Jump to content
Ser Scot A Ellison

Why does anyone like the idea of "the Singularity"

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not that I'm aware of. Genesis was historically not read as an allegory - or if it was then not in the sense that anyone doubted that gods or deities weren't the one who had created the plants and animals and humans. Whether you buy the garden and original sin and the other stuff is another thing. But there was no other explanation but creationism for the origin of plants and animals that I'm aware of. It became a very strong argument for god with natural theology and all that in modern times (18th century and so).

You then haven't looked very hard, or actually looked at all. 

This is seriously History 101 stuff, so if you want to talk history at all without being seen as pig ignorant, you should know it. 

The catholic church held to four ways of reading the Bible - literal, allegorical , moral and tropological sorry, got carried away there, anagogic, tropological and typological.. Educate yourself a bit there before going out on rants about things you don't know.

 

ETA: to start - Wikipedia.

 

Edited by Rorshach
Clearing up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Not that I'm aware of. Genesis was historically not read as an allegory - or if it was then not in the sense that anyone doubted that gods or deities weren't the one who had created the plants and animals and humans. Whether you buy the garden and original sin and the other stuff is another thing. But there was no other explanation but creationism for the origin of plants and animals that I'm aware of. It became a very strong argument for god with natural theology and all that in modern times (18th century and so).

This is from Origen in the 3rd Century AD:

Quote

For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? And that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? And again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally.[14]

 

And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their several reservoirs on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout forth those (fruits) which are under the control of nature alone), and of the (great) lights and stars upon the fourth, and of aquatic animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world.[15]

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is from Oriegen in the 3rd Century AD:

 

 

The idea of this being taken literally really does sound insane if you spend a second thinking about it.

How were Adam and Eve even supposed to have sex, if neither of the are remotely lustful? If Adam can't get it up the two couldn't have sex. How could they be fruitful and multiply? It’d the equivalent of telling a man who's paralyzed to do jumping jacks.

Which is many Christians-especially in the Catholic Church-didn’t.

The Big Bang theory was formulated by a priest.
And the theory was praised by the pope at the time. 

It’s my understanding this sort of understanding of the Bible being so literal is a problem found more in the US than other parts of the “Western world.”

It’ll probably be even more exacerbated by virtue of conservatives putting creationism as a suitable alternative to evolution and the big bang theory, or just the only thing taught in general. 

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

The idea of this being taken literally really does sound insane if you spend a second thinking about it.

How were Adam and Eve even supposed to have sex, if neither of the are remotely lustful? If Adam can't get it up the two couldn't have sex. How could they be fruitful and multiply? It’d the equivalent of telling a man who's paralyzed to do jumping jacks.

Which is many Christians-especially in the Catholic Church-didn’t.

The Big Bang theory was formulated by a priest.
And the theory was praised by the pope at the time. 

It’s my understanding this sort of understanding of the Bible being so literal is a problem found more in the US than other parts of the “Western world.”

It’ll probably be even more exacerbated by virtue of conservatives putting creationism as a suitable alternative to evolution and the big bang theory, or just the only thing taught in general. 

I also think that anti-theists like to attempt to box Christians in by claiming that the only “valid” interpretation of scripture is the fundamentalist literalist interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I also think that anti-theists like to attempt to box Christians in by claiming that the only “valid” interpretation of scripture is the fundamentalist literalist interpretation.

There just doesn’t seem much point if you’re not going the fundamentalist route. Evolution created the world versus God created the world through evolution is essentially the same thing. Why even bother with the God aspect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, john said:

There just doesn’t seem much point if you’re not going the fundamentalist route. Evolution created the world versus God created the world through evolution is essentially the same thing. Why even bother with the God aspect?

Because it’s my faith.  I don’t ask much less insist that you share it.  

My point with the Origen quote is simply that it is inaccurate to claim that Christians have always believed as modern American Evangelical Fundamentals do.  Origen wrote that in the 3rd Century AD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because it’s my faith.  I don’t ask much less insist that you share it. 

Well sure, absolutely no problem with that. But I am curious nonetheless.

For me, the less mystical faith is the harder I find it to wrap my head around it. Going back to the non physicalist interpretation of a conscious mind, for example, does that extra element signify some spiritual connection to the metaphysical universe or is it just some added awareness currently beyond our understanding granted by the normal function of human development?

(To answer the OP, btw, I’d say basically the same as Tywin a couple of pages ago, which is you join a digital consciousness not for yourself but for your dependents/descendants. Same reason why you make a will or help plan your funeral).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Rorshach said:

You then haven't looked very hard, or actually looked at all. 

This is seriously History 101 stuff, so if you want to talk history at all without being seen as pig ignorant, you should know it. 

The catholic church held to four ways of reading the Bible - literal, allegorical , moral and tropological sorry, got carried away there, anagogic, tropological and typological.. Educate yourself a bit there before going out on rants about things you don't know.

 

ETA: to start - Wikipedia.

 

Of course I know about that. But where is your argument here? If we were two Benedictine monks in the 8th century discussing the origins of animals and plants do you think you would get away by insisting the creation story of the plants and animals in Genesis was to be read only in one of the non-literal ways? I don't think so.

Even if we were willing to move away a little bit from the Biblical text the idea that god himself did create each species perfectly at some point would be treated as the sacrosanct truth. The guy isn't the creator because he didn't create things...

12 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

This is from Origen in the 3rd Century AD:

Oh, I know Origen ... he still got a proper classic education ;-). But he was posthumously condemned as a heretic in matters of the trinity. He is an example for how rational Christianity could have been ... not for what it became.

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because it’s my faith.  I don’t ask much less insist that you share it.  

But your faith is irrelevant in a rational discussion about reality. Any belief worth of being taken seriously by people entering into a rational discourse has to be rationally justified. This has never been done for any religion since we have modern science. Which is also the reason why people like Stephen Hawking (unlike Newton) didn't waste their life and talent by writing pointless papers about the nature of god or their personal relationship with this inconsistent concept.

34 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

My point with the Origen quote is simply that it is inaccurate to claim that Christians have always believed as modern American Evangelical Fundamentals do.  Origen wrote that in the 3rd Century AD.

I personally do respect fundamentals more than those lukewarm fellows who think they can mix superstition and reality. Of course they are also arbitrarily picking and choosing, but at least they admit that their beliefs are fundamentally not rationally justified (especially such who actually believe in 'revelation').

9 minutes ago, john said:

Well sure, absolutely no problem with that. But I am curious nonetheless.

For me, the less mystical faith is the harder I find it to wrap my head around it. Going back to the non physicalist interpretation of a conscious mind, for example, does that extra element signify some spiritual connection to the metaphysical universe or is it just some added awareness currently beyond our understanding granted by the normal function of human development?

(To answer the OP, btw, I’d say basically the same as Tywin a couple of pages ago, which is you join a digital consciousness not for yourself but for your dependents/descendants. Same reason why you make a will or help plan your funeral).

The very fact that we do have to discuss the question of a soul and all that shows how religious dogma and doctrine frames the discussion about concsciousness and things. There is no justification to presuppose or even consider the possibility of a substantial self of any kind. Yet people basically rehash the same arguments about that for hundreds of years now. As I said, 'natural Platonism' and a general sense of entitlement and wishful-thinking (death is shitty) also are to be blamed there, but modern science burned many illusions and silly concepts without a trace ... yet this things remains like a zombie (not a ghost ;-)).

At this point the idea that there might a soul is about as justified as the idea that Balerion the Black Dread lives in my garage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, john said:

Well sure, absolutely no problem with that. But I am curious nonetheless.

For me, the less mystical faith is the harder I find it to wrap my head around it. Going back to the non physicalist interpretation of a conscious mind, for example, does that extra element signify some spiritual connection to the metaphysical universe or is it just some added awareness currently beyond our understanding granted by the normal function of human development?

(To answer the OP, btw, I’d say basically the same as Tywin a couple of pages ago, which is you join a digital consciousness not for yourself but for your dependents/descendants. Same reason why you make a will or help plan your funeral).

I would argue my faith is more mystical than the fundamentalist’s faith:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2014/02/creationism-is-materialisms-creation.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

personally do respect fundamentals more than those lukewarm fellows who think they can mix superstition and reality. Of course they are also arbitrarily picking and choosing, but at least they admit that their beliefs are fundamentally not rationally justified (especially such who actually believe in 'revelation').

They’re also easier for you to argue with.  

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, john said:

There just doesn’t seem much point if you’re not going the fundamentalist route. Evolution created the world versus God created the world through evolution is essentially the same thing. Why even bother with the God aspect?

To point out the obvious, theists do tend to be more concerned with the Salvation/Damnation thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Newton... a fair few continental Europeans dismissed his notion of gravity as being mystical hocus-pocus ("what causes gravity. What is it?"). Newton's response was along the lines that he wasn't concerned with what caused gravity, but with what it did.

(It has also been suggested that Newton's ideas on gravity might well have been inspired by mystical esoteric notions of "As Above, So Below." That's the thing about these people - Lord Varys' separation of superstition and reality becomes damned hard when one is talking about Sincere Believers). 

Edited by The Marquis de Leech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I also think that anti-theists like to attempt to box Christians in by claiming that the only “valid” interpretation of scripture is the fundamentalist literalist interpretation.

Meh, I think this problem comes more my creationists to where they insist there can be only one reading of the Bible, and any thing that contradicts that is an attack on Christianity. 

I mean yeah there are anti-thesists and atheists who do not see allegory as an appropriate reading of the Bible, but plenty who would not raise specific issue for not reading the Bible like that.

4 hours ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

To point out the obvious, theists do tend to be more concerned with the Salvation/Damnation thing?

Not all theists have a Salvation/damnation paradigm in their religion. Plenty theistic religions offer no great salvation or damnation for most people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn’t think this was a religion thread. 

My 3.5 y/o niece’s father’s family are going hardcore Christian indoctrination whenever they have her. (Not the harmless kind. The “gays are bad kind”)

I may have to use my full on anti-religious argument against them soon to shut that shit down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait. You're saying it's not a religion thread?

Then why aren't ya'll talking about singularities?

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

Didn’t think this was a religion thread. 

My 3.5 y/o niece’s father’s family are going hardcore Christian indoctrination whenever they have her. (Not the harmless kind. The “gays are bad kind”)

I may have to use my full on anti-religious argument against them soon to shut that shit down. 

I would strongly recommend against using  this line of reasoning.

It would probably solidify their stance and see any talk of not being a dick to gays as an attack on their faith.

I know I'm not particular to your situation, but I would point out Jesus never really said anything about homosexuality in contrast he said a bunch of stuff about being faithful to your spouse, charity, and being good to your fellow man.

I find this more ”progressive” interpretation a little dishonest. 

I mean Jesus was also a guy who said everyone need worship him or be tortured.

At least in Judaism, god seems mostly concerned about the allegiance of one particular tribe, and generally left most people alone.

But hey if it'll help kids not get tortured, or cast out by their parents for the crime of liking certain members of the same sex in a romantic/sexual way I'm all in doing whatever works.

Edited by Varysblackfyre321

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

But hey if it'll help kids not get tortured, or cast out by their parents for the crime of liking certain members of the same sex in a romantic/sexual way I'm all in doing whatever works.

It's weird right?

I convinced my little brother with the discussion:

"Some women are attracted to men who are taller, some men are attracted to women with blond hair, some women are attracted to men with a lot of muscles ,some men are attracted to women with freckles, some women are attracted to women, some men are attracted to men." (abridged version)

I don't get the hate.

Seems pretty simple to me.

Edited by A True Kaniggit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for coming back to this thread a few days late...

On 2/13/2020 at 2:56 AM, Lord Varys said:

Oh, but you don't have to base your being special on nonsense or fantasy? We are pretty smart mammals. And the world is infinitely more complex and interesting than the childish explanations mythology or religion have offered throughout our cultural history.

Sure. But it takes time to abandon myth and accept scientific/rational explanations instead, at least within the collective mind. And I don't think that's wrong per se if people want to cling a bit to old beliefs  -at least as it doesn't harm anyone.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

Of course I know about that. But where is your argument here? If we were two Benedictine monks in the 8th century discussing the origins of animals and plants do you think you would get away by insisting the creation story of the plants and animals in Genesis was to be read only in one of the non-literal ways? I don't think so.

Your incredulity is not a compelling argument at all. You asked my argument, and present .. the speculation of your own incredulity. Your rationality leaves a whole lot to be desired, really.

Your example is a perfect case in point. Without pointing to Galileo (because that myth of him is another thread, and generally people read a lot into it that really isn't there), please show me somewhere in antiquity/middle ages where people don't speculate about nature. 

And the Catholic church was willing to change the interpretation of scripture, if new knowledge came to light. Which generally came from the educated classes, not surprisingly, which were the church, generally, also not surprisingly. 

But back to your example. Two Benedictine monks discussing the Bible and interpretation in the 8th century. I can imagine that. The origin of plants and species, though? Why that example? Knowledge that is thousand years (literaly) into the future? That makes ... no sense at all, and shows a clear and present case of presentism (or Whig history, if you like). 

To show the utter pointlessness of that example, imagine that a thousand years from now, cow dung is shown to have properties which enables us to traverse the known universe in a matter of minutes. To you and me, that is nonsense, because we do not have at present any theoretical framework that allows for such speculation. Yet that is your question. Why, do you ask, wouldn't those monks speculate about something that they have no theoretical reason to do?

Duh.

The past is a different country. Treat it like that. And before you say "I know": no. You don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2020 at 2:12 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

They’re also easier for you to argue with.  

I don't really argue with creationist. They are beyond rational discourse. Lukewarm people are still willing to change some aspects of their doctrine, so it can work there.

On 2/15/2020 at 4:51 AM, The Marquis de Leech said:

To point out the obvious, theists do tend to be more concerned with the Salvation/Damnation thing?

Which is basically nonsense they draw from their own doctrine/ideology. There is no reason to believe that any of us are facing damnation or are in need of salvation.

On 2/15/2020 at 4:56 AM, The Marquis de Leech said:

On Newton... a fair few continental Europeans dismissed his notion of gravity as being mystical hocus-pocus ("what causes gravity. What is it?"). Newton's response was along the lines that he wasn't concerned with what caused gravity, but with what it did.

From what I know, the origins/mechanism of gravity is still not understood. We do know that it works but not what causes it, etc. Newton properly describing an actual principle at work is good science.

On 2/15/2020 at 4:56 AM, The Marquis de Leech said:

(It has also been suggested that Newton's ideas on gravity might well have been inspired by mystical esoteric notions of "As Above, So Below." That's the thing about these people - Lord Varys' separation of superstition and reality becomes damned hard when one is talking about Sincere Believers). 

We are all children of our time - and I don't really care about people's private beliefs. The issue is when things like that creep into their professional work. This doesn't stop at science but continues to law, politics, etc. In fact, it is much worse in the latter category.

On 2/15/2020 at 9:30 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Meh, I think this problem comes more my creationists to where they insist there can be only one reading of the Bible, and any thing that contradicts that is an attack on Christianity. 

If you go by the traditional ways to interpret the Bible the literal interpretation is always one way to go by it. Taking the Bible literally is not wrong - it can also be an allegory, have some moral meaning that's not expressly spilled out in the text. But the idea that you can tell a true believer that he cannot or should not take a part of his holy scriptures as literally true is pretty weird.

The lukewarm people just have moved goal posts - they still insist that Jesus and/or his sacrifice are real/relevant, or that at least the god is real, etc.

On 2/15/2020 at 9:30 AM, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Not all theists have a Salvation/damnation paradigm in their religion. Plenty theistic religions offer no great salvation or damnation for most people.

Yeah, even quite a few believing Jews don't give a fig about damnation or salvation - and rightfully so, since most parts of the Hebrew Bible don't allow for an afterlife nor expect some kind of savior.

On 2/15/2020 at 11:22 AM, Rippounet said:

Sorry for coming back to this thread a few days late...

Sure. But it takes time to abandon myth and accept scientific/rational explanations instead, at least within the collective mind. And I don't think that's wrong per se if people want to cling a bit to old beliefs  -at least as it doesn't harm anyone.

I'd say that the irrational cultural enshrinement ridiculous religious ideas get is sort of a special case. If most societies were caring less about such superstitions since could move forward much faster. Granted, in the case we are discussing here I definitely say that religion isn't the main/only reason behind the whole insistence that we must have a self. But religions sticking to the idea of a soul or an afterlife help to perpetuate that idea.

And to be sure - what you do as a private person is of no concern to me. It is only when superstitions start to influence or dictate things in the public sphere that I get concerned.

On 2/15/2020 at 11:35 AM, Rorshach said:

But back to your example. Two Benedictine monks discussing the Bible and interpretation in the 8th century. I can imagine that. The origin of plants and species, though? Why that example? Knowledge that is thousand years (literaly) into the future? That makes ... no sense at all, and shows a clear and present case of presentism (or Whig history, if you like). 

Because that's the issue at hand. The question who created animal and plant life. If you said god had nothing to do with that - or that god wasn't necessary, which is what Darwin did - then you would have had massive problems in the middle ages. You would still have massive problems if as a cleric you declared that god had nothing to do with evolution and it was a mindless process, not destined/designed to bring forth naked apes worshipping the big naked ape in the sky they created in their image.

Scientific questions were always a thing, just as people were always curious about their surrounding world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×