Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: jeremyp on November 16, 2015, 01:17:57 PM
-
This involves France, and is trivial in comparison with other events, but it demonstrates the main problem i have with religion.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-cancels-official-dinner-with-irans-president-rouhani-because-he-wants-it-to-be-wine-free-a6729581.html
There was to be a State dinner held by President Hollande for the Iranian PM but it had to be cancelled because the Iranian PM insisted, not only that he not be served wine (and be served halal meat) but neither should anybody else present. Faced with a choice of diplomatic incident or not drinking wine with their meal, the French chose diplomatic incident.
I have no problem with Muslims or any other religionist obeying their own silly little rules, but if you want me to obey them too, you can go forth and multiply*.
*Original wording euphemised at the request of Bashful Anthony.
-
Utterly, blitheringly trivial example that manifests the exact same principle: a recent episode of a popular Channel 4 programme involving reciprocal dinner parties (yes, that one) featured a Muslim guest, teetotal and halal meat only, who was served no alcohol and was given a specially-made alternative not involving meat. When it came time for this guest to play host, she served no alcohol to the other guests who may have wanted some on the grounds that she doesn't have alcohol in her house, so nobody else can gave any.
Trivial fluff in itself, but so like the current example in the OP that I couldn't help sharing it. It exhibits all the same hallmarks of rigidity, inflexibility, inability to ... I was going to say accomodate another person's point of view but for the fact it isn't even an accomodation, it's the utter failure to do your own thing and go your own way while other people do their thing.
-
If I go to a vegetarian house, I do not expect to be served meat. If the dining programme had been about a vegetarian and some meat eaters I would have expected those who are meat either to serve all vegetarian dishes, or ones for the vegetarian alone. I would not expect the vegetarian to serve meat to the meat eaters. So I think the analogy with the French dinner does not work as being about the evils of religion.
-
If I go to a vegetarian house, I do not expect to be served meat. If the dining programme had been about a vegetarian and some meat eaters I would have expected those who are meat either to serve all vegetarian dishes, or ones for the vegetarian alone. I would not expect the vegetarian to serve meat to the meat eaters. So I think the analogy with the French dinner does not work as being about the evils of religion.
No, this is about the wine. The Iranian PM insisted that nobody be allowed to drink wine at the meal organised by the French because of his religious principle.
-
I was picking up on Shaker's,post and saying I didn't think it analogous to the, what I presume, is the Come Dine with Me Example.
-
I was picking up on Shaker's,post and saying I didn't think it analogous to the, what I presume, is the Come Dine with Me Example.
I agree with you on that. As the president of France visiting Iran, I would not expect to be served alcohol. The OP is about the reciprocal arrangement.
-
Seems to me that neither side actually wanted a meeting, just an opportunity to display how obstinate they could be.
-
Except, of course, there is actually a meeting. Just one where the requisite amount of face is saved.
-
Think it is both a bit more political and pointless than just the Iranian President
-
It's difficult to find an optimistic side to this kind of thing. I sigh and bemoan the fact that it's going to take so very long for things to improve.
-
No, this is about the wine. The Iranian PM insisted that nobody be allowed to drink wine at the meal organised by the French because of his religious principle.
I come from a school of pragmatism which would have ruled having an alcohol free meal but turning up pissed to it.
-
We had a Muslim from one gov dept come for breakfast once, he insisted we all have our eggs, sausages and bacon as normal, while he had steak cooked in a different pan.
So I think this is just the Iranian PM being bloody minded..... Rather than a feature of Islam.
Insofar as it isn't prticularly a religious issue, I'd agree. After all, the trad title could just as easily have been 'A microcosm of what is wrong with humanity' and we could have almost identical posts thus far.
-
Hindus and Jews, Muslims, have dietary restrictions. What restrictions can you suggest Christians have?
-
Hindus and Jews, Muslims, have dietary restrictions. What restrictions can you suggest Christians have?
Some don't give blood.
-
Insofar as it isn't prticularly a religious issue, I'd agree. After all, the trad title could just as easily have been 'A microcosm of what is wrong with humanity' and we could have almost identical posts thus far.
No. Many people are abstemious in some category or other, but it is a peculiarly religious thing to try to force your abstention on other people without good reason.
-
Fish on Fridays? Giving up something for lent? Some don't drink alcohol.
These traditions are not incumbent on Christians, nowadays, that they must adhere to them. The fish on Friday is long gone; the Lent bit is more of a social event, followed by all kinds of faiths, or no faith; and the giving of blood bit is just a quirk of a very quirky group, not generally accepted as representative of modern Christian thinking.
-
These traditions are not incumbent on Christians, nowadays, that they must adhere to them. The fish on Friday is long gone; the Lent bit is more of a social event, followed by all kinds of faiths, or no faith; and the giving of blood bit is just a quirk of a very quirky group, not generally accepted as representative of modern Christian thinking.
That is your opinion, but the adherents would disagree.
Again, what is your method for determining which bits of text are true?
-
We had a Muslim from one gov dept come for breakfast once, he insisted we all have our eggs, sausages and bacon as normal, while he had steak cooked in a different pan.
So I think this is just the Iranian PM being bloody minded..... Rather than a feature of Islam.
Whilst he may abstain by choice the Iranian PM had not right to demand or expect others to do as he did.
-
That is your opinion, but the adherents would disagree.
Again, what is your method for determining which bits of text are true?
I have read, in detail, over the years, and accept what is the usual, scholarly, view. I do not make it up myself. How do you determine what is true and what is not?
-
I have read, in detail, over the years, and accept what is the usual, scholarly, view. I do not make it up myself. How do you determine what is true and what is not?
There are no scholars!
Its just text and giving someone a title scholar of made up stuff does not impress me.
Theology is the study of nothing.
Show me the data and method and experimental results.
Its all just opinion.
-
There are no scholars!
Its just text and giving someone a title scholar of made up stuff does not impress me.
Theology is the study of nothing.
Show me the data and method and experimental results.
Its all just opinion.
At which nonsense I take my leave, and go to bed.
-
At which nonsense I take my leave, and go to bed.
And again insult instead of rational argument.
Whenever you are asked a question you struggle with you revert to insult and diversion.
This is a very dishonest way to behave.
-
And again insult instead of rational argument.
Whenever you are asked a question you struggle with you revert to insult and diversion.
This is a very dishonest way to behave.
Surprise, surprise!
-
There are no scholars!
Its just text and giving someone a title scholar of made up stuff does not impress me.
Theology is the study of nothing.
Show me the data and method and experimental results.
Its all just opinion.
Well said.
-
I've studied theology. It's a very strange thing - lots of complex ideas and disciplines that are ultimately devoid of meaning.
-
Fish on Fridays? Giving up something for lent? Some don't drink alcohol.
None of those are requirements of faith, Rose - the restrictions referred to in BA's initial post are. As such, Christianity does not impose dietary or other restrictions. Churchianity, on the other hand, may.
-
"There are no scholars"
It's good to hear that the so-called experts whose expert knowledge some here call upon to support their positions don't actually exist. I will feel more comfortable dismissing the scientific experts now that their supporters have denied their existence. ;)
-
Some don't give blood.
Do all atheists give blood?
-
Do all atheists give blood?
No. The ones who don't do so either because they can't (I have a fairly rare blood group and would love to give blood, but can't as I've had a blood transfusion since 1980) or don't want to, not because their bizarre interpretation of an ancient text forbids it.
I would absolutely love to be able to give blood and repay the favour that some unknown person did me; I'm prevented only by the regulations regarding the transmission of CJD, not because 'God says no'.
-
Do all atheists give blood?
I would not think so, but they will not abstain because an old book says something that might be interpreted to say not to.
I do as it happens and so does my daughter.
-
It's difficult to find an optimistic side to this kind of thing. I sigh and bemoan the fact that it's going to take so very long for things to improve.
I'd agree, Susan. Things won't improve for as long as human are humans.
-
That is your opinion, but the adherents would disagree.
Again, what is your method for determining which bits of text are true?
Well, since you mention 'text', BR - can you provide any New Testament reference that even remotely instructs a Christian to eat fish on a Friday, give something up for Lent or abstain from alcohol? It's all very to query how one determines 'which bits of text are true', but something very different to conjure up non-existent textual references.
-
Well, since you mention 'text', BR - can you provide any New Testament reference that instructs a Christian to eat fish on a Friday, give something up for Lent or abstain from alcohol?
No but why would I?
You need a method to tell which bits are important, and which can be ignored.
It looks, like people do this in a totally arbitrary way, just picking and choosing whatever they like.
If this is not the case, and there is in fact a way to do the choosing, please describe it.
-
I would not think so, but they will not abstain because an old book says something that might be interpreted to say not to.
Interestingly enough, there is no New Testament injunction against a Christian giving blood. I suppose it could be argued that the OT includes one - assuming that the concept of a blood transfusion even existed in the centuries during which the OT was written. However, I think that it would take a pretty dramatic stretching of the OT references to come to that conclusion.
-
Interestingly enough, there is no New Testament injunction against a Christian giving blood. I suppose it could be argued that the OT includes one - assuming that the concept of a blood transfusion even existed in the centuries during which the OT was written.
The Jehovas witnesses have found something!
-
I'd agree, Susan. Things won't improve for as long as human are humans.
Why not? Things have been fairly consistently improving for about two hundred and fifty years. We aren't finished yet, obviously, why presume that suddenly things have stopped now?
O.
-
No but why would I?
You need a method to tell which bits are important, and which can be ignored.
One also has to have a method to tell what bits actually exist, and which don't.
That is why I asked you to provide us with one or more references that teach Christians that they should eat fish on a Friday, abstain from something during lent, or avoid alcohol.
It looks, like people do this in a totally arbitrary way, just picking and choosing whatever they like.
If this is not the case, and there is in fact a way to do the choosing, please describe it.
Well, for a start, one has to ensure that a topic is even referred to within the text; secondly, one has to find out how the Jews of the last couple of centuries BC and the first century AD understood their Scriptures, and how that differs (if at all) from their understandings of the rest of the first millennium BC. As you are aware, Jews have long been known as the 'People of the Book' to distinguish them from other religious adherents. As a result, there is a considerable library of written materials that indicate the way the Jews' thinking developed and changed over the centuries before Christ. A good example of this is the concept of Messiah - initially, this person was to be a spiritual leader with indications that it woud be God himself. By the 3rd/2nd centuries BC, following various invasions of the Jews' homeland, and their subsequent loss of independence, the concept of Messiah changed to the idea of a politico-military human being who would free the people from their politico-military invaders.
Then one has to look at the ways in which all these fit with the teachings of Jesus, and subsequently of the apostles and Paul, and work out how and why said teachers chose to move the understandings on in the way they did (often calculable by the overall teachings themselves).
Yes it takes time and effort, and uses methodology associated with a variety of fields of study, such as anthopology, history, lingistics, literary criticism and sociology (now, to have got those in alphabetical order unplanned ain't bad ;))
In a way, it is not hugely different from a detailed study of, say, the way English/Scottish/Welsh and subsequently British law has developed over the centuries.
-
Why not? Things have been fairly consistently improving for about two hundred and fifty years. We aren't finished yet, obviously, why presume that suddenly things have stopped now?
O.
I would disagree that things "have been fairly consistently improving for about two hundred and fifty years", O. Some things have improved, some have remained static, others have got worse. I accept that if you simply look at things from a Western perspective, things appear to have improved, but if you look at the bigger 'global' situation - whilst we have been growing richer and healthier, others have been growing poorer and less healthy.
Economically, the tale of the Indian fabric industry, which was a flourishing and exporting industry in the 16th and 17th centuries, is a good example. With the arrival of the Brits and the East India Company, that industry was destroyed by the British transporting the raw cotton to mills in the north of England where it was turned into cloth and re-exported to India as the finished article. That is why Gandhi's use of homespun was such a powerful message, both the Brits and the Indians.
We are now seeing things turn on their heads. The once powerful Europeans rely more and more on what used to be the 'developing' nations, some of whom are close to overtaking said Europeans economically, perhaps even technologically.
-
I would disagree that things "have been fairly consistently improving for about two hundred and fifty years", O. Some things have improved, some have remained static, others have got worse. I accept that if you simply look at things from a Western perspective, things appear to have improved, but if you look at the bigger 'global' situation - whilst we have been growing richer and healthier, others have been growing poorer and less healthy.
No, they haven't - they've not been improving for them as fast as they have for us, but worldwide infant mortality is down, health and life expectancy are up, quality of life has improved (if not always significantly), we have entirely eradicated entire diseases and are on our way to eradicating more.
Economically, the tale of the Indian fabric industry, which was a flourishing and exporting industry in the 16th and 17th centuries, is a good example. With the arrival of the Brits and the East India Company, that industry was destroyed by the British transporting the raw cotton to mills in the north of England where it was turned into cloth and re-exported to India as the finished article. That is why Gandhi's use of homespun was such a powerful message, both the Brits and the Indians.
And yet, in India, people are living longer, have more rights and more legal protections, have better access to food and medicine than they did. That one element of their economy which was strong has foundered is no different to the fact that the UK coal and steel industries are a shadow of their former selves: this is an economic reality, but isn't significant enough to undermine the widespread general advances we have made as a collective.
O.
-
One also has to have a method to tell what bits actually exist, and which don't.
That is why I asked you to provide us with one or more references that teach Christians that they should eat fish on a Friday, abstain from something during lent, or avoid alcohol.
Well, for a start, one has to ensure that a topic is even referred to within the text; secondly, one has to find out how the Jews of the last couple of centuries BC and the first century AD understood their Scriptures, and how that differs (if at all) from their understandings of the rest of the first millennium BC. As you are aware, Jews have long been known as the 'People of the Book' to distinguish them from other religious adherents. As a result, there is a considerable library of written materials that indicate the way the Jews' thinking developed and changed over the centuries before Christ. A good example of this is the concept of Messiah - initially, this person was to be a spiritual leader with indications that it woud be God himself. By the 3rd/2nd centuries BC, following various invasions of the Jews' homeland, and their subsequent loss of independence, the concept of Messiah changed to the idea of a politico-military human being who would free the people from their politico-military invaders.
Then one has to look at the ways in which all these fit with the teachings of Jesus, and subsequently of the apostles and Paul, and work out how and why said teachers chose to move the understandings on in the way they did (often calculable by the overall teachings themselves).
Yes it takes time and effort, and uses methodology associated with a variety of fields of study, such as anthopology, history, lingistics, literary criticism and sociology (now, to have got those in alphabetical order unplanned ain't bad ;))
In a way, it is not hugely different from a detailed study of, say, the way English/Scottish/Welsh and subsequently British law has developed over the centuries.
If there is a methodology, why are there different interpretations of the text.
A methodology will take you inexorably to one presumably correct outcome.
Why is this not so?
-
If I go to a vegetarian house, I do not expect to be served meat. If the dining programme had been about a vegetarian and some meat eaters I would have expected those who are meat either to serve all vegetarian dishes, or ones for the vegetarian alone. I would not expect the vegetarian to serve meat to the meat eaters. So I think the analogy with the French dinner does not work as being about the evils of religion.
I'll go along with you here NS, can't add to that, nor is there any need.
ippy
-
I've studied theology. It's a very strange thing - lots of complex ideas and disciplines that are ultimately devoid of meaning.
Quite.
ippy
-
I've studied theology. It's a very strange thing - lots of complex ideas and disciplines that are ultimately devoid of meaning.
Can you elaborate on that Rhiannon? Presumably those ideas matter to some people? How then are they devoid if meaning?
-
Can you elaborate on that Rhiannon? Presumably those ideas matter to some people? How then are they devoid if meaning?
Its not a case of them mattering and therefore having a meaning, Samuel. Its more a case of them having a meaning, and that they therefore matter.
-
If there is a methodology, why are there different interpretations of the text.
A methodology will take you inexorably to one presumably correct outcome.
Why is this not so?
A couple of possible reasons, BR.
The first would be that some people don't look into the background and simply take the meaning from the English (or whatever mother tongue they happen to speak) in what is often referred to as a 'literal' interpretation.
A second would be that someone has a pre-existing agenda and therefore looks for verses/passages that support that agenda, even if that requires them to take verses and passages out of context.
A third would be that their mother-tongue verson of the Bible has gone through so many translation filters as to make it a bad translation - for instance many of the early Nepali language Bibles were translated from the AV, as opposed to the original languages, thus compounding translation errors.
A fourth would be that people have been brought up on a given interpretation and don't want/know how to question that interpretation, even when introduced to a new interpretation that is supported by historical documentation.
When one things about all this, it is very little different to a number of similar issues with something like Chaucer, or some cutting-edge science.
-
No, they haven't - they've not been improving for them as fast as they have for us, but worldwide infant mortality is down, health and life expectancy are up, quality of life has improved (if not always significantly), we have entirely eradicated entire diseases and are on our way to eradicating more.
And we are meeting many diseases that we've never seen before, we're faced with ever-more serious famine events, there ae possibly more people living in internal and cross-border refugee camps than has ever been the case before.
And yet, in India, people are living longer, have more rights and more legal protections, have better access to food and medicine than they did. That one element of their economy which was strong has foundered is no different to the fact that the UK coal and steel industries are a shadow of their former selves: this is an economic reality, but isn't significant enough to undermine the widespread general advances we have made as a collective.
Yes people in India are living longer, but that also means that at least as big a proportion are living in poverty than, say, 30 years ago. Whether they have better access to food and medicine than they did depends on whether they have money to purchase them.
An increasing number of them don't even have access to regular, let alone permanent electricity or clean water. Similarly, our poor are growing in numbers because of the decline in high-manpower activities in favour of small companies that employ small numbers.
As you say, there is an economic cycle which can have a devastating impact on those whose national economies hit the top of the cycle and begin their way down the other side.
I'm not suggesting that we haven't improved our conditions but that has often been patchy, in terms of a global 'collective' picture. Where one part of the global community has experienced improving conditions, another has experienced worsening conditions. This isn't simply between national cultures/communities; it even occurs within the boundaries of nations.
-
whilst we have been growing richer and healthier, others have been growing poorer and less healthy.
That is absolutely not true on a global scale. Pick a person at random today from the World population and, on average they will be better off than a random person picked from 250 years ago.
-
That is absolutely not true on a global scale. Pick a person at random today from the World population and, on average they will be better off than a random person picked from 250 years ago.
I would suggest that most rural people in many parts of the developing world are no better off now, than they would have been 250 years ago. No electricity, no access to education, no access to healthcare or clean water, no voting rights, no citizenship, ... and that's just to name a few aspects.
-
I would suggest that most rural people in many parts of the developing world are no better off now, than they would have been 250 years ago. No electricity, no access to education, no access to healthcare or clean water, no voting rights, no citizenship, ... and that's just to name a few aspects.
You'd be wrong. Fewer of them are starving to death for a start. More of them have access to clean water.
Let's be honest, here in the UK, most people didn't have access to safe drinking water 250 years ago.
-
Can you elaborate on that Rhiannon? Presumably those ideas matter to some people? How then are they devoid if meaning?
I think you've answered your own question - they became devoid of meaning to me personally. But it does raise the issue of whether theology can be an academic discipline without belief.
-
There is not one theologian anywhere, or at any time, who knows, really knows a fact about any god, ever.
-
And we are meeting many diseases that we've never seen before, we're faced with ever-more serious famine events, there ae possibly more people living in internal and cross-border refugee camps than has ever been the case before.
We aren't seeing more famine events, we're seeing fewer, and we have more adaptable, more capable, more experienced agencies to deal with them. We have, of course, more than enough capacity to entirely prevent them, so I'm not pretending for a moment that we've done enough yet.
Yes, we have more people living in cross-border refugee camps - that's because we've realised that refugee camps are a good way of dealing with refugees. We have more people in them because we used to be very poor at implementing them.
Yes people in India are living longer, but that also means that at least as big a proportion are living in poverty than, say, 30 years ago. Whether they have better access to food and medicine than they did depends on whether they have money to purchase them.
No, it doesn't. We've switched from measuring poverty as an absolute to measuring it relative to the local average income specifically because there are so relatively few people living in absolute poverty now. Simple medicines that didn't even exist thirty years ago are despatched in state-sponsored programmes; simple medicines which weren't available in the third world are now available for a pittance. Some medicines, yes, are still unfortunately more difficult to get a hold of, but the situation is unquestionably better.
An increasing number of them don't even have access to regular, let alone permanent electricity or clean water.
Whether the absolute number is growing or shrinking is debatable, but the proportion is decreasing, certainly for clean water.
Similarly, our poor are growing in numbers because of the decline in high-manpower activities in favour of small companies that employ small numbers.
Our poor are increasing because we've changed the definition of poor. In real terms, the baseline is higher than it ever was. Moving from labour intensive economies has a tendency to increase the proportion of the moderately well off as it introduces the band of skilled workers between owners and labourers. It requires social and legal protections after that to prevent the increased financial power of the elite pushing labour prices back down and compressing the labour market again, and that's not being universally implemented yet, but the advent of social media and instant communication makes it easier for labour movements to organise and co-ordinate to leverage their power in these economies.
As you say, there is an economic cycle which can have a devastating impact on those whose national economies hit the top of the cycle and begin their way down the other side.
Devastating? It doesn't need to be, we aren't managing it particularly well - we attempt protectionist policies which simply delay the start but not the magnitude, leading to a precipitous rather than gradual decline.
I'm not suggesting that we haven't improved our conditions but that has often been patchy, in terms of a global 'collective' picture.
It really hasn't, there are very, very few areas of the world where the worst off aren't significantly better off than they used to be. The inequalities, to a degree, are growing as financial power becomes so excessive that it starts to impact on the legal and political frameworks that are supposed to insulate against them, but the whole frame of human experienced has shifted upwards on the 'quality of life' scale.
Where one part of the global community has experienced improving conditions, another has experienced worsening conditions.
Only relatively - pretty much everyone is better off.
O.
-
In your opinion!
But rather obviously believe they do Rose and can only believe they do, so you nor anyone else can possibly know with any certainty that any one theologian or another is in possession of facts about this god idea, and that's a fact.
ippy
-
In your opinion!
If you can't even be sure that God exists, you can't know anything about it. And then a lot of people say things like "God is beyond human understanding" so they effectively admit they don't know anything about God.
-
In your opinion!
Theology purports to be the study of the science of God, or the knowledge that we have about God. It's nonsensical as there is no science and no knowledge, only belief. What theology delivers is a set of tools for studying beliefs about God; those are the only facts contained within it, and the conclusions reached with regard to which ideas are correct is dependent on the theological position and beliefs of the theologian.
-
In your opinion!
No, it's not merely an opinion, it's a fact. Only belief in gods exists, there is no testable evidence that they do.
-
If there is a methodology, why are there different interpretations of the text.
A methodology will take you inexorably to one presumably correct outcome.
Why is this not so?
This doesn't seem to be the case in some areas of science which has perhaps the most exacting methodology - or economics, or politics, or ..., or ..., BR.
-
This doesn't seem to be the case in some areas of science which has perhaps the most exacting methodology - or economics, or politics, or ..., or ..., BR.
I often wonder if you'll ever see life as it really is, somehow I doubt it, trouble is it's not just you Hope, unfortunately there's far to many just like you.
I am however convinced that yourself and the others really do believe these things; at lest it's worth having a discussion about most scientific subjects as opposed to discussing theology which compares very well with discussing the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
ippy
-
I often wonder if you'll ever see life as it really is, somehow I doubt it, trouble is it's not just you Hope, unfortunately there's far to many just like you.
I am however convinced that yourself and the others really do believe these things; at lest it's worth having a discussion about most scientific subjects as opposed to discussing theology which compares very well with discussing the arrangement of the deck chairs on the Titanic.
ippy
Can't see the analogy at all.
-
It means a pointless exercise that does nothing to alter reality.
-
It means a pointless exercise that does nothing to alter reality.
Thank you, Ippy. That dismisses all kinds of philosophical discussion as well, then; as well as much else.
-
Theology purports to be the study of the science of God, or the knowledge that we have about God. It's nonsensical as there is no science and no knowledge, only belief. What theology delivers is a set of tools for studying beliefs about God; those are the only facts contained within it, and the conclusions reached with regard to which ideas are correct is dependent on the theological position and beliefs of the theologian.
Ok, that makes more sense to me. But apart from questions about 'correctness', which I agree are nonsensical, there must be some relevance in understanding concepts of God and religious ideas as an aspect of culture? or as ways people have constructed narratives within which they make sense of their lives?
-
Not necessarily, BA. A great deal of philosophy addresses itself to asking questions about real things which we know exist - love, justice, fairness, the good life and so forth, even or especially when some of these things can only be said to exist as concepts within some primate brains. That doesn't make them nonexistent.
Additionally, some philosopher - I forget who for the moment - said that while philosophy may not be in the business of providing answers, its strength is in refining better (i.e. more precise) questions.
-
Not necessarily, BA. A great deal of philosophy addresses itself to asking questions about real things which we know exist - love, justice, fairness, the good life and so forth, even or especially when some of these things can only be said to exist as concepts within some primate brains. That doesn't make them nonexistent.
Additionally, some philosopher - I forget who for the moment - said that while philosophy may not be in the business of providing answers, its strength is in refining better (i.e. more precise) questions.
Still fits in with dear Ippy's "analogy."
-
We aren't seeing more famine events, ...
Read my post again, O; I didn't say that we are seeing more famine events, I said we are seeing more-serious famine events. Linguistically, those two ideas are very different from each other.
Yes, we have more people living in cross-border refugee camps - that's because we've realised that refugee camps are a good way of dealing with refugees. We have more people in them because we used to be very poor at implementing them.
O, in 2008, the global number of Forcibly Displaced People stood at 42m; by 2010 that had risen to 43.7m; by 2012, to 45.2m: by 2014 the figure had risen to 59.5m (considerably higher than the 1994 figure of 47m) (Figures from UNHCR Global Trend reports)
No, it doesn't. We've switched from measuring poverty as an absolute to measuring it relative to the local average income specifically because there are so relatively few people living in absolute poverty now.
Is that why we still measure the number of people living on less than a dollar a day?
The figures I've seen oiver the last few years always seem to refer to the number of places where clean water is now avialable, as opposed to the number of people who have access to it - remember that in several parts of the world, the smart 'new' bore-hole pump is kept locked by the village elders and only available to be used by those whose social status are acceptable to theose village elders.
Our poor are increasing because we've changed the definition of poor. In real terms, the baseline is higher than it ever was. Moving from labour intensive economies has a tendency to increase the proportion of the moderately well off as it introduces the band of skilled workers between owners and labourers. It requires social and legal protections after that to prevent the increased financial power of the elite pushing labour prices back down and compressing the labour market again, and that's not being universally implemented yet, but the advent of social media and instant communication makes it easier for labour movements to organise and co-ordinate to leverage their power in these economies.
Our poor are extremely wealthy in global terms, O.
It really hasn't, there are very, very few areas of the world where the worst off aren't significantly better off than they used to be.
You clearly haven't lived alongside the poorest, O. When we worked in Nepal, our monthly stipend was equivalent to about £350 (for a family of 4). Add housing, education and medical costs (all covered by the agency from the monies we, as a family unit raised) to that and we were on about £700 a month. During our first 3 years we lived in an area where there were a few professional Nepalese families living and their monthly income was around about £300; in our second 3 year stint we lived in an area that was largely business (the jewellery quarter was 150 yards from the house), and their monthly income was nearer £400.
These were affluent areas of the town we worked in. Others in the agency lived out in rural areas, and their neighbours' monthly income would struggle to be £30-40, possibly as low as £20. OK, these folk might be the odd £ or 2 better off than their parents 40-odd years ago.
-
I don't like theology much, but IMO, Christian theology is just exploring what Christianity thinks God is like. Yes a lot of it is based on opinion.
My point though is that I don't accept Susan Doris can make such a wide sweeping claim, without it being her opinion.
Well, for a start, I know there is no way that you can provide a single fact about God/god/s! You might be interested in reading the approx 380 posts on the Ship of Foos thread that I started, not one of which produced such a fact.
Okay, in order to be absolutely correct and precise one must leave a minuscule opening for a possibility that one day a fact will be found, but that is such a vanishingly small gap that it can be disregarded by most.
-
Ok, that makes more sense to me. But apart from questions about 'correctness', which I agree are nonsensical, there must be some relevance in understanding concepts of God and religious ideas as an aspect of culture? or as ways people have constructed narratives within which they make sense of their lives?
That's more the study of religion, or comparative religion, than theology.
-
Christians believe in God and believe the bible tells them about God.
Muslims believe in God and believe the Quran tells them how to live.
That's a fact!
Two facts actually
Those are facts about people who do the believing, not about any God/god/s.
-
Exactly.
-
"God doesn't exist", isn't a fact, it's an opinion.
It doesn't change the fact, that your claim is unsupportable.
"There is not one theologian anywhere, or at any time, who knows, really knows a fact about any god, ever."
That's an unsupportable opinion.
Not really. In the absence of a useable methodology, and despite everything done in over the centuries, there isn't one that allows us to establish facts, it's correct to state the position as Susan does.
-
Those are facts about people who do the believing, not about any God/god/s.
this is where I trip up because I honestly don't see the difference
-
this is where I trip up because I honestly don't see the difference
It's the difference between the study of the nature of God - ie is God eternal, what is God's gender, is God knowable etc - and the study of beliefs about God. When studying theology you begin from the point of view that God exists, even if you are an unbeliever.
-
this is where I trip up because I honestly don't see the difference
Susan is saying that we can amass any number of facts about people who believe in gods, but absolutely nothing whatever about gods themselves - including their existence. There's an unbridgeable gulf between belief in X and X exists. For example, if I give you a hefty dose of PCP there's a good chance that you will believe that you can jump out of a window and fly like a little birdie. That belief is a fact - it is a true statement to say that you hold such a belief. It's also a fact that you won't fly at all (as a number of people have found to their cost). The difference is in the context of beliefs about and facts about.
-
But gods don't exist anywhere except in the beliefs of people. So when you study people's beliefs about God you are studying god.
I'm not trying to make a point. It's just how I see it. I honestly struggle to get my around the idea that you can separate the two.
-
But gods don't exist anywhere except in the beliefs of people. So when you study people's beliefs about God you are studying god.
I'm not trying to make a point. It's just how I see it. I honestly struggle to get my around the idea that you can separate the two.
But you have just said there isn't a God to study!
-
But gods don't exist anywhere except in the beliefs of people. So when you study people's beliefs about God you are studying god.
I'm not trying to make a point. It's just how I see it. I honestly struggle to get my around the idea that you can separate the two.
It's the difference between studying what people believe/have believed about unicorns and the study of unicorns as a scientific discipline.
-
Read my post again, O; I didn't say that we are seeing more famine events, I said we are seeing more-serious famine events. Linguistically, those two ideas are very different from each other.
In what way are they more serious? Are people more starving than not having any food? Are these famines affecting larger areas - yes, but given that there are fewer people in those areas the actual starvation isn't getting worse. There are fewer people suffering from starvation - they might be in more numerous but smaller groups - so I fail to see how you interpret 'more serious' famines. Longer lasting, maybe?
O, in 2008, the global number of Forcibly Displaced People stood at 42m; by 2010 that had risen to 43.7m; by 2012, to 45.2m: by 2014 the figure had risen to 59.5m (considerably higher than the 1994 figure of 47m) (Figures from UNHCR Global Trend reports)
And the primary method of estimating those figures is... to review the population of refugee camps. If - as I suggested - we have more of those camps, and they are being better run, we'd have a higher estimate of people. If, regardless of that, we do have more displaced people than we used to (proportionally - that it's absolutely more isn't really in question) that doesn't automatically mean we're any worse, given that they are being better catered for than they ever have been. It's still a terrible thing, but it's not as terrible as often as it used to be.
Is that why we still measure the number of people living on less than a dollar a day?
Are we? Most reports I see of poverty are talking about relative poverty in their local area - trying to ask 'who earns less than a dollar a day' is largely meaningless given the vast differentiation in the purchasing power of a dollar (or equivalent) in various places.
Our poor are extremely wealthy in global terms, O.
In the UK, you mean? Or perhaps, more widely, Europe? Yes, yes they are - good, isn't it.
You clearly haven't lived alongside the poorest, O. When we worked in Nepal, our monthly stipend was equivalent to about £350 (for a family of 4). Add housing, education and medical costs (all covered by the agency from the monies we, as a family unit raised) to that and we were on about £700 a month. During our first 3 years we lived in an area where there were a few professional Nepalese families living and their monthly income was around about £300; in our second 3 year stint we lived in an area that was largely business (the jewellery quarter was 150 yards from the house), and their monthly income was nearer £400.
These were affluent areas of the town we worked in. Others in the agency lived out in rural areas, and their neighbours' monthly income would struggle to be £30-40, possibly as low as £20. OK, these folk might be the odd £ or 2 better off than their parents 40-odd years ago.
So they're able to get by within their community, and they've not gotten any worse. That's a shame, but it's not exactly terrible. How many places that aren't Nepal now have running water that didn't, now have access to medical care that didn't, now have communication with the outside world that didn't.
I'm not pretending everyone's living in a Utopia, nor that we're anywhere near finished, nor that everything's moving in the right direction. However, as a global picture, there is a lower percentage of the populace of the planet that are starving, infant mortality as a global measure is down, preventable diseases are increasingly being controlled or eradicated, access to clean water and basic foods is better, communications technologies are more widespread. These are all good things, these are all improvements in the fundamentals of life for thousand, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and, in some cases, millions of people.
The world is a better place than it has been; let's keep that going.
O.
-
It's the difference between studying what people believe/have believed about unicorns and the study of unicorns as a scientific discipline.
Sorry Rhiannon, I still don't get it. God as a concept is far more complex than an imaginary creature. God, as a concept, is rooted deeply in how people make sense of life. I can understand that theology is different to studying religion but I can't separate the state of belief from the concept of God. To me they are one in the same.
-
Sorry Rhiannon, I still don't get it. God as a concept is far more complex than an imaginary creature. God, as a concept, is rooted deeply in how people make sense of life. I can understand that theology is different to studying religion but I can't separate the state of belief from the concept of God. To me they are one in the same.
God, gods or the theology of, are no more real than any imaginary creature of your choice, no matter how complex you think the idea of god/theology is.
ippy
-
Theology is comp,ex - there's no getting away from it. But it claims to be the subject that gives you knowledge of God. It doesn't; it gives you ideas about God. The problem for me as someone who has studied it is that although it helps us to understand people who believe, it does nothing to further understanding of God - there are no facts to understand. Ultimately it's the study of chasing shadows.
-
Theology is comp,ex - there's no getting away from it. But it claims to be the subject that gives you knowledge of God. It doesn't; it gives you ideas about God. The problem for me as someone who has studied it is that although it helps us to understand people who believe, it does nothing to further understanding of God - there are no facts to understand. Ultimately it's the study of chasing shadows.
I would disagree, in that it has never ever helped me understand people who believe, but has definitely helped me understand God.
-
God, gods or the theology of, are no more real than any imaginary creature of your choice, no matter how complex you think the idea of god/theology is.
ippy
So, in many ways, its no different to any other field of study that we human beings get involved in, ippy?
-
So, in many ways, its no different to any other field of study that we human beings get involved in, ippy?
No, since a lot of people often study, like, real stuff.
-
In what way are they more serious? Are people more starving than not having any food? Are these famines affecting larger areas - yes, but given that there are fewer people in those areas the actual starvation isn't getting worse. There are fewer people suffering from starvation - they might be in more numerous but smaller groups - so I fail to see how you interpret 'more serious' famines. Longer lasting, maybe?
Longer-lasting; impacting on areas that don't traditionally have such weather conditions; traditional bread baskets - even in the developed world - producing less produce thus causing shortages in surpluses that can be used to support the more traditionally famine-prone areas of the world.
And the primary method of estimating those figures is... to review the population of refugee camps. If - as I suggested - we have more of those camps, and they are being better run, we'd have a higher estimate of people. If, regardless of that, we do have more displaced people than we used to (proportionally - that it's absolutely more isn't really in question) that doesn't automatically mean we're any worse, given that they are being better catered for than they ever have been. It's still a terrible thing, but it's not as terrible as often as it used to be.
The Forcibly Displaced term covers far more than those in refugee camps. In 2014, of the 59.5 million FDPs, 19.5m were refugees (of whom 14.4m were under the UNHCR's mandate and 5.1m were Palestinian refugees registered by UNRWA). A further 38.2m were internally displaced people - who may have been living in IDP camps or with family members or friends away from their home location within the borders of their own nations. A further 1.8m were asylum seekers.
The world is a better place than it has been; let's keep that going.
O.
I think that many millions across the world would regard that summary as very Western-centric, and bearing little or no relationship to the situation they find themselves in.
-
I like Mencken's comment on theology:
'For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing.'
-
Jerry Coyne took it to pieces on a series of posts on his website not so long ago.
-
Longer-lasting; impacting on areas that don't traditionally have such weather conditions; traditional bread baskets - even in the developed world - producing less produce thus causing shortages in surpluses that can be used to support the more traditionally famine-prone areas of the world.
There are worries, but the fact that we've been consistently overproducing for a considerable period mitigates the overall risk. There are localised problems, where one area is destroying or wasting food whilst other areas are clamouring for it, I'd agree, but tellingly fewer people don't have enough to eat. That's an improvement in the living conditions of people, that's a good thing.
The Forcibly Displaced term covers far more than those in refugee camps. In 2014, of the 59.5 million FDPs, 19.5m were refugees (of whom 14.4m were under the UNHCR's mandate and 5.1m were Palestinian refugees registered by UNRWA). A further 38.2m were internally displaced people - who may have been living in IDP camps or with family members or friends away from their home location within the borders of their own nations. A further 1.8m were asylum seekers.
And in previous times many of those wouldn't have been counted, because nobody cared, and many more would have been killed before they had the opportunity to flee because modern communications lets them know what's coming and modern transport makes it easier to leave. It's not good, but it's better than it was, especially when you couple it with the experienced organisations supporting people when they are in this situation.
I think that many millions across the world would regard that summary as very Western-centric, and bearing little or no relationship to the situation they find themselves in.
They possibly would. Many of them would believe so whilst benefitting from the health improvements, increased communications, rights overlook and increased access to food and water that they don't recognise as part of that improvement. Many, many more would appreciate those improvements and look enviously at the West and ask - rightly - why they can't have that level of freedom and support. Their impression is a mixture of justified and unjustified, but it doesn't undermine the practical fact: fewer people die in childbirth than ever before, fewer children die than ever before, a lower proportion of the world's population are starving than ever before, a lower proportion of the world's population don't have access to clean water than ever before.
How can you claim that because we haven't gone further this isn't an improvement?
O.
[/quote]
-
So, in many ways, its no different to any other field of study that we human beings get involved in, ippy?
Hope, Gordon summed up the worth of this comment of yours on post 91 on this thread, I can't top how he has said it.
ippy
-
Jerry Coyne took it to pieces on a series of posts on his website not so long ago.
Sounds good! Is there a link to them?
-
Sounds good! Is there a link to them?
I'll dig around for you, SD.
ETA: Some lengthy reading so don't expect to digest all this overnight, but worth it:
https://goo.gl/1iMD8q
https://goo.gl/Wewc4R
https://goo.gl/PVjbGc
https://goo.gl/LlBdOK
https://goo.gl/ShfcDp
-
Thank you, Shaker. I've noted the links and will make a start today!
-
Enjoy :)
-
There are no scholars!
Its just text and giving someone a title scholar of made up stuff does not impress me.
Theology is the study of nothing.
Show me the data and method and experimental results.
Its all just opinion.
Not a rational or sensible reply.
Lack of knowledge is the reason for your error.
You believe you can judge Bash and yet you lack even the basic knowledge of the bible which would have answered your questions clearly without need for asking.
Let.s try this one:-
John 16:13King James Version (KJV)
13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Study this verse and you see why Bash indeed why every Christian would know what you appear to lack answers to.
As a none believer you are not and never will be in a position to judge what Christians know to be true. As I said... you don't even know the basics... :(
-
Well said.
Not really Susan,
Emperors new clothes... the blind leading the blind, and Christ triumphant because the truth is always nonsense to those who choose to be lost.
That is something for everyone to think about... You choose to be lost... :(
-
I've studied theology. It's a very strange thing - lots of complex ideas and disciplines that are ultimately devoid of meaning.
What theology did you study????
Never heard or read such a theology which have complex ideas, disciplines or anything else devoid of meaning.
The study of the nature of God is complex and involve ideas and disciplines devoid in meaning...do they?
Nah! Christianity and Christ show God as a loving God wanting to save us.
Pretty clear nothing complexs. Whilst beliefs in religion may be different you can disagree with the beliefs of others but you cannot say they are devoid of meaning... Admit it, Rhi, you never thought that one out.
-
None of those are requirements of faith, Rose - the restrictions referred to in BA's initial post are. As such, Christianity does not impose dietary or other restrictions. Churchianity, on the other hand, may.
So Hope explain the meaning of Spirit and Truth in the Christian Religion.
To help you these are the teachings of Christ.
Explain the true worshipper and what it means to worship God in Spirit and Truth.
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
-
Well, since you mention 'text', BR - can you provide any New Testament reference that even remotely instructs a Christian to eat fish on a Friday, give something up for Lent or abstain from alcohol?
These are all remnants of a much more vigorous practice. If anyone thinks there is anything penitential about eating salmon on a Friday instead of minced meat, or giving up sweets for Lent, or abstaining from for food and drink only one hour before receiving holy communion then such are seriously deluded. The original practices are really only kept in the East nowadays but they're not to earn brownie points, rather they're part of the instructions which come along with the medicine. If Christ is the physician and the sacraments are the medicine then fasting helps the medicine do its work. It is not an optional extra.