Thanks. It's a good read.

I vaguely recall seeing it before. He presents a good case, but is a little too kind it seems to me. He mentions the metaphysical difficulties in the conflict between religious stories about what the universe (and we) are and how we came to be, but glosses over (it seems to me) the fundamental conflict there.

It seems to me that if the creation stories are wrong (and they certainly are), then the demands from religious leaders that the Bible (or Church teachings or whatever) be regarded as inerrant must be incorrect as well. And if that is true, then teachings that God or the Bible demands that this or that behavior on a topic that is not even discussed there (abortion, etc.) be regarded as obvious and inerrant must be seen as unsupported as well.

IOW, if you tell me that your religion is correct and has all the answers, don't point to a book for proof that says that the Sun literally stood still or that the world existed before light or that there was a global flood or ... Demanding belief in falsehoods doesn't make your case stronger.

He glosses over, IMO, the control aspects of religion. And in singing the praises of the "heritages of Western Civilization" he certainly ignores the bad parts!

But his comments on the necessity of humbleness in attempting to figure out the world are certainly good and well worth remembering. Humbleness in religious teaching (at least among the big three monotheistic churches) is all too rare though.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

It would be counter-intuitive (would it not?) to attempt to Solve this perpetual social dilemma: by employing (yours or my) Logic to settle the entire Matter. Eh?

I mean, merely: that his withholding of innate bias was a Necessary and Proper (to coin a phrase) ingredient, if what you want to produce in the auditor, is: some model for creating then maintaining a dialogue with Both (or n!) Sides--for the purpose of increasing comity. Because if you cannot move in that direction?
cf. [Where's that List of all the known-warz since stone tablets recorded same? gotta look for the upgraded one.]

That was 58 years ago.. We are suffused with (merely the Latest,) now impendiing-Next of these Wars About Metaphors: the bugaboo of our little errant-grey-cells: and our religious-Faith that logic-is-enough to cover Any Question as ever arises, here in the daily 'maya' (yet-another metaphor as has had Legs for millennia.)
(Personally, I'd like to have heard Oppie's 'review of this talk' and his other observations; he had--at least--read such material as the Bhagavad Gita, much else ... all material unlikely ever deemed worthy of perusal via those earning their keep via science/engineering lore.)

Quite agree re the Control-aspects of all those who have invested their personal/worldview into One humongous metaphor. The scientific method is a recipe ergo metaphor for understanding (literally "standing under") the mechanics of the observable, tested, reproducibly-measurable phenomena we notice. Human mind(-set) Control remains another chimera: devoutly (!) to be wished by many, (probably another bug-hunt?)

There is no such correlation (I've yet heard of) as admits scientific-cataloguing, (let alone explanations) of the root of all our mental, daily, incessantly chattering mindstuffs. You cannot set up repetitive experiments as produce such a map, for obvious reasons: nobody can 'monitor' another's mindwork except via some statistical projection of test-questions?/answers across large numbers of units. Psych IS a pseudo-science (like Econ, 'political-science' etc.

ie Unless/until consciousness should ever be deciphered: all the rest is Talk. Science IS a religion for many practitioners, insofar as such a one imagines to deliver Answers to the Questions merely limned by RP's concise Intro, Philosophy is harder than 'doing science', maybe orders of magnitude? That there are rotten 'philosophers' and inept 'scientists' isn't even debatable. For me, Certainty is one core-fallacy within that (other debatable, probably also unresolvable) concept: the maya.

Works for me: allowing me to distance-self from the accelerating devolution towards madness, as is now so familiar that we (think we) are inured to its effects. For all the exabytes of factoids, IMO/IME we remain a pig-ignorant species: weighing what we 'know' (never fershure.. never That) -vs- that huge Empty-list of the stuff we can't even 'miss', lacking the imagination even to guesstimate beyond the easy.. material-stuff.

(I no dog in this fight; the pen may be mightier than the sword, but in the land of the blind, the One-eyed is King, I've heard. We'll see, but will we See?

Post #393,252 by Another Scott 8/16/14 8:54:35 AM Reply	Thanks. It's a good read. I vaguely recall seeing it before. He presents a good case, but is a little too kind it seems to me. He mentions the metaphysical difficulties in the conflict between religious stories about what the universe (and we) are and how we came to be, but glosses over (it seems to me) the fundamental conflict there. It seems to me that if the creation stories are wrong (and they certainly are), then the demands from religious leaders that the Bible (or Church teachings or whatever) be regarded as inerrant must be incorrect as well. And if that is true, then teachings that God or the Bible demands that this or that behavior on a topic that is not even discussed there (abortion, etc.) be regarded as obvious and inerrant must be seen as unsupported as well. IOW, if you tell me that your religion is correct and has all the answers, don't point to a book for proof that says that the Sun literally stood still or that the world existed before light or that there was a global flood or ... Demanding belief in falsehoods doesn't make your case stronger. He glosses over, IMO, the control aspects of religion. And in singing the praises of the "heritages of Western Civilization" he certainly ignores the bad parts! But his comments on the necessity of humbleness in attempting to figure out the world are certainly good and well worth remembering. Humbleness in religious teaching (at least among the big three monotheistic churches) is all too rare though. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #393,266 by Ashton 8/16/14 5:03:33 PM Reply	Of course those are significant omissions.. this was a lunch-break chat ;^> It would be counter-intuitive (would it not?) to attempt to Solve this perpetual social dilemma: by employing (yours or my) Logic to settle the entire Matter. Eh? I mean, merely: that his withholding of innate bias was a Necessary and Proper (to coin a phrase) ingredient, if what you want to produce in the auditor, is: some model for creating then maintaining a dialogue with Both (or n!) Sides--for the purpose of increasing comity. Because if you cannot move in that direction? cf. [Where's that List of all the known-warz since stone tablets recorded same? gotta look for the upgraded one.] That was 58 years ago.. We are suffused with (merely the Latest,) now impendiing-Next of these Wars About Metaphors: the bugaboo of our little errant-grey-cells: and our religious-Faith that logic-is-enough to cover Any Question as ever arises, here in the daily 'maya' (yet-another metaphor as has had Legs for millennia.) (Personally, I'd like to have heard Oppie's 'review of this talk' and his other observations; he had--at least--read such material as the Bhagavad Gita, much else ... all material unlikely ever deemed worthy of perusal via those earning their keep via science/engineering lore.) Quite agree re the Control-aspects of all those who have invested their personal/worldview into One humongous metaphor. The scientific method is a recipe ergo metaphor for understanding (literally "standing under") the mechanics of the observable, tested, reproducibly-measurable phenomena we notice. Human mind(-set) Control remains another chimera: devoutly (!) to be wished by many, (probably another bug-hunt?) There is no such correlation (I've yet heard of) as admits scientific-cataloguing, (let alone explanations) of the root of all our mental, daily, incessantly chattering mindstuffs. You cannot set up repetitive experiments as produce such a map, for obvious reasons: nobody can 'monitor' another's mindwork except via some statistical projection of test-questions?/answers across large numbers of units. Psych IS a pseudo-science (like Econ, 'political-science' etc. ie Unless/until consciousness should ever be deciphered: all the rest is Talk. Science IS a religion for many practitioners, insofar as such a one imagines to deliver Answers to the Questions merely limned by RP's concise Intro, Philosophy is harder than 'doing science', maybe orders of magnitude? That there are rotten 'philosophers' and inept 'scientists' isn't even debatable. For me, Certainty is one core-fallacy within that (other debatable, probably also unresolvable) concept: the maya. Works for me: allowing me to distance-self from the accelerating devolution towards madness, as is now so familiar that we (think we) are inured to its effects. For all the exabytes of factoids, IMO/IME we remain a pig-ignorant species: weighing what we 'know' (never fershure.. never That) -vs- that huge Empty-list of the stuff we can't even 'miss', lacking the imagination even to guesstimate beyond the easy.. material-stuff. (I no dog in this fight; the pen may be mightier than the sword, but in the land of the blind, the One-eyed is King, I've heard. We'll see, but will we See? As to that loaded-icon, 'Western-', oft taken to signify Enlightened (each one defining that word differently from any other one) It calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness (,Your Honor.) If the species does not Resolve the Twin-aspects (logic + also too, evanescence) of a human, via some base-line of unambiguous Tolerance, soon? well.. you know. Techno has provided us the means for ... whatever fantasy (happens to appear, with Power behind it.) Is that even arguable?
Post #393,268 by Another Scott 8/16/14 5:25:12 PM Reply	Good points all around. :-) Thanks.

Welcome to IWETHEY!