Azazello1313 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Psychotherapist who is probably the father of mixing spirituality with psychology. Making it real simple: he basically believes that there are archetypes within the human fabric that are unexplainable by each individual's own experience and hence there are things that may be passed down in a more spiritual way. By the reading I have done, he was a bit of a nut, but a real smart nut at that was way ahead of his time. 1389788[/snapback] so he's saying religion is essentially engrained in the human consciousness. if we all agree to that, why on earth would everyone be so negative toward religion? also, how would it affect the argument some are making here that religious ethical principles, like the golden rule, spring to life entirely apart from religion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDFFFreak Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 so he's saying religion is essentially engrained in the human consciousness. if we all agree to that, why on earth would everyone be so negative toward religion? also, how would it affect the argument some are making here that religious ethical principles, like the golden rule, spring to life entirely apart from religion? 1389820[/snapback] It more the idea that there are things that cannot be explained and I would call it more spiritual then "religious". I just think it's a jumping off point for religion in the human psyche-- a place that may try to explain the unexplainable. As you know, the mind can do some weird and messed up things. Jung tried to explain some of these things. I wish I could give you a great book to read on him if you were interested, but what I have learned on him thus far has been through school, texts and Phds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Lewis was a theologian, did he dabble in psychology too? I don't know too much about the guy outside of Narnia. 1389815[/snapback] he absolutely believed that we are wired for greater things than this earth. lewis was a non-believer for most of his life, but when he undertook his own honest investigation into christianity, he became one of the most influential christians of all time. at the basis of his conversion is his detailed examination of the human spirit. 'mere christianity' is a fascinating read and i highly recommend it to everyone who is searching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I've only made it to page 3 of this thing so bear with me if these things have been discussed... Let me ask the following question: Can anybody give me an example of a society that functioned well for more than a century in which the majority of the population was atheist? 1388796[/snapback] I am going on the assumption that an atheist is someone does not believe in a god. I've looked at the wikipedia definition, which is quite involved. Anyway, the people that made up the Roman Empire (depending on when in their history, obviously), were atheists. They believed in many gods, and their acts didn't necessarily mean they would live in an afterlife of fire and brimstone. I'm not up on Hindus or Buddhists, but don't one of those religions believe in the betterment of the self and reincarnation? India and China come to mind in present day. Also, by definition, a child is an atheist, as is anyone that has no knowledge of God. Religion might very well be a method of social control, but it might be necessary for a society to actually function. 1388810[/snapback] You know, when I dated that gal from the Czech Republic and this came up, she looked at me like I was crazy. She said, just because people are ignorant of a religion (in her country, they are very ignorant of religion...you know, the communist take over for 46 years) doesn't mean they act like animals towards one another. I was sold. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Misfit Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 And this is what is still the problem--why would they choose a strategy that is going to make themselves worse off? (for example, I can eat mayonnaise, but that doesn't mean that I am going to eat mayonnaise if I think my sandwich will taste better without it) 1389394[/snapback] Do all of your students earn As? If not, why would they choose a strategy that makes them worse off? Your question isn't about religion or ethics or free will or any of that stuff. It's about whether the basic presupposition of all economic models -- that people are rational and self-interested and will make decisions based on same -- is correct. Until you can explain why all your students do not do their best in your class, or any class, I say your assumption is flawed. I still say in the main that individuals are not even capable of knowing what their own best self-interest is. This is, in fact, a key point of Republican political strategy, and why they have been so much more successful than the Democrats. Take a gander at "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips. He turns many of your assumptions on their head. He argues, for instance, that people who believe that humans are the center of God's creation and everything was put on earth for their use and support have absolutely no way to understand any concern for the environment. Likewise, there is little concern about making future generations pay for our national debt, because life on this earth is only of secondary importance, and the only "future" to be concerned about is the afterlife. If, on the other hand, you believe that free will is a myth, that the only life you have is this one ... then you think the same thing for your children, your friends, etc. Actions that will make their lives better or worse in the future becomes a primary concern, specifically because you don't believe some Hand of Fate -- be it God or Free Market -- is gonna make sure everything works out for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Until you can explain why all your students do not do their best in your class, or any class, I say your assumption is flawed. 1389909[/snapback] There are opportunity costs to studying. Q.E.D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vote Quimby2 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Well, I don't trust overtly religious people. 1388653[/snapback] wurd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 I still say in the main that individuals are not even capable of knowing what their own best self-interest is. 1389909[/snapback] I'm not arguing that people know exactly what is best for themselves--but I economics does suggest that people use the limited information available when they do have to make a decision and choose the path with the highest expected utility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 Take a gander at "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips. He turns many of your assumptions on their head. He argues, for instance, that people who believe that humans are the center of God's creation and everything was put on earth for their use and support have absolutely no way to understand any concern for the environment. 1389909[/snapback] umm, i'm not so sure about that. you could also argue that the creation narrative imparts a notion of stewardship that very much a "way to understand any concern for the environment". which reminds me, hasn't there recently been a migration of religious-right minded evangelicals away from the rest of the republican party on EXACTLY this issue? i think your assumption here is tremndously flawed. one other thing to keep in mind....think of all the great ethical movements in history, even in recent history. nearly all of them started as religious movements. abolition started as a religious movement. civil rights started as a religious movement. gandhi's non-violent independence thing started as a religious movement. the polish solidarity movement was largely a religious movement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 one other thing to keep in mind....think of all the great ethical movements in history, even in recent history. nearly all of them started as religious movements. abolition started as a religious movement. civil rights started as a religious movement. gandhi's non-violent independence thing started as a religious movement. the polish solidarity movement was largely a religious movement. 1389978[/snapback] now u are reaching, could they have started without religion?.. come on... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) now u are reaching, could they have started without religion?.. come on... 1390005[/snapback] why is that reaching? could they have taken place without religion? i don't really know, and i'm not really trying to speculate. i only know they didn't, and that these were all religious movements. religion has a power to change to change the collective consciousness like no notion of secular civic responsibility i've ever seen. this has obviously had both good and bad effects, but a lot of folks seem to want to ignore the good. Edited March 27, 2006 by Azazello1313 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) this atheist gets it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1567604,00.html Edited March 27, 2006 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 why is that reaching? could they have taken place without religion? i don't really know, and i'm not really trying to speculate. i only know they didn't, and that these were all religious movements. religion has a power to change to change the collective consciousness like no notion of secular civic responsibility i've ever seen. this has obviously had both good and bad effects, but a lot of folks seem to want to ignore the good. 1390032[/snapback] Well some of that may be that until recently u were killed if u said anything against the church, religion etc ...( in some places u may be killed if u are not the right religion ) There is no way to prove they could or would have happened but to say that without religion it may or would not have happened is kooko.... Not that u have said that but many have Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billay Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 (edited) This is from The Universe in a Single Atom It struk me as relevant to the argument we are having here: At one of the Mind and Life Conferences in Dharamsala, the Harvard historian of science, Anne Harrington made a memorable presentation of how, and to some extent why, scientific investigation of human behavior has so far failed to develop any systematic understanding of the powerful emotion of compassion. At least in modern psychology, compared with the tremendous amount of attention paid to negative emotions, such as aggression, anger, and fear, relatively little examination has been made of the more positive emotions, such as compassion and altruism. This emphasis may have arisen because the principal motive in moders phychology has been to understand human pathologies for theraputic purposes. However, I do feel that it is unacceptable to reject altruism on the ground that selfless acts do not fit within the current biological understanding of life or are simply redefinable as expressions of the self interests of the species. I feel that this inability or unwillingness fully to engage the question of altruism is perhaps the most important drawback of Darwinian evolutionary theory, at least in its popular version. In the natural world, which is purported to be the source of the theory of evolution, just as we observe competition between and within species for survival, we observe profound levels of cooperation (not necessarily in the conscious sense of the term). Likewise, just as we observe acts of aggression in animals and humans, we observe acts of altruism and compassion. Why does modern biology accept only competition to be the fundemental operating principal and only aggression to be the fundemental trait of living beings? Why does it reject cooperation as an operating principle and why does it not see altruism and compassion as possible traits for the development of living beings as well? Edited March 27, 2006 by billay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 darwin was perplexed and could not explain one man laying his life down for another on the battlefield ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This is from The Universe in a Single Atom It struks me as relevant to the argument we are having here: 1390260[/snapback] :making a note to pick this book up: Well played Billay... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 This is from The Universe in a Single Atom It struks me as relevant to the argument we are having here: 1390260[/snapback] Interesing...why indeed must we focus on only the aggression or the competitive nature of ourselves and explain that away by nature. But the opposite of those behaviors has to be something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 darwin was perplexed and could not explain one man laying his life down for another on the battlefield ... 1390274[/snapback] eh, i'm not so sure of that. ants lay down their own lives for the colony all the time, don't they? i'm sure darwin could give you a perfectly logical answer for why that takes place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 no, the golden rule, as it came into being in human civilization, has been very much related to theistic religion. so which of those traditions isn't theistic? 1389395[/snapback] But again, the point is that you are saying that theism spawned the golden rule when there is no evidence that theism / religion was the only root. The very fact that virtually all the religions mentioned - many of which had no contact with each other - have the GR as a tenet would militate for it pre-dating them, would it not, or being a part of the human psyche? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonorator Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 eh, i'm not so sure of that. ants lay down their own lives for the colony all the time, don't they? i'm sure darwin could give you a perfectly logical answer for why that takes place. 1390282[/snapback] he spoke more of this in terms of tribes and colonies vs. individuals making this decision, specifically humans. self-sacrifice for reasons that clearly do not better the tribe, i.e. giving your life for someone you love. on this, he offered little/no explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 he spoke more of this in terms of tribes and colonies vs. individuals making this decision, specifically humans. self-sacrifice for reasons that clearly do not better the tribe, i.e. giving your life for someone you love. on this, he offered little/no explanation. 1390429[/snapback] I mean...really...do you need an explanation from a nature standpoint? Our very make up as humans defies "natural law". Emotions, etc. I better stop, I'm going to convince myself there is a Great Baboon out there...anyway, you want to try and save your buddy's life and jump on a grenade...call it love or duty or whatever, but I think it will be tough to look at the human psyche and explain it from an evolutionary standpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 27, 2006 Share Posted March 27, 2006 he spoke more of this in terms of tribes and colonies vs. individuals making this decision, specifically humans. self-sacrifice for reasons that clearly do not better the tribe, i.e. giving your life for someone you love. on this, he offered little/no explanation. 1390429[/snapback] again, no. that is even easier to explain than dying for the colony. organisms cant perpetuate their genes if their "loved ones" (i.e., their offspring, their mate) are dying. so it's logical an organism would fight to the death to protect them, as one who failed to do so would be less likely to pass on their genes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 this atheist gets it: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,...1567604,00.html 1390057[/snapback] wow, wiegie, that was interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furd Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 wow, wiegie, that was interesting. 1390467[/snapback] Where's that ref guy to you for quoting your own post? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted March 28, 2006 Share Posted March 28, 2006 Where's that ref guy to you for quoting your own post? 1390469[/snapback] he is currently away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.