neurons, neurotransmitters, proteins and support cells similar to those found in the brain. Its elaborate circuitry apparently enables it to act independently of the cranial brain, allowing it to learn, remember, and even feel and sense.

It has been found that the heart not only has its own brain, but it also has an electromagnetic field 500 times stronger than the brain's magnetic field and, apparently, there is even evidence that brain waves and heart waves can communicate between different individuals.

As you rightly suggest, reason does, indeed, "have its place", but not just in the brain, also in the heart. That is, obviously, something Blaise Pascal could not possibly have known when he was philosophising 350 years ago, so we shall have to forgive him for that.

Perhaps, in the not too distant future, we shall find that the hearts of other living species are similar to ours in this respect and even that our liver or some of our other giblets demonstrate similar properties.

Also, what once may have been considered romantic gibberish may now prove to be scientific fact.

.

The toxic nature of this debate is well illustrated by the Craibe event where he is merely restating the general Christian proposition that the wages of sin are death, but that the reward of a Christian life is eternal life. There is not the slightest suggestion that he is suggesting that gays ought to be put to death, or even suffer an earlier human death.

The death is a spiritual death.

I don't happen to agree with him, but I disagree much more strongly with those who maliciously misrepresent what he said and use it as a weapong to condemn Christianity and make out that it is violent.

Dear Squeers,

I wrote: Atheists know that the mumbojumbo of an afterlife is nonsense. Atheists know that pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by simply isn't so. Death is forever. This life is the only life we have so it is precious.

You wrote: They "know" no such thing. They are perfectly justified in their disbelief but knowledge is another matter. This is not splitting hairs.

I made a statement which I was not justified in making. Atheism is the lack of belief in God. The opinion or knowledge in other matters including consciousness or an afterlife is irrelevant since it resides outside of a definition of atheism. Atheists may have any opinion regarding an afterlife or consciousness. Since I was not justified in making the statement I rescind it.

I accept your distinction between knowledge and belief.

I had no right to speak for atheists in areas other than lack of belief in a deity. I see no reason to believe in an afterlife or in consciousness without a material basis for it.

Dear Diver Dan,

Your connection of homosexuality and atheism convinces me that you have problems. I am not prepared to deal with those problems and do not wish to engage with you on other matters

>>Bell's Theorem is illogical<<

No it isn't. Bell's Theorem rules out locality at the quantum level which seems counter-intuitive to you and I because we are subject to decoherence and evolved and live in a world of classical physics. But there isn't anything illogical about it.

>>Perhaps, in the not too distant future, we shall find that the hearts of other living species are similar to ours in this respect and even that our liver or some of our other giblets demonstrate similar properties.<<

I don't know about livers but you have a 'second brain' in your gut: the enteric nervous system. It can operate autonomously of the central nervous system. Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enteric_nervous_system

>>The toxic nature of this debate is well illustrated by the Craibe event where he is merely restating the general Christian proposition that the wages of sin are death, but that the reward of a Christian life is eternal life. There is not the slightest suggestion that he is suggesting that gays ought to be put to death, or even suffer an earlier human death.

The death is a spiritual death.<<

Is it? Here is a transcript from the interview:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/salvos-victorian-spokesman-major-andrew-craibe-speaking-to-gay-radio-station-joy-fm/story-fn7x8me2-1226407035593

Yes it is Tony. The transcript is behind a paywall so I can't access it, but I heard excerpts at the time and am well aware of the verse and what it means. You might also like to look at the Salvation Army response: http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/about-us_65047/media-centre/current-media-releases/joy-fm-interview.html

Given the nature of the Salvation Army and its work, one would have to be very biased against Christianity to take as the base position that one of the Salvo's officers would suggest that people of any group ought to be killed. Unless one was so dense as not to realise that the reference to "Army" in their title is itself metaphorical.

And if that is the base position, then you would look behind the hate speech that is spilling out of the gay lobby and others to find out what he really meant. He's guilty of being clumsy, not of inciting a riot.

david f,
you take a rationalist view that I sympathise with and respect.
I similarly take the view that there's little to be gained from idle speculation, and indeed that preoccupations with the next world too often tend to neglect and indifferent exploitation of this one. The insane obsession with human procreation, for instance, at the expense of all other species and a generalised degradation of the planet.
Religion encourages an eccentric separation of body and mind that's nothing less than deviant, since whatever the nature of consciousness we are Earth-bound. We ought to respect and fear the clay we're comprised of, and dependent on, at least as much as the spirit we flatter and dupe ourselves with.

"There is a great deal too much in the world, of the "heavenly-mindedness" which expends itself in the contemplation of the joys of paradise, which performs no duty which it can shirk, and whose constant prayer is to be lifted in some overwhelming flood of Divine grace, and be carried, amidst the admiration of men and the jubilance of angels, to the very throne of God" (Henry Trumbull).

Brian Rosner asks, "To what end is my sense of justice and my yearning for transcendence, and so on, in purely evolutionary terms?"

The responses from atheists so far I don't think have really addressed this question.

Remember what Dawkins said, ‘We live in a universe which has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.’

If the universe is indifferent why should you care?

david f:

...You cannot preach atheism from an ivory tower david f. When you come out in public places such as this site, it is pretty cowardly to walk away from a challenge, by offering a personal insult as response. That puts you on a low level Dave!

...This article in its opening lines references marriage of homosexuals; I respond! I am not out of order here to do that. Linking the homosexual lobby with atheism and those proponents of it, such as you set yourself up to represent, is simply stating the obvious. It is no secret that atheists and the homosexual lobby, are joined at the hip in their relentless attack on religion.

...I would suggest david f, it is sadly factual that it is “you” with a closed mind on this issue. But adding to the sadness of your state, you further demonstrate an inability to educate yourself and refuse to acknowledging the reference of two high quality books, debunking your theory that consciousness is conclusive at death.

...Both books were written by a scientist, Darrel Reannie, a molecular biologist with a long and distinguished record in scientific endeavor.

I heard the transcript of the interview with Craibe of the Salvation Army. The only way he could have satisfied his questioners was to disavow his Christian beliefs. I think those beliefs are unreasonable. However, I think asking him to abandon those beliefs is also unreasonable.

One of the prerequisites of living in a civilised society is to get along with people whose views one disagrees with. Those who interviewed Craibe wanted him to accept their views.

I see no reason that Craibe should have accepted their views. I also see no reason that they should have accepted Craibe's views.

Let us live together in peace and disagreement.

The well funded Salvation Army, went into PR panic mode on hearing that broadcast and the media comments.
Indicating that they were disturbed, by their spokepersons responses.

The passage that Craibe was defending as 'Christian doctrine' was Romans 1:18-32 which can be found here:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32&version=NIV

I fail to see the metaphorical intent you and the Salvos attribute to St. Paul. His words on the subject seem quite clear and unambiguous to me: those who do such things deserve death. Not spiritual death: just death. Bear in mind that St. Paul wrote those words along time ago - ideas that seem shocking to you or I might not have been so shocking to him. He speaks of the spiritual death and poor afterlife prospects of homosexuals in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

>>He's guilty of being clumsy, not of inciting a riot.<<

Well obviously: riots get reported. And I'd say he was bit more than clumsy: I've never seen a man digging so furiously to get himself out of a hole. In the face of repeated questions along the lines of 'so you think homosexuals should die' you don't continue to defend the proposition because it's in the bible and so it's part of Christian doctrine, you reject it out of hand because it is a contemptible proposition regardless of your faith and because it is counter to mainstream Christian moral teaching. Which you would expect a Major in the Salvation Army to know.

Cheers,

Tony

Tony, you are obviously a more subtle reader than me. Can you point out which phrase or sentence you are referring to, because I cannot see it?

.

Dear diver dan,

.

"It is no secret that atheists and the homosexual lobby, are joined at the hip in their relentless attack on religion".

While I have no way of verifying that statement, it merits examining in context. The context, I understand, is not so much the general relationship of religion and homosexuality but, more precisely, the question of same-sex marriage.

Marriage is probably not the most appropriate term, the word marriage deriving from the Latin "mater", mother. Perhaps "wedlock" (pledge-giving condition) would be more appropriate.

Of course, most religions disallow and condemn same-sex wedlock. Civil same-sex wedlock is possible in 11 countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden) and 6 states of the USA. Israel recognizes same-sex wedlock but does not allow it to be performed within its borders. Six religions condone and practice same-sex wedlock (Quakers, Liberal Jews, Wiccans, Druids, Episcopalians and Unitarian Universalists).

Legal same-sex partnerships other than wedlock is practiced in 29 countries and 12 states of the USA.

In 2009, the UK Hindu Council issued a statement declaring "Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality". The UN Human Rights Council passed a resolution in 2011 officially recognizing LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) rights.

Opposition to same-sex wedlock is increasingly seen as a homophobic attitude, qualified by some as heterosexism or heterocentrism, similar to sexism or prohibition to interracial marriage during apartheid in South Africa.

Perhaps it would be fair to conclude that it is something of a chicken and egg dilemma as to who of "the homosexual lobby" and "religion" is "relentlessly attacking" whom. The media may not be the principal battlefield. Jousts on the media may be just the tip of the iceberg. The main theatres of war may be disseminated throughout the country, in every little crook and cranny, in every preach and sermon, in every schoolroom where religious instruction is dispensed, in every local, state and national election meeting, in clubs and reunions, in every decent family gathering.

Also, many homosexuals may be atheists but many atheists are probably not homosexuals.

.

Didn't the BibleGateway link work either? That's a pity: BibleGateway is a really good website for looking up stuff in the bible. The sentence I'm referring to is Romans 1:32.

Romans 1:32 NIV
Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

Dear Banjo,

Thank you for your survey of of homosexuality, religion and same-sex marriage or wedlock which is probably a better term.

One item can be added. Some homosexuals are religious believers and would like to see their relationship acknowledged in a religious ceremony. As you pointed out Quakers, Liberal Jews, Wiccans, Druids, Episcopalians and Unitarian Universalists condone and practice same-sex wedlock.

There is no rason to assume that the percentage of religious believers among homosexuals is significantly different than among the heterosexual population at least at the beginning of their realisation of their sexual nature. They may leave their religion because they have been made to feel unwelcome.

Banjo Paterson:

#… Opposition to same-sex wedlock is increasingly seen as a homophobic attitude, qualified by some as heterosexism or heterocentrism, similar to sexism or prohibition to interracial marriage during apartheid in South Africa…#.

...With this hysterical attack on those in opposition to homosexual marriage, you shot all your arguments in the foot!
Homosexuality, is an aberration of nature and not the fault of those suffering from the affliction of homosexuality; true. But this aberration should not be turned into a club of “guilt” to be used as a weapon against the majority of our community either.

...The fact remains, there is a homosexual lobby; as there is a rebel group in Syria opposed to Bashar Hafez al-Assad and undefinable; vague; deliberately evasive and harbouring hidden agendas; and “dangerous” to the greater good of the community.

...And obviously, the majority in the community are actually opposed to including in homosexual marriage into any further social construct, and with good cause.

The passage doesn't say "deserves to be put to death", it says "deserves death" Tony. It supports the conventional reading of the passage. No-one is talking about putting homosexuals to death.

I fully agree with what Graham Y just said.

Kipp,
The Salvation Army's PR were quite likely concerned by the media and their excesses or misunderstandings rather than by the comments of their Major.

Tony.
Craibe is accused by the media of saying something odd. It seems that he is happy to clarify that he's only espousing what St Paul wrote in the Bible, and that which has been Christian doctrine for thousands of years.

Thanks for highlighting what Paul wrote in the book of Romans. Generally, in the early part of Romans Paul is teaching about universal sinfulness. 

Paul singles out homosexuality as a key illustration of how people have fallen away from worship of the true God (see Gen  19:1-28 ; Lev  18:22 ; ). God created human beings as male and female, and engaging in homosexual activity is a violation of God’s creative intention. Yet in verse 32, the condemnation of death refers to a great long list of sins. And reading further into chapter 2, we see that the sins are not committed by a few but committed by all. All of us sinned and all are deserving of death. Paul says that the entire world is guilty before God.

Death is universal because sin is universal. When Paul specifies in Romans 5:14 that everyone - from the time of Adam to the time of Moses - died (physically), he is relating death with the disobedience of Adam, for Adam was the only one who broke a specific command ('don't eat the fruit'), for the other laws weren't given until Moses' day.

This reveals that the punishment of death Paul mentions in 1:32 is a physical death. Yet it is the same condemnation of natural death that we are all under and which all experience, for all have sinned. For everyone has died since the time of Adam (and not before then, as the evolutionists claim.)

>>The passage doesn't say "deserves to be put to death", it says "deserves death" Tony.<<

Well obviously. I can read you know. If you'd like to read back whatever I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote here it is again:

>>I fail to see the metaphorical intent you and the Salvos attribute to St. Paul. His words on the subject seem quite clear and unambiguous to me: those who do such things deserve death. Not spiritual death: just death.<<

Can you see the word 'put' in those sentences?

>>It supports the conventional reading of the passage.<<

The conventional reading? The one that goes 'Where St. Paul says death he really means 'spiritual death': pay no attention to what is actually written on the page.'? I'll pass: I think it's important to look at what is actually written down and not some be-frocked gentleman's creative interpretation.

>>No-one is talking about putting homosexuals to death.<<

Kipp was earlier. I corrected him. I had thought that had settled the matter.

>>Death is universal because sin is universal. When Paul specifies in Romans 5:14 that everyone - from the time of Adam to the time of Moses - died (physically), he is relating death with the disobedience of Adam, for Adam was the only one who broke a specific command ('don't eat the fruit'), for the other laws weren't given until Moses' day.

This reveals that the punishment of death Paul mentions in 1:32 is a physical death. Yet it is the same condemnation of natural death that we are all under and which all experience, for all have sinned. For everyone has died since the time of Adam (and not before then, as the evolutionists claim.)<<

Well that's one way to look at it.

Just to clear things up: Adam was supposed to have lived and died about 6,000 years ago. Archaeologists - not 'evolutionists' - have discovered human remains dating as far back 190,000 BC so we were dying long before Adam was traipsing about the garden of Eden.

Cheers,

Tony

'Archaeologists - not 'evolutionists' - have discovered human remains dating as far back 190,000 BC so we were dying long before Adam was traipsing about the garden of Eden. '

Oh that's the latest chapter is it Tony. Don't worry it will need to be changed to fit the next chapter in evolutionary fraud. You have to laugh at such nonsense or be mad that taxpayers are paying for this fraud.

.

Dear david f.,

.

Thank you for reading my thoughts and generously using some of your word credits to express them here.

I had none left and had to content myself with a single line.

.

Dear diver dan,

.

I am sure you are right in thinking there is a homosexual lobby. It seems perfectly logic to me.

I have no preconceived ideas on the subject of same-sex wedlock. I have no axe to grind. If you look more closely, you will see that I did not shoot myself in the foot. I was not expressing a personal opinion in noting that opposition to same-sex wedlock is increasingly seen as a homophobic attitude. The evidence is available for any inquisitive enquirer to discover. I did not invent it. I simply pointed to it. That was not a gun. It was my finger.

I, personally, do not consider opposition to same-sex wedlock as a homophobic attitude. I suspect the problem is more of a psychological nature, but, I hasten to add that I am totally incompetent in matters of psychology.

Your suggestion that something may be "an aberration of nature" is interesting. It merits reflection. It raises questions as to what the norm might be. Are you the norm? Am I? Is my child the norm? If not, should I reject her?

My understanding is that each of us is a unique individual. That there is no norm. That we are all variations to the general theme we call "human being". Biologists study genomic variation and its effect on phenotypes and gene regulation. Much of what we are is determined at conception and during the early years of our life and is not the result of our individual choice of morality.

The term "aberration" designates a departure from the norm with a negative connotation derived from moral notions of right and wrong. Biologists avoid projecting morality into their observations and employ the more neutral term of "functional variants".

I, personally, prefer to consider homosexuality as "a variation of nature" rather than "an aberration of nature" as you suggest.

.

It always fascinates me how firmly you are able to grab the wrong end of the stick, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Remember what Dawkins said, ‘We live in a universe which has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.’ If the universe is indifferent why should you care?<<

Being "indifferent" is not a pejorative term in this context, as in "he was indifferent to the fate of six million Jews". Those are merely overtones that we infer from behaviour of humans, not the universe at large.

Dawkins was pointing out, in his somewhat charmless fashion, that the universe operates with its own agenda, regardless of the carbon-based life forms who inhabit the teensy-weensy speck of that universe we call Earth.

Despite the wording in some insurance agreements, earthquakes are not "an act of God", which is merely terminology surviving from a more unenlightened age. They are instead acts of a uniquely indifferent "mother nature", completely out of the control of us weaklings. In your concept of the world outside the confines of your religious beliefs, we should not care about the victims of an earthquake - or a flood, or a drought, or a hurricane - because the cause is "indifferent".

If indeed they are, in your view, "acts of God", what does that tell you about his indifference to the fate of the people he kills along the way?

To turn your question back to you: if God is indifferent, why should you care?

Pericles,
The original question came from Brian Rosner, "To what end is my sense of justice and my yearning for transcendence, and so on, in purely evolutionary terms?"

In evolutionary terms, life evolves without a teleological view, with no purpose or end in mind. In that sense it's blind or indifferent. I think that's what Dawkins was getting at. If there is no God or Spirit, then only matter remains. All causes are material; just atoms bumping around. So Rosner asks, why this yearning in the presence of grandeur, or sense of injustice in the face of devastation. Can such things be explained within this framework?

I don't believe God is indifferent. As Paul explains in Romans, ever since the first sin of Adam, all of us sinned and all are deserving of death. God has placed a judgement and curse upon the world. Earthquakes and other disasters are reminders of sin and it's consequences upon all of humanity. As is declared in Romans 8:20, "all creation was subjected to God’s curse." That God grants life at all is part of his blessings. As Ecclesiastes 3:11-13 opines 'Yet God has made everything beautiful for its own time. He has planted eternity in the human heart, but even so, people cannot see the whole scope of God’s work from beginning to end. So I concluded there is nothing better than to be happy and enjoy ourselves as long as we can. And people should eat and drink and enjoy the fruits of their labor, for these are gifts from God.'

Tony,
Certain GLBT media repeated the phrase "putting gay people to death". So this is why that word 'put' is at issue. 

I agree with you that it is important to look at what was actually written down when interpreting Scripture. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be loose with our interpretation if that strays from what was written.

The Salvos and others are keen to be following the 'conventional' interpretation that has been understood for around two thousand years since Paul's letters have been read and accepted in the church.

However, the conventional interpretation has become muddied since Darwinian evolution has become popular. Before Darwin was buried in Westminster Abbey the conventional view was that death came into the world as a result of Adam's sin about 6,000 years ago. Since then, and with the interpretation of immense geological ages, death is thought to be intrinsic to the theory of evolution, which views death as occurring constantly over eons of time.

Consequently, church leaders have become vague in their interpretation of what is 'physical death' and what is 'spiritual death'. Before churches started swallowing Darwinian philosophy (death, disease and suffering have always been with us as a constant companion to the struggle of life on earth) Paul's letters (which say otherwise) were more straight forward and easier to interpret.

So I agree with your straight forward reading of Romans chapter 1. Nowhere does this mention 'spiritual death'. It just says death.

But I also know that there are those within the Salvos that are starting to wake up and see the theological important issues that derive from the creation/evolution discussion and see its relevance. 

As for those archaeologists who claim to have found human remains over 190,000 years old? Well, that is one way to look at it. But I know they weren't there at the time to write those things down.

So Tony Lavis, if you are not supporting the interpretation put on Paul's words by gay rights activists, what is your point? If you want to take your literalist view of the words, then we all die, and some are more deserving of that death than others.

You still can't deal with that outside of Paul's theology of original sin, and death being a factor in the world being a consequence of that sin. The alternative is eternal life, which Paul says becomes available to humans through Christ. As he views homosexuality as a sin, and a consequence of an abuse of freewill, then ipso facto, they accept the death that Adam brought into the world.

I doubt that he took Dan's view of evolution, but that doesn't really matter in terms of how he saw the world.

If you are not implying the word "put" in your phrase, then you essentially agree with my interpretation of the passage.

Banjo Paterson:

...I recently chided “Individual” for the same attitude. To “sit on the fence” on this issue is exactly the outcome desired by the homosexual lobby. Not to oppose them is to effectively support them.

Comment on this piece of relevance!

#...“The AFL has agreed to show anti-homophobia ads on the big screens at this weekends preliminary finals”...#

...The cleansed homophobe-free games no less! You must agree this situation is out of control!

...I attend football matches strictly for the joy of watching the game...I am hugely offended by the constant reminder of homosexuals and their "broadly" insignificant problems, being imposed on my enjoyment of football...and talking among my group of friends and relations, this latest imposition will not help their cause !

Diver Dan you can still shout your vitriolic antigay comments at the footy, though you will be thrown out of the Oval!! :)

Well of course it does, Dan S de Merengue.

>>In evolutionary terms, life evolves without a teleological view, with no purpose or end in mind<<

It is the question that is the problem, not the answer.

>>The original question came from Brian Rosner, "To what end is my sense of justice and my yearning for transcendence, and so on, in purely evolutionary terms?"<<

By asking "to what end", the assumption has already been made by the questioner that there is indeed some form of purpose. Hence, by definition, your need for a teleological answer.

Another way to pose the same question might be, "what in the evolutionary process caused humans to develop a sense of justice, or allows us to experience wonder at our surroundings?"

This requires no teleology, but instead makes no sense without acceptance of the fact that we have evolved, rather than have been created fully formed.

Both may therefore be described as circular arguments. You need to refer to your Bible to support your argument, I use evolution as my reference point.

For me, teleology is a self-serving set of philosophical concepts that relies entirely on the fact that there is a specific objective to our life on earth.

I don't agree that there being some purpose to our existence is a necessary condition of life on earth. I simply don't need there to be one, in order to experience the awe and wonder of my surroundings, and in the process being profoundly pleased that - given the odds - I exist at all.

.

Dear diver dan,

.

I rarely take the time these days to sit on fences. I did it occasionally when I was a boy wandering about in the bush with my uncle on fishing weekends. The silence was deafening. It used to bore me to death waiting for hours for something to happen, a fishing rod in my hands. I preferred shooting at anything that moved with my old army 303.

Quite frankly, I see no point in worrying about who marries who or why so long as they do no harm to anybody. I am happy to let them get on with their lives. If they are happy, so am I. If boy loves boy and girl loves girl, that's fine with me.

I see no reason why they shouldn't adopt children or conceive them by artificial insemination or some other appropriate, legal and medically controlled method, raise a family and live happily ever after. In fact, I would be delighted if they did.

I see this as much more beneficial to humanity than the incestuous relationships that thrive in far too many heterosexual families. Wife bashing is also fairly common practice, in some cases, until death ensues.

Perhaps I have a twisted mind, but I, personally, consider that heterosexual practices such as these are more to be condemned than two people of the same sex falling in love and wanting to get married. If they do happen to end up fighting each other, at least they will be boxing in the same category.

In my opinion, heterosexual couples are not in a position to give lessons of morality to same sex couples. As somebody said: " And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?". Don't look now, diver, but are you sure your doorstep couldn't do with a good sweeping?

The AFL ads you mention indicate that homophobia in Australia is more serious than I imagined. Mind you, we have always been a bunch of matchos in the sporting world.

.

>>If you want to take your literalist view of the words, then we all die, and some are more deserving of that death than others.<<

Well obviously we all die: we're human: homo sapiens sapiens. Within the phylum chordata and - as far as I know - all known chordates cark it eventually. We all are aware of our own mortality and most people begrudgingly accept it. But as for this idea that some people deserve death more than others: harsh, dude. If someone was to say to you 'I don't think you should be killed because the 5th commandment is very clear on that subject but I still think you deserve to walk under a falling piano tomorrow. Even if you're a really nice guy who's led a largely blameless life you still deserve to buy the farm because a talking snake convinced a bloke and his missus to eat a piece of fruit.' would you regard that as a kind Christian sentiment?

>>You still can't deal with that outside of Paul's theology of original sin, and death being a factor in the world being a consequence of that sin.<<

People don't die because of original sin. They die for more reasons than I can think of but I don't think you'll ever find a death certificate with 'original sin' listed as the cause of death.

>>you essentially agree with my interpretation of the passage.<<

That people expire because a talking snake convinced their forefather and his missus to eat a piece of fruit? And that homosexuals, fornicators, people who are disobedient to their parents, liars and even debaters along with many others deserve to die if they don't seek redemption through Christ? No I don't agree with that. And furthermore: harsh, dude. Did you know that kindness is one of the seven heavenly virtues?

TBC

>>As for those archaeologists who claim to have found human remains over 190,000 years old? Well, that is one way to look at it. But I know they weren't there at the time to write those things down.<<

And we all know that we can only have knowledge of something if there was somebody there to write about it at the time.

And now for a rare on-topic comment: if you look up into a clear starry sky you might just be looking at the Andromeda galaxy which is 2.5 million light years away. The light we see from Andromeda has taken 2.5 million years to reach us so when we look up at it we are looking 2.5 million years into the past. That fills me with awe.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Tony:

You wrote: And now for a rare on-topic comment: if you look up into a clear starry sky you might just be looking at the Andromeda galaxy which is 2.5 million light years away. The light we see from Andromeda has taken 2.5 million years to reach us so when we look up at it we are looking 2.5 million years into the past. That fills me with awe.

Does that actually fill you with awe or do you feel you really should have a sense of awe on looking into the sky?

According to "Origins" the noun, awe, (Middle English aghe) comes from Old Norse agi, akin to Old High German agison, to frighten, Gothic, agis, fear, and old German, I am afraid,old Irish, I fear, and, more remotely, Greek, akhos, distress, pain.

Usage defines words rather than etymology, but the etymology is quite interesting.

I accept the scientific view of the formation of the universe along with the various celestial bodies and life forms. It's a much more fascinating account than the biblical fairy tales. I have to admit my awe quotient is low. I have seen new-born babies whose existence I was partially responsible for. I was shocked to behold them.

One of those bits of squirming life is now a middle aged man who wants to explore our past together. He is much more interesting to me now than when he was a squirming bit of fresh flesh.

I have read books on embryology to find out about the process by which he came to be. I have read books and studied physics and the biological sciences to find out how stars, fungi and humans formed.

Rather than awe I am inspired to the pedestrian (but marvellous) activity of reading a book.

Kipp

...Thank God for football; the last bastion of the homophobe apparently. The scaling of these walls will be watched with amused interest. And you should be happy Kipp, I have won you convert (below)!

BP:

...I am pleased to see you “off the fence”.

So Tony, when your literalist version of the words is shown to lead to much the same conclusion as my symbolic version you decide to interpret the text non-literally. And then you compound it by interpreting a part of the bible that Jews of Paul's day, as well as Jews and Christians of our own, generally understand as metaphorical in an offensive way.

You're behaving like a troll, which seems to be typical of many militant atheists who seem to have picked on Christianity as a scape goat for their own inadequacies.

If you really thought it wrong to be harsh you wouldn't write like this.

.

Dear Tony Lavis,

I neglected to thank you for that interesting link to the web article on the enteric nervous system.

Better late than never. Many thanks.

.

Dear diver dan,

.

I'm afraid it was just an optical illusion, my friend. I have no guns to pop off toes with and no fences to sit on. I speak from the hip and (try to) stand tall.

I just happen to be a lazy bugger and think that tossing out a few one syllable words will do. If you prod me enough I toss out a few more until the tally is right.

"So throw the weary pen aside
And let the papers rest,
For we must saddle up and ride
Towards the blue hill's breast;
...
When Clancy took the drover's track
In years of long ago,
He drifted to the outer back
Beyond the Overflow;
By rolling plain and rocky shelf,
With stockwip in his hand,
He reached at last, oh lucky elf,
The Town of Come-and-help-yourself
In Rough-and-ready Land.

And if it be that you would know
The tracks he used to ride,
Then you must saddle up and go
Beyond the Queensland side -
Beyond the reach of rule or law,
To ride the long day through,
In Nature's homestead - filled with awe:
You then might see what Clancy saw
And know what Clancy knew"

.

Its easy to agree with the title of this article, but to completely disagree with its content. Even if Christianity is accepted as a source of awe necessary to assuage the yearnings of the human heart, it is not the only religion which can provide such awe any more than any religion, past or present, is the sole source of awe. I am awestruck by water: every atom of hydrogen in every molecule of water came into existence at the beginning of the universe, and there it is, as old as time, pouring out of a tap, falling from the sky, essential to my existence. To my mind, that sort of awe beats religious awe into a cocked hat, because it needs no intervention or interpretation to be understood: it just IS, an it is amazing.

Candide,

"Water"

I agree. There's more about water, and it's relevance to all aspects of the human condition, than meets the eye.

(IMO)

The fact that water has its maximum density at 4C and that ice is less dense than water insures that rivers don't freeze at the bottom, and life can live under the water. I make a judgment of the skill of an artist by the way she or he depicts the surface of water. The property by which water adheres to surfaces making little round droplets on leafs as surface tension draws the droplet together gives us beauty in the morning. The white noise of surf is soothing. It is wondrous.

Liquid water, though essential to life, is amazingly rare, present in abundance only on earth. Interesting that this article points to someone who understood the properties of water better than just about anyone, Blaise Pascal, inventor of the barometer, the hydraulic press and the syringe.

GrahamY
I wouldn't so much say Tony is acting like a troll. That would imply insincerity. It's more likely that people of widely different viewpoints sometimes sound to each other like hyperbole. 

With regard to a metaphorical approach to interpreting the Scriptures, I was attempting to show how the Salvos were getting themselves into a little trouble when reading a 'spiritual' interpretation into a passage when it wasn't really called for.

Similarly, I think you're a bit off track in suggesting that St Paul or anyone in Paul's day took a metaphorical approach to the six days of creation. The attempt to blend evolutionary theory and divine creation is quite a recent phenomenon. The great theologians such as Calvin and Luther read and accepted the six days quite literally. You could say the same for the great scientists such as Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal.

Pericles,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've interpreted your answer to Rosner's question as such: "To what end is my sense of justice and my yearning for transcendence, and so on, in purely evolutionary terms?" You say to no end, as evolution has no goal or purpose. Therefore we are mistaken to think such feelings serve any purpose.

Tony,
Eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is demonstrative of man cutting ties with God and severing the relationship. Adam was effectively declaring that he preferred to independently choose his own paths and morality ahead of his beneficent creator. It was not a minor mistake. 

Certainly, written eye witness accounts are not the only source of knowledge but they they are usually our most reliable access to historic details.

I've always regarded the forbidden fruit thing as the first instance of God-the-bully, demanding blind obedience without explanation, and suggesting that ignorance is preferable to knowledge. Why was the tree there in the first place if God really didn't want the fruit to be eaten? What if Adam and Eve had done as instructed, seen out their days in the garden - oops, no Bible, no Judaeism, no Christianity, no Islam. So did they actually do the right thing after all?

It is quite common in fairy tales or in child's games for there to be a forbidden place or a forbidden act which one will receive a dire punishment for violating. Of course there is generally a magical antidote to the curse. The forbidden room in Bluebeard's castle is kin to, "Step on a crack. Break your mother's back." as a child may say when walking on a footpath. Forbidding Adam and Eve to eat of the Tree of Knowledge is simply a standard fairy tale scenario.

However, learned theologians take that fairy tale legend seriously so the Christian version of the antidote to the fairy tale in the Jewish Bible is simply to accept the Christian mumbojumbo and believe on (I don't know why they prefer that preposition to in.) Jesus and be saved.

Fairy tales can be pleasant diversions for children or even adults. However, belief by adults curdles the brain.

Dan, there is a long tradition in the Christian and Jewish faiths of regarding creation as an allegory. Wikipedia has some interesting information on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis.

The ancients were not so stupid as to believe that the myths of their religions were facts. No intelligent Roman or Greek would have seen the stories about their various gods as being anything but allegories, no matter what the populace may have believed.

If you have read Milton's Paradise Lost you will also know that even a 17th Century Calvinist saw the whole thing metaphorically and had no problem writing his own version. Indeed Milton seems to see the Garden of Eden event as a benefit to mankind.

St Augustine also has a metaphorical view.

I'd imagine that those living closest to those times when these parts of the bible were written would also have had a more literary view of what they were saying as they'd have a knowledge of how they were written, and context.

>>So Tony, when your literalist version of the words is shown to lead to much the same conclusion as my symbolic version you decide to interpret the text non-literally. And then you compound it by interpreting a part of the bible that Jews of Paul's day, as well as Jews and Christians of our own, generally understand as metaphorical in an offensive way.<<

My sincere apologies. I did not realise that my summation of Genesis 3:1-6 would be regarded as inaccurate and offensive. Whichever way you interpret it my point about original sin meaning that we die remains the same. Let me rephrase:

>>If you want to take your literalist view of the words, then we all die, and some are more deserving of that death than others.<<

Well obviously we all die: we're human: homo sapiens sapiens. Within the phylum chordata and - as far as I know - all known chordates cark it eventually. We all are aware of our own mortality and most people begrudgingly accept it. But as for this idea that some people deserve death more than others: harsh, dude. If someone was to say to you 'I don't think you should be killed because the 5th commandment is very clear on that subject but I still think you deserve to walk under a falling piano tomorrow because you've been fornicating and you know what St. Paul says about that' would you regard that as a kind Christian sentiment?

>>You still can't deal with that outside of Paul's theology of original sin, and death being a factor in the world being a consequence of that sin.<<

People don't die because of original sin. They die for more reasons than I can think of but I don't think you'll ever find a death certificate with 'original sin' listed as the cause of death.

TBC

>>you essentially agree with my interpretation of the passage.<<

That people expire because of Genesis 3:1-6? And that homosexuals, fornicators, people who are disobedient to their parents, liars and even debaters along with many others deserve to die if they don't seek redemption through Christ? No I don't agree with that. And furthermore: harsh, dude. Did you know that kindness is one of the seven heavenly virtues?

>>You're behaving like a troll, which seems to be typical of many militant atheists who seem to have picked on Christianity as a scape goat for their own inadequacies.<<

It's a good thing I'm a pantheist: I'd hate to have feel so inadequate that I had to resort to personal attacks against people I disagree with.

>>Liquid water, though essential to life, is amazingly rare, present in abundance only on earth.<<

Maybe: a lot of scientists think there might be an abundance of liquid water on Europa - one of Jupiter's moons. If it is there it's beneath a thick layer of ice so we probably won't find out what's down there in my lifetime but the volume of liquid water could be as much as twice as the volume of Earth's oceans. Check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)

>>The ancients were not so stupid as to believe that the myths of their religions were facts. No intelligent Roman or Greek would have seen the stories about their various gods as being anything but allegories, no matter what the populace may have believed.<<

Just because somebody interprets a religious myth as fact rather than allegory it does not mean they are stupid. They just read the text differently to you which doesn't say anything about their intelligence level.

Cheers,

Tony

For what it's worth, Tony, I've been on your side all along and find your position eminently reasonable. How anyone can defend Craibe's position is beyond me. I wonder if Graham gives radical Moslems that much latitude of interpretation of their hate-speak?
I'm also interested in Graham's take on Paradise Lost--seems rather an eclectic reading for a formalist..
And "trolling"; I'm fascinated with this concept too. It seems to me a populist stigma intended to censor and ultimately purge social media of critical thinkers--already an endangered species.
Keep up the good work, Tony.

Dear Graham Y,

You wrote: "Dan, there is a long tradition in the Christian and Jewish faiths of regarding creation as an allegory. Wikipedia has some interesting information on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretations_of_Genesis."

There is such a long tradition. However, there have been schools established in the United States, the UK, Australia and Israel which disregard that tradition. They substitute literal interpretation of scripture for evolutionary biology or teach science and Creationism in tandem. In spite of court decisions that teaching Creationism in place of evolutionary biology violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution state legislatures in the US keep passing laws to get around those decisions. Do you know of any effort by the mainstream Christian churches to support teaching of natural science on a strictly scientific basis in the schools?

A friend of mine who is a professor of zoology told me he thought 20% of his students were Creationists but know evolutionary biology well enough to pass exams in the subject. Their aim appears to be to get credentials as biology teachers and then actually teach Creationism.

.

Religious belief, or faith, is a double edged sword.

On one edge, it is a source of hope and comfort in times of woe and severe distress for all those who are struggling to face up to the harshness and rigour of their daily lives. For the more privileged members of society, it is, additionally, a source of inspiration and a means of expression for their existentialist aspirations.

On the other edge, as Marx astutely observed, it is a valuable political tool in subduing the masses into acceptance of their daily trials and tribulations as their rightful merit. It is an important contributing factor in the maintenance of peace and social order. It is what he described as "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people", an expression borrowed from the Marquis de Sade's 1797 novel, L'Histoire de Juliette, which was echoed by the German philosopher Novalis who wrote, at about the same time as Sade: "Their so-called religion acts merely as an opiate, irritating, numbing, calming their pain out of weakness".

There appears to be no consensus among historians as to the historical value of the bible. At best, it is considered to be incomplete. Its value appears to be more of a cultural nature.

Nor does the bible appear to be the source of religious belief or faith but rather a support for such belief. Religious belief or faith seems to have its origins in custom and tradition, handed down, generation after generation, possibly synchronizing favourably with genetic receptors located in the temporal lobes of the human brain, as posited recently by a number of eminent cognitive neuroscience researchers.

In this sense, the faculty to believe in a protective creator would appear to be an attribute of nature for the assurance, comfort and survival of the human species.

As for the significance of the interpretation by devotees of what are held to be holy Scriptures, this should, perhaps, also be placed in the aforementioned context.

.

Of course, Dan S de Merengue...

>>Pericles, Correct me if I'm wrong...<<

Happy to oblige, as always.

>>...but I've interpreted your answer to Rosner's question as such: "To what end is my sense of justice and my yearning for transcendence, and so on, in purely evolutionary terms?" You say to no end, as evolution has no goal or purpose. Therefore we are mistaken to think such feelings serve any purpose<<

The evolutionary purpose of our having a sense of justice is that it is a survival mechanism. From the basic fight/flight reactions of animals have developed processes that allow us to live communally without killing each other too often. Our "sense of justice" is a manifestation of precisely those evolved systems.

It is not appropriate for me to comment on Mr Rosner's "yearning for transcendence", but it does sound quite unpleasant. I doubt very much if it is a product of evolution, unless by way of a feeling of inadequacy, or perhaps paranoia, both of which are more likely to be caused by his personal interactions with his fellow humans.

We have evolved into beings with a higher level of rationality than, say, a slug. To this end, those feelings of awe do indeed serve an evolutionary purpose, which is to encourage in those who experience it, a need to share it. The ultimate in sharing is of course reproduction, in which case the genes of those who retain a non-slug-like sense of wonder at the universe around them are more likely than not, to breed.

Evolutionary purpose duly fulfilled.

Tony, there is no point arguing with you. The point was whether Craibe was arguing that homosexuals should be killed, and he wasn't. You acknowledge that. The rest is waffle designed to try to hide the fact that you do acknowledge that.

DavidF, I went to a Catholic high school run by Augustinian priests. We were taught evolution as a fact. As I recall it there was only one creationist in my school class, and we thought him very odd. Does that meet your criteria an "effort by the mainstream Christian churches to support teaching of natural science on a strictly scientific basis in the schools". I think you will find that the same is true for every mainstream denominational school in Australia today.

Apologies Dan S de Merengue, I forgot the other half of your interpretation, which is equally erroneous, but in an entirely different manner.

>>You say to no end, as evolution has no goal or purpose<<

Of course evolution has a "purpose". The entire evolutionary process has the purpose of survival, as in favouring those variations that are "better adapted for their immediate, local environment".

>>Therefore we are mistaken to think such feelings serve any purpose<<

Are we?

Surely it is possible to theorize - although very difficult to prove, in our short lifespan - that those of us who experience non-slug-like feelings of awe, or the conviction that justice is, on balance, a Jolly Good Thing, are better equipped, genetically speaking, to handle our lives on earth, and therefore more likely to transmit those genes downstream, as it were.

It makes a great deal of sense to me that those of us with the finer feelings of wonder, and justice, and good-heartedness, and charity, are so endowed as a result of millennia of natural selection.

But it is also intriguing to imagine what possible "purpose" can be ascribed to a God who creates a planet, one among a possible gazillion, it should be noted, only to populate it with people who are forever fighting amongst themselves.

How will he know when he has succeeded in his "purpose"?

Dear Graham Y,

I am aware that the mainstream Christian denominations do not teach Creationism in their schools. I was wondering whether they were doing anything more to promote the view that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. In the US court cases have been brought forth arguing that teaching of Creationism in public schools violated the Constitutional separation of church and state as it was a promotion of religion using government funding. Mainline Protestant and liberal (in the US sense) Jewish groups have supported such suits as ‘friends of the court’. That is one example of what religious groups are doing in the US.

Are they doing anything in Australia?

Banjo,
Along with explaining away all religious beliefs, did these eminent cognitive neuroscience researchers also discover the location of genetic temporal lobe receptors which lead people to vote Labor or barrack for the Sydney Swans? Once we can explain the genetic reasons for why people write to the OLO Forum then we'll all be out of a job.

David f
Your last few posts are faltering under the illusion that it is the role of judges and courts to place stricture around what people are allowed to say and think. 

Unfortunately, evolutionary theory is what it always was: unpersuasive. You may find it a pity that in evolution there is no greater scientific theory championed more by academics while appearing more doubtful to everyone else. Yet the courts are not the way to decide any wide public issue, especially one of such controversy. You're never going to be able to legislate how people think.
 
Ultimately, we are stuck with this compelling issue of how life on earth came to be.  The philosophical starting point divides into two directions. Did life arise by purely undirected processes, or did it arise by some kind of intelligent guidance or design? There are currently those within educational or political circles believing it correct that pressure be applied to actually foreclose discussion of one of the two possible answers to that very fundamental and important question.

However, in scientific and philosophical disputes we must be free to follow evidence wherever it leads. Anything gained by any other means would be a hollow victory. To restrict open investigation and discussion of creationism or any other controversy would be short sighted  and counter-productive. 

Pericles,
I wonder if you have a bitter taste in your mouth; your pragmatism is cynicism transcendent.
<The evolutionary purpose of our having a sense of justice>
What makes you think you have an evolved sense of justice?
There is no justice in evolutionary terms; it's merely a foible, a human foible, a cultured lie, an affecttaion, best disposed of if you want to be truly evolved.
Nor does evolution, as we know it, have a purpose, it's just an accumulating accident, or mad logic, the ultimate rationale.

<It makes a great deal of sense to me that those of us with the finer feelings of wonder, and justice, and good-heartedness, and charity, are so endowed as a result of millennia of natural selection>.

Those chosen few, eh?
As though your distinguishable among your peers or from the rest--or you've crafted your own philosophy, or your special, or your finer feelings are objective, rather than privileged and deluded; an evolutionary accident. Nothing is erroneous in evolutionary terms.
What you've espoused above is the logical consummation of rational thought bent on validating itself, a dead end, vanity--from which all tyranny proceeds.
This is not a personal insult. How can there be personality, or finer things, in evolutionary terms?
Evolution is just bio/geological process. How can it reflect upon itself?

Wow, Squeers.

>>...your pragmatism is cynicism transcendent<<

I really wish I had the faintest idea what that means. Seriously.

>>What makes you think you have an evolved sense of justice?<<

Actually, I thought that was what this thread is all about. We, humans, seem to have a sense of justice. Some folk seem to think that God has something to do with this, others - such as myself - believe that it has come about through a process of evolution.

Those who think that it was God wot dunnit don't need to present any evidence for their belief. Nor, it would appear, any data on which God was actually responsible for this - whether the sense of justice is identically instilled by the Islamic God and the Christian one, for example.

The question was asked whether evolution has anything to do with these feelings, not whether I, personally, have an "evolved sense of justice".

>>Nor does evolution, as we know it, have a purpose<<

Oh, but it does. As I pointed out, its purpose is to weight the odds in favour of survival.

>>As though your distinguishable among your peers or from the rest<<

Not my peers, that would be silly. I'm talking about humans being distinguishable from slugs. Or rabbits. Or dung beetles. We have evolved along different paths, and are therefore most easily distinguishable in my opinion.

In the process, we have gathered ourselves into communities which require higher-order thinking that simply whacking lizards on the head for food. Evolution has ensured that those higher-order brain functions are the survivors (although I would accept that an examination of our current crop of politicians might be offered as refutation).

>>What you've espoused above is the logical consummation of rational thought bent on validating itself, a dead end, vanity--from which all tyranny proceeds.<<

What is it about logic that you find so threatening, that you have to redefine it as vanity? I personally find rational thought has a generally civilizing effect. Certainly more so than threatening to burn at the stake people who don't believe the same as you do.

Squeers, you need to apply yourself to the text and see what is written there. Paul's is not "hate speech". I'm not defending it for inciting violence, which it doesnt. Christianity does not licence the killing of enemies of the religion as Islam does. You won't find me defending Islam on those grounds, although I might on others.

I'm not sure you know what a formalist is, or why you think I am one, or why I should somehow be bound by your assessment of me in how I assess a work of art. You're right about one thing - I am eclectic - but my interpretation of Milton is not particularly eclectic. You don't need to walk outside the text to come to my view of it, and many have come to the same view.

For "trolling" a bit of research will help you there. Wikipedia has a useful entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet). Lavis meets the elements. His post referring to a "talking snake" was inflammatory, extraneous and off-topic, and I'm sure he meant to be disruptive. Respectful people don't do those sorts of things. The question is whether Craibe was saying homosexuals ought to be killed, and he wasn't. QED (that's Latin).

>>For what it's worth, Tony, I've been on your side all along and find your position eminently reasonable. How anyone can defend Craibe's position is beyond me.<<

Thank you for your kind words Squeers. Craibe's position is defensible for Christians if its widely accepted among Christians that sinners - not just homosexuals: out of the list St. Paul makes in the passage being discussed I'm guilty of gossip, insolence, arrogance, disobedience to my parents, debate and fornication at least so I'm probably worse than some homosexuals - deserve their inevitable and probably natural or accidental death if they do not seek redemption through Christ. I'm don't know if it is that widely accepted: most of the Christians I know are really nice people and would have no truck with the idea that some of us deserve our deaths because we don't belong to the Christian faith.

>>The point was whether Craibe was arguing that homosexuals should be killed, and he wasn't. You acknowledge that. The rest is waffle designed to try to hide the fact that you do acknowledge that.<<

Well obviously: I acknowledged that six days ago in my third post on this thread:

>>GrahamY is right. Major Craib said gay people deserved to die not that they should be killed<<

TBC

That particular point was never in contention between me and you and I don't know why you think it has been unless you haven't been reading my posts all the way through: from the very start of our discussion I have been in agreement with you that Major Craibe did not say homosexuals should be killed just that they deserved to die. If I've been trying to hide the fact that I acknowledge that I've been doing a rotten job of it. I don't know why you're so eager to argue about a point that was never in contention.

The discussion has moved on from that point to cover topics like whether we die because we're human or because of Genesis 3:1-6; whether the death St. Paul refers to in Romans 1:32 is a metaphorical spiritual death or a literal physical death and whether or not sinners are more deserving of that death than those who seek redemption through Christ. If you don't want to discuss these issues - which I think are a lot more interesting and meaningful than what some Salvo said on the wireless - any more then all that remains is to thank you for the interesting discussion we've had so far and to wish you all the best: live long and prosper, GrahamY.

Cheers,

Tony

.

Dear Dan S de Merengue,

.

I'm afraid I have no means of knowing what the motivations are of the neuroscience researches whose findings I was referring to. There are three, in particular, I had in mind:

Professor Jordan Grafman, of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, in Bethesda, near Washington

Vilayanur Ramachandran, Director of the Center for Brain Cognition and Professor in the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California

Dr Michael Persinger, a cognitive neuroscience researcher and Professor of Behavioural Neuroscience at the Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

I am not aware of anything having been published by any of their peers contesting their findings or their research. Also, perhaps it is because I am a perfect neophyte in such matters that I tend to naïvely consider that renowned academics of the stature and reputation of these specialists have nothing to gain and everything to lose by indulging in non-scientific practice and publishing non-falsifiable results.

I understand your scepticism and sympathize with you but I do not interpret their findings as an attempt to "explain away all religious beliefs" but rather to "explain what they find to be an important contributing factor (or facilitator) of religious beliefs". The human brain is an important mechanism in the complex process of perception, feeling and thought, leading, inter alia, to belief.

Perhaps further research will belie the findings of these specialists and offer another explanation but I suspect that the brain will have something to do with that as well.

I take comfort in your remark to david f. "However, in scientific and philosophical disputes we must be free to follow evidence wherever it leads".

Please allow me to reiterate my personal understanding that religious belief or faith seems to have its origins in custom and tradition, handed down, generation after generation, possibly synchronizing favourably with genetic receptors located in the temporal lobes of the human brain, as posited by cognitive neuroscience researchers.

.

Pericles,
the concept of purpose suggests teleology and I know of no materialists or evolutionists who support that. Justice is a luxury, a word applied by a dominant power to its activities; a rationale, rather than vested in any presiding ethical order. How can we prate about justice in a society remarkable for its injustice? Pragmatism is precisely a response to a world without justice; justice has not "come about through a process of evolution". It's a conceit, hypothetical at best, a floating signifier conjured as need arises and abandoned just as readily. Our sense of justice, to mean anything, has to rest on some kind of moral authority. Reason has no moral authority, because it's not disinterested, but is riddled with conceits and vested interests it fails to account for. Pragmatism is a partial acknowledgement of this.
"What is it about logic that you find so threatening, that you have to redefine it as vanity? I personally find rational thought has a generally civilizing effect"
It's vanity to suppose we are logical or rational (or that these exist in themselves); as Hume pointed out, we are not. Neither is reason vested in the individual (any more than a slug is self-determining) who is only the dupe and mouthpiece of his respective cultural logic.

GrahamY,
on the basis of what I've just said, I'm sure Craib's position is eminently "reasonable". I retract the term "hate-speak", though his words were hardly ecumenical or calculated to foster tolerance.

I know exactly what I mean by "formalist"; the question is do you? Eclecticism is precisely what the New Critics threw out.

I have read Milton and do not believe he "saw the whole thing metaphorically and had no problem writing his own version". He said himself that he was justifying the ways of God to men. The whole is a rationale of the fall and a defence of "limited" free will. Indeed Milton warns allegorically against the ruses of reason and rhetoric that the will is prey to; it's a great work of humanist scepticism.

Dear Dan,

There simply is no other explanation for the development of species than evolution. It is the basis of biological science. That you don’t accept that fact is your problem. Science does depend on evidence and must follow where it leads. It simply does not lead anywhere but to evolution. There is no evidence for any other process by which species develop.

The way life on earth came to be has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution deals with the development of species. The origin of life is another matter. Scientists are agreed that life started out when some matter became self replicating.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication will tell you about self-replication. Since we cannot with certainty know what the early earth was like we probably will never know for sure how life began.

US law forbids either the promotion of religion by the government or interference by the government with religious belief. What people choose to believe or not believe is simply no business of government. That is the meaning of separation of religion and state.

Creationism is not a competitor with evolution for the explanation of the development of species. It is religious belief. When schools teach Creationism as an alternative to evolution or a competing theory and the schools are financed by US government money they violate US law since US government funds should not promote religion.

There is no controversy about evolution any more than there is controversy about gravity. Gravity is the only scientific explanation we have for the attraction of mass to other mass, and evolution is the only scientific explanation we have for the development of species.

You are free to have what religious belief you wish. However, it should not be confused with science which relies on evidence. US law forbids government money to promote religion. Judges certainly do not decide what people should say or think. However, they can decide when government funds are wrongfully spent. Teaching Creationism in public schools in the US is misusing government funds since it is using government to promote religion.

We have been through this before.

Squeers,

"It's vanity to suppose we are logical or rational (or that these exist in themselves)..."

Our concept of "justice" (or any concept) whether it has meaning or reality, can be ascribed to our having evolved with a massive outgrowth of brain matter called the neo-cortex. (Of course, the fact that it's overlaid onto mammalian and reptilian brains does throw a spanner in the works somewhat.)

My point is, even if we're "duped" by our concepts (or vanities?), isn't the fact that we're capable of forming them down to the physical evolution of our brains?

Dear David,
Yes, we have gone through this topic before. It's good that on this forum we are free to discuss issues and openly state our case towards a point of view. It's a pity that In some educational settings debate on controversies is stifled and only one viewpoint is allowed to be discussed. In such circumstances, students are effectively being told what to think rather than taught how to think.

To say there is no controversy about evolution more than about gravity is pure wishful thinking. Of course there's controversy. That's why we're often having these discussions. If there was no controversy about evolution then there wouldn't be such court cases and litigation about which you speak.

But there is some confusion or at least equivocation in your post. This concerns the meaning of the word 'evolution' which can vary widely depending on context. When it used to mean simply 'change over time' or the process of natural selection then there is little controversy. It's easy to observe and measure such changes.

However Darwinian evolution is clearly a process discussing life's origins and how life in its various forms came to be as it is. If not so, Darwin made a strange error in naming his most famous book as he did, The Origin of Species. 

This process he described (in which creatures struggled, suffered, and died while those better adapted to their environment emerged to their present state through minor changes over long ages) becomes the modern day creation narrative. It becomes a necessary component for undergirding such modern religions as secular humanism. 

There is ample evidence for a theistic alternative, such is creation, which creationist scientists have always amply presented. When it comes to origins it's not a matter of teaching religion in schools, it just a matter of which religion is allowed to present their case.

Poirot,

all I'm saying is that in evolutionary terms humanity has emerged within a set of limited conditions and that our reason partakes of those limitations, as well as cultural preconceptions and justifications and inter-cultural pragmatising. It's unlikely our reasoning is rational or can be objective; our truths are culturally-specific rationalisations. If human reason is universal, that is capable of transcending its delimited and bounded perspective, this suggests teleology, or evolutionary purpose, whereas evolution as we know it is random and indifferent (though tending to complexity within given parameters).

<My point is even if we're "duped" by our concepts (or vanities?), isn't the fact that we're capable of forming them down to the physical evolution of our brains?>
It would seem so, certainly. My quibble is not whether we're capable of forming them (concepts), we clearly are, but whether they have non-specific validity, or are rational truths in any universal sense, rather than human rationalisations.
I don't see how evolution, as we know it, can account for homo "sapiens"--if indeed our self-designated hubris is true. I don't think it is. All our reasoning (including theologising) can be shown to be derivative and naive.

Dear Dan,

You are entitled to your views, and I am tired of playing silly buggers with you.

David F, I'm not sure what you would expect the mainstream churches to do in Australia with respect to the Bible not being a scientific document. It's not as though there is a large constituency of people here who view the Bible in that way, unlike the US where somewhere around 50% of people are creationists.

If they don't teach it as such in their schools, and if the majority of their ministers aren't sermonising that way, what more would you expect them to do?

I know that there are fundamentalist churches that teach differently, but that is their right. Unless they posed a threat to society I can't see any reason to interfere. Even in the US they don't pose much of a threat, as evidenced by the number of patents that come out of that country each year. You couldn't say they've stunted scientific development.

That's cheating, Squeers.

>>Pericles, the concept of purpose suggests teleology<<

You cannot exclude other readings of the word, simply because it is inconvenient to your argument. Teleology suggests an "end-purpose", as its Greek root implies. But purpose can have less apocalyptic connotations - we have even turned it into an adjective, purposeful, which in no way indicates that the length of my stride as I walk to the station is linked to biblical end-times.

>>Justice is a luxury, a word applied by a dominant power to its activities<<

So you clearly disagree with the author of this piece, who includes a yearning for justice in his list of Pascal's "Christian faith answers our deepest yearnings". I suppose that it is not out of the question to yearn for a luxury, but I suspect that's not what he had in mind.

Does this dismissal also apply to the remaining list of "yearnings", I wonder.

But this puzzles me most.

>>It's vanity to suppose we are logical or rational<<

Am I to conclude that you do not apply either logic or rationality to your posts here? Or that it is pure vanity on your part, to try to convince us that you are being logical or rational.

But if you don't use logic or rationality, what exactly do you use instead? It does explain how I personally find your offerings both illogical and irrational, but it does not explain the thought processes that you employ in their production. Intriguing.

>>Neither is reason vested in the individual (any more than a slug is self-determining) who is only the dupe and mouthpiece of his respective cultural logic.<<

What can we conclude from that, I wonder. Is this a confession that you are yourself the dupe and mouthpiece of your cultural logic, or that - because you refuse to employ logic - you are somehow above such pettiness?

Wow.

Dear Graham Y,

The United States is divided into two parts. One part, the northeast, Chicago area and the Pacific Coast contains the great universities, almost all the Nobel prize winners, most patents and the innovative industries. The other part is dominated by the Bible belt which is primarily in the southeast. They in general are the backers of the Tea Party, Creationism, in earlier days Prohibition and other products of Fundamentalism. States like Mississippi, Arhansas and Tennessee (Remember the Scopes trial) keep trying to push Creationism in the schools.

They are now making inroads into Australia. Megachurches such as Hillsong are financed by US Fundamentalist money. They push the Shine program for girls which sees women as mere handmaids to men. You mentioned that about 50% of the US are Creationists. That part of the US is not where the scientific and cultural strength lies. They are successfully dumbing down their part of the US. I feel that they are trying to create an Australia in their image. I could say they've stunted scientific development in the areas where they predominate, and, if not checked, can do the same thing in Australia.

Squeers,

You may be right that our hubris is self-designated. However, our concepts are devices that extend from our evolutionary condition. Concepts such as "justice" are mechanisms to address that state.

Back to "purpose".

Arthur Koestler maintained that "...the course of evolution is through ontogeny.....phylogeny is an abstraction, which only acquires concrete meaning, when we realise 'phylogeny, evolutionary descent, is a sequence of ontogenies' and that the course of evolution is through changes in ontogeny."

Koestler quotes G.G. Simpson's own conundrum about Purposer and purpose: "The Purposer is each and every individual organism, from inception of life, which struggled and strove to make the best of its limited opportunities."

Koestler also quotes H.J. Muller:
"Purpose is not imparted into nature and need not be puzzled over as a strange and divine something else that gets inside and makes life go....it is simply implicit in the fact of biological organisation, and it is to be studied rather than admired or "explained".

This seems to me more in line with Pericles sentiments on purpose in evolution - and I think is a reasonably sound view.

Well I give up folks. It's your latest teasing effort that's evasive, Pericles, but no matter. Of course I use logic, I'm just not seduced by it, that's all. I haven't said anything original, remarkable or even controversial, and my own position remains equivocal. I am simply cautious what I place my faith in, be it physics or metaphysics; the labyrinths of theology or the reductionism of reason. I prefer Socrates to Pascal. Unfortunately I don't have the time to labour the point further.
Have a nice day one and all : )

Dear Yuyutsu,

So Judaism is not a religion because it has a tribal god. What about some other religions? There is Christianity with its God that goes around impregnating a virgin like Zeus and then appears in humanoid form which to me trivialises the godhead. What about Islam which spread around a tribal god worshipped by the Arabs before Mohammed to more of the world? What about Buddhists who have no gods at all? To single out one religion and deny that it is a religion seems kind of silly to me. They are all nonsense, but both Christianity and Islam seem to have been inspired in part by the nonsense of Judaism.

.

Dear Brian, Pericles , and Squeers,

.

"According to Pascal, Christian faith answers our deepest yearnings in the midst of the messiness of life".

Pascal may well have expressed that opinion. He also declared that "sickness is the natural state of Christians" (because he, personally, was very sick from the age of 18 until his death at the age of 39) and admitted that it is impossible to prove the existence of god but estimated that it was the safest bet (which seems to have been the position he, himself, adopted on the question).

He was a brilliant mathematician, physician, and inventor but apparently offered no explanation as to how he measured the "deepness" of human yearnings nor why he considered that Christian faith digs deeper than any other human faculty including other faiths such as Jewish or Muslim faiths.

Judging from his natural propensity to generalize personal experiences, perhaps what he really meant to say was that "Christian faith answers MY deepest yearnings in the midst of the messiness of life".

.

"Justice is a luxury, a word applied by a dominant power to its activities"
.

Though it is most regrettable, there is ample evidence that the above statement, as a general principle , is a sad reality.

On the positive side, the possibility of justice exists and there is also ample evidence of this. The problem is that, as the latest Amnesty International report points out, only one third of humanity has access to justice and even where justice systems exist they are often corrupt or discriminatory. Also, of all major crimes, sex-related crimes are by far the most frequent, world-wide, the large majority of which are never brought to justice.

Unfortunately, there is more, much more evidence to prove that justice is indeed a luxury, as a general rule.

One of my deepest yearnings is that the disadvantaged and discriminated of this world may, one day, in the not too distant future, also have the possibility of justice.

.

.

Dear david f.,

Thank you for that very interesting social map of the US. I shall keep it for further reference.

.

Banjo,
I'd advise caution and discernment before reading too much into the details of David's map. I'm not sure of his expertise in cartography. That map is more revealing of his prejudices than anything real.

But then again, as David reminds us, we are entitled to our opinion.

Dear Squeers,
I've much enjoyed reading your recent contributions, thanks. But I disagree with what you said about Craibe. I think that to some extent what he originally said was just misreported. I read an 'Out in Perth' article about it and the media release later put out by the Salvos. I've tried to find a full transcript (unedited) to find out what he really said, but haven't been able.

David f., Banjo Paterson,

Thought you might like this article (which I've posted on OLO previously) by the late Joe Bageant, an author and journalist whose origins derive from the US southeast and whose insightful commentary on cultural ignorance (or dumbing down) was one from the coal face, so to speak.

http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/12/america-y-ur-peeps-b-so-dum.html

David F,
You are totally wrong about Australia's Hillsong church being funded by American fundamentalists. That's simply not true.

Hillsong church is part of the Australian Assemblies of God fellowship of churches which was formalised nationally sometime before WWII and has its spiritual roots and heritage in various Pentecostal movements in Australia going back into the previous century.

Hillsong does make money from sales from production of its high quality gospel music, which is recognised the world over. So I suppose that sells in the US as well, but I couldn't give you a break down according to the 'red' or 'blue' states. For this, Hillsong should be congratulated for bringing in export dollars to Australia. They're probably also doing their part for the NSW tourist industry with the many international visitors who come to their regular conferences.

But overall we can say that Hillsong, like any other of the established churches in Australia, receives not one cent from American funding. That you could be so off track on this casts much doubt on the rest of the US cultural information you were espousing in that post. 

Although you are free to back up your comments with some actual evidence if you choose.

I can back you up on that Dan D de Merengue.

>>David F, You are totally wrong about Australia's Hillsong church being funded by American fundamentalists. That's simply not true.<<

The Australian operation of Hillsong is fully funded from its local activities and tithes. In fact, it "exports" dollars by way of its various overseas programs, many of which address the problems of the disadvantaged in poor countries.

Credit where credit is due.

.

Dear Dan, if I may,

.

Thank you for your concern. I shall keep an eye open and, as and when the opportunity arises, measure the exactitude of david f's social map against real life events as they occur.

I must confess that I am not used to such fond attention. I never knew my father. When I was a young boy I tried to convince myself that god was my father but was eventually forced to admit that I did not know him either. I never saw either of them in my life.

It was only much later that I finally realized that neither of them ever actually existed.

I owe my existence to an act of procreation accomplished by my mother and her then beloved male partner and husband who was my genitor but never my father. In fact I always thought he was dead and only learned he was alive on the announcement of his death.

.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

Many thanks for that link to the web site of the late Joe Bageant. He is a bit long-winded and certainly uses some colourful language. However, as with david f's social map, it opens my mind to many aspects of the social geography of the US which I totally ignored.

It seems, however, that Joe's description of "half of heartland America" is less clearly defined on what may be termed a social map as depicted by david f's vivid description. The two, nevertheless, correlate to a certain degree.

.

I have read that the founders of Hillsong received advice and support from their US connections. I assumed that they also received funding but may be wrong in that assumption. However, they are part of the revolt against reason that dominates much of the US scene.

"People in Glass Houses" by Tanya Levin, a former member, tells about the church and its intolerance towards questioning and dissent.

When I found out that "Gloria Jeans" contributes a percentage of their profits to the Hillsong "church", they lost my patronage.

Kipp,

What's your position on Weetbix?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanitarium_Health_and_Wellbeing_Company

That must have been be quite a shock for you, Kipp.

>>When I found out that "Gloria Jeans" contributes a percentage of their profits to the Hillsong "church", they lost my patronage.<<

But at least you are now able to go out and find somewhere that serves a decent cup of coffee.

The Lord must have heard our hearts' yearning prayer… Awesome!

The Lord Melvyn Bragg of Wigton that is, because today's topic on Radio 4's 'In Our Time' is the Ontological Argument on the proof of God.

Let's see what John Haldane Professor of Philosophy at the University of St Andrews, Peter Millican Professor of Philosophy at the University of Oxford and Clare Carlisle Lecturer in Philosophy of Religion at King's College London conclude, if anything:

(The program notes don't indicate whether God was invited)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01mwx64/In_Our_Time_The_Ontological_Argument/

Banjo,
I can relate a bit to what you're saying. I remember going through a challenge or a realisation that my thoughts or perceptions of God were centred around experiences of relating to my father. When someone first suggested that to me I was skeptical, thinking that sounded like some kind of cheap Freudian psychology. But then I wondered if there might be something to it.

I was challenged to reassess my ideas about who is the real God based on the Bible (like, for example, the verses in the middle of Psalm 103) rather than relating to memories of my father's actions. Although my experience is not as stark as yours, since my father has always been around, so I can always go and chat to him if need be.

.

Dear Dan,

.

Each generation is brought into the fold of religion as quickly as possible after birth and immediately receives the benefit of its protection.

Life is a hazardous journey, full of imponderables and pitfalls. Family ties are fragile. The young are vulnerable. Religion is a protective umbrella and a safety net. It's available to everyone and its free. Parents just have to ask for it. Many do, because they genuinely believe in god, or just in case ..., because it is the right thing to do, because others do it, or, perhaps, simply through superstition.

It plays an important paternalistic role in the lives of all those huddled under its protective wing. It is the father of the fatherless. The solid rock they build their lives on. The beacon that guides them. The eternal presence of the lost and lonely. The everlasting love of the betrayed and abandoned. The strength of the weak. The cure of the ill. The victory of the vanquished. The joy of the sad. The wealth of the poor. The hope of the hopeless. The life of the dead.

My religion and yours, Dan, helped us to deal with the failure of our genitor to assume his paternity, obliging me to find a substitute and you to fill in the gaps.

When I was a boy I took comfort in the thought that perhaps god was my father. But I felt I lacked the experience, the knowledge and the intellectual capacity to decide if it was true. I left the question in abeyance until later in life when I would be better equipped.

I waited until my life of toil and labour was done. By then, the internet had produced its effect. Communications had been revolutionised. Information and ideas circulated freely from a myriad of sources around the world. I no longer lived in Australia. The world had changed. I no longer needed a father. I was now the father. I was now even a grandfather many times over.

I finally settled the question I had left in abeyance as a boy.

.

Talking about the comfort, reassurance and protection we crave, it's probably true that we are reaching back to some state where such needs were neither here nor there. I often wonder whether our concentration on our wakeful life over our unconscious one is an inversion of priorities. Perhaps the whole of our wakeful physicality and mentality is merely a survival mechanism that allows us the womb-like repose of unconsciousness.

Btw, at the moment I'm reading a biography of Charles Darwin. His grandfather, Erasmus Darwin wrote many tracts which seem a precursor to the work of his grandson. Although it seems he held God as First Cause, it appears in much of his work, he anticipated the theory of evolution. Charles, himself, seems to have fallen into his scientific role, not by any great design, but through interests and friendships with several people which led to his position on the Beagle...anyway, here's Erasmus Darwin's "The Temple of Nature" (The Origins of Society) in poetic form.
http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Darwin/temple0.html

.

Dear Poirot,

.

You may be right. Perhaps we are inverting our "priorities" as you suggest.

Indeed, some of us may be more active when we're asleep than when we're awake and lead a passionate unconscious life without knowing it.

Thank you for introducing me to Charles Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus. He certainly seems to have been quite a lad in his day.

From one grandfather to another, albeit at nigh on two and a quarter centuries distance, I find him quite admirable and sympathetic and feel we would not have much difficulty finding some common ground for a quiet chat, but it is growing late, so ...

"Let us cease our idle chatter,
Let the tears bedew our cheek,
For a man from Tallangatta
Has been missing for a week.

Where the roaring flooded Murray
Covered all the lower land,
There he started in a hurry,
With a bottle in his hand.

And his fate is hid forever,
But the public seem to think
That he slumbered by the river,
'Neath the influence of drink.

And they scarcely seem to wonder
That the river, wide and deep,
Never woke him with its thunder,
Never stirred him in his sleep.

...
So the river rose and found him
Sleeping softly by the stream,
And the cruel waters drowned him
Ere he wakened from his dream.

And the blossom-tufted wattle,
Blooming brightly on the lea,
Saw M'Ginnis and the bottle
Going drifting out to sea".

.

Thank you for the poem, Banjo.

Charles Darwin's other grandfather was Josiah Wedgwood. So on one side he had the intellectual/scientific and poetic prowess of Erasmus, and on the other, the skilled artisan who molded and combined clays for utility and aesthetics.
It seems somehow fitting that the two lines blended to produce the man who conceived so fully the theory of evolution.

<It seems somehow fitting that the two lines blended to produce the man who conceived so fully the theory of evolution>.

Or else it's a nice illustration that thought is never original or independent, but follows a predictable, narrow-minded, course--in the light of hindsight.

I agree, Squeers.
It's a good example of thought building on thought - evolving.....

Yes precisely, Poirot; dialectics. I often wonder at what it precludes.

Where have I heard that before, Squeers?

"… it's a nice illustration that thought is never original or independent…"

Because I have had heaps of original thoughts and ideas only to have them spoilt later by finding out other minds had got there before me – but in my mind and time-frame of reference, I hold the patent.

As for, "… dialectics. I often wonder at what it precludes." The answer would be – not very much that is useful.

It would be a world and an existence best exemplified by the answers to: "How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb?"

Now this is getting interesting.

I've just looked up some stuff in Koestler's "The Ghost in the Machine" on this very subject. He writes of forms of self-repair - biological and mental - describing the creative process as a "draw back and leap" process:

"... the decisive breakthroughs in science, art or philosophy are successful escapes from blind alleys, from the bondage of mental habits, orthodoxy and over-speciaisation. The method of escape follows the same undoing-re-doing pattern as in biological evolution; the zigzag course of advance in science or art repeats....A quick glance at the evolution of astronomy will make the "zigzag pattern" clearer. Newton once said that if he could see further than others it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants....He adopted Galileo's laws of free fall, but rejected Galileo's astronomy. He adopted Kepler's planetary laws, but demolished the rest of the Keplerian edifice. He did not take as his point of departure their completed "adult" theories, but retraced their development to the point where it had gone wrong. Nor was the Keplarian edifice built on top of of the Copernican edifice. That ramshackle structure of epicycles he tore down; he kept only the foundations. Nor did Copernicus continue to build where Ptolemy had left off. He went back two thousand years to Aristarchus. All great revolutions show, as already said, a totally "paedomorphic" character. They demand as much undoing as redoing."

"From Pythagoras, who combined arithmetic and geometry, to Newton, who combined Galileo's studies of the motion of projectiles with Kepler's equations of planetary orbits, to Einstein, who unified energy and matter in a single sinister equation, the pattern is always the same. The creative act does not create something out of nothing....it combines, reshuffles and relates already existing but hitherto separate ideas, facts, frames of perception, associative concepts. This act of cross-fertilization--or self-fertilization within a single brain--seems to be the essence of creativity..."

Intellectual autogamy… An excellent example, Poirot.

In the universe – which is the experience of my mind as I have experienced it – that "self-fertilization within a single brain" was first thought of by me.

Now I know, never having read The Ghost in the Machine, that Koestler got there earlier in the timeframe of the external universe we (apparently) share.

More than the science of quantum physics can be spooky.

This is Garstang's Diagram:

http://analytikainc.com/blog/2011/04/07/garstangs-theory/

which represents his theory of the progress of biological evolution by paedomorphosis. Koestler applies this theory also to "ideas":

"...The emergence of biological novelties and the creation of mental novelties are processes which show certain analogies. It is of course a truism that in mental evolution social inheritance through tradition and written records replaces genetic inheritance. But the analogy goes deeper: neither biological evolution nor mental progress follows a continuous line....Neither of them is strictly cumulative in the sense of continuing to build where the last generation has left off. Both proceed in the zigzag fashion indicated in this diagram. The revolutions in the history of science are successful escapes from blind alleys. The evolution of knowledge is continuous only during those periods of consolidation and elaboration which follow a major break-through, Sooner or later, however, consolidation leads to increasing rigidity, orthodoxy, and so into the dead end of overspecialisation...."

I've used the "zig-zag" metaphor and the "Lost Patrol" analogy myself to describe the dialectical vagaries and predilections of thought. The Lost Patrol always ends up somewhere but its trails through the desert are obsessive, meandering routes, driven by the mentality of the thinkers within a mindscape of perhaps infinite possibility. We're never objectively inclined, but subjectively driven and biased according to the foundational-delusion of freedom and rational integrity—a nice paradox. According to Boethius, “You can never impose upon a free spirit, nor can you deprive a rationally self-possessed mind of its equanimity”, but this is giving more credit to the worried animal than the goad
The resort to reason is (originally) not indicative of a free spirit, but an harassed one, driven from corporeality into flights of fancy. According to Nietzsche, reason is the delusional refuge of the “inner-self”. Modern rationalism has its roots in religion—the rationalisations of the oppressed—progressed from flight and denialism to fetishism. What I said about religion encouraging an “eccentric separation of body and mind that's nothing less than deviant”, is arguably yet more true of “disinterested reason”, which is a kind of asceticism of disembodiment, enchanted with its diversions.
Indeed, reason has constructed such cathedrals in the air its now akin to religion in its perverse meditations and devotions to itself—to the elaborate, artificial world of the mind it’s created, at the expense of corporeal “reality”.
I'm not against reason, I’m wary of its procrastinating “progress”—of its etymology and tendency to conceit.
According to Christian missionary William Swan,
“Means should be taken to excite in them [Mongolians] a spirit of enquiry. The people should be taught ‘to think’ [to flee the body!], and to consider this as their undoubted privilege. When they learn that freedom of thought [sic] and action in religious matters is their inalienable right, their eyes will then begin to open upon the deceitful maxims of their own priesthood”.

Reason comes after the fall; it’s the mean refuge of the exile cum castles in the air.
Graham was right to allude to Paradise Lost—never had!

.

Dear WmTrevor,

.

I think I see what you mean about original ideas.

I find it impossible to count the number of ideas I have had since I was born. It all started out at conception. During the long months of gestation in my mother's womb and after birth, while I was a baby and a toddler, just about every single idea I had was original. My mind was like a supercomputer churning out millions of fantastically original ideas at enormous speed.

I must have been a genius in those days.

As I grew up and went to school there were more and more repeats or simply variants of previous ideas. The number of original ideas began to thin out exponentially until they eventually became an extremely rare exception.

Now that I am old and a grandfather, I don't seem to have any original ideas any more. Just old, used-out ones, I guess.

As I look back, my whole life seems to have been just one huge downhill slide. The lines on my Garstang’s diagram don't zigzag any more. I'm afraid they have remained despairingly flat for several years now.

I guess I have left originality far behind me and entered the final phase of my life where I no longer have any need of it.

I now advance at a moderate pace like a blind man with his cane, feeling his way with utmost precaution, hoping that perhaps,one day, I'll somehow manage to approach that ever receding horizon called wisdom.

It's my last resort.

.

Poirot,
uin evolutionary terms your quote reminds me of theories of evolution like punctuated equilibrium, which Dawkins had some agreeable disagreeability with Stephen J Gould over.
The essence of dialectics is synthesis, or resolution, and a new direction taken thereafter--but that doesn't make it less derivative and I think you'd be hard pressed to to show where in the history of thought reason has broken genuinely radical new ground. Even when it does stumble upon novelty, it's as much a process of predictibilty and exclusion as anything else--including of stuff that might be useful WmTrevor Banjo Paterson.
The modern priests of reason ask their religious forebears to accept the Copernican revolution--that we're not the centre of the universe--but they refuse to accept the Copernican revolution of the psyche--that neither is it the centre of being--or experience. Human being is de-centred--we are cultured beings and experience the world and "meaning" vicariously, as it were--through cultured meaning and the passions.
The path to wisdom seems to be an evermore demeaning one.

I just want to elaborate the point that it surely can't be denied that we are not born with sophisticated, worldly minds...
We might be born with excellent brains, but the software is not pre-installed--is it?.
Even the operating system is downloaded piecemeal.
If the rationalists think they have objectivity on their side, then they're still religious.
On the other hand, the human heart does not yearn for awe; this is merely programming, a virus--or conceit.

Squeers, Banjo Paterson, WmTrevor,

On the subject of rationality, a little more from Koestler on science and the unconscious.

"There is a popular superstition, according to which scientists arrive at their discoveries by reasoning in strictly rational, precise, verbal terms. The evidence indicates that they do nothing of the sort. To quote a single example; in 1945, Jacques Hadamard organised a nation-wide inquiry among eminent mathematicians in America to find out their working methods. The results showed that all of them, with only two exceptions, thought neither in verbal terms, nor in algebraic symbols, but relied on visual imagery of a vague, hazy kind. Einstein was among those who answered the questionaire; he wrote:

'The words of the language as they are written or spoken do not seem to play any role in my mechanism of thought, which relies on more or less clear images of visual and some of muscular type. It seems to me that what you call full consciousness is a limited case which can never be fully accomplished because consciousness is a narrow thing'

Einstein's statement is typical. On the testimony of those original thinkers....not only verbal thinking but conscious thinking in general plays only a subordinate part in the brief, decisive phase of the creative act itself. Their virtually unanimous emphasis on spontaneous intuitions and hunches of unconscious origin, which they are at a loss to explain, suggests the role of strictly rational and verbal process in scientific discovery has been vastly over-estimated since the age of enlightenment. There are always large chunks of irrationality embedded in the creative process, not only in art (where we are ready to accept it) but also in the exact sciences as well. The scientist, who, facing an obstinate problem, regresses from precise verbal thinking to vague visual imagery, seems to follow Woodworth's advice: 'Often we have to get away from speech in order to think clearly.' Language can become a screen between the thinker and reality; and creativity often starts where language ends, that is, by regressing to pre-verbal levels of mental activity."

.

Dear Squeers,

.

My previous post to WmTrevor was an attempt to highlight HIS definition of an "original idea".

Call it parody if you will. It is twenty thousand leagues from my own thoughts on the question.

In all honesty, one of my greatest regrets in life is that I consider that I have never, ever, succeeded in having one single original idea.

No doubt I am wrong in thinking it would have justified my passage on earth.

Obviously I have missed the point.

I probably still have a bit of time to think that over. So all is not yet lost.

.

Banjo Paterson,

I didn't mean to mention your name in my last. It was rather rushed and I'd deleted a comment about one of your posts above, because I felt I hadn't done it justice. So I really wasn't addressing your posts at all, though I was having a pot-shot at WmTrevor, I just neglected to remove your name. I'm with you, actually, the older I get the less I know, and despite what I've said above I'm by no means convinced of the validity of any of it.
Poirot,
that's another interesting contribution but I'm sceptical. How do we separate impressions from language? How do we make sense of impressions without language?
Lacan insisted "the unconscious is structured like a language", in that meaning consists in the signifying chain, rather than resting passively in the signified. Sounds like gobbledigook but worth considering. Signification/meaning in language is not straightforward, but arises from the play of ramifying signification within the context. Unconscious impressions are possibly similar. Indeed if we are true rationalists, how can we attribute impressions to anything mystical? They must be generated by the subject, though not rationally, and the subject draws inspiration from the culture. How can there be an inner self? Rather than essential, the self is surely retroactively produced; that is, cultivated.

Thanks too Dan for your generous comment above, which I failed to acknowledge.

Squeers,

I'm with you on the nebulous concept of feeling that we "know". I think Einstein might well have agreed also. He maintained that we were like babes in our understanding.

"Lacan insisted 'the unconscious is structured like a language' in that meaning consists in the signifying chain...." still leaves room for a language of visual imagery.
If we're explaining Einstein's realisation of space-time being described as a "fabric", then it's useful for us to imagine a bowling ball on a trampoline - and the curve if its impression on the fabric of the trampoline. Introduce a ping-pong ball to the image and note its seeming attraction into the curve towards the more massive ball. We can visualise how it is drawn into the curve that the larger ball has provided. This gives a clear visual idea of Einstein's concept of gravitational curves in space-time.

When Einstein visualised space and time as connected and conceived their combination as a fabric, it may have been an example where bi-association leaped from the unconscious and formed a new signifying chain?...all of which leads back to Koestler's view that great leaps are the sum of combinations, reshuffling of already existing but separate ideas, facts, perceptions and concepts. ("Forgive me, Newton" was Einstein realising he had toppled something Newton had perceived, yet most of Newton's ideas remain)

I don't think we necessarily toss out language when we create visual impressions. I think we lossen the strictures and allow analogous visual representations to dance around - and the "spark" of perception/creation is probably something only possible in respite from rigid rationality.

Perhaps.....

Greetings all… The best thing about mind, consciousness and thinking is that we can all be right – even if I have my doubts about Banjo being definite about original thoughts since conception, what with the phenomenon of juvenile amnesia being what it is. But the post actually reflected one of my definitions of an original idea – it doesn't matter if it was parody, it was an expression of an original idea.

If you go with the concept of solipsism then everything experienced by (perceived in) your mind is original.

The plasticity and inherent active pattern seeking, recognition and synaptic reinforcement which (as a gross simplification) seems to be the biological basis of our higher order thinking, goes a long way to explaining much of what has been discussed over the last several pages.

I enjoy 'pot shots' across the brow, Squeers, but think that what you say 'sounds like gobbledygook' is worth more than consideration – people who have experienced total nominal aphasia and recovered describe the experience as one of absolute total calm. After recovery, they report not even awareness of existence or wakefulness beyond the immediate moment – they certainly remember there was no conscious line of thought or reasoning.

Visualisation in this sense is like a film screening in a theatre but with no one in the audience to watch it.

Another poor analogy would be that this is similar to the brain's hard disk drive not being erased as such, rather it is that the disc directory is undetectable.

Nevertheless, my Garstang's more like a zig sag these days and I totally agree that the older I get, the less I know – though I'm confident that on this trajectory, when I know nothing I will be dead.

But I still think it is spooky that all our comments here will survive the brains that created them.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

" On the testimony of those original thinkers....not only verbal thinking but conscious thinking in general plays only a subordinate part in the brief, decisive phase of the creative act itself".

That more or less echoes previous comments I have heard on the subject.

I believe the principle is true not just in respect of the " decisive phase of the creative act itself" but in respect of any important matter we happen to be dealing with in our daily lives.

Experience has taught me that, whatever the matter in hand, when I reach the point where there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that I have done absolutely everything I am capable of doing in order to get something right, if time will allow (and more important the matter, greater the need for time), there is still something very important I can do and that is to "sleep on it". Not just one night but as many nights as possible.

"Night brings good counsel". Unbridled, unguided, uncontrolled subconscious activity (is it thought?) is a very precious and particularly ingenious ally. It has access to resources my conscious mind ignores.

If I really want it badly and I give it all I've got, my conscious mind can find the most appropriate response to just about every question I am capable of encountering, given the banality of my existence.

On those few rare occasions when I find myself way out of my depth, I do my best to allay my anxiety and find peace and rest in the warm comfort of my bed.

It is finally when daylight breaks, in all its awe and wonder, that the solution I so earnestly desire, finally "dawns" on me.

.

Banjo Paterson,

I used the word "respite" earlier, and I think that's what you may be alluding to in your previous comment. Respite from the rational and the reasoning aspect of our thinking regimes.
We all know that if we put our crossword down and walk away, the word/answer/solution often leaps, seemingly out of nowhere, when our conscious mind is rambling about elsewhere....and sometimes strange things come about from somehwere-who-knows-where?. I was ruminating briefly a week or so ago as to where you were. I hadn't noted you posting for a while and imagined vaguely of you in France going about your business - and now here you are, as if I summoned you back to the fold or somehow plugged into the fact that you were on your way back to OLO.

WmTrvor,

"...pattern seeking..." is subliminal for the most part. An act of unconsciousness which seemed programmed into our psychological state, probably as a biological survival trait also. There is much we derive from the patterns in the physical world as in our psychological structures. We all engage in its pursuit, although mostly we're not consciously aware how much impact it has on our behaviour.

Agreed, Poirot, "…although mostly we're not consciously aware how much impact it [pattern seeking] has on our behaviour." Which is partly its usefulness in an evolutionary sense – and I believe it is significant that we have even less awareness of how such structural brain biology impacts on our thinking.

Add to that the millisecond-switching fight for supremacy between our brain hemispheres and what emerges are our thought processes.

Mix in the delta brainwave patterning (sort of clearing the temporary files and defragmenting the brain's hard disk) – Banjo's 'sleeping on it', or your respite – and low and behold, there is *You*.

Enough inspirational awe… both for reason and the human heart.

.

Dear WmTrevor,

.

"If you go with the concept of solipsism then everything experienced by (perceived in) your mind is original".

I'm afraid I do not qualify for that one WmTrevor. Thanks for the tip, though.

If I really get desperate about never having had the slightest original idea, I might revise my position. It sounds almost too good to be true. From rags to riches. I must admit the temptation is great.

Just one question before I go: do you have to actually believe it for it to work?

.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

You certainly have some powerful thought waves. From Australia to France in almost no time. That's great. It's certainly worth keeping in mind. If you can bring me back from time to time it's a very comfortable situation for me to be in.

I somehow feel I have a guardian angel who cares for me and ensures that I am still around.

You've made my day Poirot . You really have.

Thank you.

.

"...do you have to actually believe it for it to work?" No, Banjo it isn't like in 'Peter Pan' because the paradox is that you can't prove it one way or the other.

Though I'm in two minds about that, myself.

Because I share your belief that "there is still something very important I can do and that is to "sleep on it"", you might find this useful for portable respite...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208316/Ostrich-Pillow-Bizarre-invention-means-people-nap--wearing-pillow-balaclava.html

Talking of original thought, I'm thinking that even if ideas and advancement of knowledge are derivative, the result of cross-fertilization, of "already existing and hitherto separate ideas, facts frames of reference, associative concepts..." the new combination could be construed as original, in that it is truly a new adjustment and evolves out of society and culture and the knowledge therein. If you make the analogy that society is an organism, then a new idea, although it might originate in one mind, is really emanating from the whole organism....Just a thought.

Here's more proof that ideas evolve with the spirit and knowledge of the times:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_discovery

Banjo Paterson,

Thank you for the sentiments you expressed in your post earlier.

Made me smile : )

Thank you Poirot,
I've been at pains trying to show that those "rationalists" who demur at religionists, yet retain their conceits about individuality, are actually in the same camp! How on Earth can anyone ridicule theism, and anthropocentrism generally, yet retain the vanity of individual thought and experience? What other species is intellectually, idiosyncratically, divisible? Does each Wildebeest have its own freely obtained rationale for racing across the plain?
There's too much complacency and wit on show here, very droll, and not enough serious consideration. Or maybe I'm just too serious and have grown weary of bullsh!t.

Squeers,

I've always thought that the idea of "individuality" in the modern sense was an exaggeration. We tend to feel as if we're more independent than our forebears because of the way industrial society is set up. We can merrily ignore our neighbours, fail to socialise with workmates, shop independently with cash, avoid the throng when commuting, etc. But it's all illusion, and we are beholden to the whole paradigm for our world view and our cultural ethics. Try doing something radically different to the rest of them and you'll immediately feel the pull of the herd. Even if you succeed in going your own way (within reason) you'll still find recourse to doubt and comparison, and have to continually psychologically reinforce your decision.

Btw, a good example of cross-fertilisation is Gutenberg coming up with the printing press after seeing a wine press in operation.

.

Dear Poirot, Dear Squeers,

.

It seems to me that you raise the question of individual and collective consciousness, free will and responsibility.

The current status of my reflection in this regard is that all three exist to varying degrees according to each individual and his personal evolution throughout his life-cycle. In my view, the same principle applies to each community or group of individuals.

I imagine total absence of consciousness, free will and responsibility occurring as a result of chronic or temporary mental disorder, psychological shock or similar event.

I view the faculties of individual thought and experience as remarkable achievements of natural evolution. Squeers asks " What other species is intellectually, idiosyncratically, divisible?" and "Does each Wildebeest have its own freely obtained rationale for racing across the plain?" I should answer "all other species" and "it is not impossible; it depends on the circumstances".

I am surprised that both of you, whose knowledge and opinion I respect, seem to think the opposite.

Would you be so kind as to elaborate please?

.

Banjo,

I believe that we exist behaviourally somewhere between a balance of integrative and self-assertive psychological tendencies. Awareness of ourselves as separate physical entities, each with a mind is powerful. I tend to think, however, that our behaviour as "individuals" is limited to experience within a canon dictated by society and culture.

So yes we are capable of individual and original acts, but they are framed within the context of our experience. So "originality" emanating from an individual mind can be seen as original only in the sense that he or she has manipulated his or her cultural materials into a new arrangement - which may or may not lead to new knowledge, understanding and advancement.

Here's an example. It's a poem I wrote for a friend in Ireland. It's original. It came from my individual experience. I wrote it because "I" felt the inspiration - (self-assertive). It's a totally original and individual composition - an act of free will emanating from my experience:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3629&page=0#87073

Yet, it's a reflection of all that my culture has made me.It is realised through the prism of integrative human experience.
That's why you can understand what I'm attempting to say to the person for whom the poem was written.

(I'll leave it to Squeers to give a more philosophical perspective - he's much more knowledgeable on such things than I am)

Banjo Paterson,
I respect your views too, and the others in this thread.
“I view the faculties of individual thought and experience as remarkable achievements of natural evolution”.
How did they evolve; as an adaptation to what?
Isn’t it logical that language evolved to facilitate group and social cooperation as a response to exigency—and that this is what’s made us so successful? Once the community provides for itself, produces a surplus and secures the present and immediate future, its denizens find time for leisure. What was before a rude system of practical signs and gestures, evolves into a sophisticated language of communicative tropes and taboos used to “make” sense and to maintain the cooperative order. This symbolic order is not “the mirror of nature” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rorty#Philosophy_and_the_Mirror_of_Nature
It’s a superimposition on nature, and individual thought is a riff necessarily composed within those social/linguistic constrainst/conceptions.
Wildebeest don’t have the leisure to “make” sense of or embroider on nature, they’re busy responding to its direct assaults, flight being their adaptation strategy. Neither do they have existential crises, since they lack a sophisticated religion/philosophy with which they can become enamoured or disillusioned. The human animal has largely ceased being an animal and drags its fat body around as a burden—or fetishizes it and its functions.
Hume recognised how profoundly irrational we are, and that none of our “thinking” is based on raw data, but on one passion/prejudice or another (this is easily seen in that opinion almost always serves the best interests of those who profess an intellectualised, rather than interested, stake in it). Thus empiricism was born. The empiricist refuses to naively credit his common sense and instead looks only to raw data and objective experimentation.
tbc

..cont.

Yet Hume was naïve in crediting the data gathered by the senses “raw”; it’s mediated by the symbolic order, an evolved rationale “of” reality. Moreover there’s no direct correlation between any signifier and its signified; meaning is deferred and negotiated within language and by its interlocutors. Nor is the perceived object perceived objectively; it’s designation is pre-given, or “pre-scribed”. We see a thing not as it is, but in the sense we have of it. As soon as the object of bare perception is recognised it’s compromised.
The heart “yearning for awe” is mere credulousness. The “heart” (actually we’re just animals with delusions) yearns at the lack that’s by-product of symbolic culture. Cultured-being is the deferral of animal being; remember it started out as creative leisure, which gradually became our whole “reality”. We’re idealistic beings—waking dreamers. Reality now only dawns on us in extremis—a car crash, perhaps, that leaves you conscious but brings you violently back to earth.
In this conception, as I said above, empiricism is a kind of “asceticism of disembodiment”—tantamount to religion—as if the mind can finally break free from its bodily prison and read nature direct, or may think independently of this culture and its language games—such rationalists are both delusional and self-flagellating. This is what I dislike about Dawkins; he thinks his reasoning is impartial and apolitical.
There’s so much more that could be said to round out this post-Humanism—which I’m not convinced by. To quote Marx’s favourite expression “de omnibus dubitandum”.
But my scepticism is not based on reasoning, how could it be? But on experience that cannot be rationalised, of which I’ll say no more.

.

Dear Poirot,

.

Thank you for expanding on your previous post. I can equate to what you are saying and have no problems with that.

Bravo for the poem. For someone who has never been to Ireland you have certainly done your homework.

I guess my remaining concern is with Squeer's denunciation of "conceits about individuality" and "the vanity of individual thought and experience".

I shall deal with that in my following post.

.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Thank you for filling in the details. I tend to have a telescopic vision of most things in life which some may feel is superficial.

The best explanation I can find is the hundreds of hours I spent as a boy lying flat on my back on the lawn in the backyard of my home in Dalby, gazing at the shimmering lights of the big fat jewels suspended above my head in the black, moonless sky on hot summer nights.

In those days, it only rained about once every five years. A cloud in the sky was a novelty for four or five year olds.

The Darling Downs are perfectly flat and nowhere else on earth have I had the impression of living in the dome of the cosmos as I did during my early life in Dalby. By lying on my back the earth disappeared completely. I was floating in space. My batteries are still charged up and running on that experience.

The other determining factor was probably that I totally withdrew from formal education just before my fourteenth birthday.

Perhaps this will help you understand what I see when I turn my eyes to your post. I see nothing there to suggest that man has, in some way, managed to extract himself from nature. Whether he crawl rather than swim, walk rather than crawl or talk rather than gesticulate, he is in nature and nature is in him, fashioning him, adapting him and making him more efficient. He is made of the same stuff as the trees and the rivers, the air and the mountains.

I see his individuality arising from the process of chance and necessity imagined by Democritus in 400BC and confirmed by the French biologist, Jacques Monod in 1970.

I see it as an evolutionary process towards ever greater autonomy which has nothing to do with egoism or egocentrism. On the contrary, it dissipates the fog that all too often envelopes consciousness and stimulates such noble sentiments as empathy, solidarity and altruism.

.

Bamjo,

I've been having a peek at Ortega Y Gasset, who in comparing the life of animals who are perpetually harassed by and attentive to the environment - and man, who "acts" on the environment to arrange things so he can "...from time to time, suspend his direct concern with things, detach himself from his surroundings......this marvellous faculty which man possesses of temporarily freeing himself from his slavery to things..."

Ortega is talking here of "contemplation".

"Thanks to it, and its proportion to its progress, man can take a stand within himself. But, conversely, man as a technician is able to modify his environment to his own convenience because seizing every moment of rest which things allow him, he uses to enter himself and form ideas about his world, about these things and his relation to them, to form a plan of attack about his circumstances...from this inner world he emerges and returns to the outer, but he returns as a protagonist....- he returns with his plan of campaign: not to let himself be dominated by things, but to govern them himself, to impose his will and his design upon them, to realise his ideas in that outer world...Far from losing himself in his return to the world, he on the contrary carries his self to the "other", projects it energetically and masterfully on things...."

So for Ortega, contemplation is a device employed by man to "act" upon the world.

He's rather critical of what he calls "The Bigotry of Culture" - the intellectual aberration which isolates contemplation from action...but it's late tonight so I'll post some more on that tomorrow sometime.

I sympathise, Banjo Paterson, I live on the Darling Downs too--though closer to what I call the drop off--Toowoomba. One of my favourite metaphors too is Omar Khyam's "This inverted bowl we call the sky ...". But we're no closer to explaining anything are we? or addressing the ills of this world, and I prefer Khyam's lyric sober-realism to your romanticism: "where-under crawling coop't we live and die, lift not thy arms to it for help--for it rolls impotently on as you or I".
Having said that, I am convinced there's a much deeper mystery at the heart of life than the materialists can conceive, that there are more things in heaven and earth etc.
It does seem to me though that our situation is irredeemable, that we are cast out, at least for our earthly span, and that it should be our primary concern

Ortega's thoughts on "intellectualism".

"This doctrine has been given the name "intellectualism"; it is an idolatry of intelligence which isolates thought from its setting, from its function in the general economy of human life. As if man thinks, and not because...he has to to think in order to maintain himself among things! As if thought could awaken and function of its own motion, as if it began and ended in itself, and were not...engendered by action and having its roots and end in action!
Under the name first of Reason, then of Enlightenment, and finally of Culture, the most radical equivocation of terms and the most discreet deification of the intelligence were effected...culture, thought, came to fill the vacant office of a God who had been put to flight. All my work, from its first stutterings has been a fight against this attitude which many years ago I called the "bigotry of culture'. The Bigotry Of Culture because it presented us with culture, with thought, as something justified by itself, that is, which requires no justification but is valid by its own essence.
The way of reversing the relation of life and culture, between action and contemplation, brought it about that, the last century...there has been an overproduction of ideas, of books and works of art, a real cultural inflation. We have arrived at what--jokingly, because I distrust "-isms"--we might call a "capitalism of culture", a modern reflection of Byzantinism. There has been production for production's sake, instead of production in view of consumption, in view of the necessary ideas which the man of today needs and can absorb. And as occurs in capitalism, the market became saturated and crisis ensued...it lies in presenting culture, contemplation, thought, as a grace or jewel which man is to add to his life--hence as something that lies outside his life and as if there were life without culture and thought...
....I have said that the substance of man is purely and simply danger. Man always travels along precipices, and, whether he will or no, his truest obligation is to keep his balance."

.

Dear Poirot,

.

Thank you for introducing me to José Ortega y Gasset. I looked him up on Wikipedia.

No doubt he was a brilliant mind but appears to have had difficulty detaching himself from his bourgeois intellectual environment.

He must have felt the menace to his life very acutely to flee the country at the age of 53 at the outbreak of the civil war, not returning to Madrid until 1948, nine years after the end of the civil war, at the age of 65. He obviously was no hero. No communist resistant. No adventurer. No Hemingway.

All his major works were published either prior to or during his 12 year exile. He died seven years later at the age of 72.
He regretted that cultural offer exceeded demand. I wonder what value he placed on freedom of expression, he who was from a journalistic background? Would he possibly have been elitist?

He condemned what he called "The Bigotry Of Culture ... because it presented us with culture, with thought, as something justified by itself, that is, which requires no justification but is valid by its own essence". I would rather call it the "wonder" of culture, the "marvel" of culture or the "magic" of culture.

He probably hit it on the nail when he explained, at the age of 31 "Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia" ("I am I and my circumstance") (Meditaciones del Quijote, 1914).

.

.

Dear Squeers,

.

I'm afraid I do not merit your compliments. Any romanticism you perceive can only be circumstantial or simply illusory.

Please be assured that I have not invented anything. To my great regret, none of the ideas expressed in my previous post are original.

As you may know, it was the French philosopher, Auguste Comte, who invented both of those two well known terms, sociology and altruism. In his "System of Positive Polity, or Treatise on Sociology, Instituting the Religion of Humanity" (1851-1854), he saw altruism as the solicitude for fellow human beings that would eventually constitute a new religion, replacing what he considered to be a false, theological, pre-scientific, and metaphysical religion.

I understand that sociobiologists consider that mankind distinguishes himself from all other animal species, not only by his superior intelligence, but also by his greater propensity to cooperate and coordinate his activities with others.

They point out that "altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures" . They differentiate, however, biological altruism and altruism as a conscious, voluntary act on the part of the benefactor.

A British evolutionary biologist, W.D. Hamilton suggested that we acquired our propensity for altruism genetically (Hamilton's Rule) and others, that is was acquired psychologically and culturally ("Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior", Sober & Wilson).

Even though I don't deserve your very kind compliments, Squeers, they are certainly an encouragement and I shall do my best to live up to them in future.

.

Banjo Paterson,
I wasn't conscious of paying you a compliment or, heaven forbid, an insult--that is if your twice-mentioned sense of a compliment is meant to be ironic. I used the term romanticism in the canonical-literary sense and not the adjectival or vernacular. As for originality, I said something similar myself above: "I haven't said anything original, remarkable or even controversial". And this is of course the thesis I've been arguing, that we are all constrained by time and place and sensibility--though more broadly that our idealism is escapism, or inverted life. Even that the subconscious is a better barometer of our well-being than our conscious selves.
I think I'm going to have to find another way of expressing myself in future. Apologies for being abrupt sometimes. I'm usually challenging my own ideas as much as anybody else's.

Thanks for your splendid quotes, Poirot.

'I used the term romanticism in the canonical-literary sense and not the adjectival or vernacular.'

Spot the lecturer.

Sorry squeers couldn't resist.

I came here for the awe. I yearn for awe! My heart yearns for awe!

Which line do I stand in for the awe?

Actually scrap that yearning is more fun, in fact I think it's the whole point of the exercise.

Awwwwww.

Hiya Houellebecq,

You're dead right.

But all that yearning (desire) for awe is symptomatic rather than self-determined. We invented religion because cultured life is boring!

(I miss the wits and the wags here, but busy of late)

My pleasure, Squeers.

Houellie,

"...yearning is more fun..."

I think yearning is vastly overrated (I'm trying to give it up)

(in the words of Mr Horse from Ren & Stimpy - "No Sir, I don't like it."

: )

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Thanks for letting me off the hook. It would have been quite a challenge for me, an old time boxer, rugby player and something of a bushwhacker in my day, to live up to that image of a romanticist in the adjectival or vernacular sense.

I am not so sure that romanticism in the canonical-literary sense is quite within my reach either. You are right in thinking I am not a youngster any more, however, I do not have the qualities of a Dorian Gray and am by no means a contemporary of romantic poets such as Blake, Wordsworth, Keats, Shelley or Byron.

Even my namesake could have been my grandfather.

"Back to the road, and I crossed again
Over the miles of the saltbush plain -
The shining plain that is said to be
The dried-up bed of an inland sea,
Where the air so dry and so clear and bright
Refracts the sun and a wondrous light,
And out in the dim horizon makes
The deep blue gleam of the phantom lakes

At dawn of day we would feel the breeze
That stirred the boughs of sleeping trees,
And brought a breath of the fragrance rare
That comes and goes in that scented air;
For the trees and grass and the shrubs contain
A dry sweet scent on the saltbush plain.
For those that love it and understand,
The saltbush plain is a wonderland.
A wondrous country, where Nature's ways
Were revealed to me in the droving days.

We saw the fleet wild horses pass,
And the kangaroo through the Mitchell grass,
The emu ran with her frightened brood
All unmolested and unpursued.
But there rose a shout and a wild hubbub
When the dingo raced for his native scrub,
And he paid right dear for his stolen meals
With the drover's dog on his wretched heels.
For we ran him down at a rattling pace,
While the packhorse joined in the stirring chase.
And a wild halloo at the kill we'd raise -
We were light of heart in the droving days".

.

Ah, but Banjo Paterson "was" a romantic! guilty of idealising the bush You're familiar with the "dual" between he and Henry Lawson. The latter being the bleak realist?
Here are links to the poems, though I dare say you know them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_Debate#Works_of_poetry_involved_in_the_debate
Much as I enjoyed your poetic recollections of Dalby, with your eyes turned to the sky, the hard grind of living on the ground there in the early days, with squatters as well as vicious old mother nature to contend with, must have been wretched indeed. All that's forgotten by us moderns when we compose our pastorals on the same tamed landscapes.

If you haven't read them, Lawson's "Water Them Geraniums", "The Bush Undertaker" or "The Drover's Wife" are great short samplers. These short sketches are worth a look in light of the discussion here.

Having said all that, Lawson was himself a dreamer (and a drinker), as are his characters, and he himself never knew a life without the luxury of culture.

Have a nice day, cobber (I bet you don't get called that much in France : )

Sorry, "duel".

Joust him!

I love a good joust.

Ren and Stiiiimpy.

Man I'm off to you tube for some na-stalja.

You filthy worm!

.

Dear Squeers,

.

Sorry I couldn't get back earlier to you, cobber, I went on walkabout.

Actually I think there might still be some erudite Parisians to be found quietly savouring a glass of calvados hors d'âge on the terrace of the Café de Flore at Saint-Germain-des-Prés who would be delighted to air their knowledge of popular Australian colloquial terms such as cobber. In fact, there may be just as many erudite Frenchmen who are acquainted with them as there are well educated young Australians.

I must confess I am unfamiliar with Henry Lawson's writings. We never had to recite any of his poems at the Dalby State Primary School which I attended. Miss Diplock, my primary school teacher, only gave us a couple of Banjo Paterson's poems to learn: The man from Snowy River and The man from Ironbark. I enjoyed them so much I read a few more.

I never thought of Banjo's poems as being particularly romantic. Most of his description of the bush and Australian country bumpkins seemed to me to correspond to the reality I experienced in my own environment. He saw what I saw and heard what I heard and described it in vivid, concise, poetic language which was music to my ears.

Presumably it was the same reality with which Henry Lawson was confronted. The difference, no doubt, was only to be found in the eyes of the beholder. Visions vary. Truth is subjective. I am willing to believe that both poets rendered an honest account of what they perceived.

Perhaps if I had looked over Henry Lawson's shoulder I too should have painted a different tableau, but I doubt he ever heard the music I heard ... Henry Lawson was deaf, wasn't he ?

.