The more I think about this (and conclude that I have little to add other than I consider that symbols are important for what they represent but can't really go futher than that) the more I think it's a sensible topic for dinner discussion. I should put together some sort of dinner plan.
Yay! Or we could discuss less controversial things over dinner and save the religion for the bit where we lounge around on sofas with strong alcohol :)
The using of Neo-Platonist arguments by icondules is most alarming. I think there are arguments about whether inanimate objects can be blessed. It may depended upon the definition of blessing. Abner
Now then, the first thing I want to say is that man has a physical and a non-physical side. For example, speech isn't really a physical thing, but it's easy to turn it into one. Or it's easy to think about something physical. It can work both ways. It doesn't matter if you want to call the non-physical side mental or spiritual or whatever, let's just think of it as the same thing for now. But I think man needs both sides - you can't exist entirely physically or entirely non-physically, can you? As a metaphysical naturalist and a Bright I don't believe there is a nonphysical side.
Many people would find this position surprising but to me it is just a logical conclusion from the lack of evidence for non physical things and the application of Occam's razor. Pragmatically I find this position convincing because it has had such great success so far and seems able to tackle even the hardest questions (e.g. consciousness).
As a metaphysical naturalist and a Bright I don't believe there is a nonphysical side.
Hmm, that's interesting, I didn't really think about that. So is there a range of physical explanations for what are often thought of as nonphysical things (thought, love, fear, the concept of language, etc.)?
There is a lot of debate over these things though. I think it's fair to say that we're only just at the cusp of having the scientific capability to work these things out.
(btw the icon is of the guy 'Roger Penrose' [Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford] who is the main proponent of quantum consciousness)
I think it's fair to say that we're only just at the cusp of having the scientific capability to work these things out.
I think maybe I'm a bit strange for not really wanting science to explain all of these things ;) Well, actually it's not that I don't want them explained, because I'm very interested in things like new ways of studying things (especially language, of course), but I don't want that completely to take the place of doctrines like philosophy, which I think may contain useful ways of regulating the methods science uses (Occam's Razor is a good example of course!).
the icon is of the guy 'Roger Penrose'
Ah, that's interesting, I was wondering who it was.
I know saints can be a problem, but it's never seemed inherently so. Whichever way you look at it, there are supposed to be sapiences in heaven, who can affect the world in some ways, or pray for you, or be more approachable than God, so it makes as much sense to appeal to them as anything else.
Analogy time: you = you, God = father, saint = grown up sibling. Yes, you always want to go to your parent with requests/love/apologies, but sometimes it's easier to go via someone who's been where you are, yet moved beyond it.
I do concede people who deal with saints so much they end up revering them more than god are a problem for christianity,
Analogy time: you = you, God = father, saint = grown up sibling
Don't you need to reach a sort of post-religious level (i.e. where you don't really believe in the tenets of the religion) before you make the analogy though?
Christians make the "God the Father" analogy, and I thought of this trying to put into words the way I imagined people who did believe might see saints; why do you think that?
Well... I was never given a picture of saints as older sibling types, and I've been through a lot of religious education ;) The Holy Family is a very special concept in Christianity, rather than an extendable analogy, I think...
Conversely, I've never quite got a grasp of what is supposed to happen with blessing, baptising, or any formal form of worship. Most people seem unwilling to concede it's necessary (and the interpretations which do scare me, I'm afraid), and no-one had explained to me how it is supposed to help.
I'm not sure if there's a very good definition of blessing. I'm not sure how much *I* think it's a good idea, because it seems as thought you have all these stages between you and God if you need an intermediary to bless an object to remind you, etc.. I think the relationship between a person and God should be as direct as possible.
Comments 33
Reply
Reply
Abner
Reply
Reply
As a metaphysical naturalist and a Bright I don't believe there is a nonphysical side.
Many people would find this position surprising but to me it is just a logical conclusion from the lack of evidence for non physical things and the application of Occam's razor. Pragmatically I find this position convincing because it has had such great success so far and seems able to tackle even the hardest questions (e.g. consciousness).
Reply
Hmm, that's interesting, I didn't really think about that. So is there a range of physical explanations for what are often thought of as nonphysical things (thought, love, fear, the concept of language, etc.)?
Reply
There is a lot of debate over these things though. I think it's fair to say that we're only just at the cusp of having the scientific capability to work these things out.
(btw the icon is of the guy 'Roger Penrose' [Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford] who is the main proponent of quantum consciousness)
Reply
I think maybe I'm a bit strange for not really wanting science to explain all of these things ;) Well, actually it's not that I don't want them explained, because I'm very interested in things like new ways of studying things (especially language, of course), but I don't want that completely to take the place of doctrines like philosophy, which I think may contain useful ways of regulating the methods science uses (Occam's Razor is a good example of course!).
the icon is of the guy 'Roger Penrose'
Ah, that's interesting, I was wondering who it was.
Reply
Analogy time: you = you, God = father, saint = grown up sibling. Yes, you always want to go to your parent with requests/love/apologies, but sometimes it's easier to go via someone who's been where you are, yet moved beyond it.
I do concede people who deal with saints so much they end up revering them more than god are a problem for christianity,
Reply
Don't you need to reach a sort of post-religious level (i.e. where you don't really believe in the tenets of the religion) before you make the analogy though?
Reply
Reply
Reply
So I don't know how that applies to objects.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment