addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1languagelaunch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinlockm-swarmSearchmailmediummessagesminusmobilemoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahooyoutube

Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group Message Board › HUMANIANITY: The Most Important Religion

HUMANIANITY: The Most Important Religion

Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,886
Todd,
I am sorry that I cannot keep up better with the dialogue, but I have so much to do and our dialogue is rather complicated. I am going to respond to the post before the last one that you did, prior to responding to the last one.

I am having great trouble understanding you. I am going to try to give you a clear picture of my difficulties in interpreting your comments by responding to them individually. I hope this will help in achieving some degree of mutual understanding. I will make the assumption that you indeed want for each of us to understand the other, so we can understand where our beliefs diverge and why. I say this because I have noted over the years that some people will deliberately write in a confusing manner in order to engage successfully in a competitive struggle to see who can cause the other to "give up." I believe that the comments that you make do have meaning for you, and that it is probably somewhat puzzling to you as to why others say they don't understand you, if they say that, or simply don't respond (the tactful approach).
Bill,
Let me give a shot at my use of the word finite that may clarify. My use of words is exact to its meaning less any opinion or perspective.
I simply am unable to understand this comment. Perhaps you are saying that you believe that you try to use words in ways consistent with the meanings they are supposed to have, but recognize that you may be less than completely successful. However, it doesn't seem to me that your sentence really does say that.
I use Websters as the most trusted definition of words first as a noun then in adjective format for clarification, again per Websters.
Again, I do not understand. Perhaps when you talk about the "noun then in adjective format" you may be referring to the word "finite," but it really doesn't seem that way. Perhaps you believe that all words are nouns, but then are turned into adjectives in order to clarify their meanings as nouns, but I don't think any linguist would agree with that.
I do not think that words have two meanings but some folks will have their own opinions as to a word's original meaning and I'm ok with that.
Here I think I understand what you are saying, but it seems like a very strange statement. I believe that it is widely recognized that many words, perhaps most words that are not used only in a technical context, have more than one meaning, and many words have more than two meanings. As time goes on, words take on additional meanings. One of the more notable examples is the progression in meaning of the word "gay." It should be noted that a dictionary is only a report of how words are used. Many of the words in a dictionary are shown to have a number of meanings. It is not unusual for people to be creative with regard to the meanings of words by using them metaphorically. This is a kind of poetic spicing up of language. Some of these poetic usages take hold within the culture, and before long are used by most everyone. "Take hold" may be an example.
I used the word finite as a adjective to the above examples you gave.
Yes, but it was very unclear what the noun was that you were using that adjective to modify. This is an example of how I regard your writing as confusing.


<finite websters copy and paste<

fi•nite adjective \ˈfī-ˌnīt\
Definition of FINITE

1 a : having definite or definable limits <a finite number of possibilities>
b : having a limited nature or existence <finite beings>
2: completely determinable in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought <the finite velocity of light>
3 a : less than an arbitrary positive integer and greater than the negative of that integer
b : having a finite number of elements <a finite set>
4 : of, relating to, or being a verb or verb form that can function as a predicate or as the initial element of one and that is limited (as in tense, person, and number)
— finite noun
— fi•nite•ly adverb
— fi•nite•ness noun
So note that the word is reported to be used with at least six different meanings, listed above.

I wish to comment specifically on the word "finite" as a noun. I have never heard it used that way until I read what you have written. I do note that dictionaries list "noun" as an additional part of speech, the primary usage being as an adjective. The most I could find during a brief search for the meaning of the word when used as a noun was "a finite thing." (In that phrase, finite of course is being used as an adjective, but the whole phrase is being represented by a single word, a noun, "finite." Well, I can accept that usage, but the problem is that the adjective "finite" has more than one meaning, so I believe that your use of it remains somewhat enigmatic.


I prefer the use of finite in regards to world because boundaries exist.
Here, I think that your statement is somewhat oversimplified and problematic. Just because the "world" contains things in it that have "boundaries," that does not necessarily mean that the "world" itself has a boundary. I cannot do a good job of conveying to you how scientists have thought of the universe as finite (with regard to volume) but nevertheless without a boundary. The model that most clarifies that is the surface of a sphere. It has a finite area, but it has no boundary.
A simple example or adjective of finite is it can be counted (measured) to an exact sum.
Do you mean "a simple example of the meaning of ‘finite’ when used as an adjective is ‘able to be counted (measured) to an exact sum’"? I believe that there are entities that we consider to be finite which, however, cannot be "counted to an exact sum." One problem is that none of the measurements that we make are considered to be 100% exact, but simply exact enough for the purposes for which the measuring is being done. (This is clarified in the Mind-Body Problem book.)
This holds true for the finite human - boundaries. Again, when boundaries are in place, a word is less vulnerable to perspective and subjectiveness. In other words "it is what it is".
I believe I understand that the physical dimensions of a human, or other animal, can be measured to some extent, and that we can consider that the bodies of those animals have boundaries beyond which what is found is not considered to be a part of the animal. However, as I pointed out in the Mind-Body Problem book, ultimately, where we consider the boundary to be is arbitrarily drawn by us, and does not, as far as modern science has been able to determine, represent something that actually exists in the world, as modeled by current scientific theory. In the Mind-Body Book, there is the following paragraph: " And let us recognize, even more thoroughly and generally, that something qualifies as an entity only because, so to speak, a line has been drawn around it. If we identify a particular entity as a "door," that entity might consist only of some wood, or it might also include some hinges on it, or even additionally a doorknob, and it might also include the paint (or dirt) on the door or not, this being a matter of arbitrary definition. And we know from modeling developed in modern physics that nowhere “in nature” (the physical world) can it be said that there is a precise boundary up to one side of which there is something that is not on the other side of that boundary also."
(Continued in next post)
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,887
(Continued from previous post)


The word entity is a noun and I know by definite is a result of a finite.
(Unclear sentence.)
Why do I say that? Entity is most commonly use as a organization (as a business or governmental unit) that has an identity separate from those of its members. The original organization was a result of a finite human.
But this is only one of its several meanings, applicable only in a certain context (legal).
Therefore, a human will never and has never been an entity due to the obvious fact that a human is not a thing or a noun.
So you seem to be drawing a conclusion simply from a very limited meaning of the word "finite." Also, in philosophy I believe that a human would be one example of an "entity." And the word "human" is indeed a noun, and certainly if we were to catalog all entities that exist on our planet, humans would be one of those entities.


Now that we know finite has boundaries and those boundaries will be measured, you're Einstein example is excellent.
So when you say "those boundaries will be measured," I do not know what you mean. Perhaps you mean that it will be possible to measure those boundaries, by which I would assume you would be referring to measuring the amount of space inside those boundaries. But I do not understand how that applies to my examples using statements about Einstein.


Please allow me to show an example of finite and entity - your book, The Mind Body Problem.
finite;
There are three total books. book one contains 167 pages with x words, book two contains 78 pages with x words and book three contains 128 pages with x words, written by the finite human WILLIAM V. VAN FLEET, M.D. Measured and true.
Okay with regard to the three books. What I do not know is what you mean by the adjective "finite" when applied to me. I agree that you can place arbitrary boundaries around my body, and that I will not continue to exist as a living human after I die. What that has to do with anything is unclear at this point.

now entity;
The content, context and words in the three books are entities by the finite human named Bill Fleet.
Okay, I will accept that. Please note, however, that it is very unclear as to whether the "context" is something that has a "boundary," or can be measured.


“I should get something to eat - finite (measurable)”

The measurement is that your stomach is growling.
So you mean that the sound coming from my abdomen can be measured. However, I can easily imagine having some degree of hunger without there being any increase in, or change of, sound coming from my abdomen, and I don't think that the sentence itself has anything to do with that. It is supposed to represent an ethical belief. For example, I might be saying, “Well I’m not at all hungry, but if I don’t eat now I will create a problem for others by having to get something to eat before they are ready to do so, so I should get something to eat.”


“It will rain tomorrow - thing (no measurement)”

Can't be measured until tomorrow.
But what does that have to do with whether it is an existential or ethical belief? You are taking my examples and turning them into some other, difficult-to-follow examples of something you are talking about that has nothing to do with the difference between existential and ethical beliefs. So this is a complete derailment of the discussion. I would like to know why this is happening. Are you really trying to understand what I am writing about?


We do differ on objective and subjective, pretty obvious but making progress I think. Your written “Objective Model: Measurement”; my impression is that the words absolutely make no sense to me and is extremely abstract from finite words meaning.
Well, and I am having the exact same experience. So I guess it would be great if we could ask others to give their impressions of the understandability of each of our posts, and even to demonstrate that understanding by putting it in their own words, as well as pointing out, as I am attempting to do, the statements that are difficult to follow, and why that is so.
Seems to be all opinions and all perspective including having no boundaries therefore impossible to measure.
Of course what I write is a set of my opinions, just as is true for you, but what is this criterion of “measurement” that you are applying? Why are you applying it?
And I am very sure with measure that any previous chapters would help.
I don’t know what that means, except that you seem to be agreeing with me that to fully understand a chapter in that book requires having read the chapters before it.
Yet I am very OK with that as we all have our own individual human perspectives.
This sounds to me like the “post-modern” approach to differences of opinion, making exploration of those differences unnecessary, as in “Well what is true for you may not be true for me, so let’s just move on.”


One final example of your written above;
Do you mean my “writing” above? I will assume so. But this is another example of how I find you difficult to understand.


"" If your measurement method is sufficiently similar to one that is already agreed to by others, and is described in such a way as to make that clear, then others will probably not need to demonstrate for themselves that the method works, unless perhaps it produces results that seem strange to them.""

The above paraphrase as example seems to impress on the ability or choice of a human to measure. The use of the words "probably" and "perhaps" suggest the writer is unsure and doesn't know. This one paraphase also implies and impresses or suggests that the reader agree with other humans measurements. My impression to this is the fact that if I was told to agree with others measure and don't bother with my own human measure, my mind would react with a thought of "let's follow the leader" a game played as a child.

Your thoughts?
Regarding your last paragraph, I find what you say to be strange. I have the impression you have not read carefully what I have written and don’t understand it, so that when you comment upon it, you take it completely out of context and respond to it as if it is saying something else. You are also painting the picture that we can expect to be certain about things when almost all of our “knowledge” (sets of beliefs) are probabilistic in nature. When I use those words, I mean them as an accurate description. Maybe you believe differently and can give some examples. But you don’t seem to believe that you or I or we can be absolutely certain about our opinions, and in that I agree with you. We do the best we can, and hopefully remain open to the possibility of being wrong.
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,888
And now, Todd, I will respond to your last post.

Bill'

Would please elaborate on the below posted by you on 8/31/13?

""And there are additional aspects to the problem, having to do with the origins of the physical and mental world. From within science, the idea has arisen, with much evidence supporting it, that the physical world that we see around us came into being about 13.8 billion years ago, perhaps in something like a "big bang," and it has been operating since then according to a set of rules, or "natural laws." Somewhere along the line, however, this "lifeless" physical universe began to develop within it additional entities, opaque, invisible "minds," at least some of which have been attached in an unclear manner to entities within the physical world, these minds seeming to have some additional effect on the physical entities that goes beyond the rules according to which the physical entities had been interacting with each other. There have been other scenarios imagined, also, such as that the physical entities and the minds came into existence at about the same time. How, when, and why these minds came into existence has been a question that has never been answered to the satisfaction of everyone, or even the majority of people.""

The underlined is a repeat to my previous post and lead me to the question are your books fiction or non-fiction?
They are nonfiction. They are my expressions of my opinions.

What is a "big bang" and where did it come from and what or who continues to operate it?
I cannot imagine that you have not heard that scientists have constructed a model of the universe that entails its having begun at a point in time (actually the beginning of time within our universe), in a process that has been referred to metaphorically and probably a little humorously as a "big bang." If you really want to understand that model, you could start with Wikipedia or with books that describe modern scientific theory.

These models do not involve the idea that someone or something is "operating" what is going on. The models are just proposed descriptions that seem consistent with the results of measurements.

I am assuming that you are referring to the idea that a God "created" the universe. Scientific theories do not make use of such a concept, since doing so does not result in anything that can be confirmed or disconfirmed by measurement. Regarding "where it came from," some have the idea that it may have been produced by the collision of other universes in 11-dimensional space. But I am not able to elaborate effectively on any of that. And my book is not an effort to answer such questions. It is an effort to identify, clarify, and solve the mind-body problem.

And may you please define "natural law" in your above context?
I am not referring to ethical principles, but instead to the "rules" by which the universe is considered to operate. Newton's laws are an example. I give a thorough explanation of this in the chapter after the “Introduction”chapter, the one entitled "Causation and Explanation."

<copy and paste below>
I ask this because Plato does not have an explicit theory of natural law. Aristotle strongly emphasized the distinction between "nature" on the one hand and "law" on the other. The Islamic Scholar Abū Rayḥān al-Bīrūnī understood "natural law" as the survival of the fittest.

I ask you please clarify for my understanding.

Thank yousmile
Reading that chapter will bring about the best understanding, I believe. The term "natural law" I believe is used in more than one way. Some people have been using it to refer to a set of ethical principles that they believe are objectively necessary by virtue of the nature of the universe, but I believe that this concept cannot hold up to logical scrutiny. It is possible that the phrase is used within both science and religion, but with different meanings in each of those contexts.

My general impression is that you do not have a strong science background, but have fairly strong religious beliefs, primarily Christian, about which you feel a great deal of certainty. I have a primarily science background, though with a long-standing interest in religion and its place in our human undertaking.

My impression is that there has been a long-standing conflict between science and religion, but that the various religions are increasingly coming into the modern world and incorporating the findings of science and acknowledging a respect for science in their outlooks. I am not of the opinion that religion is a bad thing. However, I do believe that many religions have some bad things in them. What I believe is that religions can improve and increasingly jettison the bad and pull in the good, this being what we as a species are in the process of doing. Our religions are a reflection of the species that has produced them, and as our species improves, so will our religions. And our religions will help our species to improve. There is no species further along on this planet to help us visualize what we can become in the future. But we can use our imaginations. And our effort along this line, I refer to as Humanianity, the religion for everyone.
Todd W.
user 104073922
Columbia, SC
Post #: 40
Bill - in response I have to admire your diligence in stating what you think you know yet what you don't know is what puzzles me. I read your bio and it is very impressive. A a semiretired psychiatrist M.D. which requires an intense amount of education including endless hours of treating patients in need. No disrespect but what puzzles me is that the limited knowledge you have and I say this in respect to everyday word definitions. If it is the case we are debating the meaning of words in the Webster Dictionary, then we truly have no premise for communication in any linguistic language. I am also somewhat surprised at your "talking down" to others opinions or what they are thinking in the format of "you are wrong", "I am right" and "I don't understand you" - 3rd party. Puzzling...

Let me end this non-productive discussion with what puzzles me by example of your very long posting and keep in mind my premise is a common dictionary;

>our dialogue is rather complicated - "my dialogue is from a common dictionary."
>I am having great trouble understanding you - "my dialogue is from a common dictionary."
>I believe that the comments that you make do have meaning for you - "my dialogue is from a common dictionary."
>This is an example of how I regard your writing as confusing - <copy and pasted from Websters>
>I simply am unable to understand this comment - "my dialogue is from a common dictionary."
>Again, I do not understand - "my dialogue is from a common dictionary."
>Yes, but it was very unclear what the noun was that you were using that adjective to modify
I have never heard it used that way until I read what you have written - <copy and pasted from Websters>
>One problem is that none of the measurements that we make are considered to be 100% exact, but simply exact enough for the purposes for which the measuring is being done - "this is interesting. The formula for Pepsi is not exact but close enough? Are some measurements more important than others?
>And the word "human" is indeed a noun - "per Websters you are wrong. A human being is a noun."
>So when you say "those boundaries will be measured," I do not know what you mean - "is there state line measuring the boundary of South Carolina & North Carolina? I've seen the sign more than once"
>So this is a complete derailment of the discussion. I would like to know why this is happening - "what's happening is the fact no one living would know if it is going to rain tomorrow until it occurs unless one has a crystal ball"

>But this is another example of how I find you difficult to understand - please allow me to retort, "" If your measurement method is sufficiently similar to one that is already agreed to by others, and is described in such a way as to make that clear, then others will probably not need to demonstrate for themselves that the method works, unless perhaps it produces results that seem strange to them.""

The above paraphrase as example seems to impress on the ability or choice of a human to measure. The use of the words "probably" and "perhaps" suggest the writer is unsure and doesn't know. This one paraphase also implies and impresses or suggests that the reader agree with other humans measurements. My impression to this is the fact that if I was told to agree with others measure and don't bother with my own human measure, my mind would react with a thought of "let's follow the leader" a game played as a child.

My final point on this discussion is what do you know Bill? Your books ask more questions to the reader and unknowns to the readers - very chaotic and fantasy reading. The fact that you continue to refer all your premise to your 3 books and disregard a common dictionary must have been quite a challenge. I respect your beliefs but in your profession I would think you would entertain other humans beliefs. I don't understand your books and they make no logical sense to me yet they may make sense to others. Your books are fiction therefore anyone can draw any opinion from the writings and as you said "simply your opinion" without any premise. I respect you spent years on the writings and respect the fact that you believe them and I do also understand now why they are free.

I am open to another topic and will participate in forum ethics as promised.



Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,890
Todd,
No disrespect but what puzzles me is that the limited knowledge you have and I say this in respect to everyday word definitions. If it is the case we are debating the meaning of words in the Webster Dictionary, then we truly have no premise for communication in any linguistic language.
I don’t believe I have ever “debated the meaning” of words in the dictionary. I think the dictionary is a good thing. My problem is that I have difficulty understanding the sentences you construct with those words. I tried to give you some feedback so that the communication could become clearer.
I am also somewhat surprised at your "talking down" to others opinions or what they are thinking in the format of "you are wrong", "I am right" and "I don't understand you" - 3rd party. Puzzling...
I don’t believe that I have “talked down” to you. I believe I have honestly reported when I have not understood you or have had a different opinion than yours, and tried to explain why. If you believe that a statement of mine has been an example of “talking down,” please let me know. It is always possible to make a mistake, and if I have, I want to know.

Let me end this non-productive discussion with what puzzles me by example of your very long posting and keep in mind my premise is a common dictionary;
Todd, you and I have differences of opinion. It is unfortunate if we cannot have dialogue to find out why we have those differences. Walking away from a discussion just because there is a difference of opinion is an unfortunate tendency that we humans still have, even though it is better than murder and war. In our group, the effort is to understand, and that is accomplished by dialogue. I hope you will reconsider and take a closer look, with me, at what is happening and why.

>our dialogue is rather complicated - "my dialogue is from a common dictionary."
>I am having great trouble understanding you - "my dialogue is from a common dictionary."
>I believe that the comments that you make do have meaning for you - "my dialogue is from a common dictionary."
>This is an example of how I regard your writing as confusing - <copy and pasted from Websters>
>I simply am unable to understand this comment - "my dialogue is from a common dictionary."
>Again, I do not understand - "my dialogue is from a common dictionary."
>Yes, but it was very unclear what the noun was that you were using that adjective to modify
I have never heard it used that way until I read what you have written - <copy and pasted from Websters>
Again, what I am talking about is not the definitions given in a dictionary but your use of them in your sentences. Some of the sentences are difficult to follow or understand, and some of them are ones that I cannot agree with.

>One problem is that none of the measurements that we make are considered to be 100% exact, but simply exact enough for the purposes for which the measuring is being done - "this is interesting. The formula for Pepsi is not exact but close enough?
Correct. I believe the problem here may be a lack of science background. A very basic concept in all the sciences is that of measurement error. That is why measurements are given with a value and a margin of error, such as 1.5 units +/- 0.07.
Are some measurements more important than others?
Yes, of course, but I don’t know what this refers to.

>And the word "human" is indeed a noun - "per Websters you are wrong. A human being is a noun."
”Human being” is a phrase or term. “Human” can be used as a noun or an adjective. In “human being,” the “being” is a noun and the “human” is an adjective. In the sentence, “I believe a human has been here,” the word “human” is a noun.
>So when you say "those boundaries will be measured," I do not know what you mean - "is there state line measuring the boundary of South Carolina & North Carolina? I've seen the sign more than once"
I challenge you to point precisely to that line (not to a sign).

>So this is a complete derailment of the discussion. I would like to know why this is happening - "what's happening is the fact no one living would know if it is going to rain tomorrow until it occurs unless one has a crystal ball"
Right. Knowledge is probabilistic. But we are not totally unable to predict. And this ability to predict is absolutely essential to our existence and quality of life.


>But this is another example of how I find you difficult to understand - please allow me to retort, "" If your measurement method is sufficiently similar to one that is already agreed to by others, and is described in such a way as to make that clear, then others will probably not need to demonstrate for themselves that the method works, unless perhaps it produces results that seem strange to them.""

The above paraphrase as example seems to impress on the ability or choice of a human to measure.
I can’t understand this sentence.
The use of the words "probably" and "perhaps" suggest the writer is unsure and doesn't know.
No, I am trying to be accurate in my description of the way things are. The way things are is that there is a certain amount of uncertainty in all our knowledge.
This one paraphase also implies and impresses or suggests that the reader agree with other humans measurements.
I think you have not understood my point.
My impression to this is the fact that if I was told to agree with others measure and don't bother with my own human measure, my mind would react with a thought of "let's follow the leader" a game played as a child.
It is hard for me to imagine that you really think that there is something wrong with accepting others’ reports of their measurements unless there seems to be a reason for not doing so. If we did otherwise, we would be paralyzed and would perish.
(Continued in next post)
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,891
(Continued from previous post)

My final point on this discussion is what do you know Bill? Your books ask more questions to the reader and unknowns to the readers - very chaotic and fantasy reading.
Todd, I don’t believe it is right to do a book review of a book that you have not read.
The fact that you continue to refer all your premise to your 3 books and disregard a common dictionary must have been quite a challenge.
I don’t believe I ever disregard a common dictionary. And I don’t believe I refer everything to my books. What I do indeed do is, when what I have written in one of them seems to be a very clear answer to a question or a very clear explanation of some concept being discussed, I copy and paste rather than taking the time to type it all over again. My effort in the books was to be as clear as I could be, and it would be hard for me to do a better job by doing it all over again.
I respect your beliefs but in your profession I would think you would entertain other humans beliefs.
That is what I am doing. I am having this discussion with you to see if we agree, or if we don’t, whether I may be wrong. When I see difference of opinion, I let you know that I have a different opinion, so that we can explore more deeply why that difference exists.
I don't understand your books and they make no logical sense to me yet they may make sense to others.
As far as I can tell, you have not read them, at least not conscientiously as opposed to rapidly skimming them. I ask people who intend to read them conscientiously to let me know of the very first sentence that seems unclear or incorrect in the context in which it is written, and why it seems that way.
Your books are fiction therefore anyone can draw any opinion from the writings and as you said "simply your opinion" without any premise.
I believe there are “premises” in the books, ones that we can all agree to. I do not understand why you regard them as “fiction.” You seem to mean that you do not agree with what is in them. If you don’t, I would really like to know what you disagree with and why.
I respect you spent years on the writings and respect the fact that you believe them and I do also understand now why they are free.
I don’t believe you do. They are free because I do not want anyone to think that I have some other (financial) motive for offering them and because I don’t want there to be any impediment to anyone having access to them. They are the equivalent to “volunteer work” or “religious tithing.” They are my effort to give back to my species for all that my species has done for me. I derive no financial benefit from any of my philosophical activities.

I am open to another topic and will participate in forum ethics as promised.
Well, I wish you would not walk away from the discussion because the other person does not agree with you or gives you feedback when you are difficult to understand.
Todd W.
user 104073922
Columbia, SC
Post #: 41
Bill,

May you allow me to add to this discussion topic because I find your below paraphase very interesting;

""My general impression is that you do not have a strong science background, but have fairly strong religious beliefs, primarily Christian, about which you feel a great deal of certainty. I have a primarily science background, though with a long-standing interest in religion and its place in our human undertaking.

My impression is that there has been a long-standing conflict between science and religion, but that the various religions are increasingly coming into the modern world and incorporating the findings of science and acknowledging a respect for science in their outlooks. I am not of the opinion that religion is a bad thing. However, I do believe that many religions have some bad things in them. What I believe is that religions can improve and increasingly jettison the bad and pull in the good, this being what we as a species are in the process of doing. Our religions are a reflection of the species that has produced them, and as our species improves, so will our religions. And our religions will help our species to improve. There is no species further along on this planet to help us visualize what we can become in the future. But we can use our imaginations. And our effort along this line, I refer to as Humanianity, the religion for everyone.""


You are correct that I do not have a strong science background and I am very aware you do. Please allow me elaborate on my religious beliefs which may surprise you. I do not believe science can or need be applied to a religion. I also do not believe in any organized religions or the need of such organizations - religions. Again, another murky topic... To clarify why I believe this I will give you my definition of a religion. To me a typical religion consists of; a alpha (not to be confused alpha omega) or better phrased the religion's leader. The balance of the religion would be known as members. The problem I have with this arrangement is that at the point of membership, the member takes an oath where the member believes in the alpha's beliefs. I say oath because the members do not question the alpha's beliefs as long as they are a member. This is not a proposal I would choose because at point of membership I have given up "choice" and would numb my freedom of choice and placed it in the hands of another. Also, Eminent domain does not exist at the meeting areas or gathering land (a church or the organization) therefore in the US boundary, separation between church and state also does not exist. Could this fact be a form of population control?

What I do believe is a alpha is not required for one to have the relationship with the alpha mega. This is tricky and will be controversial but hang with me... I believe in my faith. What is my faith? My faith in God, the alpha mega and to be the best person I can be every day. Faith is a powerful word because it requires belief in what can't be proved and can't be seen yet know it true. Is faith a religion? No because faith is a one-on-one human personal relationship with the alpha mega. I believe the truth is all around us yet it must be seen, not heard. Please respect that this is what I believe and ask no others to join as I respect what others believe including Humanianity.

This may help you understand why we conflict on word usage in our exchanges. I also find your opinion of Humanianity very interesting and very impressed with the amount of research done to compile the books.

Thoughts?
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,892
I do have a different concept of what religion is, based upon looking at a list of everything we call a "religion." But I do believe we agree significantly more than may seem apparent. In fact, I think you would agree with certain conclusions about spirituality arrived at in the Mind-Body Problem book, though you would have to read the book to understand the meaning of those conclusions. They fit in with what you are saying.

And I wanted to add that you refer to "what others believe including Humanianity" but probably have an incorrect idea of what Humanianity is. There is no creed or required set of beliefs beyond the one ultimate ethical principle, "we should do that which will promote not only the survival of our species but also as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible, for everyone, now and in the future." And there is no alpha for that religion. People acknowledge being Humanian not because they are blindly accepting something I or someone else has said, but because they want what the principle says that we should try to promote.

I don't see anything wrong with there being religious organizations, but I agree with you that the way past and many current religious organizations operate is probably less than optimal. I agree with you that it is not good to "numb" the mind, and to the extent that religious organizations do that, I would say that that was not good. But not all religious organizations do that. Unitarian Universalism I believe does not. And certainly Humanian organizations would not. I agree that religion is first of all a personal endeavor, but we humans improve on what we can do individually by cooperating as groups, so group activity to foster religious growth would be a good thing in my mind.
Todd W.
user 104073922
Columbia, SC
Post #: 43
Phew...biggrin

For the first time in our exchanges we are in agreeance. I will give Mind-Body Problem a look.

Thanks for your response.
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,893
That's great, Todd! It would really be helpful if you stopped at the first sentence you found which seemed unclear or incorrect in the context in which it is written and posted it with your impression as to why it seemed that way.

BTW, would Chuck be an example of what you mean by an alpha?
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy