With wisdom come'th self awareness and self awareness come'th wisdom , two peas in a pod are equal .
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is religion inferior to logic ?
- Thread starter zerogain
- Start date
With wisdom come'th self awareness and self awareness come'th wisdom , two peas in a pod are equal .
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Spacetime co-ordinates point to specific events and their geometric and temporal location; satellite navigation works on this principle, providing a driver with accurate information relevant to a physical object - in this case a car - moving in the material world.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
In my case, yes.
Ya, I think that's generally true. I often find myself more compatible with some atheists and agnostics here than probably most theists.
I attend a Catholic church because my wife is Catholic, and I can do a lot more there to help others out there. However, I can find myself being just as comfortable in a synagogue, mosque, or a temple.
Mine does, but in what I'm sure is an unusual way compared to most. However, it would take several lengthy posts to explain how this is the case, but a few people here do know what happened to me on this. A shortened version would not be convincing and might seem weird.
Einstein believed in "Spinoza's God", which is a pantheistic/panentheistic approach.
You are quick to pick up my idiosyncrasies, but there are reasons for where I'm coming from. Sorry to be so vague.
Let's not get into too much science , I assure you , space-time is only a virtual thing , the lines do not actually exist , they are subjective , however , it works for the purpose it was designed for . It is good science in respect to vectors and coordinates .
Curious George
Veteran Member
Does this mean that prior to hearing some sounds and feeling a fetus/zygote is not considered as having a “neurological reference frame?”
Your assumption is correct , before the NRF starts to develop , a human Fetus can be viewed in comparison to a rock , no conscious state .
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, not quite. Their chemistry is apparently different, as a fetus is alive and a rock is not.
Indeed it is fascinating how single cell life lead to us.
Curious George
Veteran Member
So 18 weeks before a fetus starts to hear sounds and somewhere between 20-30 weeks before they feel (depending on the source). At least you are not trying to promote personhood and all of that super early. Cheers
I'm not exactly sure when a NRF begins to form . I don't have that specific medical knowledge .
All persons are words , all persons give in to feelings and become attached to their bodies , allowing the mind and body experience , mostly ignoring the NRF and universe experience . Saying ignoring , more like oblivious to the experience .
That's not surprising for a variety of reasons such as that the left isn't engaging in insurrection or terrorism, and doesn't embrace jackboot tactics such as attempting to intimidate voters with wannabe storm troopers. You've probably never seen anything like either of these anywhere you get your news. And I'll bet that you either don't look at them or reject them out of hand as evidence of rightist insurrection proclivities.
I'll have to tell you the same thing I told the other fellow - you must have a private understanding of what logic, wisdom, and knowledge are. I'm a humanist, and thus an empiricist. Logic doesn't come from scripture, just unsupported claims. Just because one believes something doesn't make it knowledge or wisdom. It has to meet certain criteria inherent in their definitions. There are tests for each.
I have found empiricism and critical thought to be the best way to construct a mental map of reality by which to navigate it, disregarding scripture, which would insert a god into my map if it wasn't determined strictly empirically. I think it's important that the map not show roads not out there or fail to show roads that are. How else can we reliably predict outcomes? Incidentally, knowledge can be equated with knowing what roads are out there and which are not, and wisdom being the knowledge of how to get to one's desired destination, which tome, is the satisfaction of a life well lived, relatively free of shame, guilt, and regret, one that is satisfying and meaningful - long, functional, comfortable, stimulating, and with a sense of purpose and accomplishment.
That's exactly backward. The more faith, the less reason. You believe what you wrote by faith, and it is incorrect. I know from personal experience, having been a Christian for a decade before returning to atheism and humanism many decades ago. Christian doctrine is not logical. It is not derived from reason applied to experience. It is self-contradictory and filled with error. Its moral values are outdated (intended for a different kind of life in a different time and place), and thus incomplete in many cases immoral by the standards of rational ethics.
Why should they? Here's more guessing being undoubtedly considered logical, wisdom and knowledge. It's none of those things. It's superstition, meaning irrational.
I don't how many, but they'd all be theists.
That is likely incorrect for reasons already given. If it isn't conscious, it doesn't feel or hear anything. Don't mistake unconscious reflex for consciousness.
Sure there is. They are made of natural materials undergoing natural processes. What evidence do you think is lacking? What would you expect to see if sentience was an epiphenomenon of nature? You put all of the ingredients together and the brain turns on, like combining the ingredients needed for a flame and light emerges. You might as well say that there is no evidence that the former accounts for the latter.
Really? You don't even need to be able to add to determine that - just count.
It's a bit of a digression, but I used to ask the self-identified spiritualists what their special way of knowing that they call spiritual truth reveals to them - what vistas are visible to them invisible to the rest of us, and how do they put this knowledge to use. Not surprisingly, we get crickets when we ask that. So, I gave them a fictional story of a man who visited a tribe of primitives who also claimed to see further with a new way of knowing to these people who could count, but hadn't discovered the rules of addition yet. One day, there is a marriage, and two flocks are to be combined, one of 36 sheep and one for 42. Before the tribe can count the combined flock, the man who sees further tells them that 36+42=78. The chief counts, and lo and behold, there are 78. This man really does see further and can prove it by reporting what he sees, and it being correct. Not so much with these spiritual claims of truth or knowledge.
Curious George
Veteran Member
If you lack that specific medical knowledge why did you state that the start of forming a “NRF” was when an entity begins to feel and hear?
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Is religion inferior to logic ?
Isn't Atheism or Noneianity or Noneism devoid of the logic absolutely, please? Right?
Regards
___________________
Atheism: Logic & Fallacies - Computer Science
http://www.cs.kent.edu › ~durand › logic_and_fallacies
Logic will let you analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, ... the basic assertions which support arguments; for that, we need some other tool.
Isn't Atheism or Noneianity or Noneism devoid of the logic absolutely, please? Right?
Regards
___________________
Atheism: Logic & Fallacies - Computer Science
http://www.cs.kent.edu › ~durand › logic_and_fallacies
Logic will let you analyze an argument or a piece of reasoning, ... the basic assertions which support arguments; for that, we need some other tool.
Last edited:
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Laws.
O for a collision two bodies must pre exist.
O earth existed as it's evolved mass one body with a higher yet lesser cold body a gas mass existed.
So relative a collision is O body mass to body mass direct. Sun O to earth O.
As you have to ignore the gas heavens as it's not a law it's an evolution.
Space Infinity opens up so nothing increases as mass converting opens into spaces. As it's consumed removed.
Attack is stopped by natural law as colliding bodies get separated then pulled away. Gas heavens not the law.
It's why men SEE lightened sun metal sucked out by cosmic law. One way only out..away into infinity. Sun metal. The cosmic law. One way a line trajectory away.
Why sun theists were reviewed as the most incorrect evilest thinkers by religious healer terms. Medical biological human conscious awareness.
Taught as teaching came about by their bio body Mind life sacrificed.
Ask how a man knew a particle ended and be as a nuclear fuel above. The star mass taught him. For as it approaches earth it caused pushed mass in heavens forwards.
Burning his mind by gas fall. Colours.
Now if cosmic law stopped collisions. It's exact infinity law.
And just men said I knew one third of stars bodies fell. You had to be a human living and witness the cause.
Just before you died. As dinosaurs proved stone law broken. Man's science confession exact.
As origin in cosmic theme earths body first origin earth does not even exist now as law.
Already known.
Men thesis science every time as first time. Say so in their own heads. As if science isn't or wasn't already practiced.
An outright human behavioural lie.
It's why humans who learnt the man theists history as religion were more intelligent and higher Informed by history a human memory than the theist.
By just being a victim and not the first human theist of the sciences.
Just as proven.
Reason I learnt why you are one hundred percent wrong theist men.
O for a collision two bodies must pre exist.
O earth existed as it's evolved mass one body with a higher yet lesser cold body a gas mass existed.
So relative a collision is O body mass to body mass direct. Sun O to earth O.
As you have to ignore the gas heavens as it's not a law it's an evolution.
Space Infinity opens up so nothing increases as mass converting opens into spaces. As it's consumed removed.
Attack is stopped by natural law as colliding bodies get separated then pulled away. Gas heavens not the law.
It's why men SEE lightened sun metal sucked out by cosmic law. One way only out..away into infinity. Sun metal. The cosmic law. One way a line trajectory away.
Why sun theists were reviewed as the most incorrect evilest thinkers by religious healer terms. Medical biological human conscious awareness.
Taught as teaching came about by their bio body Mind life sacrificed.
Ask how a man knew a particle ended and be as a nuclear fuel above. The star mass taught him. For as it approaches earth it caused pushed mass in heavens forwards.
Burning his mind by gas fall. Colours.
Now if cosmic law stopped collisions. It's exact infinity law.
And just men said I knew one third of stars bodies fell. You had to be a human living and witness the cause.
Just before you died. As dinosaurs proved stone law broken. Man's science confession exact.
As origin in cosmic theme earths body first origin earth does not even exist now as law.
Already known.
Men thesis science every time as first time. Say so in their own heads. As if science isn't or wasn't already practiced.
An outright human behavioural lie.
It's why humans who learnt the man theists history as religion were more intelligent and higher Informed by history a human memory than the theist.
By just being a victim and not the first human theist of the sciences.
Just as proven.
Reason I learnt why you are one hundred percent wrong theist men.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
My vision Tom Cruise Scientology advice.
About American government mind program false AI terms....alien.
Secretly said we knew aliens UFO came out of volcano.
Reason ∆ mountain existed first in infinity law.
Mountain Rock law broken ^∆ off mountain.
The tip converted O first ever UFO before gas immaculate heavens.
Scientology same tactics as CIA...says it's versus them.
More advised human in the advices of science by religion.
A spiritual healer baby mother life totally advised about all of you in wrong behaviours elite bullies.
Psychic human said alien advice should save us from government men machines technology.
By word advice theist explanation first position human. True warning.
About American government mind program false AI terms....alien.
Secretly said we knew aliens UFO came out of volcano.
Reason ∆ mountain existed first in infinity law.
Mountain Rock law broken ^∆ off mountain.
The tip converted O first ever UFO before gas immaculate heavens.
Scientology same tactics as CIA...says it's versus them.
More advised human in the advices of science by religion.
A spiritual healer baby mother life totally advised about all of you in wrong behaviours elite bullies.
Psychic human said alien advice should save us from government men machines technology.
By word advice theist explanation first position human. True warning.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
I would not say that. How many people know of meditation in India? It is reserved for the renunciates. I would credit it to family support. We have excellent family support. I have been through that with four years of joblessness and a wife and daughter to support. My father gallantly supported me.
I agree to that. Religion here is very introspective.
And I agree to your last point too.
DNB
Christian
Who built all the Churches and religious edifices throughout the world?
wellwisher
Well-Known Member
Logic is based on cause and affect, which can be modeled as a 2-D concept. Logic is connected to another 2-D concept called space-time. Space-time tells us about connected changes of state within time and space, from past to present and then present to future, via cause and affect and the laws of physics. This is all 2-D. A good rational model should be able to predict the future, since past to present sets a line that can be extended from present to future. For example, Joe likes to take a walk every morning, based on data I have collected over the past year. I can infer he will be up early and walking tomorrow.
Statistical models are not exactly rational, since based on its own premises anything can happen to confound reason and the once expected cause and affect. Joe could be sick tomorrow or decide he hates walking. I was wondering if anyone can see the irony, which is that statistical models add subjectivity; casino odds, to what had once been more objective science.
Back in the Age of Reason, if you came up with a rational relationship or math model from a good data set, to describe an aspect of reality, all new data had to touch that curve. If there was one new data point out of sorts; any exception to the rule, the theory needed to be revised. For example, observations were made that made the old Standard Model; BB, invalid, so dark energy and dark matter were added.
Once we added statistics to science, now no old or new data point has to perfect, but only has to be within a margin of error. This watered down the once higher rational standard. Now if you find exceptions, the theory does not have to change anything since the original model was not rational to begin with and has built in fudge to buffer it. Science went back to a whims of the gods approach, with one god; Statisticus minimus, the new patron saint of science. All hail Statisticus!
I wanted someone to explain statistics using cause and affect reasoning, to see if you can make it rational. You guys are missing something; kettle calling the pot black.
I see statistics as the idiot savant younger brother of God. God is based on determinism which is the base assumption of reasoning. We can figure it out with data, logic and inference. The god of science; Statisticus, is not rational but is more based on the randomness of an impulsive person who is not thinking, clearly, making anything possible. Will he be kind or angry today? Science stopped looking for reasons via cause and affect and many have blindly; black box, accepted the whim of this god. We may need to stop giving tax payer funding to this science religion. Could any science manage without its oracle to Statisticus?
In the age of reason, scientists would assume even what appears to be random has a rational explanation. We need to investigate and find the clues. Science is now too much in the bag to make that claim, since black box faith now rules. This tells me that religion is innate in all humans and if repressed one way. out will appear in other ways.
Interesting comment. You seem to be lamenting the loss of absolute mathematical determinism in empiricism. Was it ever there?
Even more, you seem to be demeaning science for failing to meet earlier expectations. Science will generate the models and narratives that best fit the data and best predict future outcomes. We've seen with Einstein's update of Newton's theory of gravity that a model can be incomplete and its predictions approximate, yet still useful. I'm presently watching a docudrama about the career of Neil Armstrong, who, as you know, got to the moon and back using only the Newtonian model. Einstein showed it to be incomplete, but the difference only being relevant in a minority of measurements, such as with GPS.
So, is the science correct? Not by some standards and definitions if it is not exact. I won't argue with that, unless somebody wants to equate imprecise with useless. A pragmatic approach to truth says that what works can be considered correct. If an idea is true or correct, it can be used in the real world to generate predictable consequences, and different ones if that idea turned out to be false. In other words, the ultimate measure of a true proposition is its capacity to successfully inform decisions under the expectation of desirable consequences.
Reality appears to have a nondeterministic scale of existence. At the scale of consciousness and the naked senses, there is little evidence of this. The world appears to behave deterministically, but would we sense quantum fluctuations if they manifest at our scale? Perhaps the moment of death is decided by an indeterministic event. If so, there is a physical limit on the predictability of that event. The science of predicting the moment of death of an organism might never be exact. If that's how reality works, then that's what the science should reflect. And of the imprecision of measurement (error bars) is due to more mundane limitations of human ingenuity, then we'll have to live with that until we can do better.
Incidentally, statistics has been a part of science since before the 20th and 21st century physics you mentioned, and the addition of dark energy and dark matter were not related to statistics, but to otherwise inexplicable observations regarding the arrangement of matter on the galactic and larger scales, and the apparent acceleration of universal expansion.
And what's with the hyperbole about worshiping statistics? Did you want to join the apologists calling science a religion and empiricists believers by faith? You're normally a serious writer. Your arguments are generally intended to convince, not persuade or manipulate. Am I expected to be embarrassed for science or diminish its station in my estimation because some is statistical? It seems so.
Atheism makes no statement except that the individual has not been convinced gods exist, believes that one should have compelling evidence before believing anything (skepticism), and therefore doesn't believe in any or worship any or join any religions centered around gods. What could be more logical than that? I don't know what you mean by noneianity and noneism, but if you're referring to the nones in religious self-identification surveys, as in those identifying with no religion, these are not all atheists. Some will tell you that they believe in a "higher power" which they call God, but that they don't see any of the religions as having any special insight into what that is or means.
You wrote that in response to, "There is no evidence that anything but nature exists to have fashioned brains and all of man's psychological states."
I have to guess how those two comments connect for you. I'm guessing that your point is that if a lot of churches have been built, that that is evidence to you of a god existing. If so, I disagree. That is only evidence that religion is widespread in human culture, and that such belief leads to building religious structures. How would that be a counterargument to my claim? It is simply evidence that people believe in gods, a psychological state that is likely the product of a brain that is the naturalistic product of the evolution of matter, chemistry, life, and mind over deep time. I have first-hand experience that this can be the case - apprehensions considered experiencing God later understood due to new evidence to have been purely endogenous in origin. This understanding was reinforced over the years by recognizing how often in man's history he has mistaken the product of his own mind for the apprehension of something exogenous - something out there. Some people think their dreams are apprehended exogenous messages rather than products of the mind, and I suspect that once, this was "common knowledge."
The ancient Greeks did this with the muses. They didn't have a concept for the mind being creative. Creative inspiration was not understood as a product of the mind, but rather, as a received message from a creative muse whispering silently into one's brain.
And likewise with internal moral conflicts, which are often depicted as a devil and an angel sitting on one's shoulder and arguing through one's ears. The church taught this as being literally true, describing doubt and cognitive dissonance as the devil trying to steal one's soul.
This is the same, except that many have not discovered that their apprehensions that they call God or spirits are also endogenous psychological states, and so they build "all the Churches and religious edifices throughout the world." This is the fifth evolution, incidentally - cultural evolution. Once mind had evolved to generate intellect (symbolic reasoning using language and then mathematics), which only happened in man's psychological evolution, you get civilization and technology including churches. But it says nothing about the existence of gods - just thebelief in them.
Messianic Israelite
Active Member
It Aint Necessarily So. Good afternoon. I have a problem with humanism and I've mentioned this previously. Taking Yahweh out of the equation does not enrich or enlighten us. They are many problems which we cannot deal with on our own. But I won't go in to the problems of humanism in this post. Perhaps later.
What I would like to address is that of wisdom. I believe that wisdom comes from Yahweh. Let's firstly start by addressing the wisdom that I refer. They are different ways to be wise in this world. There is an earthly wisdom and then there is a heavenly wisdom. Jacob or James 3:15 says "This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish." You can know vasts amount of information in maths, science, history and many other fields, but the wisdom that actually matters most is that of life. How do we live our lives? How do we make decisions? I like to think of knowledge as how much we know, whereas wisdom is how we use that knowledge.
Job 28:28 tells us that the fear of Yahweh, that is wisdom. A direct assertion is made. Then you can conclude from a Biblical perspective, those who do not believe in Yahweh do not have wisdom. In Ecclesiastes 12 at the conclusion of the chapter, we are told what makes a man complete is the fear of Yahweh and keeping all the commandments.
If we keep all of Yahweh's commandments, we have wisdom, though we may not be "worldly wise" (1 Corinthians 3:19) we are foresighted - another synonym of being wise. Sinners will be destroyed. They are many ideas floating around in the world today regarding what happens after death. Reincarnation beliefs suggest one will have chance after chance to live again, with no recollection of previous lives, therefore obviously destined to repeat the same mistakes. Does that sound right to you? Does that sound logical? No, of course not, only a judgment for our lives is. All must give account for the life that has been granted to us by Yahweh.
Let's consider wisdom a bit more. Have you ever considered the majesty of Yahweh's Laws? They prevent us from making mistakes in life, things which we could later come to regret. Take for example the dietary laws of Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14, not only am I convinced that keeping these laws helps us to maintain strong and robust bodies, but they help us to be health-conscious and ask questions. From a youth I have been taught to ask questions about the food I eat, and this hasn't just been limited to the food I eat, but also to other subjects, such as doctrines I believe, or any other secular subjects, to be a confronter and ask questions. Being able to ask questions about the things that matter before we make decisions is a valuable skill to have to be able to navigate this life safely.
The Laws of Yahweh are a wonderful thing and they keep us away from many problems in life. But not only this but they help us to see Yahweh's personality and most importantly, will allow us entrance in to the Kingdom of Yahweh. Is there any life situation we wouldn't know how to react to with Yahweh's Law to guide us? I don't think there is.
In 2 Corinthians 1:12, Paul says "...we have done so, relying not on worldly wisdom but on Yahweh's grace". You could have much wisdom but the wisdom of the world changes. Take for example the fact that what is widely accepted in science now may not be accepted in the future. The one thing we can rely on is the law of Yahweh to provide us light in the direction we go, just as what Proverbs 6:23 says:
"For the commandment is a lamp; and the law is light;
And reproofs of instruction are the way of life" (Proverbs 6:23)
When Yahshua our Savior walked this earth, Satan tried to get Yahshua to sin (transgress the law) but Yahshua had wisdom - he knew the scriptures and was able to outwit a very crafty being. Have you ever considered that had Yahshua not passed the test there in Matthew 4 and Luke 4 that he wouldn't have been our Messiah but also would have injured himself terribly, by jumping from an elevated height.
Satan is trying to get people to reject the wisdom of Yahweh. Most people in the world reject the heavenly wisdom of the Word, but if people took the time to consider the laws of Yahweh they would realize how exceedingly good and wise these laws really are. Ecclesiastes 9:18 says "Wisdom is better than weapons of war; but one sinner destroyeth much good". This life is a battle, but if we have the wisdom that comes from the Word on our side we can emerge from the fight victorious.
Before I end my post, I thought I should address empiricism. You mention it in your post as something that you believe in. Empiricism is the idea that all learning comes from only experience and observations. You don't have to learn through the experience of doing both good and evil and figuring out what is good and what is evil, what works and what doesn't. If you do that you are going to waste a whole lot of time and still at the end of your life you may never get to the truth. The great thing about the Bible is the Bible teaches that experience of doing *good*, is how you can learn and gain wisdom, in other words by keeping the Laws of Yahweh. You don't have to experience the evil.
Do you remember Adam and Eve? They knew the good but they also wanted to know the evil too. Perhaps Eve in her mind thought that by knowing the evil, she wouldn't need to rely on Yahweh for solutions, she would then be able to make her own decisions. Instant knowledge. Yahweh says, You don't want to know the evil. What I'm telling you is how you can differentiate between good and evil, now do the good. Just as with your children, you don't let them experience both good and evil. You try to get them to experience only the good. When you tell your child, don't touch the hot stove, you're telling them you don't want them to experience the pain of something that is hot and possibly injure themselves. In the same way, Yahweh wants us to experience only the good, not the evil, at least by our actions. Sometimes evil comes in to our lives and we have no say in it. But as the scripture says "Whoso keepeth the commandment shall know no evil thing; and a wise man’s heart discerneth time and judgment" (Ecclesiastes 8:5).
Thank you for an interesting and polite reply. I disagree with much of it, but not all.
It did for me. I left Christianity several decades ago and traded reason applied to evidence and innate moral intuitions for faith and received moral codes. I generated a new worldview and map of reality with which to navigate it - rules to live by. With a lot of luck (born to a good family in a good time and place family, no premature deadly diseases, no serious accidents, etc.) I've lived a rich, full, and satisfying life, and now, in my retirement, live comfortably and happily. How do you propose to improve on that?
I agree, and that is very close to the definition I give. This is from a recent post: "See if you can come up with short, clear descriptions of what these words mean such that one could easily decide if a given idea meets them as I did for wisdom - knowledge of what will bring relatively lasting satisfaction in life, that is, knowing what to pursue and what to avoid to be satisfied - perhaps in a mate, or a career as I suggested."
Intelligence is knowing how to get what you want, and wisdom is knowing what most closely brings lasting satisfaction. In other words, inteligence is knowing thelayout of the city and how to get anywhere, where wisdom is knowing where to head to.
What you are saying in the light of my definition of wisdom, which I believe is compatible with your own, is that I would have had a better life if I had remained a dutiful Christian, that if I could live life both ways, remember them both, and be able to live one of them again, it would be the religious life. I don't believe that. I have a lot of evidence to the contrary. If you disagree, perhaps you can suggest how that path would have improved my life relative to this humanistic life I've lived. If not, what is the justification for your comment or your use of the word wisdom there?
Why would I believe in an afterlife, or judgment in it? It's possible only because there is no way to show that it is impossible, but that's true for all ideas about what lies outside of experience. I also have no reason to believe in reincarnation, so I don't. But as with gods and afterlives, I also don't claim to know that it is impossible or doesn't occur. You've picked one to believe.
Disagree. I've ignored those dietary laws. I eat lobster and mix milk and meat. People I know who have kept kosher aren't healthier. They don't live longer or get sick less. And what does it mean to be health conscious in the absence of any science of nutrition or medicine? Learning which mushrooms will kill you and avoiding them? Contemporary advisors seem to reverse themselves on just about everything every few years - salt, eggs, coffee, sugar, etc.. I would hardly call it wisdom to go to Christian scripture for help there.
Incidentally, I have a different idea for why Jews don't eat pork unrelated to health. I think they considered swine gods early in their history, before they adopted anthropoid gods. In the evolution of religions, we go from animal pantheons to half-man, half-animal pantheons, to man-shaped pantheons, to monotheism (then deism and then atheism). This represents the increasing awareness that man has a special gift elevating him over the beasts - intelligence. He wasn't always aware of that. Once, the fastest and strongest beasts were considered superior and worshipped, as with crows and bears where those are found.
For the Jews, the deadliest beasts might have been wild boar. The Egyptians had asps and crocodiles to fear, but the Jews were further north. They didn't have bears or hippos to fear. Anyway, there needs to be a good reason to willingly sacrifice a good source of protein, and the threat of trichinosis likely wasn't it, just as the risk of brucellosis doesn't cause pastoral peoples to stop drinking milk. They can't afford to give it up. They must face that risk if they can't prevent it as with pasteurization. The Jews must have had a reason to do that and make it a commandment.
And here's another place we are in agreement. Of course, more is needed than that. One needs to learn empirically (experience, trial and error), and one must have reliable resources to consult. Asking the wrong people means getting bad advice and poor navigation.
Once again, if you can't show it, you don't know it. That's a claim that is either demonstrably correct or demonstrably incorrect. I have followed those laws and then not. My experience is the latter. I avoided most problems following my own rules. Does that mean anything to you? What do you say to a person who is satisfied with humanism and its results to make him wonder if he is missing anything? It would need to be more than just a claim. It would need to be something demonstrably true.
It did for me. I left Christianity several decades ago and traded reason applied to evidence and innate moral intuitions for faith and received moral codes. I generated a new worldview and map of reality with which to navigate it - rules to live by. With a lot of luck (born to a good family in a good time and place family, no premature deadly diseases, no serious accidents, etc.) I've lived a rich, full, and satisfying life, and now, in my retirement, live comfortably and happily. How do you propose to improve on that?
I agree, and that is very close to the definition I give. This is from a recent post: "See if you can come up with short, clear descriptions of what these words mean such that one could easily decide if a given idea meets them as I did for wisdom - knowledge of what will bring relatively lasting satisfaction in life, that is, knowing what to pursue and what to avoid to be satisfied - perhaps in a mate, or a career as I suggested."
Intelligence is knowing how to get what you want, and wisdom is knowing what most closely brings lasting satisfaction. In other words, inteligence is knowing thelayout of the city and how to get anywhere, where wisdom is knowing where to head to.
What you are saying in the light of my definition of wisdom, which I believe is compatible with your own, is that I would have had a better life if I had remained a dutiful Christian, that if I could live life both ways, remember them both, and be able to live one of them again, it would be the religious life. I don't believe that. I have a lot of evidence to the contrary. If you disagree, perhaps you can suggest how that path would have improved my life relative to this humanistic life I've lived. If not, what is the justification for your comment or your use of the word wisdom there?
Why would I believe in an afterlife, or judgment in it? It's possible only because there is no way to show that it is impossible, but that's true for all ideas about what lies outside of experience. I also have no reason to believe in reincarnation, so I don't. But as with gods and afterlives, I also don't claim to know that it is impossible or doesn't occur. You've picked one to believe.
Disagree. I've ignored those dietary laws. I eat lobster and mix milk and meat. People I know who have kept kosher aren't healthier. They don't live longer or get sick less. And what does it mean to be health conscious in the absence of any science of nutrition or medicine? Learning which mushrooms will kill you and avoiding them? Contemporary advisors seem to reverse themselves on just about everything every few years - salt, eggs, coffee, sugar, etc.. I would hardly call it wisdom to go to Christian scripture for help there.
Incidentally, I have a different idea for why Jews don't eat pork unrelated to health. I think they considered swine gods early in their history, before they adopted anthropoid gods. In the evolution of religions, we go from animal pantheons to half-man, half-animal pantheons, to man-shaped pantheons, to monotheism (then deism and then atheism). This represents the increasing awareness that man has a special gift elevating him over the beasts - intelligence. He wasn't always aware of that. Once, the fastest and strongest beasts were considered superior and worshipped, as with crows and bears where those are found.
For the Jews, the deadliest beasts might have been wild boar. The Egyptians had asps and crocodiles to fear, but the Jews were further north. They didn't have bears or hippos to fear. Anyway, there needs to be a good reason to willingly sacrifice a good source of protein, and the threat of trichinosis likely wasn't it, just as the risk of brucellosis doesn't cause pastoral peoples to stop drinking milk. They can't afford to give it up. They must face that risk if they can't prevent it as with pasteurization. The Jews must have had a reason to do that and make it a commandment.
And here's another place we are in agreement. Of course, more is needed than that. One needs to learn empirically (experience, trial and error), and one must have reliable resources to consult. Asking the wrong people means getting bad advice and poor navigation.
Once again, if you can't show it, you don't know it. That's a claim that is either demonstrably correct or demonstrably incorrect. I have followed those laws and then not. My experience is the latter. I avoided most problems following my own rules. Does that mean anything to you? What do you say to a person who is satisfied with humanism and its results to make him wonder if he is missing anything? It would need to be more than just a claim. It would need to be something demonstrably true.
Last edited: