Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on December 07, 2015, 02:43:26 PM
-
Something about, half of the UK population are now non-religious, recommendations about reflecting these percentages.
It'll be the day the BBC does that, they're obsessed with religion.
ippy
-
Something about, half of the UK population are now non-religious, recommendations about reflecting these percentages.
It'll be the day the BBC does that, they're obsessed wit religion.
ippy
I heard that on the BBC lunchtime news!
-
Where are the other half hiding?
-
That means that the other half are religious!
Sounds a suspiciously very high number to me.
-
That means that the other half are religious!
Sounds a suspiciously very high number to me.
I see you're a maha, maters, you do clever things with numbers.
ippy
-
Something about, half of the UK population are now non-religious, recommendations about reflecting these percentages.
It'll be the day the BBC does that, they're obsessed with religion.
ippy
You are kidding, of course. YOU are the one obsessed, as I've pointed out so often. It just shows how far you are divorced from reality! :o
-
You are kidding, of course. YOU are the one obsessed, as I've pointed out so often. It just shows how far you are divorced from reality! :o
Sounds like you've seen Elvis again BA, where was he this time?
ippy
-
Sounds like you've seen Elvis again BA, where was he this time?
ippy
Come on, try and think of something original. You've been saying the same for years: it wasn't an original thought of yours when you first used it, some time in 1981!
-
Come on, try and think of something original. You've been saying the same for years: it wasn't an original thought of yours when you first used it, some time in 1981!
Now if almost 50% of the UK population is non-religious, how many of that other half are christians, it looks like a very low number of you lot left and still going down, oh dear!
ippy
-
Now if almost 50% of the UK population is non-religious, how many of that other half are christians, it looks like a very low number of you lot left and still going down, oh dear!
ippy
Well that may not be so beneficial to you, if the majority are anything like the atheists and camp-followers on this forum!
-
ippy,
Now if almost 50% of the UK population is non-religious, how many of that other half are christians, it looks like a very low number of you lot left and still going down, oh dear!
"Religious" is the weasel word there: how is it defined exactly? As I understand it, it includes anyone who vaguely thinks there must be "something" out there and self-identify as such, whereas those who - for example - attend churches of the various Christian denominations on a regular basis actually constitute only about 5% of the population. Given that, the access to the public square that Christians sometimes demand as a right (because we're supposedly a "Christian country") is a huge overreach it seems to me.
-
ippy,
"Religious" is the weasel word there: how is it defined exactly? As I understand it, it includes anyone who vaguely thinks there must be "something" out there and self-identify as such, whereas those who - for example - attend churches of the various Christian denominations on a regular basis actually constitute only about 5% of the population. Given that, the access to the public square that Christians sometimes demand as a right (because we're supposedly a "Christian country") is a huge overreach it seems to me.
Everybody should have access to the public square otherwise it isn't public......
Don't be so silly.
-
Everybody should have access to the public square otherwise it isn't public......
Don't be so silly.
I really do agree with you Vlad, as long as no one group has any kind of privileged access to the public square.
ippy
-
I really do agree with you Vlad, as long as no one group has any kind of privileged access to the public square.
ippy
As if the middle class cognoscenti secular humanist establishment are going to surrender their privileged access.......................
-
As if the middle class cognoscenti secular humanist establishment are going to surrender their privileged access.......................
So privileged that they're barred from Remembrance Day events, indeed ::)
-
ippy,
"Religious" is the weasel word there: how is it defined exactly? As I understand it, it includes anyone who vaguely thinks there must be "something" out there and self-identify as such, whereas those who - for example - attend churches of the various Christian denominations on a regular basis actually constitute only about 5% of the population. Given that, the access to the public square that Christians sometimes demand as a right (because we're supposedly a "Christian country") is a huge overreach it seems to me.
Yes, a weasel word, weaseling and the churches, remember Barbara Smokers debaptism certificates, the church doesn't like them very much because the church was using the numbers of those baptised when arguing for favour in spite of the large numbers of people that have grown up and rejected any association with the relevant church, weasel, weasel, weasel it's something these churches specialise in, a little favour here another little favour there, they all add up and don't they know it?
I think underhanded would be another accurate description of them.
ippy
-
So privileged that they're barred from Remembrance Day events, indeed ::)
Yes Shakes it's not even as though it's a case of not being invited, non-religious representation is barred just as you say. (50% of the population not represented, it's a disgrace).
ippy
-
As if the middle class cognoscenti secular humanist establishment are going to surrender their privileged access.......................
What privilege?!?
Explain to me where some secular humanist group has privileges akin to:
1. Faith schools, paid for entirely (bar the loose change) from the public purse yet run by religious organisation and able to discriminate on the basis of children's (or rather their parents) religious faith.
2. Guaranteed places in parliament for two dozen of their senior leadership, akin to the CofE Bishops.
3. Opt outs to all sorts of equalities legislation allowing discrimination on the grounds of gender and sexuality that would land a humanist organisation in the courts before you could say 'religious privilege'.
4. Preferential treatment by the Charities Commission so that they don't have to apply for charitable status until their income twenty times higher than for other charities - as is the case for most churches under the excepted charities privilege.
etc, etc.
Nope there are no privileges for secular humanist organisations or secular humanists - they are treated the same as everyone else ... except many religious organisations and their followers who are given special privileges.
-
Yes Shakes it's not even as though it's a case of not being invited, non-religious representation is barred just as you say. (50% of the population not represented, it's a disgrace).
ippy
As I've said before, if all you want to go for is to be part of the "official" parties, then you are going for the wrong reason. Look elsewhere for your ego massage. I remember, and pray for those men, and women, and I don't have to be there: and I can do it any and every day.
-
As I've said before, if all you want to go for is to be part of the "official" parties, then you are going for the wrong reason. Look elsewhere for your ego massage. I remember, and pray for those men, and women, and I don't have to be there: and I can do it any and every day.
It has nothing to do with an ego massage; it's all about equal representation. Fairness, in other words.
-
It has nothing to do with an ego massage; it's all about equal representation. Fairness, in other words.
There are plenty who would like to be there and are not invited. So what?
-
There are plenty who would like to be there and are not invited. So what?
Such as? If they want to be and are not, why not?
-
As I've said before, if all you want to go for is to be part of the "official" parties, then you are going for the wrong reason. Look elsewhere for your ego massage. I remember, and pray for those men, and women, and I don't have to be there: and I can do it any and every day.
Clueless BA.
Half of the countries families don't see any respect given to their heros that gave their lives, if you think it's enough to see a group of frock wearing prats promoting their nonsense, think again that lot don't even represent a half of us, they certainly don't represent me.
The present arrangements are insulting, big time.
ippy
-
Such as? If they want to be and are not, why not?
Me. My grandfather was wounded on the Somme; and many, many of his friends died there. I am not invited, though my grandfather lost his sanity because of the Great War.
-
Clueless BA.
Half of the countries families don't see any respect given to their heros that gave their lives, if you think it's enough to see a group of frock wearing prats promoting their nonsense, think again that lot don't even represent a half of us, they certainly don't represent me.
The present arrangements are insulting, big time.
ippy
I suppose there must be a great many of the old soldiers in the parade who are not religious; so just try and show some kind of respect for what it is all about: and that's not your petty snipes at Religion, but about men who gave their all for this country, and regardless of religious leanings one way or another. Your stance is a disgrace. Shame on you!
-
I suppose there must be a great many of the old soldiers in the parade who are not religious; so just try and show some kind of respect for what it is all about: and that's not your petty snipes at Religion, but about men who gave their all for this country, and regardless of religious leanings one way or another. Your stance is a disgrace. Shame on you!
Much as I see religions as complete and utter nonsense big time, if their representatives were excluded from the national remembrance day ceremony, it would be offensive to me, because of needlessly offending and hurting the feelings of families and friends left behind and I would be the last one to support such an exclusion, if there were such an exclusion.
I would expect very much the same visa versa as it is now where non-religious representatives are banned/excluded from the ceremony.
If you don't see it that way B A, I don't like to think what kind of person that would make you?
ippy
-
Half the people may be non religious...but are they also non spiritual? That is important to know! Many people could reject religion (mainly Christianity I guess) and take up secular forms of spirituality.
Secondly, the UK being very small, its growing atheism (even if) need not be of any significance because many large countries like India, America have increasing numbers following either some religion or some form of secular spirituality. Even in countries like China and Russia where people were largely atheistic, they are now becoming more religious/spiritual.
-
Something about, half of the UK population are now non-religious, recommendations about reflecting these percentages.
It'll be the day the BBC does that, they're obsessed with religion.
ippy
Hi ippy, I didn't see the item either on the 1300 hrs or 1800hrs. Did they explain what they mean by 'non-religious'? Have no idea about this particular item, but I have seen and heard articles that used the term to mean 'non-Christian'. This is a serious query.
-
Me. My grandfather was wounded on the Somme; and many, many of his friends died there. I am not invited, though my grandfather lost his sanity because of the Great War.
I'm sorry to hear that; my family were impacted too. But there are Christians attending the Remembrance Day ceremonies on your behalf. Who is invited to attend on behalf on the non-believers?
-
That means that the other half are religious!
Sounds a suspiciously very high number to me.
Why, john? The global figures suggest that religious people make up something like 2/3rds of the population, so why should we in Britain be any different? Could it be that, despite our much vaunted education system, we are lacking in education in the less concrete aspects of life? Perhaps it reflects the paucity of Religious Education (eduaction about 'religion', as opposed to a particular religion) in our current curriculum?
-
I see you're a maha, maters, you do clever things with numbers.
ippy
Can't say much for his 'clever things with language', ippy ;)
-
Sounds like you've seen Elvis again BA, where was he this time?
What gives ytou that idea, ippy? You are the one who seems to start thread after thread about religion and you're the one who seems to think that religion has as much influence as you make out that it does. As I mentioned in a previous post, the state of religious education (by which I refer to education about the concept) is about as bad as the state of Personal, Health and Social Education - muddled, lacking in cohesion and often taught by people with little or no understanding of the issue.
-
Now if almost 50% of the UK population is non-religious, how many of that other half are christians, it looks like a very low number of you lot left and still going down, oh dear!
If that reducing number is becoming increasingly active within society, ippy, your 'oh dear' may be premature. ;)
-
Vlud,
Everybody should have access to the public square otherwise it isn't public......
Don't be so silly.
Once again you confuse the right to speak with the right to be listened to. With respect to religious beliefs no-one is objecting to the former, but some of us object to the latter.
-
Given that, the access to the public square that Christians sometimes demand as a right (because we're supposedly a "Christian country") is a huge overreach it seems to me.
Could it be that they demand that access because it is a human right, bhs?
-
Sriram,
Half the people may be non religious...but are they also non spiritual? That is important to know! Many people could reject religion (mainly Christianity I guess) and take up secular forms of spirituality.
Secondly, the UK being very small, its growing atheism (even if) need not be of any significance because many large countries like India, America have increasing numbers following either some religion or some form of secular spirituality. Even in countries like China and Russia where people were largely atheistic, they are now becoming more religious/spiritual.
You'll have to tell us what you mean by "spiritual" here. In my experience, people who utter stupidities like "everything happens for a reason" to gullible young women in bars also tend to call themselves "spiritual". Is that the kind of thing you mean?
-
Could it be that they demand that access because it is a human right, bhs?
I don't see that works given that Christians demand this 'right' mainly so that they can control the rights of others, assisted dying being an obvious example.
-
Once again you confuse the right to speak with the right to be listened to. With respect to religious beliefs no-one is objecting to the former, but some of us object to the latter.
Not sure how many Christians there are in the Houses of Parliament, bhs, let alone how many 'people of faith' in general, but surely if 1/2 the population is religious - as this latest report implies - surely 1/2 the representatives in the HoP should be people of faith.
-
Hope,
Why, john? The global figures suggest that religious people make up something like 2/3rds of the population, so why should we in Britain be any different?
Education. The more educated the population, the less the need to reach for superstition to explain the universe.
Could it be that, despite our much vaunted education system, we are lacking in education in the less concrete aspects of life?
In my view, yes. If it were up to me I'd introduce philosophy at the primary school stage.
Perhaps it reflects the paucity of Religious Education (eduaction about 'religion', as opposed to a particular religion) in our current curriculum?
No. It just reflects the realisation that the predominant religious beliefs of your own society are no less daft than the predominant religious beliefs of other societies.
-
I don't see that works given that Christians demand this 'right' mainly so that they can control the rights of others, assisted dying being an obvious example.
Sorry, Rhi, but there are many people within British society who have disagreed with the different assisted dying bills, whilst there are many, including Christians, who agree with the principle. Often, as was the recent case with the Welfare Bill that the HoL asked the Government to reconsider, MPs may consider the view of the majority without properly considering the views of the often already disadvantaged minority. If a Bishop stands up and speaks on their behalf, isn't that a good thing?
-
Hope,
Could it be that they demand that access because it is a human right, bhs?
No. The demand to be listened to by right is not a human right.
-
Education. The more educated the population, the less the need to reach for superstition to explain the universe.
Religion, bhs, is usually much greater than that small element. As has been said many times before, one doesn't have to be a creationist to be religious, whilst science doesn't even claim to be able to answer many fundamental questions about reality.
-
Hope,
No. The demand to be listened to by right is not a human right.
I'm not so sure, bhs. Or are you suggesting that the disadvantaged, the marginalised and the poor have no right to be listened to?
-
As has been said many times before, one doesn't have to be a creationist to be religious, whilst science doesn't even claim to be able to answer many fundamental questions about reality.
What questions would these be?
-
Hope,
Not sure how many Christians there are in the Houses of Parliament, bhs, let alone how many 'people of faith' in general, but surely if 1/2 the population is religious - as this latest report implies - surely 1/2 the representatives in the HoP should be people of faith.
Lots, but the point rather is that 26 bishops are entitled to sit in the House of Lords because they are bishops.
And you're playing fast and loose here with the term "religious". If you go by church attendance, about 1m a week go which is about 1.5% of the population. You get a much bigger number of course if you ask how many self identify as vaguely thinking there's something "out there", but that's hardly an argument for aligning that belief with the suites of beliefs of the bishops.
-
Why, john? The global figures suggest that religious people make up something like 2/3rds of the population, so why should we in Britain be any different?
Fallacy of composition. What is the case for the whole doesn't imply that it's true of part of that whole - as in this case, given that multiple polls and surveys show Britain to be one of the least religious nations in the world.
-
Fallacy of composition. What is the case of the whole doesn't imply that it's true of part of that whole - as in this case, given that multiple polls and surveys show Britain to be one of the least religious nations in the world.
Suggesting, perhaps, that the British population are one of the nations least in touch with reality?
-
Suggesting, perhaps, that the British population are one of the nations least in touch with reality?
No, exactly the opposite in fact.
-
Hope,
Religion, bhs, is usually much greater than that small element. As has been said many times before, one doesn't have to be a creationist to be religious, whilst science doesn't even claim to be able to answer many fundamental questions about reality.
Of course there's a spectrum of religious beliefs, but science has a much better track record of answering "the fundamental questions about reality" than anything else we have, and seems likely to be able to do so in the future pending someone ever coming up with a working method to validate the faith claims of religion.
-
What questions would these be?
And why does the ability to frame a question entail that there's actually an answer to it?
-
And why does the ability to frame a question entail that there's actually an answer to it?
Indeed - or that the question being asked is valid in the first place.
-
Lots, but the point rather is that 26 bishops are entitled to sit in the House of Lords because they are bishops.
Well, perhaps you'll join the calls - often led by the Church of England itself - for its disestablishment. That would open the doors to leaders of other Christian denominations as well as leaders of other faiths to sitting in that House.
And you're playing fast and loose here with the term "religious".
Sorry, bhs, you're the one playing fast and loose with the term 'religious'. I was referring to all those within the British population who align themselves with one of the many religious faiths that exist throughout the world. I WAS NOT referring exclusively to Christianity, let alone to a single form of that faith.
-
Hope,
I'm not so sure, bhs. Or are you suggesting that the disadvantaged, the marginalised and the poor have no right to be listened to?
You're missing it. Arguments fight for their place in the sun according to their merits - whether they're logically robust and coherent etc. The difference with some religious people though is that they think they should be listened to just because their arguments are articles of faith. They really think that "but that's my faith" should be treated with special respect rather than with a "so what?".
That's the point.
-
... , but science has a much better track record of answering "the fundamental questions about reality" than anything else we have, ...
Is this why science has such a poor track record with anything that is not purely physical?
-
Is this why science has such a poor track record with anything that is not purely physical?
Such as what, and what methodology is there for examining it?
-
What questions would these be?
Questions such as 'Does the natural world have a purpose?'; 'Is science able to answer questions that do not relate to purely physical elements of life?'.
I'm not sure that simply suggesting that these questions are valid or not is a real response. If anything, they sound more like avoiding the issues.
-
Is this why science has such a poor track record with anything that is not purely physical?
Examples?
-
Such as what, and what methodology is there for examining it?
Precisely, Shakes; is there any methodology for examining and assessing the validity of the scientific method as the sole way of explaining reality? Where is the independent methodology by which to test the pro-science claims?
-
Hope,
Well, perhaps you'll join the calls - often led by the Church of England itself - for its disestablishment. That would open the doors to leaders of other Christian denominations as well as leaders of other faiths to sitting in that House.
Again you miss it. That members of the HofL also happen to be christians, muslims or spaghetti-monsterists is neither here nor there provided they have the requisite skills for the job. What's being objected to though is the demand that some have their place just because they are christians etc
Sorry, bhs, you're the one playing fast and loose with the term 'religious'. I was referring to all those within the British population who align themselves with one of the many religious faiths that exist throughout the world. I WAS NOT referring exclusively to Christianity, let alone to a single form of that faith.
No I'm not. What does "align themselves" mean do you think? Do you mean those who actively participate in the rituals of their faith, or those who happen to tick the box on a census form once every few years but give it no further thought than that?
-
Precisely, Shakes; is there any methodology for examining and assessing the validity of the scientific method as the sole way of explaining reality? Where is the independent methodology by which to test the pro-science claims?
If anything that sounds exactly avoiding giving an answer to the question I asked you.
-
Questions such as 'Does the natural world have a purpose?'; 'Is science able to answer questions that do not relate to purely physical elements of life?'.
I'm not sure that simply suggesting that these questions are valid or not is a real response. If anything, they sound more like avoiding the issues.
It's an entirely real response, and one that you can't tackle.
-
Hope,
Questions such as 'Does the natural world have a purpose?';
Why do you think that to be a coherent question without first establishing a "something" to decide what that purpose might be?
'Is science able to answer questions that do not relate to purely physical elements of life?'.
Why do you think there are things that are "non-physical" rather than just emergent properties of the physical?
I'm not sure that simply suggesting that these questions are valid or not is a real response. If anything, they sound more like avoiding the issues.
Yes it is. If they aren't meaningful questions, they aren't meaningful questions.
Why don't unicorns tap dance on Tuesdays? Care to answer that, or will you "avoid the issue"?
-
Again you miss it. That members of the HofL also happen to be christians, muslims or spaghetti-monsterists is neither here nor there provided they have the requisite skills for the job. What's being objected to though is the demand that some have their place just because they are christians etc
So, as I said, join the campaign to have the CofE disestablished. With the exception of 50-odd Lords who hold their seats by right of birth - and i believe that that will die with them - the 26 Bishops (many of whom choose not the take up that right, by the way) are the only block that hold seats because of what they are, as opposed to by merit.
No I'm not. What does "align themselves" mean do you think? Do you mean those who actively participate in the rituals of their faith, or those who happen to tick the box on a census form once every few years but give it no further thought than that?
I would use the former definition; several of the reports and articles that ippy quotes would seem - by the references used within them - would seem to be talking about the latter.
-
Questions such as 'Does the natural world have a purpose?'; 'Is science able to answer questions that do not relate to purely physical elements of life?'.
So, what method(s) would you employ to define, detect and quantify 'purpose'
I'm not sure that simply suggesting that these questions are valid or not is a real response. If anything, they sound more like avoiding the issues.
Don't be daft - querying whether or not the question being asked is valid, as in being amenable to being investigated, is perfectly reasonable since there are possible fallacies awaiting any careless thinking.
-
Don't be daft - querying whether or not the question being asked is valid, as in being amenable to being investigated, is perfectly reasonable since there are possible fallacies awaiting any careless thinking.
Oodles and oodles of them, Gordon ;)
-
Hope,
So, as I said, join the campaign to have the CofE disestablished. With the exception of 50-odd Lords who hold their seats by right of birth - and i believe that that will die with them - the 26 Bishops (many of whom choose not the take up that right, by the way) are the only block that hold seats because of what they are, as opposed to by merit.
Exactly. Then perhaps we can turn to exemptions from non-discrimination laws, faith schools, special relaxations for charitable status...
I would use the former definition; several of the reports and articles that ippy quotes would seem - by the references used within them - would seem to be talking about the latter.
If the former, then in many countries the numbers are dwindlingly small and shrinking. And yes the report also refers as I understand it more to the latter, which is why it argues against the excessive influence of the C of E on the lives of the rest of us.
-
Why do you think that to be a coherent question without first establishing a "something" to decide what that purpose might be?
I could equally ask why - since humanity seems to have decided that it, even if not the rest of the natural world, has purpose - that something hasn't already been established.
Why do you think there are things that are "non-physical" rather than just emergent properties of the physical?
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that wonderfully jargonistic phrase 'emergent properties of the physical'?
Yes it is. If they aren't meaningful questions, they aren't meaningful questions.
Do you have any methodology for deciding that they aren't meaningful?
Why don't unicorns tap dance on Tuesdays? Care to answer that, or will you "avoid the issue"?
Good try at avoidance. Do you have any evidence that they don't? Note that I have never mentioned unicorns in any of my posts other than in response to posts that already mention them - often within quote markers, so you need to provide the proof of your suggestion.
-
I could equally ask why - since humanity seems to have decided that it, even if not the rest of the natural world, has purpose - that something hasn't already been established.
How has 'humanity' done this? Your argument here looks like a Straw Man.
Good try at avoidance. Do you have any evidence that they don't?
The old negative proof fallacy yet again: mind you, it is your favourite!
-
Hope,
Why do you keep putting yourself through this? Surely you can see by now that you'll keep getting eaten alive when you do?
Ah well...
I could equally ask why - since humanity seems to have decided that it, even if not the rest of the natural world, has purpose - that something hasn't already been established.
That's a dubious assertion at best but, even if it were to be true it's also and argumentum ad populum - a basic logical error. Worse still, there are countless beliefs in many different "somethings" to decide on a "purpose", and none of them in any case offer a method of any kind to distinguish their answers from just guessing.
Apart from that though...
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that wonderfully jargonistic phrase 'emergent properties of the physical'?
"Emergent property" is a standard term - a snowflake for example is an emergent property of ice crystals. Why not just look it up?
Do you have any methodology for deciding that they aren't meaningful?
Several - failure to define terms, use of non sequiturs, non-establishment of premises etc.
Good try at avoidance. Do you have any evidence that they don't? Note that I have never mentioned unicorns in any of my posts other than in response to posts that already mention them - often within quote markers, so you need to provide the proof of your suggestion.
Sorry, my bad - I forgot there that I was dealing with an entirely un-nuanced mind so argument by analogy founders in the face of your literalism. The point is that it's entirely possible to construct a grammatically correct question that is nonetheless meaningless. If you can just assume the supposedly "non-physical" and frame a question around it, then it would be special pleading to deny me the right just to assume tap-dancing unicorns and to frame a question around that.
It's a simple enough point I'd have thought.
-
Is this why science has such a poor track record with anything that is not purely physical?
Like radio, microwaves, x-rays, magnetism? Or did you mean the things outside the remit of, say, the physical realm... things which we have no reason to think actually exist...
Physics, I'll freely confess, is notoriously poor at explaining things that we have no reason to think actually exist.
O.
-
I could equally ask why - since humanity seems to have decided that it, even if not the rest of the natural world, has purpose - that something hasn't already been established.
I don't see that humanity has decided that it has a purpose - certainly not a collective one that's shared by even a majority. Individual humans select a purpose, some of those organise into collectives, but I'm not aware of any of those that are world-wide.
Even if there were, the fact that people have decided on a purpose doesn't imply that the purpose is external - they aren't necessarily 'realising' a purpose imposed on them, but rather generating one for themselves.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that wonderfully jargonistic phrase 'emergent properties of the physical'?
Complex arrangements of physical phenomena - say, brain cells - are capable of producing subtle, nuanced behaviours that seem at first blush to exceed the capacity of the components.
Do you have any methodology for deciding that they aren't meaningful?
If you're asking a question that implies a conclusion that hasn't actually been demonstrated, then you're begging the question - in that instance, your question may not be meaningful.
Good try at avoidance. Do you have any evidence that they don't? Note that I have never mentioned unicorns in any of my posts other than in response to posts that already mention them - often within quote markers, so you need to provide the proof of your suggestion.
Except that the question parodies theological questions - you differentiate between 'God' and 'unicorns' for what seem to be entirely arbitrary reasons. You have equal levels of evidence for both, which is just references in old books of questionable provenance, insufficient to the incredible claims made.
So far the attempts to justify treating God as a different category of claim from 'pixies', 'elves', 'brownies', 'dragons', 'unicorns' and other magical creatures haven't succeeded.
O.
-
I could equally ask why - since humanity seems to have decided that it, even if not the rest of the natural world, has purpose - that something hasn't already been established.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by that wonderfully jargonistic phrase 'emergent properties of the physical'?
Do you have any methodology for deciding that they aren't meaningful?
Good try at avoidance. Do you have any evidence that they don't? Note that I have never mentioned unicorns in any of my posts other than in response to posts that already mention them - often within quote markers, so you need to provide the proof of your suggestion.
"Here We Go Again_________"
ippy
-
I don't see that humanity has decided that it has a purpose - certainly not a collective one that's shared by even a majority. Individual humans select a purpose, some of those organise into collectives, but I'm not aware of any of those that are world-wide.
There are many 'purposes' that are world-wide, in so far as they are represented in every nation of the world - the push for human rights, the push for mitigation of climate change. They may not be universal in that not every person alive agrees with them. However, one that is probably slightly more relvant to this question is that of democracy.
Even if there were, the fact that people have decided on a purpose doesn't imply that the purpose is external - they aren't necessarily 'realising' a purpose imposed on them, but rather generating one for themselves.
I think that if a majority of hmaniy has decided on a purpose - such as those mentioned above - those will not have appeared merely by chance; they will be inherent in human nature.
Complex arrangements of physical phenomena - say, brain cells - are capable of producing subtle, nuanced behaviours that seem at first blush to exceed the capacity of the components.
Examples? I would have to admit that, whilst I fully accept the complexity of the human brain, I've never heard of a behaviour that I have believed exceeded the capacity of the components.
Except that the question parodies theological questions - you differentiate between 'God' and 'unicorns' for what seem to be entirely arbitrary reasons. You have equal levels of evidence for both, which is just references in old books of questionable provenance, insufficient to the incredible claims made.
Except that I don't even mention unicorns in the same context as God. I know you do so, though.
So far the attempts to justify treating God as a different category of claim from 'pixies', 'elves', 'brownies', 'dragons', 'unicorns' and other magical creatures haven't succeeded.
I've noticed, O. Whenever you nor any of the other pixie/unicorn/elves/dragons/... claimants have mentioned them, your comments have been largely ignorted.
By the way, I can confirm that there are such beings as 'Dragons' - they attend the Dragon School in N. Oxford!! I am, myself, an Old Dragon!! ;)
O.
[/quote]
-
"Here We Go Again_________"
ippy
;D ;D A comment that could be aimed at almost every post you make!
-
There are many 'purposes' that are world-wide, in so far as they are represented in every nation of the world - the push for human rights, the push for mitigation of climate change. They may not be universal in that not every person alive agrees with them. However, one that is probably slightly more relevant to this question is that of democracy.
Unfortunately not nearly enough of humanity has settled on any of those.
I think that if a majority of hmaniy has decided on a purpose - such as those mentioned above - those will not have appeared merely by chance; they will be inherent in human nature.
That's entirely possible, yes. Another possibility is that they are objectively useful in maintaining social structures and we have developed them repeatedly in parallel out of pragmatism.
Examples? I would have to admit that, whilst I fully accept the complexity of the human brain, I've never heard of a behaviour that I have believed exceeded the capacity of the components.
Perhaps, many do - those are the properties that are described as 'emergent', things like consciousness.
Except that I don't even mention unicorns in the same context as God. I know you do so, though.
I hadn't intended to imply that you do, just to explain why we do.
By the way, I can confirm that there are such beings as 'Dragons' - they attend the Dragon School in N. Oxford!! I am, myself, an Old Dragon!! ;)
Newport has a colony of them, so I'm told :)
O.