If someone is offended by something as simple as evolution, it’s unlikely there was ever going to be a conversation with them anyways.Well, yeah. But I'm not talking about being offended by "evolution." I'm talking about being offended by hearing oneself called "not thinking" or whatever. I am talking about tone.
Well, yeah. But I’m not talking about being offended by “evolution.”My use of "evolution" is simply mentioning the elephant in the room when it comes to the 'conflict'
I’m talking about being offended by hearing oneself called “not thinking” or whatever. I am talking about tone.Hmmm. I know what you mean, but since there's no nice way of telling someone that they aren't thinking properly, you might as well be suggesting we start raising unicorns.
Maybe, since you’re an honest to goodness wordsmith, you can gently inform someone that their whole way of thinking is wrong, but that’s out of my league.
In any communication anywhere, one needs to decide who is reading and what one is trying to achieve.
I think there are very good reasons to condemn religious belief in general. I think the trend away from religion and toward skepticism is a good thing.
I also think certain kinds of religion in particular are problematic in scientific debate.
I guess I feel like I don’t need to be trying to wipe out all religion, and trying to make all people understand and accept evolution, and be doing both things simultaneously at all times.
The problem is that some religions claim their truths to be beyond logic and concepts, so agreeing on terms with them isn’t gonna happen.
I know @lausten has tried to explain “tone” and “respect” as well.
My entire post on the interpretation of words and phrases in discussing science & religion was an effort to make respectful communication easier. As in my example of “Atheists hate God,” I feel like if we use the wrong terms or define things the wrong way, that brings unneeded conflict into the discussion.
The least we can do is use terms correctly. It is a first step.
I don’t know. Maybe there is no way to phrase the debate without calling people idiots, brainless or stupid. I should probably just give up.
The problem is that some religions claim their truths to be beyond logic and concepts, so agreeing on terms with them isn’t gonna happen.I am extremely aware. Those are not the terms I'm trying to get people to agree on.
Well, yeah. But I’m not talking about being offended by “evolution.”My use of “evolution” is simply mentioning the elephant in the room when it comes to the ‘conflict’
Yes, I know the TOPIC may be evolution
I am talking about the TONE of the discussion
I need to log off for a while. I’m not getting through. My wordsmithing is a waste. I don’t know why I think I can do this. I can’t.
The breadth of and quality of posts within this thread is remarkable.
So our big U is “mathematical in essence” could explain a lot. (It thus seems intelligent but is actually more akin to a bit of software running.) We might be the product of an algorithm that was a product of the Big Bang. Fascinating.
@Tee Bryan Peneguy
I am embarrassed by how comprehensive your answer to my meager question was. But more than that I am impressed with your goal where you say “I’m attempting to find accurate language that won’t alienate people “on the fence” of religious deconstruction at this moment.”
@3PointRat
I concur with your opinion re: the whole ID v. Science thing.
That raz-pesher thing seems to be part of a repeating end times phenomenon. It seems like a pretty dysfunctional cultural belief system, in that there is an ever-present (potentially) self-fulfilling prophecy of some society-shaking cataclysm of some sort. Yet the pattern of raz-pesher survives somehow, culturally. I imagine it could be due to the relative survival benefits of recognizing the end is near, when it actually is.
But isn’t it the oldest technique of an effective narrative, to present a mystery to be revealed? a wrong to be righted? a threat to be averted? a problem to be solved? a challenge to be faced?
I need to log off for a while. I’m not getting through. My wordsmithing is a waste. I don’t know why I think I can do this. I can’t.No. You don't. I agree with you in every way, I just don't know how it is possible to attain your lofty goal.
It is very rare to find someone who starts a dialogue with messages intentionally designed to insult. In fact, I know of no writer better than Sam Harris at arguing a point using words that seem impossible to result in insult or injury, yet somehow people manage to feel insulted and injured by him.
Not many people are able to communicate at the level of Sam, so if he’s unable to do it, I honestly don’t know how I can. That’s not to say I don’t try my darndest to, but it does make me look at the situation realistically and understand that if the options are to either possibly hurt someone’s feelings or not speak, I (and hopefully all people) will choose to speak and take the chance of hurting someone’s feelings.
P.S.- Rather than doubt your writing skills, you might want to doubt my ability to understand. That’s most likely what has happened.
But isn’t it the oldest technique of an effective narrative, to present a mystery to be revealed? a wrong to be righted? a threat to be averted? a problem to be solved? a challenge to be faced?I think all narratives come down to "survive."
Us against them.
Right against wrong.
Plenty against scarcity.
Birth against death.
Safety against danger.
Every mystery, story and dogma boils down to survival against something or someone.
But isn’t it the oldest technique of an effective narrative, to present a mystery to be revealed? a wrong to be righted? a threat to be averted? a problem to be solved? a challenge to be faced?Yes, certainly, I merely let Tee know of the term, to add to her thesis.
The more modernized version of it (from the Dennett youtube I posted earlier today), is making everything “metaphor”. The most liberal Christian out there still won’t say God doesn’t exist, instead, they’ll say the end times are a metaphor. This allows people with widely differing beliefs to coexist in one church. It’s the fine line we’re on today where people think they still have to maintain the illusion or the whole thing will crash. I’d like to see more focus on building the replacement, but I can’t control 7 billion people.
We all agree on the ID v religion thing.
I was simply making the distinction that ID refers to a specific pseudoscientific concept … that not all people who believe in religion & science can be considered ID proponents…that not all Creationists are ID proponents…and that not all ID proponents are (what we call today) Creationists.
I don’t know. Maybe there is no way to phrase the debate without calling people idiots, brainless or stupid. I should probably just give up.There are tons of ways of telling people they are mistaken without insulting them.
Unfortunately, there are almost exactly that many ways of taking the message the wrong way and coming away feeling insulted.
Again, your goal is natural and reasonable and is certainly the same goal of almost all of us here.
I’m saying we need to keep communicating. You are saying we need to do everything we can to communicate without hurting feelings.
It looks like we’re saying different but related things. Ideally, we can accomplish them both.
And the best narrative wins. Maybe you could get thru to the walking dead (aka people who don’t get my way of thinking) by… And I am being serious, starting now. by… delivering your message in a narrative that is targeted toward those individuals, a narrative that would be exciting for them, that would allow them to imagine themselves in the heroic actions of the protagonist accomplishing the very thing that you know they should be accomplishing.
The most liberal Christian out there still won’t say God doesn’t exist, instead, they’ll say the end times are a metaphor.Here is the goofy part: the EARLY Church Fathers (such as Origen Adamantius, around 180-250 AD) defined much of the Bible as metaphor (he referred to a literal tree in a literal garden as "silly" and the fires of hell as symbolic)... and a significant share of Eastern Orthodox maintain this today. (There is a spectrum, some of which is geographical. The Orthodox nearer the Orient sound a bit Buddhist, the Orthodox more west sound Roman Catholic.)
So in some ways, the “new” beliefs are simply the “old” beliefs again.
It isn’t accurate to call the Orthodox Liberal OR Conservative … it’s much more complex. But I love to point out that metaphor is nothing new … in fact, it’s Jewish.
Thanks guys. I appreciate your words.
I’m gonna post separately so I can hold myself to it, but yeah … I do need to log off for a couple weeks at least, as I’m spending too much time & emotion on this and not doing other things I need to do.
By way of short explanation… being here, on Twitter and on Quora has convinced me that my future lies in this whole topic. This is why I need to get my Baby Humanist blog up on Medium; finish my videos and eBooks; and get busy contacting publications for freelancing.
But this is a terrifying thing. I really did almost die a few years ago. I really did have a complete breakdown. I really do have C-PTSD from religious trauma.
I actually was a real journalist and a real author with a real career and a real life.
But to say I lost confidence in myself is an understatement. I’m essentially housebound with general anxiety. I can’t even make a phone call. There were periods of time a few years ago where I literally did not know I was still alive. I was hallucinating, seeing things, hearing things. My sanity is being hard-won.
So even the smallest stupid thing makes me lose it.
But I appreciate everyone’s help here. It has helped me hone down what I want to do.
I just need to
But I love to point out that metaphor is nothing new … in fact, it’s Jewish.Good point. I've never quite figured out where literalism began, since Origen was very specific about metaphor, but not long after that you could get killed for thinking wrong about the cracker! These terms change over time and location. I should have clarified something about the latest incarnation of metaphor.
Anyway, do what you need to do to take care yourself. Forums can be an escape, or an outlet, but sometimes also an addiction.
Not many people are able to communicate at the level of Sam, so if he’s unable to do it, I honestly don’t know how I can. -- pi-ratI got kicked off an author/podcaster's facebook page because I took the position that Sam Harris is not racist. They were making a case based on a half dozen quotes from him, which is actually a pretty good case, but it's too isolated for me to accept it. The author himself wasn't so much buying it, but he was saying that there are racist groups that refer to his work and use it to promote themselves, and Sam should see that and do something about it.
Tee, you have the most personality on here [all you others have plenty, she just has more.]
It should go without saying that you need to do what’s best for you, and it’s doubtful that spending hours on here is best for anyone, so by all means take the time needed to get your real life chugging along before you come back to grace us with your presence.
But always let us know when you’re taking breaks, or we’ll worry and wonder where you went or what happened to you.
The best part is that if you’re looking for inspiration or need a break, pop in and get recharged.
TimB said,So our big U is “mathematical in essence” could explain a lot. (It thus seems intelligent but is actually more akin to a bit of software running.) We might be the product of an algorithm that was a product of the Big Bang. Fascinating.
Yes, according to Chaos theory, mathematical patterns are a natural result of “imitial conditions”
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. Chaos theory is an interdisciplinary theory stating that, within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
A beautiful example is found in this entertaining video by Roger Antonsen.
This may seem simplistic at first, but it touches on some deep implications of the mathematical nature of the universe. It takes a few viewings to grasp the underlying logic of the lecture.
One beautiful example is Antonsen’s graphic of the intrinsic “image of 4/3”. It is truly remarkable to see the pattern forming when 4/3 is represented as a dynamic pattern.
