Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Mar 2000 06:50:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1696 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Erik Olson writes:
> The last refuge of religion is to turn rabid and claim that nobody can be
> objective, therefore you need God's revelation.
I thought the anti-religion stance states that the last refuge of religion is
to convert people by the sword. But again, quite sarcastically, I digress...
> Objectivity isn't an unattainable ideal. It includes using the sum total of
> your experiences to come to a conclusion!
But that's still subjective, isn't it? The interpretation of this data is
still influenced by the viewer. To be completely objective, one must live
outside oneself completely. People who try to do that are, rightfully, tucked
into a straightjacket and tossed into a padded cell.
That's not all. To even interpret the sum of your experiences, you must apply
what rules you govern yourself by to them. Now, where did you get those
rules? What events came together to make them? From an objective standpoint,
there were no rules except the physical laws to begin with. We have yet to
see how -- or even if -- these laws govern personality let alone society. It
can be argued, then, that the world of humanity is run by nothing but a huge
set of special cases. In other words, there has to be bias in the equation
somewhere.
This seriously bothers me. There are too many people here arguing for a
system of complete rational thought, for me to discount it. Personally, I'm
all for a balance between rational and irrational, between objectivity and
subjectivity. But for purposes of this debate, I *really* want to see a good
case in favor of total rationalism, and / or total objectivity. Otherwise,
it's just another volley of "pot, kettle, black" -- right back atcha.
Cheers,
- jsproat
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| Good point (...) But is it a dichotomy or a trichotomy. (rational/irrational vs. rational/not rational/irrational)... I'd say the latter. As I was alluding to in a different portion of the thread, I can have and enjoy emotions without letting them (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) This is interesting... In one of my college english classes, I wrote a term paper that used chaos theory & fractal geometery to argue that "Free Will" is a contradiction of terms because, following the theory of mathematical chaos, because the (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) well, I was only considering the arena of ideas... (...) Objectivity is usually taken to mean "independent of the observer." Since it's impossible to NOT be an observer of the universe, therefore, objectivity is impossible, goes the argument. (...) (25 years ago, 13-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| The last refuge of religion is to turn rabid and claim that nobody can be objective, therefore you need God's revelation. Objectivity isn't an unattainable ideal. It includes using the sum total of your experiences to come to a conclusion! When you (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
