religious institutions have survived by controlling what their adherents know, argues tufts prof. daniel c. dennett, but today that is next to impossible.
illustration: brian stauffer for the wall street journal.
by daniel c. dennett.
TheOldHippie: But is it the future of religion, religious feelings, or the future of organized religion, of organizations?
Social evolution, (what this article is really about), would have it that all of these memes will eventually fade out. Likely in this order: Organizations, then religion, (as a general meme).
Ultimately, "religious" feelings would evolve to a less strictly defined "spiritual", set of personal belief, since no enforcing agency to control personal belief would exist.
d4g
you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.
well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.
and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.
Can I copy your answers for the next exam?😇
Gladly, in exchange for your wit...
you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.
well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.
and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.
I haven't even figured out radio waves and now I gotta figure out electricity as well😦.
Actually Sparrow, radio waves are electricity...
d4g
you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.
well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.
and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.
Are some of you suggesting that just because I don't understand all the science, it doesn't mean that it isn't true?
It is about understanding scientific method, (or at least what it is). If that can be understood, it will provide a basis for understanding the reasoning of why something is considered fact. And yes, in science a theory is also factual. (Not absolute truth...It is a big no-no to even say the word "truth" in scientific circles).
d4g
you can't see electricity or hear it or feel it.
well, there are sparks and lightning bolts and heating elements and the light and heat of filaments.
and somehow, it lights up neon in a tube.
To believe is to accept something as true, with the inference that it is not empirically or even anecdotally provable.
Accepting the theory of electricity requires no belief because it can be tested for and observed. It can be accepted as factual with empirical evidence of its existence.
Evolution can be tested for, and observed, albeit not as obviously to the average person. This also with empirical evidence of its reality.
So, neither requires belief.
Precisely why no one would ever ask the question concerning electricity, right?
Why refer to such lines of questioning such as "for those that believe in evolution" then?
d4g
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
Why ?
Both are unanswerable questions silly.
But of course science not today but tomorrow will figure it all for us. Progress is being made. Blah blah blah. We have big thick books with really complex answers.
So simple answers are always correct?
It find it funny how the pro-science crowd often seems to be bigger deists than religious people.
This proves you do not understand science at all. Science is not about having all of the answers not about even potentially finding them all. It is about open questioning and exploration without biased presuppositions, mostly. Theists cannot do this, because all lines of argumentation must affirm their belief. As I stated earlier, if we just started with the proper definition of the term belief, there would be no debate to begin with.
d4g
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
I hate when people spew philosophy and pretend they are doing it in the name of a scientific debate. This thread is nothing but pointless fluff.
Can you back that up?
several times over the past few months i have had conversations, both here and in real life, with religious people making all sorts of interesting and conflicting claims.
i like to know how things work, so generally i will ask questions to net out what i am being told and see if it can be explained and make sense.. for instance, if someone said 2+2=4 and i asked how, there are a variety of ways that could be shown to me, a number line, physical objects being put together, counting on fingers and toes, etc.
indeed, in my personal life, i often have to explain how certain technologies work, sometimes planned, sometimes off the cuff, from a variety of group sizes to a varying degree of technical expertise.
The very definition of belief implies there is no proof. Believers cannot quite their head around this fact in of itself, hence why the endless questions of "what is belief", questions predicated on "for those who believe in evolution", etc. It is almost as if belief is a requirement of something being factual to believers. It is almost impossible to debate someone who is not defining the very meaning of the term the same way, but that is another story...
If they just understood the simple fact they had no proof to begin with, there would be no debate at all. What this really comes down to is debating the definition of the term, which in reality is not open to any debate.
Thus your frustration, and why no proof is ever offered for such claims.
d4g
sorry for the long post but i need help.
ive been a jw for 20 years - still active and attending meetings, baptised at 18, i have recently become very dissillusioned.
a few reasons: ill treatment of my kids by a prominent 'assembly speaker' elder, then my son left the truth at 15 (not baptised) and was 'dropped' instantly, despite this community having been his whole life for 15 years.
A break is a good initial step in one's overall exit strategy. It will help "normalize" you, and provide you with some point of reference outside of the organization, providing concrete evidence that "the big bad world" is not the place the WT says it is. I did not do any research on the organization until I took such a "break", (3 months).
It was realizing that I was happy for the first time in my life after this break, that opened my eyes to many things. This allowed me to do research without fear or guilt. The rest is history.
d4g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zgds4z-h2i.
transcript below (with key points of interest bolded):.
please open your bibles to phil.
sparrowdown an hour ago
This whole Jehovah's people as a "whole" shit helped me wake up.
They are literally admitting everytime they say that, that they do not care about individuals, individual people, individual families are all expendable, colateral damage in theocratic warfare.
Realizing this is why I never returned after leaving in late 2005.
