2 cents on religion — Pretty sure I have never hated any group, a couple of individuals have come close ...
Although every institution of religion. be it a three person cult or a global church, is, in my opinion a festering pit of purulence, there is no hate there, just a strong desire to stay upwind. When it comes to both science and religion I cannot understand either: 1) the rush to promulgate a "definitive answer;" or the pronouncement that "those questions lead not to edification." BTW: proselytization of any "Truth" should be a serious felony and conviction of same should result in permanent exile from the community. davew On Fri, Sep 25, 2020, at 5:25 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote: > This isn't in response to Nick, just a convenient place to hit "Reply" in a > thread in which I've already deleted most of the past messages. My own take > on why to hate religion and/or religious people is based on my upbringing in > and around a population of fairly uneducated, intolerant religious bigots in > northeast Kansas. There was one, and only one, "true" way to believe, and > that was a "fire and brimstone" authoritarian father figure as "God", and us > poor mortals as worms whose only hope to escape painfully burning for > eternity in hell, was to admit how much filth we are and beg humbly and > fervently for forgiveness for being that way. I grew up believing all that > crap. I loved nature, so I was drawn to biology. Unfortunately, my high > school biology teacher was a deacon in the Baptist church and fervent > creationist. I went to University to study biology, with a huge chip on my > shoulder, determined to prove these evolution-believing numbskull professors > of their folly. I basically wasted the first three years of my college > education believing that creationist shit. Somehow I finally saw through it > and became a "born-again atheist". My hero is Richard Dawkins. In my case, > that was the only way I had been exposed to religion, and once I rejected it, > I've found it much easier (maybe I'm lazy) to reject religion out of hand > with the same fervor that those intolerant people of my childhood did, and > continue to, embrace it. > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:04 PM <[email protected]> wrote: >> reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep disdain and hatred many in >> Science____ >> __ __ >> Yeah. Richard Dawkins and three other loonies. I was in a chatgroup with >> hard scientists, etc., from all over the world for about a year, and I was >> the only avowed non-religious person on the chat. The european physicists >> were all dedicated cartesians seeking truth in the real world … I e, the >> world that god knows and we aspire to know. Any belief in a world beyond >> experience is a religious belief. ____ >> __ __ >> I persist in thinking the key word is “hate”, here. The way you speak >> these “many”, with their “deep distain and hatred” in such sweeping terms, >> it seems that you hate them. So what exactly is hate. I think it’s an >> attempt to recruit allies to expell the target from one’s universe, to exile >> them. But Frank is right: There is an element of “*get thee behind me”* in >> hatred. You cannot hate what you don’t feel in some degree attached to. So >> the key to resolving hatred is to find the tie that binds one to the thing >> one hates, and snip it. Once you have done that, one doesn’t need allies >> any more. You just walk away. ____ >> __ __ >> So, Steve. What do you find **attractive** in the scientistic denial of >> faith? I am guessing that it has to do with their claim of certainty. But >> certainty is something that ony a religious person can have. Or, to put >> it round the other way, Whenever we speak with certainty, we are speaking >> from the religious side of ourselves. As I am doing right now. ____ >> __ __ >> Nick ____ >> Nicholas Thompson____ >> Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology____ >> Clark University____ >> [email protected]____ >> https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/____ >> ____ >> __ __ >> __ __ >> *From:* Friam <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Stephen Guerin >> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 10:41 AM >> *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> >> *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] God in Science and Religion (was Re: why some people >> hate cops)____ >> __ __ >> __ __ >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:42 AM Marcus Daniels <[email protected]> >> wrote:____ >>> I don’t, for example, recognize quantum mechanics as truth. If it turns >>> out there is a convincing explanation why nature has to be this way, then >>> it has to be this way and the “divine” has been cornered. If nature can >>> be some other way, in regimes that are hard for today’s technology to >>> observe, then those are interesting qualifications or alternative models. >>> It’s all just provisional. ____ >> __ __ >> I brought up Planck's views for two reasons:____ >> * His views on religion and his rejection of its foundation of miracle and >> superstition ____ >> * His challenge to the most sophisticated of scientists with "generalized >> world views" that an understanding/model of "God" is a worthy goal for a >> scientist.____ >> While I think Action and Bidirectional Path Tracing in Dual Fields is a >> potential model (Glen and Jon can unpack that in a steel man) I don't want >> to get distracted by the "How" the synthesis might happen. To borrow from >> Eric Smith in the Jim Rutt Podcast >> <https://jimruttshow.blubrry.net/the-jim-rutt-show-transcripts/transcript-of-episode-40-eric-smith-on-the-physics-of-living-systems/>: >> "we shouldn’t try to spin scenarios at this point". ____ >> __ __ >> And for full disclosure, upon reflection, my post was mostly targeted at >> Eric Smith after I saw his comment on Marcus's post. >> >> First was to use Marcus's post as a reiteration of evidence to Eric the deep >> disdain and hatred many in Science have for Religion which we've talked >> about in the past and second to potentially engage Eric as one of the few >> scientists I know with a sufficient "generalized world view" to see the most >> basic patterns in Science and attempt a synthesis. If not leading the >> synthesis, at least playing bullshit detector and helping in pointing out >> potential formalizations.____ >> >> FWIW, Eric's close colleague, the late Harold Morowitz, expressed similar >> views as Max Planck. ____ >> see: >> https://www.amazon.com/Cosmic-Joy-Local-Pain-Scientist/dp/0684184435 ____ >> __ __ >> I know Eric is resistant at the value or even the worthiness of this >> pursuit. I put this out as a public challenge to Eric and he can decline. I >> think it could be one of the greatest scientific contributions of our time. >> ____ >> __ __ >> To Marcus, Glen and Jon, I will try to refrain from casting pearls ;-p >> (meant in humor)____ >> -Stephen____ >> __ __ >> __ __ >> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam >> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ >> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
