Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on May 16, 2016, 08:30:51 AM
-
The large majority of really poor countries are mostly either Roman Catholic or Muslim, with a scattering of various other religions in India, an India that seems to me has a lot more poor people than it seems to me that it should have.
I assume any one of the many religions followed by fewer people in India are probably followed by millions.
Just a thought, I don't think I've got it wrong and would be interested in anyone's views on this.
ippy
-
ipster,
The large majority of really poor countries are mostly either Roman Catholic or Muslim, with a scattering of various other religions in India, an India that seems to me has a lot more poor people than it seems to me that it should have.
I assume any one of the many religions followed by fewer people in India are probably followed by millions.
Just a thought, I don't think I've got it wrong and would be interested in anyone's views on this.
Religiosity and poverty are heavily correlated, though the case for the causality of the former for the latter is unclear. Clearly unsustainably large families impoverishes them, but consider the religiosity of the USA too for example.
-
ipster,
Religiosity and poverty are heavily correlated, though the case for the causality of the former for the latter is unclear. Clearly unsustainably large families impoverishes them, but consider the religiosity of the USA too for example.
But as they always say on More or Less, "correlation is not causation" - it would be perfectly logical for the poor to turn to the only organisations that offers them support.
-
But as they always say on More or Less, "correlation is not causation" - it would be perfectly logical for the poor to turn to the only organisations that offers them support.
Good point, couldn't be linked to anything lacking in the educational levels present amongst poorer populations?
ippy
-
But as they always say on More or Less, "correlation is not causation" - it would be perfectly logical for the poor to turn to the only organisations that offers them support.
Or to an organisation that provides a simplistic and supposedly authoritative explanation for their condition.
-
Or to an organisation that provides a simplistic and supposedly authoritative explanation for their condition.
Indeed, but religious organisations are not homogenious - there's the Good,the Bad and the Ugly :o
-
L.A.
Indeed, but religious organisations are not homogenious - there's the Good,the Bad and the Ugly :o
But they are homogeneous to the extent that they all privilege faith over just guessing about stuff. And that's the problem with them.
-
Certainly there is a lot of poverty in many South American countries, where the majority follow the Catholic faith. Naturally there are ''fat cats'' too but they are in the minority. Bigger families obviously contribute to family poverty but only the most ignorant don't know how to limit their families.
I was surprised to see Islam mentioned in the same way, I don't believe Muslims on the whole are thought of as poor. They may live in a country where there is great poverty for various reasons. Some of the Muslims who live is what might be called ''Muslim areas'' in this country aren't particularly well off but they are aspirational and not on the bread line. 'Working class'. Our new mayor comes from that sort of background. They aren't known for having big families. Plenty of quite well off and well educated ones too, who send their children to the top schools.
The Indian subcontinent is so vast with remote areas, places where there are floods and droughts, there's bound to be extreme hardship but not necessarily connected to religion. We mustn't forget the Zoroastrians who are considered to be elite, not many in number but highly educated, enlightened and aspirational, especially for their children.
Hindus in India and abroad have a huge demographic and, again, aren't known for having very big families.
-
L.A.
But they are homogeneous to the extent that they all privilege faith over just guessing about stuff. And that's the problem with them.
Obviously they all have a religious 'ethos' of some kind, but how that translates to 'morality' varies hugely.
-
Certainly there is a lot of poverty in many South American countries, where the majority follow the Catholic faith. Naturally there are ''fat cats'' too but they are in the minority. Bigger families obviously contribute to family poverty but only the most ignorant don't know how to limit their families.
I was surprised to see Islam mentioned in the same way, I don't believe Muslims on the whole are thought of as poor. They may live in a country where there is great poverty for various reasons. Some of the Muslims who live is what might be called ''Muslim areas'' in this country aren't particularly well off but they are aspirational and not on the bread line. 'Working class'. Our new mayor comes from that sort of background. They aren't known for having big families. Plenty of quite well off and well educated ones too, who send their children to the top schools.
The Indian subcontinent is so vast with remote areas, places where there are floods and droughts, there's bound to be extreme hardship but not necessarily connected to religion. We mustn't forget the Zoroastrians who are considered to be elite, not many in number but highly educated, enlightened and aspirational, especially for their children.
Hindus in India and abroad have a huge demographic and, again, aren't known for having very big families.
Brownie I may be wrong but I think you may have read my post and missed some of it, like where I mentioned Muslims, 'Muslims living in poor countries and nothing about our resident Muslim population' perhaps you misread me.
I also mentioned that even the smaller religions in India probably number in millions something else you seem to have missed, if in fact you were referring to my post in both cases.
ippy
-
Obviously they all have a religious 'ethos' of some kind, but how that translates to 'morality' varies hugely.
The word 'Ethos' where mentioned in connection with religion would, for me, be interchangeable with the word 'Dogma'.
ippy
-
The word 'Ethos' where mentioned in connection with religion would, for me, be interchangeable with the word 'Dogma'.
ippy
'World View' I would have said. Lets face it, we all have a world view of some sort and they all have their short-comings.
-
'World View' I would have said. Lets face it, we all have a world view of some sort and they all have their short-comings.
Do we? As I have mentioned before I seem to get by on a few rules of thumb, which were I to tart them up, I might call heuristics. Some of them when I get into the long dark Grenache-time of the soul seem pretty contradictory. Having a world view seems very exhausting.
-
Do we? As I have mentioned before I seem to get by on a few rules of thumb, which were I to tart them up, I might call heuristics. Some of them when I get into the long dark Grenache-time of the soul seem pretty contradictory. Having a world view seems very exhausting.
What you describe is a world view of sorts, be it a rather minimalist one, but from your political comments on other threads, I suspect it is actually much more complex than you admit.
-
L.A.,
Obviously they all have a religious 'ethos' of some kind, but how that translates to 'morality' varies hugely.
Indeed, but that's not the point. Rather I'd call myself an "antitheist" because the common and fundamental characteristic of them all is that faith beliefs are in some way more reliably arrived at than just guessing about stuff. Now sometimes those guesses lead to happy outcomes, and often not - the point though is that it's still guessing, and guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong than they are to be right.
And the problem with that is that - having guessed/arrived at a faith belief - there's no way to argue someone out of it as many of the threads here show.
-
L.A.,
Indeed, but that's not the point. Rather I'd call myself an "antitheist" because the common and fundamental characteristic of them all is that faith beliefs are in some way more reliably arrived at than just guessing about stuff. Now sometimes those guesses lead to happy outcomes, and often not - the point though is that it's still guessing, and guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong than they are to be right.
And the problem with that is that - having guessed/arrived at a faith belief - there's no way to argue someone out of it as many of the threads here show.
I would say that it's not so much whether those guesses are right or wrong, is more a case of whether the resulting 'culture' works or not - i.e. does it result in a fair and just society?
-
I would say that it's not so much whether those guesses are right or wrong, is more a case of whether the resulting 'culture' works or not - i.e. does it result in a fair and just society?
Isn't the judgement of the outcome a further guess?
-
On many questions there is no reliable way to arrive at an answer. That's why people have faith in the belief system or world view that they have adopted, and also why they can't be argued out of them.
And what is a happy outcome or not, or fair or not, depends how/from where you are looking at it.
-
Given Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts in the area of science with a clear methodology is it surprising that changing people's views on areas with no methodology is hard to change? And yet it does, though for those of us who see room only for a determinist, or deterministic pls random world, any change will happen or not based on that.
-
Brownie I may be wrong but I think you may have read my post and missed some of it, like where I mentioned Muslims, 'Muslims living in poor countries and nothing about our resident Muslim population' perhaps you misread me.
I also mentioned that even the smaller religions in India probably number in millions something else you seem to have missed, if in fact you were referring to my post in both cases.
ippy
I did read your post ippy but my mind was wandering when I replied, going off topic. Partly because I've been reading about the Islamic school ('Muslim Eton'), down the road and can't stop thinking about it! Though it has been there for years I knew little about it before googling and am thoroughly intrigued. So, sorry. I'm great for going off topic.
I'll read all your other replies.
-
Isn't the judgement of the outcome a further guess?
I think it is probably true that most religions have some teachings that even the hardest 'antitheist' might endorse. The prime example perhaps being the 'Golden Rule' that appears under many guises in many religions. Maybe here it's useful to consider the inverse situation: who would want to live in a society where people were encouraged to treat others in a way that they themselves would least want to be treated themselves? Would such a society be fair, just or even stable?
-
I think it is probably true that most religions have some teachings that even the hardest 'antitheist' might endorse. The prime example perhaps being the 'Golden Rule' that appears under many guises in many religions. Maybe here it's useful to consider the inverse situation: who would want to live in a society where people were encouraged to treat others in a way that they themselves would least want to be treated themselves? Would such a society be fair, just or even stable?
Which is surely just an argumentum ad populum. The best position we have on this, imo, is Rawls veil of ignorance which is about choosing how you might want to be treated based on not knowing your position in it.
-
Given Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts in the area of science with a clear methodology is it surprising that changing people's views on areas with no methodology is hard to change? And yet it does, though for those of us who see room only for a determinist, or deterministic pls random world, any change will happen or not based on that.
Given our current understanding of Quantum Mechanics, I'm don't think we can describe the world as being totally deterministic.
-
Which is surely just an argumentum ad populum.
But we are people - we are 'The observers' of reality.
The best position we have on this, imo, is Rawls veil of ignorance which is about choosing how you might want to be treated based on not knowing your position in it.
Maybe in some abstract reality totally unpolluted by all lifeforms such a pov might be useful - but who would ever know?
-
The large majority of really poor countries are mostly either Roman Catholic or Muslim, with a scattering of various other religions in India, an India that seems to me has a lot more poor people than it seems to me that it should have.
I assume any one of the many religions followed by fewer people in India are probably followed by millions.
Just a thought, I don't think I've got it wrong and would be interested in anyone's views on this.
ippy
Not quite sure that you've explained the purpose of this thread very well, ippy. Are you trying to tell us that nations that have high religiosity are always poor?
If so, why was Britain, at its richest, one of apparently (according to folk like yourself) high religiosity? Why, on the other hand was a country like Albania so poor under an atheist regime?
India is very strongly Hindu - some 88% of the population when I last checked about 10 years ago. Some of these folk are extremely wealthy, many of them are amongst the poorest the world knows. I would suggest that the correlation between poverty and religiosity isn't necessarily as strong as you would like it to be. At the same time, there is a distinct difference between religiosity and having a living faith.
-
And the problem with that is that - having guessed/arrived at a faith belief - there's no way to argue someone out of it as many of the threads here show.
I think the problem is rife on both sides of the debate. Those who put all their faith in science are adamant that it has, or ultimately will have all the answers there are to be had. Others will argue that that is no more (or less) guesswork than any theistic outlook, including scientists.
-
Do we? As I have mentioned before I seem to get by on a few rules of thumb, which were I to tart them up, I might call heuristics. Some of them when I get into the long dark Grenache-time of the soul seem pretty contradictory. Having a world view seems very exhausting.
Excellent. I think I used to bandy the word 'world-view' around in my dismal adolescence, but then later I couldn't figure out what it is. I suppose it connects with consistency and homogeneity? Hmm. Both very suspicious and unattractive traits in human beings, better in milk puddings.
-
Excellent. I think I used to bandy the word 'world-view' around in my dismal adolescence, but then later I couldn't figure out what it is. I suppose it connects with consistency and homogeneity? Hmm. Both very suspicious and unattractive traits in human beings, better in milk puddings.
The latest research on the mind confirms that we all have a 'model' of reality in our heads. The model is never perfect and will probably be slightly different even for people in the same society.
'World View' seems to be a reasonable way of informally describing it.
-
Others will argue that that is no more (or less) guesswork than any theistic outlook, including scientists.
Science is a way of sorting out incorrect guesses from correct ones. All we need now is the theistic equivalent. Maybe you could address my last post on the "Appeal .." thread? The one where I asked how you turn claims of a resurrection into a factual resurrection.
-
Yes, exactly. There is that famous film by Feynman, where he talks about guessing in science, but as Stephen Taylor just said, scientists compare their guesses with their observations. To quote Feynman, if your guess disagrees with experiments (or experience), it's wrong.
Hence, the famous question, how would you know you were wrong? In my case, I knew I was wrong when I saw her rifling through my wallet. This is a joke, not a guess.
-
The latest research on the mind confirms that we all have a 'model' of reality in our heads. The model is never perfect and will probably be slightly different even for people in the same society.
'World View' seems to be a reasonable way of informally describing it.
I thought a world-view was more philosophical than that, which sounds more like representation. I would say that a world-view is an interpretation, not a representation.
-
Science is a way of sorting out incorrect guesses from correct ones. All we need now is the theistic equivalent. Maybe you could address my last post on the "Appeal .." thread? The one where I asked how you turn claims of a resurrection into a factual resurrection.
I'm not sure that we can ever claim that science is 'correct' - we just create better models.
-
Not quite sure that you've explained the purpose of this thread very well, ippy. Are you trying to tell us that nations that have high religiosity are always poor?
If so, why was Britain, at its richest, one of apparently (according to folk like yourself) high religiosity? Why, on the other hand was a country like Albania so poor under an atheist regime?
India is very strongly Hindu - some 88% of the population when I last checked about 10 years ago. Some of these folk are extremely wealthy, many of them are amongst the poorest the world knows. I would suggest that the correlation between poverty and religiosity isn't necessarily as strong as you would like it to be. At the same time, there is a distinct difference between religiosity and having a living faith.
Not quite sure that I need to explain.
ippy
-
I thought a world-view was more philosophical than that, which sounds more like representation. I would say that a world-view is an interpretation, not a representation.
Surely at that level, it's just experienced? It has no active part to it. Note, I'm commenting in agreement with wigginhall.
-
Surely at that level, it's just experienced? It has no active part to it. Note, I'm commenting in agreement with wigginhall.
Yes, I was thinking about colour. The representation of colour in the brain/mind is not part of a world-view, as far as I can see, but the cultural significance surrounding colour, is.
-
Given our current understanding of Quantum Mechanics, I'm don't think we can describe the world as being totally deterministic.
which is why I included randomness. Makes no difference.
-
Yes, I was thinking about colour. The representation of colour in the brain/mind is not part of a world-view, as far as I can see, but the cultural significance surrounding colour, is.
I can see world view in this sense having some meaning if, we use it as a shorthand for influences, but it seems at odds with the common use, which, as you say, has a philosophical meaning.
Of course, the very term, even when a simply passive experience, posits a consistency in view which surely isn't true between me this morning on team adolescents, and now on a lovely lively spliff.
-
Bizarrely combination of predictive text and the forum forbidding words has turned tram-a-dol into team adolescents
-
I can see world view in this sense having some meaning if, we use it as a shorthand for influences, but it seems at odds with the common use, which, as you say, has a philosophical meaning.
Of course, the very term, even when a simply passive experience, posits a consistency in view which surely isn't true between me this morning on team adolescents, and now on a lovely lively spliff.
Oh you bad boy. Well, as I got older, I realized with a shock, that I am wildly inconsistent, and of course, as a sniveling and conformist adolescent, had covered this up. For a while, I felt guilty/ashamed about this, and then thought, ah well, si jeunesse savait, si viellesse pouvait, or something.
-
I'm not sure that we can ever claim that science is 'correct' - we just create better models.
Agreed. That is a more accurate way of stating it.
-
Not quite sure that you've explained the purpose of this thread very well, ippy. Are you trying to tell us that nations that have high religiosity are always poor?
If so, why was Britain, at its richest, one of apparently (according to folk like yourself) high religiosity? Why, on the other hand was a country like Albania so poor under an atheist regime?
India is very strongly Hindu - some 88% of the population when I last checked about 10 years ago. Some of these folk are extremely wealthy, many of them are amongst the poorest the world knows. I would suggest that the correlation between poverty and religiosity isn't necessarily as strong as you would like it to be. At the same time, there is a distinct difference between religiosity and having a living faith.
I agree with you Hope.
This is the oft repeated atheist view that religion and poverty are closely connected (directly proportional) . And also that education and religion are closely connected (inversely proportional).
This is just a way by which atheists choose to feel superior about themselves...(whenever they get overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the religious). :D
I would even say that the more educated and intelligent people are ......'spirituality' and the inner quest become inevitable. Truly intelligent people with a broader vision of life cannot be satisfied with the narrow 'reality' that science shows them.
-
I agree with you Hope.
This is the oft repeated atheist view that religion and poverty are closely connected (directly proportional) . And also that education and religion are closely connected (inversely proportional).
This is just a way by which atheists choose to feel superior about themselves...(whenever they get overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the religious). :D
I would even say that the more educated and intelligent people are ......'spirituality' and the inner quest become inevitable. Truly intelligent people with a broader vision of life cannot be satisfied with the narrow 'reality' that science shows them.
The Irony is strong with this one
-
Dear Sriram,
I would even say that the more educated and intelligent people are ......'spirituality' and the inner quest become inevitable. Truly intelligent people with a broader vision of life cannot be satisfied with the narrow 'reality' that science shows them.
Narrow reality of of science ??? Were you on cruise mode when you wrote that, this from the man who is constantly bringing us new insights into science, this from the man who shows us that science has just scratched the surface.
Science is, the study of everything, me, you, nature, the world, the Universe, everything!!
Gonnagle.
-
Sriram,
This is the oft repeated atheist view that religion and poverty are closely connected (directly proportional) . And also that education and religion are closely connected (inversely proportional).
This is just a way by which atheists choose to feel superior about themselves...(whenever they get overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the religious). :D
Not really - either they're correlative (or inversely correlative) or they're not. Causality of course is a different matter - you can't just assume that religion causes poverty, or that education causes atheism - but numbers are numbers regardless of the "superiority" or otherwise of those who reference them.
Perhaps more interesting is the USA - high religiosity and high wealth, usually thought of as an outlier as religiosity and poverty tend to go hand-in-hand elsewhere. Even within the US though, my sense at least is that there's less religion in the more affluent bits (east and west coast) and more of it in the poorer parts (deep south etc) so maybe the pattern holds there to an extent too.
-
Dear Sriram,
Narrow reality of of science ??? Were you on cruise mode when you wrote that, this from the man who is constantly bringing us new insights into science, this from the man who shows us that science has just scratched the surface.
Science is, the study of everything, me, you, nature, the world, the Universe, everything!!
Gonnagle.
Hi Gonnagle,
I am not saying anything new really. Science deals with a certain subset of reality. Its scope is defined that way. It cannot study everything and all aspects of reality.
But sometimes science does go beyond its own self imposed limits and find something that is at the fringes of science and almost touching those aspects of reality that we call spiritual (for want of a better word). That is what I try to highlight in my articles.
That is neither to denigrate science nor to extol it. I have no problems with science nor do I regard it as a panacea.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Sriram,
Not really - either they're correlative (or inversely correlative) or they're not. Causality of course is a different matter - you can't just assume that religion causes poverty, or that education causes atheism - but numbers are numbers regardless of the "superiority" or otherwise of those who reference them.
Perhaps more interesting is the USA - high religiosity and high wealth, usually thought of as an outlier as religiosity and poverty tend to go hand-in-hand elsewhere. Even within the US though, my sense at least is that there's less religion in the more affluent bits (east and west coast) and more of it in the poorer parts (deep south etc) so maybe the pattern holds there to an extent too.
First of all...religion is a very loose term. It can range from simple forms of worship to complex rituals, philosophy and mysticism. We cannot lump them all together.
It is possible that certain religious practices are connected with education and wealth, but certain other aspects need not be so connected. Spirituality for example, can be very philosophical and intellectually demanding. It could require considerable study, meditative practice and so on.
Most people of high intellect and wealth...will sometime or the other dabble in spiritual and mystical practices. It is about personal quest and inner development. Its not the same as believing blindly in mythology.
-
Sriram,
First of al...religion is a very loose term. It can range from simple forms of worship to complex rituals, philosophy and mysticism. We cannot lump them all together.
Yes we can for this purpose - the discussion here is just about the correlative relationship between religiosity and poverty. It's simply an observable fact that they're correlated. The content of each denomination is a separate matter.
It is possible that certain religious practices are connected with education and wealth, but certain other aspects need not be so connected.
It's more than possible. The denial of access to contraception for example creates unsustainably large families and places a heavy burden on health care services, often in the places that can least afford either.
Spirituality for example, can be very philosophical and intellectually demanding. It could require considerable study, meditative practice and so on.
I'll take your word for it.
Most people of high intellect and wealth...will sometime or the other dabble in spiritual and mystical practices.
Why do you think that to be the case? Most people I know you'd describe as of "high intellect and wealth" and to my knowledge very few of them have so dabbled. Those that I can think of in fact (two of them) have used heir intellects to conclude that "spirituality" is so much woo with very little philosophical content.
It is about personal quest and inner development. Its not the same as believing blindly in mythology.
They are not necessarily contradictory positions: some would argue that "personal quest and inner development" is just a gussied up way of saying "believing blindly in mythology".
-
Dear ippy,
Another thought in your enquiry, Christianity ( probably most of the major religions ) speaks to the poor, it is all about helping the poor, I am sure that has a bearing.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
Another thought in your enquiry, Christianity ( probably most of the major religions ) speaks to the poor, it is all about helping the poor, I am sure that has a bearing.
Christopher Hitchens famously said of Mother Theresa that she was a lover of poverty, not of the poor. How does (for example) demanding unsustainably large families help the poor?
-
Dear Blue,
I am not saying we have always gotten it right, as in the case of that poor woman Mother Theresa, one little woman who was given all that resposibility, one little woman who was given stupid rules by stupid people, we have the priviledge of hind sight, so if Shakers hero thinks that Mother Theresa was a lover of poverty I need to question that thought, one little woman who tried to change the world but was hampered by Church rules, rule of course she agreed with at the time, but that takes nothing away from all the positive that came out of her work.
But this thread gives me pause for thought, where you find the poor and needy, the uneducated you find the religious there to help.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Blue,
I am not saying we have always gotten it right, as in the case of that poor woman Mother Theresa, one little woman who was given all that resposibility, one little woman who was given stupid rules by stupid people, we have the priviledge of hind sight, so if Shakers hero thinks that Mother Theresa was a lover of poverty I need to question that thought, one little woman who tried to change the world but was hampered by Church rules, rule of course she agreed with at the time, but that takes nothing away from all the positive that came out of her work.
But this thread gives me pause for thought, where you find the poor and needy, the uneducated you find the religious there to help.
Gonnagle.
By all accounts MT was no kind of saint. I met someone once who had worked with her and they didn't rate the woman at all.
-
Dear Floo,
True, I read about and watched the documentary that thoroughly slated her, but she was one little woman who came into immense power, what does that do to a mind, a mind indoctrinated by RC belief, bad things were done, but the millions she helped, and out of her work are still being helped today.
Gonnagle.
-
I agree with you Hope.
This is the oft repeated atheist view that religion and poverty are closely connected (directly proportional) . And also that education and religion are closely connected (inversely proportional).
This is just a way by which atheists choose to feel superior about themselves...(whenever they get overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of the religious). :D
I would even say that the more educated and intelligent people are ......'spirituality' and the inner quest become inevitable. Truly intelligent people with a broader vision of life cannot be satisfied with the narrow 'reality' that science shows them.
Look up quotes, the famous one of Mandy Rice Davies, says it all.
ippy
-
which is why I included randomness. Makes no difference.
I don't think that reality at the quantum level is best described as simply 'random'
-
I thought a world-view was more philosophical than that, which sounds more like representation. I would say that a world-view is an interpretation, not a representation.
I agree that the expression is used rather loosely. I thing it is reasonable to use it to describe our internal representation of reality, which would include all philosophical and religious beliefs as well as the more tangible. Basically anything that can follow the phrase 'I believe' . . .
In the case of a society, it would apply to their common beliefs.
-
Dear ippy,
Another thought in your enquiry, Christianity ( probably most of the major religions ) speaks to the poor, it is all about helping the poor, I am sure that has a bearing.
Gonnagle.
So I'm told it's about 50 50 between religion based charities, Gonners and charities that have no connection to religion, what's that all about then, on the charity level no difference in the amount of effort.
Which shows that there is no extra effort needed, a place where stories don't give out any particularly special added edge.
The last thing I think of when giving to charity is anything to do with my liking or not liking of religiosity.
Nearly forgot, non-religious people that do charitable acts can't help but be more altruistic than anyone in whatever religions name they try to be charitable,(non-religious people do these deeds without the carrot and stick).
ippy
-
I don't think that reality at the quantum level is best described as simply 'random'
I'm not summing up quantum as random, it may be caused in a way that we don't understand. That makes no difference either to the overall point.
-
.
Science is, the study of everything, me, you, nature, the world, the Universe, everything!!
Gonnagle.
It is the study of the falsifiable.
-
It is the study of the falsifiable.
How would you go about studying the non-falsifiable?
-
So I'm told it's about 50 50 between religion based charities, Gonners and charities that have no connection to religion, what's that all about then, on the charity level no difference in the amount of effort.
Which shows that there is no extra effort needed, a place where stories don't give out any particularly special added edge.
The last thing I think of when giving to charity is anything to do with my liking or not liking of religiosity.
Nearly forgot, non-religious people that do charitable acts can't help but be more altruistic than anyone in whatever religions name they try to be charitable,(non-religious people do these deeds without the carrot and stick).
ippy
The secular world has made it's judgment on us all Ippy, we are on a scale of irreversible progress, so those secularists of 3016 will see us as scientifically, technologically and morally primitive.......so logically we must be.
Through our media we are constantly being told how inadequate we are, and our governments and monitoring bodies tell us how inadequate and indeed potentially dangerous we are to each other.
I think this is being hidden from you or you are deliberately failing to see it for yourself........
.....and if, with all of that you still think of yourself as adequate....in which case you should still be wearing flares...I bet you are able to real of a list of people who aren't.
-
How would you go about studying the non-falsifiable?
With the utmost academic interest for starters.
-
With the utmost academic interest for starters.
Super - so what are the key elements in the methodology you'd use?
-
Super - so what are the key elements in the methodology you'd use?
What ever the methods of the domain or discipline are......
...Of course you can always take the Gordonian approach by censoring them.
-
What ever the methods of the domain or discipline are......
...Of course you can always take the Gordonian approach by censoring them.
In other words: you don't know.
-
In other words: you don't know.
There are university courses on many things that are not science.
Are you suggesting there should only be university courses in science?
How would that go down with the majority who aren't scientific?
Unless you think the world should be dictated to by a scientific elite?
-
There are university courses on many things that are not science.
Are you suggesting there should only be university courses in science?
How would that go down with the majority who aren't scientific?
Unless you think the world should be dictated to by a scientific elite?
I'm not suggesting anything - I just asked you what method you'd use to assess the non-falsifiable: and your approach would be?
-
I'm not suggesting anything - I just asked you what method you'd use to assess the non-falsifiable: and your approach would be?
Assess the non falsifiable? Against what exactly?
-
Assess the non falsifiable? Against what exactly?
Something falsifiable.
-
Something falsifiable.
Well the nonfalsifiable assessed comprehensively against the falsifiable is going to come out as, er, unfalsifiable.
-
Well the nonfalsifiable assessed comprehensively against the falsifiable is going to come out as, er, unfalsifiable.
Somewhat ungainly wriggling: even for you, Vlad.
-
Somewhat ungainly wriggling: even for you, Vlad.
No, the problem is you trying to say that the unfalsifiable should not be debated or discussed philosophically or academically.
You say the unfalsifiable should be assessed against the falsifiable. Go ahead......and show your working out.
-
No, the problem is you trying to say that the unfalsifiable should not be debated or discussed philosophically or academically.
You say the unfalsifiable should be assessed against the falsifiable. Go ahead......and show your working out.
I'm stating nothing: I simply asked you how you would study the non-falsifiable and you replied 'With the utmost academic interest for starters.'
So, let me ask again, how would you go about it - academically speaking?
-
I'm stating nothing:
You did.......reply#67
-
You did.......reply#67
You sound desperate if this this is the best you can do:
You; 'Assess the non falsifiable? Against what exactly?'
Me; 'Something falsifiable'.
You're one who said you'd do so 'With the utmost academic interest' - so what do you propose?
-
You sound desperate if this this is the best you can do:
You; 'Assess the non falsifiable? Against what exactly?'
Me; 'Something falsifiable'.
You're one who said you'd do so 'With the utmost academic interest' - so what do you propose?
Well take Art for example or philosophy or sociology or theology and even history which deals with the unrepeatable and does not have methodologically the same predictive power of science.
These are all domains of study with their own methods.
Now assess the unfalsifiable against something falsifiable which you stated in reply#67 or we're done here.
-
Well take Art for example or philosophy or sociology or theology and even history which deals with the unrepeatable and does not have methodologically the same predictive power of science.
These are all domains of study with their own methods.
Now assess the unfalsifiable against something falsifiable which you stated in reply#67 or we're done here.
Nope - you are the one in the driving seat here, Vlad: 'with the utmost academic interest' you said, so what did you have in mind?
-
The secular world has made it's judgment on us all Ippy, we are on a scale of irreversible progress, so those secularists of 3016 will see us as scientifically, technologically and morally primitive.......so logically we must be.
Through our media we are constantly being told how inadequate we are, and our governments and monitoring bodies tell us how inadequate and indeed potentially dangerous we are to each other.
I think this is being hidden from you or you are deliberately failing to see it for yourself........
.....and if, with all of that you still think of yourself as adequate....in which case you should still be wearing flares...I bet you are able to real of a list of people who aren't.
You're a little bit over optimistic there Vlad, 3016, when we look at the exponential figures we see whenever we see another poll about how many people are remaining that continue to hold with these delusional religious beliefs.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
From post 55.
So I'm told it's about 50 50 between religion based charities, Gonners and charities that have no connection to religion, what's that all about then, on the charity level no difference in the amount of effort.
Which shows that there is no extra effort needed, a place where stories don't give out any particularly special added edge.
The last thing I think of when giving to charity is anything to do with my liking or not liking of religiosity.
Nearly forgot, non-religious people that do charitable acts can't help but be more altruistic than anyone in whatever religions name they try to be charitable,(non-religious people do these deeds without the carrot and stick).
Sorry mate I was not arguing against, I was simply throwing out another avenue for you to consider.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ippy,
From post 55.
Sorry mate I was not arguing against, I was simply throwing out another avenue for you to consider.
Gonnagle.
I take your point Gonners but it appears that overall the religious don't seem to have any more inclination toward helping the poor of this world than do non-religious organisations, it pleases me to see the poor helped by any group, but not in the way the RC in particular with their badly mistaken ideas about birth control, or anything else like that where it takes all of a half of a millisecond of thought to know they have got that wrong.
ippy