Could an explanation of a Universal Law of everything be a Pandora's box?

[arthur]

contiued



I have no idea what part of the world you live But in most of what was the British empire and in most of the countries of Europe, medicine, doctors, hospitals, education, schools, colleges, universities, orphanages, and almost all of the do-good charities were dominated and run by or run under the auspices of the "Christian" 'church'. If you live in the U.S of A (I have just been sent the following www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm) the country was actually founded upon Christianity.

To test the value or importance of, for example, a particular aspect of a proposition (or in fact any thing) is to remove the aspect and then asses the efficacy of the proposition without the aspect. If in this case you were to completely remove the involvement and the influences and impact of Christianity from the creation of your country the chances are that you would never have been born. If you were to remove the same from you own life (read the above paragraph) the chances are you would not be alive. This is what in our family we called the subtraction test. (a test that not a few "scientists" and intellectuals should try using)

This maybe over the top, but because it seems difficult for some people to accept that they have been influenced by the effects of "Christianity"

So Mohan and anyone else with my earlier post's in mind all that one has to do is to take the proposition that "what is called, 'Christian' influence on Mankind is responsible for the present state of humanity (including you who are reading this) and responsible for the condition of the world caused by human activity." and consider the evolution (i.e. the rationale and reasons for the changes) of all of the individual things and aspects which make our sophisticated society possible. I have already mentioned 'From The ten commandments to the laws which gives us our individual freedom and all of that stuff like democracy with its worldwide influence and implications. Look at the evolution of health and hygiene, food availability and distribution, care for the poor and infirm, etc, etc. and relate that to global overpopulation; and then, relate over populations contribution to global degradation. Look at the role and the evolution of institutionalised Christian academic and vocational education; look at the evolution and the number of socially pivotal secular institutions, centres, organisations which includes hospitals, etc which have in their title the word Saint or Christian and consider the motives for their inception and consider their local and world wide influences etc, etc. Consider the vast amount of non renewable global resources which have been used to fulfil the wont of Christians desire to help and improve the lot of their fellow man, as in 'home' and international aid etc, etc Consider the ecclesiastical sources of all of "western" music and its influences on the whole world, etc. Consider the percentage of China's, direct and indirect, economic and industrial development which can be directly attributed to the production of Christmas and Easter presents and paraphernalia; and then consider its contribution to the "economic" down turn of the "west", etc, etc, etc, as I have said elsewhere;

If you are still in doubt, the thing now to do is the subtraction test.


Interestingly you wrote "nobody has the right to judge another's choice", in understanding my proposition it would be necessary, of course, for you to understand where the 'right' comes from and also where the sentiment that prompted you to use that term comes from. In a world where people operate only on expediency, where 'might is right' the sentiment would not exist.

We are all products of how we have responded to our perceptions of our environment.

You mentioned a child getting burned on the finger which will almost certainly have some effect as would being severely burned whilst trapped and terrified in a burning building which almost certainly would have a greater and almost certainly a permanent life influencing or even life controlling effect. You also mentioned that we are what we believe in. this last part is easily tested (if one still wants to understand of course) Just take pen and paper and actually physically write a list of the things you believe in, spending a minute studying each thing after you have written it. You will be surprised, if you had been honest, how little you do believe.
But the statement means a great deal more than the being burned example implies. Nearly everything about you, your shape, your health, demeanour, personality and character, and even the things that you called your beliefs etc is the result of what you have done, or to be more accurate, what you learned from what you had done in the past even the fact that you are alive and able to read this is the result of have avoided being killed and having learned to read.

Quote:
One should understand however that the understanding of this 'Universal Law' or 'the Theory of Everything' stuff will almost certainly affect how one views ones position as a human being and indeed affect how one views ones own life. For example, take the question of "should Christianity, because it is such an integral part of this sophisticated society, be encouraged in schools"? not theoretically encouraged but encouraged in real life to real live physical poke with a stick and they cry children. Of course if you are a thinker,-you know;-like an intellectual, you would need some reference for the word "should" so what about something like "should for the sake of maintaining a degree of harmony in society" Or even "for the survival of society"

So, Should children be encouraged to learn and understand that all they are are just self programming independent biological machines, and that they have no inherent purpose for existing? Should they be given to understand the "scientific" reality is that any roles or aspirations, that any rhyme or reason for being here will have to be psychologically contrived in the future? Should they be given to understand they are only an assembly of lifeless chemicals which as the result of a few spontaneous electro-chemical reactions develop in them a delusion of 'self'? AND, Should children be encouraged to understand that the way to maintain their delusion of self should be no more that the pursuit of anything, using any expedience what so ever, that might appease the biological stresses which are caused by the spontaneous effects of particular chemicals in them responding to environmental influences thereby promoting activity for self gratification at any expense as the Dawkinites, his acolytes and disciples overtly encourage, and, as a great many other, supposedly intelligent, people who through ignorance or lack of concern inadvertently encourage? Then having so educated the children should we, that is you and I, who have this decency and morality thing as an integral aspect of our being (intellectually??) question, why 'they' act like 'they' do? and then question, how can we control, within the bounds of decency and law, what we have, or, what we have allowed to be created?

I can't answer your questions related to the above on account that they are too loaded and rather silly But, I would like to point out and for you to understand that at no point have I suggested that 'We' should not tell children they are biological robots. I just posed the question as to whether they should be encouraged to learn and understand that they are.


my regards ..arthur…[/SIZE]

[SB_UK]

... ... the rapidly diminishing justice that the law of the land provides ...

How far can the law be allowed to diverge from (justice and morality) before the entire structure comes crashing down?

The elastic limit will soon be exceeded.

Should we attempt to introduce a backup plan -
or are the lawyers who stand to lose, sufficiently short-sighted to dig their heads into the sand
until it's too late.

If only it were possible to locate the cumulative legal mind and expose it to the path (for our species)
in the near future
down which it leads.

[Mohan.C]

Hello Arthur, thank you for taking the time to reply so elaborately. It was a good post, and I commend you on that.

I'm always interested, that's one of the reasons I joined the forums, and am still participating in it.

Arthur, some choose subjectivity because objectivity fails after some point. Humans are more than biological robots, if they are taught or not. I accept the fact that our past has a major role to play in shaping our character or whatever stuff that is there in us. But, even if two person's have the same experience, they would perceive them differently, I know that you will say, that this perception is again dependent on their past life. But, I don't agree with that. Every person has a unique perspective. And this has more to do with instincts than with understanding.
We may have become tame, with all the evolution that's been going on. But, at some point, we are all wild beasts inside. Need not be cruel, but wild. In the wild, there's no good or evil. Only one thing matters, that is survival.

Now coming back to the topic. I accept the fact that, Christianity has had a good deal of influence on every human thought that is floating around, mainly due to the colonialism. However, I don't understand what's wrong with that?
The fact that we are tame, just reassures the fact that we can share our beliefs without getting any angry reproach. We are Human Beings we are important, but we are not 'all'.
'We are important', that we feel because there is a 'we' in the picture. Kind of like an 'I' for a person.
To judge or comment on anything, I've found it best to stand from afar and look at the two things I'm comparing with the same light. If I can't do that I don't comment on it. And, I believe I've tried to do the same here.
The thing that I did here understand from your last post, is that you are not biased. You are not against science, nor are you against religion. But, still you are also not 'for' both of them. I'm not judging, just more like thinking to myself in which perspective you've posted. I may be wrong.
Where the 'right' comes from? Is where in what you believe comes from. The whole of human civilization is a belief system, if there is no belief there is no faith, no faith means no trust, no trust means wild animals. So, without belief should we roam around like wild animals?(I would love it ) Or should we accept the fact that we have faith, we have beliefs and try to evolve our understanding, so that we can live harmoniously with what we have.

So, what should we do. Complain that our system is flawed or ignore the system or try to define a new system?

I agree with most of the things you have said. But, my question is,
What is it that you are suggesting? You are laying down the facts, but you're not clear on what is wrong with it, or how to remedy it. again just my opinion. Or may be you may not have wished to give your opinion, but to just lay down the facts. In which case it would be impossible for me to comment on your post.
And also please if possible tell me what category of searching for the T.O.E this comes under. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm asking honestly. It's not for me to decide, and I shall not.

Interesting talking with you (just means "interesting talking with you" doesn't mean "enough said" )

Be happy (means 'be happy' not something else )

-Mohan

[labelwench]

The whole of human civilization is a belief system, if there is no belief there is no faith, no faith means no trust, no trust means wild animals. So, without belief should we roam around like wild animals?(I would love it ) Or should we accept the fact that we have faith, we have beliefs and try to evolve our understanding, so that we can live harmoniously with what we have.
Originally posted by Mohan

The indigenous people of the land where I live had a belief system before the coming of the Jesuit priests and the Roman Catholic Residential schools.

I have been privileged to live among some of the elders when I was a young girl and I can honestly say that these people were stewards of this land. Their lives depended on it and they acted within a respectful framework: 'Take only what you need. Use all that you take.'

Their justice system was decided by tribal council. Some very interesting ways of dealing with offenders.

Christianity may be the current working model, in large part, but there are many other belief systems still at work, not all of which are religious.

Non-belief in religion does not imply a lack of ethics and morals. Many regard this planet as 'Our Mother', and treat all beings and the very earth they walk on with the respect it deserves.

Each civilization stands on the bones of it's forebears, from my perspective.

Interesting discussion, all, and I thank all posters for the time and effort they have made in their respectful postings to this thread.

Best regards,
Lorrina

[arthur]

From the WIKI

He may have been wrong. China is proving the exception, that just may show that totalitarian cruelty is not the logical end product of Marxism.



'Sophisticated Civilised society' a term I don't accept on face vale, as it is ill defined and subject to individual beliefs.

But granting its most common usage, then it is clear that christianity has made a contribution to this society. What can be debated is the 'amount' of that contribution, and its influence both beneficial and non-beneficial.

cool bananas ... greg

Hello greg.
I find the claim that you, and some others, do not accept the term 'Sophisticated Civilised' as being kind of bizarre and to be honest I suspect that your claim is not strictly true. I would be interested in another thread to hear what you would consider as 'Sophisticated and Civilised' in regards to a society. Come to that, in regards to anything.
Never in the history of the earth has so many people been so wealthy, well fed, well housed, so free and so secure. Never in the history of any society have so many people spent so little of their resources and time on the acquisition of food, No society in history has had such a complex and sophisticated economic system for the universal distribution of wealth. No other society has had a universal education or a universal health system. And no other society in history has had so many of its members spending so much of their time and their resources caring for the infirm, the feckless and the unfortunates of the society because to do so is a requirement of 'their faith'. And one could go on and on.

Greg, this society, the one that we are now in, this one that facilitates our use of this rustic and crude and rudimentary system of communication of which my part, my clumsy PC, which coincidently cost the equivalent of two years salary of someone who works in another primitive uncivilised society like ours, plus the elementary and unsophisticated satellite that makes it possible would not exist but for Roman Catholicism and the break away Christian churches.

Originally Posted by WIKI
... He (Kolakowski ) became increasingly fascinated by the contribution that Christianity makes to Western, and, in particular, modern thought, and sought to defend the role that freedom plays in our pursuit of the transcendent. He asserted that while human fallibility implies that we ought to treat claims to infallibility with scepticism, our pursuit of the higher (such as truth and goodness) is ennobling.

IMO your above Kolakowski snippet is an example of abstruse pretentious academicspeak which mean nothing fundamental.

...arthur..

[Graybeard]

Hi Arthur

As you say .... everyday usage of the term 'sophisticated, civilised society' is the norm.

I don't wish to start another thread on this term.

So I will say that my definition of a 'sophisticated, civilised society' would be one where the majority of individual components adhere to the rule 'Do as you would be done by'.

Nothing to do with technology, religion, or economics (except where they benefit the above rule) but a simple acceptance of the material facts available to us.

Your proposal (in the broad brush strokes) is that this is down to roman catholicism. And I add that you have a credible claim for what you say.

My proposal is that it is a 'natural selection' of evolution (in the broad brush strokes). I support this view by claiming that it is a beneficial 'fit'.

As well I point to the your quote that, 'Never in the history of the earth has so many people been so wealthy, well fed, well housed, so free and so secure. Never in the history of any society have so many people spent so little of their resources and time on the acquisition of food, No society in history has had such a complex and sophisticated economic system for the universal distribution of wealth. No other society has had a universal education or a universal health system. And no other society in history has had so many of its members spending so much of their time and their resources caring for the infirm, the feckless and the unfortunates of the society because to do so is a requirement of 'their faith'.

To me this is just as much supporting evidence for my views as it is for yours .. it provides proof of beneficial natural selection in action and has nothing to do with 'Christianity'. Rather that 'Christianity' is an incorrect explanatory manifestation of it. By 'it', I mean the evolutionary process that supports natural selections that are beneficial.

I call this 'society' selection the 'Coalition of the weak'. Now, whether it is driven entirely by 'Genes' is debatable.

But in principle those who are conservative by nature or DNA, will tend to group against the radical individual. And in most instances this would be a wise survival technique .. IMO this led to tribal groups, tribal leaders, primitive govenance, witch doctors, religious leaders, kings, and tyrants ... Of course I am only taking a broad arrow from the early beginnings of society to today.

My views are not my own original ideas, but are distilled from anthropology as it is currently understood. There is much data available on this thru the internet, available to anyone to check ??

I see religion, christianity, etc, as manifestations of the underlying principles of Natural Selection. Which I also stated very early on in your other thread ?

It could also be argued that it is not only genes, but memes as well that support societies. Perhaps ... I am unsure ? Memes may just be another manifestation of the actions of Genes ??

Sorry if this idea is bizarre, and sorry about the academic speak ... I will try to keep it to a minimum ... I understand you have a problem with it, and I promise to obey the rules of debate. (in this thread anyway ... lol)

cool bananas ... greg

[Mikal]

I wholeheartedly support Gregs definition of individuals functioning in a civilized society, which is why I put my thanks under his post. Greg and I do not meet eye to eye on lots of things but on this issue we do.

According to Greg's definition I do not see this rule of do as you would be done by evident in the workings of our society.

Since June I have been acting as a support person for a young family completely taken beyond any recognizable line of decency and civility and pushed through extremes of anguish and powerful controls over their lives as the institutions involved daily forget this essential rule of doing as you would be done by... the family and the rule have been completely forsaken by societies' urge for power and the competitive right to climb the institutional ladder and up so high that, one cannot see the debris of lives left behind in such a selfish and greedy endeavour for the satisfaction of POWER....

Regards Mikal

[Graybeard]

Hi Mikal .... The price of a good woman is far above Rubies ... for you .... lol




cool bananas ... greg

[Mikal]

Hi Greg...chuckling here..thanks for the big ruby...if our society gets any tougher to deal with, I may have to sell it for a one way ticket to some forlorn and desolate island without any structure of formed uncivilized society inhabiting it...cool!!!

Regards eh!!...Mikal

[Mohan.C]

Arthur,
Religion is but a small part of humanity. Religion is something relatively new, compared to the millions of years of evolution that the human species went through, before they could establish an institution called religion.
Religion is part of this evolutionary process, it does affect us, yes, but that is because we chose it to. It is just a consolidation of our beliefs. And, I'm thankful that this beliefs are usually what we perceive as good (why we perceive it as good, you already know, if I say it again, I'll only be making it redundant)