reverend e’s totally righteous church of reason: thought of the day.157

Thursday, December 18, 2008

thought of the day.157

Rather than filling our children’s heads with thoughts of ghosts, gods and goblins, it seems the world would be a far better place if we simply taught them to question everything, cause no needless suffering, and be kind.

19 comments:

DosAggDad said...: John, It's Darrell.

I have been bouncing around this blog and becoming more and more convinced that nothing really ever connects between people of different views in the various discussions and there are so many of them it is hard for my simple brain to keep up with it all.

But as I said on FB, I really liked this thought of the day and related comments and perhaps by posting independently of all, I can also avoid the length of others response and in the end, perhaps focus to just you and I talking.

On top, I generally agree with these 3 points as being semi universal, still i have a couple thoughts:

First, to define:
needless = unnecessary, unwanted
suffering = feel pain or distress
kind = good or benevolent nature or disposition; helpful
question = dispute or uncertainty

These are all nice definitions from dictionary.com, I would tend to think you would generally agree. But I have still a hard time understanding them without context and certainly in situation where there are no absolutes (#138 - which oddly to me is the only place in all your blog you deal with this word and it is not even your own choice).

So where there are no absolutes, how do i comprehend what is "unnecessary" and is it possible that a Hitler type thought it was indeed necessary and needful for the Jews to suffer. Cant it be said that this indeed was his premise?

In fact, isnt suffering even now uncertain if we do not have an absolute standard? regarding this needless suffering, I often think of my mom. She was born in 1941 in Germany amidst the Allied attack. Her younger brother died because the hospital had been bombed. whose suffering was less needed, theirs or the Americans who could have died, or more Jews, if Germany was not forced to surrender. And her mindset continues... she would have it that my two kids would never experience any pain (really, none). That scared me to a point that in my will I did not let them be the guardians if Cindy and I were to die. This I think is what you intended by qualifying it as needless since some suffering is good, still who gets to define?

Moving on to kindness is another well intentioned trait we would like to see in one another. It borders on but does not quite make it to love, but is good for now. I recall once my daughter at 5, had been badly misbehaving, willfully disobedient. You may not like it, but I believe in spankings (discipline out of love, not punishment). I had to spank her, but following all spankings was a time to be close, to hug and assure love for her. this one time in particular, she would not hug, she clearly thought I was not being of a benevolent nature. Some other events occur which I may tell you about some time, and she did eventually come bounding into my arms to apologize. very tearful moment, still hits me when I think of it. Just to let you know these spankings so did not scar her for life that she would hold my hand across parking lots until 13!

So whose definition of kindness? Not sure your opinion of Pres GW Bush, dont really care, but to whom should he have been kind? The Iraqi people or the Iraqi rulers? Maybe this gets into needful suffering. I know JFK in his inauguration spoke of it as our responsibility to work to free other peoples. He had Vietnam in mind i think.

I love asking questions and learning, and even gauge intelligence or interest of others by the questions they raise. Again, being able to think there are absolutes helps guide me... there are so many corollary thoughts jumping to mind: science, evolution, abortion, wow abortion, dont answer this but wouldnt that be an interesting topic in the needless suffering vs kindness dichotomy!?

So I want to conclude as while I cannot see what all I have written, it feels pretty long.

You appear to have your own Bible (what version and do you mark it up? I sure do!). I would like to lead this conversation back there, but first I want to get your brain engaged on what I have written to see if you think any of it makes sense. I like the way your brain works. You want to be logical. I am an accountant by trade, but I have a distinctly logical thinking process and benefit my clients by the possibilities I can think of to various situations. it appears we both enjoy thinking.

John, I have such good memories of you in back in Richardson. I hope and look forward to moving those forward now and by no means want to become argumentative. thanks for the opportunity to share.; January 29, 2009 at 11:04 PM
DosAggDad said...: John, I did get 156 and 157 mixed up some. I liked the overall conversation of 157 better since it seemed for one time that I have seen across reading many, that more of the group kind of came together. Still, I think i want to stay on this one for a couple reasons:
1. I do like this topic and it is the foundation of my first post
2. others posted to 156 and chances are they will receive continued posts and want to enter the discussion and I am perfectly content if you and i can meet alone on your blog to keep our thoughts more centered. It seems some responders may tend to pick a part of the discussion where my brain kind of focuses on perhaps the main theme.

As such, I have copied your response over here.

Darrell,
Thanks for taking the time to define what we are talking about. And I do agree with the definitions. Off to a good start! Though I think defining “absolute” would be very good before we get into this as that seems to be the central topic. Please provide your understanding of what an absolute is, and providing examples would be very helpful.

Thanks and look forward to the conversation as this is something that I am trying to understand myself.

January 30, 2009 10:25 PM; January 31, 2009 at 11:12 PM
john evans said...: Darrell,
O.K., we are ready to roll now! I am assuming you understand God or the bible to be “absolute truth.” Is that right? Is there any other definition of absolute truth you want to add?; January 31, 2009 at 11:34 PM
DosAggDad said...: So, thanks for asking for examples on absolute since it is kind of hard to define well without them. You are right that we define it.

back to my first source, dictionary.com, some insight comes:
>something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative ).

This one of the many related thoughts listed I think best suits my thinking of the word. An absolute truth is therefore something that is always true, not being subject to what man may say or do about it or any other force since such force cannot change it. Thus relative is subject to what man beleives or thinks thus is by nature changing, moldable. As such, we get examples:

1. Absolute Zero (kelvin) the point at which there is zero activity of energy, no moving molecules.
2. the philosophical or logical principle: Law of Contradictions, that a statement and its opposite cannot both be true at the same time under the same conditions, like at 2pm 1/31/09 over Grapevine, the sky was blue, it cannot not be blue at the same time.
3. Speed of Light is 186,000 miles per second.
4. The logical sequence of Modus Ponens, whereby, if P then Q, know P to be true, therefore Q is true.
5. in math, 1 + 1 = 2, or x2 + 1 > 0 for all real numbers x.

I want to stop there and get your input as I have more questions and thoughts but are meaningless unless we have foundational agreement.

thoughts?

dj; January 31, 2009 at 11:35 PM
DosAggDad said...: I am going to wait for your answer first, even though you beat me to the post as I figured you had to sleep some time!; January 31, 2009 at 11:37 PM
john evans said...: Thanks for the definition and examples. I have no quarrel with those examples being “true.”( Though I would be inclined to call them “facts” rather than “truth.”) But I would stop there. I would say they are true to the best of our knowledge at this time in history. To me, it is beyond us as human beings to be able to claim anything as “absolute.” How can we, when we are anything but? How could light know darkness, good know evil, wet know dry?

To me, the idea of “absolute” is much the same as the idea of “God.” The instant we conceive a notion about “God” we have necessarily fashioned an idol out of our subjective experiences. How could it be otherwise?

It seems more reasonable to simply call something true, false or something in between. To tack on the word “absolute” adds unnecessary confusion.

If I were forced to use the word “absolute” I would say Reality is absolute. And would quickly add that because we see Reality through a glass darkly as they say, we cannot fully access it rendering it forever beyond us and rather pointless to discuss.

Having said all that, I also would quickly add that I am likely totally wrong. Your thoughts?; February 1, 2009 at 12:03 AM
DosAggDad said...: We really have to work on this God fixation of yours! ha! I have not once said anything about a supernatural external force, you on the other hand...!!!!

So enough levity, a little about me: Yes ok, as in my facebook profile, I gladly announce that I Love Jesus. You may even think back to BHS days and recall some of that. I have distinct thoughts about who God is, his character, his traits (The Absolute? I am open to discuss, but later) But also like you, I have continued to seek the truth, so my thoughts come both from the Bible and reasoning and looking into other stuff such as the Koran. Oct 07 I finished a 2+ yr trek to finish reading that book, thinking if there was any truth in it or something to get me to believe, it had to have prophecy, miracles and love. I found none... except for the many times big M stole stories from the Bible, otherwise I found a highly disjointed, illogical book. I guess it sounds better in Arabic.

Another side of me is that I will generally be able to commit to addressing each issue you raise, each question you ask. Oh, and I love to laugh, so have enjoyed our humorous posts and you likely cant make me mad, though not a dare.

another post coming on absolutes - also dont like to get too long winded at one sitting.

dj; February 1, 2009 at 10:10 PM
DosAggDad said...: Now, your view of absolutes is not entirely surprising to me, yet a lingering couple of questions nag at me... but I just reread your response, man there are so many thoughts to deal with...

You actually answered a question I do not think I asked. It seems you answered that it is beyond humans to know absolutes, but I think I asked are there any. there is a fine difference there.

but first, I have three foundational questions, one you may have heard of in your readings and study:

1. As an evangelical atheist, you say there is no god. right? So I must ask you, with as big as the universe is and as much knowledge exists in the universe, in its entirety, have you been everywhere in the universe or know everything in the universe? (your response should help me get back to absolutes, I promise)

2. How does science work without known absolutes and dont science adherents promote science principles as absolute, such as the 3 or 4 Laws of Thermodynamics, physics laws dealing with bodies in motion will remain in motion, blah blah blah, and yes even inter species evolution?

3. and a person like yourself, how do you function to reason thru things you see darkly, even making the claim the world would be far better if we just caused no needless suffering and were kind, how can you or a group you may belong to not be already subconsciously basing all you believe on an absolute? Or maybe you really dont...

dj

Oh, another thing about me, I try very hard to not use sarcasm, I try very hard to pick the correct words to say. WYSIWYG. Will get back to your truth and reality stuff later.; February 1, 2009 at 10:27 PM
DosAggDad said...: one last thing and I will leave you alone, for awhile.

I think if it makes you more comfortable, I am ok with exchanging the word true for absolute.

the only problem I think i have is i see the opposite of absolute is relative and the opposite of true is false, and while true and absolute are similar, I dont as much equate relative to false.; February 1, 2009 at 10:33 PM
john evans said...: Darrell, I am very impressed that you read through the Koran. I think that says a great deal about your desire for truth. I did not have your patience nor dedication to read the entire book but I concur that it is largely a poor rip off of the bible. (Much like the ridiculous Book of Mormon.)

Oh, and I would add words such as mysonginistic, violent, petty, hateful, etc to your words disjointed and illogical to describe the Koran.; February 2, 2009 at 8:05 AM
john evans said...: To your questions.

1. No reasonable atheist claims to know there is no god. That would be is unreasonable as claiming to know there is one. Atheists simply treat the god of the bible as you do all the thousands of gods of history. And things like the tooth fairy, Santa and Big Foot. Because there is no evidence for such things it is reasonable to think they do not exist.

2. I would say science is dependent on nature having certain characteristics that we have labeled Laws. To me, this has nothing to do with anything “absolute”. Science would become religion if it started talking of absolutes and did not leave the door open to dismiss previously held truths or understandings of the workings of nature.

3. I know absolutely nothing with 100% certainity. Though I highly doubt it, I could be a character in some giant alien creature’s dream. But I can reason without certainty, and need no god to be good; February 2, 2009 at 8:17 AM
john evans said...: To your questions.

1. No reasonable atheist claims to know there is no god. That would be is unreasonable as claiming to know there is one. Atheists simply treat the god of the bible as you do all the thousands of gods of history. And things like the tooth fairy, Santa and Big Foot. Because there is no evidence for such things it is reasonable to think they do not exist.

2. I would say science is dependent on nature having certain characteristics that we have labeled Laws. To me, this has nothing to do with anything “absolute”. Science would become religion if it started talking of absolutes and did not leave the door open to dismiss previously held truths or understandings of the workings of nature.

3. I know absolutely nothing with 100% certainity. Though I highly doubt it, I could be a character in some giant alien creature’s dream. But I can reason without certainty, and need no god to be good; February 2, 2009 at 8:17 AM
john evans said...: Sorry about the double posting! I like what you said here, “... i see the opposite of absolute is relative and the opposite of true is false, and while true and absolute are similar, I dont as much equate relative to false.”

The little bit of reading I have done about “truth” made my head spin a little. Seems there are a quite a few trains of thought about it. Not as black and white as I once imagined.

And actually, I would be most comfortable using the word “Reality” in place of truth. I see truth as but a human perception of reality.; February 2, 2009 at 8:27 AM
DosAggDad said...: sorry for delay in responding, had some kid things and related travel to handle. I expect to get back to you Sun afternoon.

dj; February 8, 2009 at 12:25 AM
DosAggDad said...: the conversation risen anew:

John Evans at 2:52pm May 11
Having once been a Christian I certainly understand your perspective. I see it not as turning backs on anything but turning to face the truth. A very healthy and positive thing. Of course, non-belief in a God does not in itself make for a better world. Whether believer in such things or not, it is compassion that the world needs more of and I am sure that is something we can agree on.

Ken Koester at 7:22pm May 11
Man, I have to say that a lack of compassion for your fellow man has never been a Christian or non-believer exclusive. It is a basic human failure.

For me, the gift of Grace and loving your neighbor as yourself is at the heart of Christianity.

http://www.waterisbasic.org/home/... Read More
http://www.iamsecond.com/
http://www.irvingbible.org/index.php?id=1387
http://www.tableandfire.com/

John Evans at 8:26pm May 11
Hey Koester! Thanks for chiming in. Totally agree with your thought about compassion. Nice to hear what you consider to be the heart of Christianity. I would say loving your neighbor as yourself is also the heart of millions of people‘s completely secular philosophies. Wouldn’t it be great if we were all better at practicing it!

Darrell Jolley at 7:46am May 13
John, seeing this conversation makes me want to fight to get back to our prior string of dialogue, but i remain entirely overwhelmed with work and life, hope soon though... but for this thought about compassion, wouldnt you have to say that the practice of loving self more than neighbor is so much more common in the world, perhaps 99:1, as the lead motivator? But you are right, world would be great!

John Evans at 8:15am May 13
Hi Darrell. Very nice to hear from you. Sound busy!

Loving self more than neighbor is the default position of all humans no matter their religion/philosophy. We are wired to be self-focused. Though religions all preach love, I would argue that Christianity (and Islam too!) actually fosters this sense of self-importance, raising it to a level of ... Read Moremegalomania. To believe that I am so special that the Creator of the universe watches my ever move, knows the number of hairs on my precious little head (not too hard to keep track of that!), knows my every thought, listens intently to my every petition, sends guardian angels to protect me, has a grand plan for my life, wants desperately to have a “relationship” with me, loves me more than I can ever know (but will torture me forever and ever if I don’t love him back!), is saddened when I sleep in on a Sunday, and so on, is not humility but arrogance in my opinion.

Getting beyond self is the goal and one needs no gods to do that.

Darrell Jolley at 8:30am May 13
You're going to make me talk to you arent you!? Ok, but again, I never said anything about God, just people... so, if people default to love self, yet you say loving neighbor as self is at heart of millions (granted millions as % of 6 billion is still just a few), how do people get beyond the default?

John Evans at 9:01am May 13
I think the overwhelming majority of people all over the world firmly believe in the “Golden Rule... Read More”. (Stated long before the Jesus character of course). This is an evolved characteristic of our makeup no less a part of us than digestion or the need to sleep. We are social creatures that depend on each other to survive so we evolved a sense of behavior we call “morality.” But there is a tension between our drive for self-preservation (self-love) and our drive for our species preservation (love of neighbor).

One key to overcoming our natural inclination to be so self-focused is to realize it is not all about us/me. I am not the apple of a god’s eye. The universe was not made just for me and my species. I am not at the center of reality.

We are just one of countless species. But I am connected to all of them and to all that exists including the most far flung stars. I think understanding this connection breeds compassion. It expands our circle of concern to take in the ALL.

Darrell Jolley at 5:21pm May 13
There are a few items i would like to talk about, now that you have me hooked, but I want to "take this outside" (back to your blog) since while it could be a fun spectacle, the length of our tyrades will bore some and elicit unwanted comments from the cheer sections.; May 13, 2009 at 10:22 PM
DosAggDad said...: You may or may not be right about the claim re: most earthians go by golden rule, but Interesting you connect Golden rule to compassion, just like Jesus connected GR to love in his teaching, by juxtaposition, talking of loving your enemies to show real love; love is the motivator, GR is the outward show (dictionary.com defines as a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering, with likely emphasis on deep and strong.)

but to your post (it took me an hour to find this and now sleepy, so just one question):

Q1. Thinking you have not yet fully answered my question of how we people get beyond the default, you did say I need to recognize the world is not centered around me, but I do not think that is particularly practical... from blood diamond to madoff, people seem to show animous, not love, and asking them to just look at how they connect to the universe is going to matter little to such a person. so is this all you have for helping people love (deep) others as themselves?

dj; May 13, 2009 at 10:53 PM
john evans said...: Darrell,

Thanks for copying the conversation and bringing it over here. I’d like to first admit that I was a little uncomfortable about my postings on facebook simply for the fact that I had given little thought to them—kind just shooting from the hip. The question of how morality evolved and the motivations behind our behavior is obviously much more complex than what I offered. I also realize I provided a rather superficial response to your question of what motivates love of other.

Clearly, some people are better at loving their neighbor than others. And clearly, this has nothing to do with one’s worldview. There are great humanitarian Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Jews, Wiccans, Mormons, agnostics, atheists and so on. There are also self-absorbed assholes who are Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, Jews, Wiccans, Mormons, agnostics, atheists and so on who may pay lip service to caring for their neighbor but never do a thing to help them.

So we can rule out beliefs in gods or creeds or purely secular philosophies as the motivator of compassion/love. Agreed?

Though my original answer was not very in depth I think it is close to accurate. The key is empathy. The ability to look at another life and understand that that life wants to live too. Wants to live without suffering, with a sense of dignity, freedom, and all the things we ourselves value. We have to learn to look at another person and see ourselves—our fears, hopes, disappointments, joys, etc. If we look at other people (and other life forms as well) as separate, unconnected things it is more difficult to generate that sense of concern for them.

That is why the fact of evolution is a powerful unifying truth. We are not distinct races-we are all African beneath our skin. We are not isolated, species-we are all connected. The stars are not simply distant lights in the sky as the bible says but the very things that generated the elements for life—we are children of the stars, we are the universe grown conscious of itself.

So to summarize I would say teaching children that they are connected to everything and instilling a sense of empathy is the key. Comes back to the simplicity of the Golden Rule. We have always tried to teach our kids to put themselves in the place of the other person to try to understand how they feel. Easier said than done! For me personally, it takes great discipline and effort and i fail miserably more often than not I am sure. I love to preach about compassion but I am no where near as compassionate as I should be.; May 14, 2009 at 8:27 AM
DosAggDad said...: John, question on the side:

Regarding your post on a FB site for daily Jesus or some such: "John Evans at 4:32pm May 16
Jesus did not come to bring Peace to the world but a SWORD! ...to make a person’s worst enemies his own family. Mt 10:34-36," will you admit that it is possible that you do not understand at least some of the verses you provide commentary on, that there actually is a true meaning that is opposite what you seem to think? Just possible?

dj; May 17, 2009 at 7:31 PM
john evans said...: Hi Darrell,

How did you find that? I thought I deleted that. I was a bit embarrassed that I did that. (Not terribly sophisticated thinkers on there by what I could tell and is really not the place for my shenanigans!) I just got a wild hair and went on there to see what it was like and thought I would stir things up a bit by posting a few scriptures.

I would say it is more than possible but absolutely true that I misinterpret scriptures! But even the most accomplished biblical scholars differ in opinion on interpretation. I of course am no scholar! Some of that confusion must be laid at the feet of the communicator -- Jesus was a master of unclear communication!

In regard to that post about Jesus not coming to bring peace I made sure not to add any commentary...simply posted Jesus’ own words.

Any time you see that I have mangled some interpretation please point it out and I will be grateful for the insight and gladly correct my blunder!; May 17, 2009 at 7:52 PM

reverend e’s totally righteous church of reason

Thursday, December 18, 2008

thought of the day.157

19 comments:

the rev’s faves

links to enlightenment

10 reasons christianity is toxic

Blog Archive

About Me