Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality?

[coberst]

Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality?

The Scientific Method seeks to bracket [fence out] meaningfulness. The scientific method hates bias and bias is one form of meaning. Bias causes the individual to often distort “truth”. In the lab bias is the enemy, i.e. meaning is the enemy.

Religion seeks to bracket the “word”, i.e. to create a fence protecting the “word” from outside influence. Religion seeks to bracket human critical thought. I was raised as a Catholic and went to Catholic schools and was taught by nuns. I learned quickly that to “entertain” impure thoughts (thoughts about sex) or questions about my religion were sinful and had to be confessed to a priest in the confessional.

What is meaning?

Meaning is not a thing: meaning is a creatures’ association with an object.

Meaning and epistemology (what can we know and how can we know it) go together like a “horse and carriage”. Epistemology is about comprehension.

Comprehension can be usefully thought of as being hierarchical and formed like a pyramid. At the base is awareness followed by consciousness. Awareness is the beginning of comprehension; it begins with preconceptual and unconscious happenings in our brain. Consciousness adds to awareness the focus of our attention on this object that results from awareness. We are aware of much and we are conscious of little. When I walk in the woods I am aware of much and become quickly terrified by the consciousness of a shape that makes me think bear.

Knowing follows consciousness on this pyramid. Knowing is followed by understanding. Understanding is at the pinnacle of the pyramid of comprehension.

Meaning follows comprehension side by side. Meaning begins with awareness and grows with consciousness and knowing. At the pinnacle of the pyramid is the creation of new meaning through the process of our understanding, which organizes into a gestalt that which is known. The understanding at the pinnacle of comprehension is that rare moment of eureka when all becomes clear after a great struggle to understand a complex matter. Understanding is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle where our knowledge are the pieces of the puzzle.

Understanding is a far step beyond knowing and is significantly different from knowing. Knowledge seeks truth whereas understanding seeks meaning. The following analogy signifies the stages of comprehension as well as the stages of meaningfulness:

Awareness--faces in a crowd.

Consciousness—smile, a handshake, and curiosity.

Knowledge—long talks sharing desires and ambitions.

Understanding—a best friend bringing constant April.

The instinctive force that provides us with the momentum to survive has driven us to seek out a niche for humanity that rests between the gods and the animals. We need a supreme being to provide a means for immortality and we cannot but recognize our animal nature. Our problem has been to create a place for the human species that rests between heaven and earth, between the gods and the animals.

In the process of creating this in-between resting place we have overemphasized our “cool reason” and underestimated our “imagination and heated passions”. We have placed cool reason; devoid of imagination and animal passion, on a pedestal and in so doing we have tried to disassociate our imagination from our reason. We have failed to recognize the essential role of imagination plays in all aspects of thinking and “reasoning”.

In this process we have forced our self to deny that reason has a central role in morality. We deny reason as being a gestalt with feeling, imagination, and passion, i.e. our embodied rationality, a fundamental role in learning how to “get-along and reason together”.

Empathy is at the core of morality and imaginative rationality is at the core of empathy.

“Robert Unger describes as passionate “the whole range of interpersonal encounters in which people do not treat one another as means to one another’s ends.” Passion is the basis of our noninstrumental relations to others, and it takes us beyond fixed character, social roles, and institutional arrangements.”

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson

[Devonin]

The Scientific Method seeks to bracket [fence out] meaningfulness. The scientific method hates bias and bias is one form of meaning. Bias causes the individual to often distort “truth”. In the lab bias is the enemy, i.e. meaning is the enemy.


You're committing a logical fallacy here. Bias is one kind of meaning, science opposes bias, therefore science opposes meaning?

Women are a kind of person. Coberst is a person, therefore Coberst is a woman.

[coberst]

“It is our organic flesh and blood, our structural bones, the ancient rhythms of our internal organs, and the pulsating flow of our emotions that give us whatever meaning we can find and that shape our very thinking.”

Our Western philosophical culture and our Christian religion deny this very obvious fact. We try desperately to think of our selves as gods with minds that float above our body with its nasty old anus.

Descartes, one of the first philosophers that the young philosophy student learns about, informs us that “my essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking being…I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in so far as I am simply a thinking, non-extended thing; and on the other hand I have a distinct idea of body, in so far as this is simply an extended, non-thinking thing.”

Our Christian culture, our Western philosophical tradition, and our naïve common sense perceptions all seem to work in concert to instill this erroneous mind/body dichotomy upon our comprehension of reality. All of these factors lead us to place a positive evaluation upon freeing our self from our body. When we die and our mind/soul/spirit goes to heaven our body decays into dust where it came from. And we are forever free of its unpleasant burden.

SGCS (Second Generation Cognitive Science) challenges this traditional and common sense inherited duality of mind/body. This new paradigm for cognitive science targets the disembodied view of meaning that results from our objectivist philosophy.

Traditionally meaning is associated with words and sentences. Meaning in this traditional sense is about propositions and words, but SGCS considers this very limited view of meaning; this disembodied view is far too narrow. “Meaning traffics in patterns, images, qualities, feelings, and eventually concepts and propositions.”

Objectivist philosophy recognizes two fundamentally different kinds of meaning: descriptive and emotive meaning. This is an illusory demarcation that led certain philosophers of language to retain focus upon the conceptual/propositional as the only meaning that mattered and that emotive meaning had no meaning in rigorous testable modes of knowing.

SGCS argues “for the central role of emotion in how we make sense of our world. There is no cognition without emotion, even though we are often unaware of the emotional aspects of our thinking.”

[Daniyal]

coberst;1156503 wrote: Are Science and Religion Enemies of Morality?

The Scientific Method seeks to bracket [fence out] meaningfulness. The scientific method hates bias and bias is one form of meaning. Bias causes the individual to often distort “truth”. In the lab bias is the enemy, i.e. meaning is the enemy.

Religion seeks to bracket the “word”, i.e. to create a fence protecting the “word” from outside influence. Religion seeks to bracket human critical thought. I was raised as a Catholic and went to Catholic schools and was taught by nuns. I learned quickly that to “entertain” impure thoughts (thoughts about sex) or questions about my religion were sinful and had to be confessed to a priest in the confessional.

What is meaning?

Meaning is not a thing: meaning is a creatures’ association with an object.

Meaning and epistemology (what can we know and how can we know it) go together like a “horse and carriage”. Epistemology is about comprehension.

Comprehension can be usefully thought of as being hierarchical and formed like a pyramid. At the base is awareness followed by consciousness. Awareness is the beginning of comprehension; it begins with preconceptual and unconscious happenings in our brain. Consciousness adds to awareness the focus of our attention on this object that results from awareness. We are aware of much and we are conscious of little. When I walk in the woods I am aware of much and become quickly terrified by the consciousness of a shape that makes me think bear.

Knowing follows consciousness on this pyramid. Knowing is followed by understanding. Understanding is at the pinnacle of the pyramid of comprehension.

Meaning follows comprehension side by side. Meaning begins with awareness and grows with consciousness and knowing. At the pinnacle of the pyramid is the creation of new meaning through the process of our understanding, which organizes into a gestalt that which is known. The understanding at the pinnacle of comprehension is that rare moment of eureka when all becomes clear after a great struggle to understand a complex matter. Understanding is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle where our knowledge are the pieces of the puzzle.

Understanding is a far step beyond knowing and is significantly different from knowing. Knowledge seeks truth whereas understanding seeks meaning. The following analogy signifies the stages of comprehension as well as the stages of meaningfulness:

Awareness--faces in a crowd.

Consciousness—smile, a handshake, and curiosity.

Knowledge—long talks sharing desires and ambitions.

Understanding—a best friend bringing constant April.

The instinctive force that provides us with the momentum to survive has driven us to seek out a niche for humanity that rests between the gods and the animals. We need a supreme being to provide a means for immortality and we cannot but recognize our animal nature. Our problem has been to create a place for the human species that rests between heaven and earth, between the gods and the animals.

In the process of creating this in-between resting place we have overemphasized our “cool reason” and underestimated our “imagination and heated passions”. We have placed cool reason; devoid of imagination and animal passion, on a pedestal and in so doing we have tried to disassociate our imagination from our reason. We have failed to recognize the essential role of imagination plays in all aspects of thinking and “reasoning”.

In this process we have forced our self to deny that reason has a central role in morality. We deny reason as being a gestalt with feeling, imagination, and passion, i.e. our embodied rationality, a fundamental role in learning how to “get-along and reason together”.

Empathy is at the core of morality and imaginative rationality is at the core of empathy.

“Robert Unger describes as passionate “the whole range of interpersonal encounters in which people do not treat one another as means to one another’s ends.” Passion is the basis of our noninstrumental relations to others, and it takes us beyond fixed character, social roles, and institutional arrangements.”

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson


Science Would Destroy Religion , Meaning Woman Can Have Children Without A Man , Bring People Back To Life Etc ...

[Oscar Namechange]

Daniyal;1165845 wrote: Science Would Destroy Religion , Meaning Woman Can Have Children Without A Man , Bring People Back To Life Etc ... It's already begun Danny. IVF, and cryonic suspension. Life and death without religion or a god. ;)

[Daniyal]

oscar;1165889 wrote: It's already begun Danny. IVF, and cryonic suspension. Life and death without religion or a god. ;)


( Dig It Check This Out )



Where Does The Bible Fit In All This Scientific Data , , Which Is Dis-Proing Its ?Where does the bible fit in all this scientific data, Which is Dis-Proving It's Validity ? If you look at the construction of the bible . You can see that it was written by four different authors . You have the '' J '' text '' which is the '' Jehovah Torah where the name '' Jehovah '' is always mentioned . You have the '' P '' text ''which is the '' Priest '' Torah with opinions in support of Abiathar and Nathan , The two Priest . You have the '' E '' text '' which is the Eloheem Torah and you have the '' D '' text ''

which is the Deuteronomy . Moses '' Version of theTorah . All these are different stories of the same events in the bible .

Yet written in different ways. Sometimes different languages . Which was intertwined and woven in each other , Placed above each other , and made to appear Authentic as if it is The Holy Halios Book Papyrus Of God . This Book continually tell you that these different versions andtext , Which if you begin to read with an open eye or TheEye Of Ra .

You will see that they were taken from the Babylonian Stories . The Curse Seed Of The Canaanites Stories , and the Egiptian stories . Showing you that these were the major influence of the Israelites . Which was organized by the 46 Nicean Council , And formed their Holy Book which is called today the bible . Whether it be The Torah , The Gospels , The Evangel -- Revelation , The New Testament , And The Old Testament . So when you're trying to explain that there is no Validity in The Bible , You have to do your ReSearch and cross examine each story in the bible , And cross examine each name in the bible . For some names were mentioned Twice , Or they were mentioned out of place , or the stories contradict each other , As in the story of Mizraim and the migration of the sons of Noah because they would not be able to explain certain things , They purposely leave out the fact that the family of Noah were in Aftica first .

Then landed in the Mountains of Ararat , Not one Mountain , But Mountains as the Bible states Genesis 8;4 . Then migrated back to Egipt again . With the exception of one son named Japheth . Who lived in the Tents of Shem Genesis 9;27 , Which is why you find Nimrod in Genesis 10;8 . As being a mighty hunter . A Ghibbore '' Mighty One ''. Building Towers Such As The Tower Of Babel .

When in itself is '' Bab '' Door '' And El '' The Doorway To El '' . To reach heaven . However . The God , Be He Yahweh Or Adonai of the Hebrew , Didn't Approve of this so he came down and confounded their tongue , In that part of The Planet Earth of Babylon , Not The Whole Earth .

So these people were all one big family who separated after the flood of the noah story . and if you look in Psalms 78;51 You can see that they place Egipt , which is Mizraim The Son Of Ham And Ham As Being The Same , Egiptians Psalms 78; 51 , Again , this quote makes Mizraim and Ham Both Egiptians along with Psalms 105; 23 . Also read Jeremaih 46;9 .

Mentions Libya , originally called Tehnu as Phut , Who is the son of Ham Genesis 10;6 along side of Ethiopia as Cush . Then the Egiptian term Kemite or Khemet predates the bible or hebraic name Ham as mentioned above thus the original Hamites , Cu****es , and Mizraimites had to have been according to their own Bible . In North East Africa's Libya Extending from what is called Egipt today , down past Sudan , called Ham Genesis 10;6 , And on into Ethiopia called Cush Genesis 2;13 in the bible .

Aren't These The Acestors Of Abraham ?

Being these are The Ancestors of The Patriarch of Montheism , Namely A Chaldean Born Syrian Name Abram ( Genesis 11;27 ) . Who became Abraham ( 2078-1903 B.C.E. ) . ( Genesis 17;5 ) . The founder of what became known as the Hebrew Religion who birthed Isaac ( Genesis 17;19 . Who birthed Jacob ( Genesis 25;26 ) . Who became Israel and fathered Judah ( Genesis29;35 ) . We get the Hebrew Religion . The Israelite AndThe Judaic Which broke off in time to become known as Nazarites , Meccabeans , Essenes , Who became Christian And Later Muhammadans

Wouldn't That Make The Origin Of Religion Stem From Egipt ?

The origin of Monotheism would have to be from '' Ham '' . The father of '' Cush and Mizraim '' and being '' Mizraim is the Biblical name for '' Egipt Genesis 10;6 , Then '' Ham and Cush would be describing Pre-Dynastic Egipt in Cush and Neolithic Egipt in Ham . From Ham back is Neolithic

( Nile + ithic ) , People Who dwell around The Nile or The Rivers as In Genesis 2;13 , And because Cush was the son of Ham .

Cush's reign and the people of his time would be Pre-Dynastic , And Mizraim Whose name is written in Plural . When its singled out becomes Mizr ( Egipt ) + Ra ( rosh or reah , the 20th letter of the hebrew alphabet for '' head or leader '' ) + Im ( A Plural Ending ) . Mizr '' Matsour '' Which is the same as Menes . is The Initator , the first , the head or leader of The First Dynasty , Which would be the Starting of the 46 Dynastic Period .

As I mentioned earlier , The Sons of Noah migrated back to Egipt after the flood , Which means that was not their first migration , Thus The Scientific Finding Of Man Evolving Out Of Africa First And Spreading Throughout The World Out Dates The VAalidity Of The Bible .

L.A. Times . 11/30/00 . By Time Medical Writer . Thomas H . Maugh ll . '' 2.6- Billion - Years - Old Carbon May Be Oldest Remains Of Life On Land . States ; Remnants of organic matter in soil collected in south africa indicate that microorganisms had moved from the earth's oceans onto land at least 2.6 billion years ago , according to Re-searchers from pennsylvania state university . Although life has been known to exist in the oceans for at least 3.8 billion years . .



By ; The Grand AlMufti '' Divan ''

The Imperial Grand Potentate '

Internationally '' Noble ; Rev .

Dr . Malachi Z . York - El