Guess the information element and position it's in.

[Danali]

Once I was explaining to my mum and dad, despite how altruistic religion attempts to be, it can still harbour racist ideals. For example, the people who founded a religion all have some form of culture, and as a result, this culture will affect the way they preach, what they expect people to do and how they interpret things. Naturally in their good will they will try and tell others about this religion and tell them how they should do things, however it outright ignores others cultural perspectives and doesn't account for the people who are different hence there is conflict because the "different" people are seen as a problem, as a result, this hierarchal problem seeps into the whole organisation as the "different" people will never be able to climb the religious ranks and put forth their own ideas and perspectives. (This is just one example of how I analyse and break things down)

Thoughts ??

[Bertrand]

this is a universal problem that seeps into everything because it starts in the individual. in other words its not limited to religion, it extends to families, government, and culture itself

[ooo]

science is a cult too, btw nice picture

[Bertrand]

or you could go the other way and say religion is in everything

[Computer Loser]

yes, things often get lost in "generational" translation. it's important to speak the cultures "language" to engage them in the best way possible.

for example, singing old school hymns probably won't reach the younger generation, therefore sometimes you'll see churches make the music more "modernized" to reach the younger generation.

in general, you need to constantly adapt/evolve because cultures, what's "cool", what's "in", constantly change; it's why Borders went out of business and Barnes and Nobles didn't after they made the kindle...Same thing applies to reaching out to different cultures with religion.

[Danali]

or you could go the other way and say religion is in everything

Now that is interesting. Why do you say so ?

[SaveYourself]

The same can be said of other forms of knowledge and culture, not just religion. A lot of 'objective' knowledge falls to racist stereotypes too - i.e. history and cultural studies gets defined by dominant cultures, winners, imperialists etc. Medical studies tend to take white man as the 'norm' and then suggest dosage, dietary standards etc based on that so sometimes women get affected differently by drugs (because the dosage didn't take their hormonal difference into account) and standardised diets don't account for race (lactose intolerance is correlated to race, for example, but dairy is universally recommended).

So I don't think its correlated to an IE and its certainly not just religion. Religious institutions might harbour more conservative world views that don't challenge it, but I think academic institutions do as well. And there are some attempts within religious institutions to change hierarchy and the idea that only one world view / culture is acceptable (like Liberation Theology).

[WVBRY]

The same can be said of other forms of knowledge and culture, not just religion. A lot of 'objective' knowledge falls to racist stereotypes too - i.e. history and cultural studies gets defined by dominant cultures, winners, imperialists etc. Medical studies tend to take white man as the 'norm' and then suggest dosage, dietary standards etc based on that so sometimes women get affected differently by drugs (because the dosage didn't take their hormonal difference into account) and standardised diets don't account for race (lactose intolerance is correlated to race, for example, but dairy is universally recommended).

So I don't think its correlated to an IE and its certainly not just religion. Religious institutions might harbour more conservative world views that don't challenge it, but I think academic institutions do as well. And there are some attempts within religious institutions to change hierarchy and the idea that only one world view / culture is acceptable (like Liberation Theology).

Academic institutions hold conservative worldviews? We must have a different definition of the term then.

I think it's the opposite of what you're saying, western liberal institutions are actually going through a process of questioning all "metanarratives" that are written from the standpoint of said culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanarrative

While I think questioning is fine, we're actually getting to the point of seeing the decline of the culture we live in due to excessive mistrust in institutions.

I do agree that alot of perspectives whether, historical, religious, etc, reflect the culture they were written in - but this is fine in itself. The idea of a religion that transcends culture is not native to most religions, just the ones that survived over millenia as mass movements.

And yes, to understand something, such as a religious text, one needs to understand its context. Obviously there is no transcending context completely.

[WVBRY]

Once I was explaining to my mum and dad, despite how altruistic religion attempts to be, it can still harbour racist ideals. For example, the people who founded a religion all have some form of culture, and as a result, this culture will affect the way they preach, what they expect people to do and how they interpret things. Naturally in their good will they will try and tell others about this religion and tell them how they should do things, however it outright ignores others cultural perspectives and doesn't account for the people who are different hence there is conflict because the "different" people are seen as a problem, as a result, this hierarchal problem seeps into the whole organisation as the "different" people will never be able to climb the religious ranks and put forth their own ideas and perspectives. (This is just one example of how I analyse and break things down)

Thoughts ??

I don't think seeing things from the perspective of one's culture outright ignores other's cultural perspectives. It can. But not always, not necessarily. And yes, this is partly type related I think, since seeing things from others' perspective is and people with unvalued (beta and gamma) have more trouble being open minded towards "outsiders" unless thay have themselves been in this position.

Btw, which religion are you referring to, Christianity? And which hierarchy, the Catholic church? I shudder at these things, so I'll leave others to discuss them, lol.

[SaveYourself]

Academic institutions hold conservative worldviews? We must have a different definition of the term then.

I think it's the opposite of what you're saying, western liberal institutions are actually going through a process of questioning all "metanarratives" that are written from the standpoint of said culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanarrative

While I think questioning is fine, we're actually getting to the point of seeing the decline of the culture we live in due to excessive mistrust in institutions.

I do agree that alot of perspectives whether, historical, religious, etc, reflect the culture they were written in - but this is fine in itself. The idea of a religion that transcends culture is not native to most religions, just the ones that survived over millenia as mass movements.

And yes, to understand something, such as a religious text, one needs to understand its context. Obviously there is no transcending context completely.

Yes increasingly there is an awareness in academic institutions of questioning the 'objectivity' of knowledge but a lot of it goes unquestioned. Academic institutions certainly aren't 'conservative' compared to the average population. BUT there's a certain respect and unquestionability around classic modes of thinking that are often left unchallenged. So when I say 'conservative' I mean looking back to tradition. I was studying philosophy / social sciences for nearly five years in higher education (and 7 years if you count ages 16-18) before someone challenged the idea of Hobbes & Locke as pioneers of modernity, for example (and that was in a class specifically designed to question the definition of modernity). I think the more 'classic' the education (and thus usually the better and older Universities) the more this is true.

That's not to say there isn't a place to study Hobbes and Locke. Just we should probably also be aware of their biases and cultural contexts so that we know that their philosophies and historical reports aren't objective. I guess my point isn't that we should mistrust all institutions but that you can't single out religion as the one with hierarchies, bias and racial prejudices. These are features amongst most institutions. We don't need to get rid of institutions but we do need to have an awareness of their lack of objectivity and our ability (and duty!) to challenge and reform them.

[WVBRY]

Yes increasingly there is an awareness in academic institutions of questioning the 'objectivity' of knowledge but a lot of it goes unquestioned. Academic institutions certainly aren't 'conservative' compared to the average population. BUT there's a certain respect and unquestionability around classic modes of thinking that are often left unchallenged. So when I say 'conservative' I mean looking back to tradition. I was studying philosophy / social sciences for nearly five years in higher education (and 7 years if you count ages 16-18) before someone challenged the idea of Hobbes & Locke as pioneers of modernity, for example (and that was in a class specifically designed to question the definition of modernity). I think the more 'classic' the education (and thus usually the better and older Universities) the more this is true.

That's not to say there isn't a place to study Hobbes and Locke. Just we should probably also be aware of their biases and cultural contexts so that we know that their philosophies and historical reports aren't objective. I guess my point isn't that we should mistrust all institutions but that you can't single out religion as the one with hierarchies, bias and racial prejudices. These are features amongst most institutions. We don't need to get rid of institutions but we do need to have an awareness of their lack of objectivity and our ability (and duty!) to challenge and reform them.

Ok but I'm not sure I understand: do you mean that objectivity is not possible and that any claims made of objectivity is what we should challenge, or do you simply mean that institutions are not objective but we should challenge and reform them to be?

[SaveYourself]

Ok but I'm not sure I understand: do you mean that objectivity is not possible and that any claims made of objectivity is what we should challenge, or do you simply mean that institutions are not objective but we should challenge and reform them to be?

The former

[WVBRY]

The former

But that kinda begs the question: if those institutions can't be objective, since objective knowledge doesn't exist, why criticize them for not being objective, since objectivity is not possible?

Or are you saying that we should be criticizing them for claiming to be objective? If so, what should they be aiming for? It seems that pure subjectvity is a really wierd attitude in general: for example, you go to a heart surgeon, to get surgery, because you'll die if you don't, and he says "well there is no way to know if these procedures I learned in medical school are objective, so I'll just experiment, screw around and hope you'll come out better." Or a civil engineer who says "well, I don't know if math and physics are objective, so I'll ignore them and just check the security measures any way I want to."

I think you would agree these are really weird attitudes to have towards knowledge, when your life depends on it. So what about our institutions, what should they be doing, teaching, etc. Should the courts decide things in a subjective fashion? "I like you, you commited a murder, so I'll let you off the hook, I don't like you, you'll go to jail for smoking pot because my decision is arbitrary!". Isn't the whole point of our civil institutions to treat people fairly? What happens when the law becomes subjective? Or when the courts do? Also, when it comes to education, I'm not saying that teachers should teach their opinions as facts, or not be aware of biases they may have, the role of education is also to teach people to think critically....but not to incessantly question things that have enough proof, like say, intelligent design being taught as equal to evolution.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying there are subjective aspects to being human, lol. I'm not saying we should deny that, repress it, or anything like that, but to say there is no objective knowledge possible is wrong. After all, if the statement "no objective truth/knowledge exists" is true, it invalidates itself!

[SaveYourself]

But that kinda begs the question: if those institutions can't be objective, since objective knowledge doesn't exist, why criticize them for not being objective, since objectivity is not possible?

Or are you saying that we should be criticizing them for claiming to be objective? If so, what should they be aiming for? It seems that pure subjectvity is a really wierd attitude in general: for example, you go to a heart surgeon, to get surgery, because you'll die if you don't, and he says "well there is no way to know if these procedures I learned in medical school are objective, so I'll just experiment, screw around and hope you'll come out better." Or a civil engineer who says "well, I don't know if math and physics are objective, so I'll ignore them and just check the security measures any way I want to."

I think you would agree these are really weird attitudes to have towards knowledge, when your life depends on it. So what about our institutions, what should they be doing, teaching, etc. Should the courts decide things in a subjective fashion? "I like you, you commited a murder, so I'll let you off the hook, I don't like you, you'll go to jail for smoking pot because my decision is arbitrary!". Isn't the whole point of our civil institutions to treat people fairly? What happens when the law becomes subjective? Or when the courts do? Also, when it comes to education, I'm not saying that teachers should teach their opinions as facts, or not be aware of biases they may have, the role of education is also to teach people to think critically....but not to incessantly question things that have enough proof, like say, intelligent design being taught as equal to evolution.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying there are subjective aspects to being human, lol. I'm not saying we should deny that, repress it, or anything like that, but to say there is no objective knowledge possible is wrong. After all, if the statement "no objective truth/knowledge exists" is true, it invalidates itself!

Yeah, the claiming of objectivity is the issue. I think my original point was more about the fact that religion gets singled out as the institution that takes a subjective idea based on culture and faith and applies it objectively regardless of who it is being preached to. So that's not to say that we should fight for complete subjectivity but that if one is going to take the stance that religion should be criticised for its subjectivity then one should also hold other institutions to the same standards. My personal view on the issue is that nothing should be treated as unquestionable fact. Also knowledge and institutions should be discussed along with how and why they are, and not just that they are. So law IS subjective because it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but there should be some standard to regulate society fairly. BUT that standard should be subject to critique and a sense that it doesn't represent anything objective.

There's possibly two different definitions of objective being used here? I think you mean objective as in, a law that applies universally to a situation i.e. a drug offence will always result in a sentence and it doesn't matter whether the jury believe in that law or not. Whereas I'm using it to mean that it is not possible to ever factually say that drug use is wrong and therefore a law saying it is wrong is just a societally agreed upon subjective opinion. So I'm saying law is subjective and can be questioned and challenged and should not be presented in a way that suggests that it is a necessary fact. But yeah, for the institution to function it needs to agree on a subjective opinion and uphold it fairly and treat everyone to the same standard. Then you get back to the original issue of it just representing the subjective opinion of one culture at one time and location in history. IMO, that's not an issue as long as there's freedom to discuss it and point out when its not working / when its being racist / when its being conservative or whatever else.

My main issue is with religion being singled out as the sole institution that does this.

[WVBRY]

Yeah, the claiming of objectivity is the issue. I think my original point was more about the fact that religion gets singled out as the institution that takes a subjective idea based on culture and faith and applies it objectively regardless of who it is being preached to. So that's not to say that we should fight for complete subjectivity but that if one is going to take the stance that religion should be criticised for its subjectivity then one should also hold other institutions to the same standards. My personal view on the issue is that nothing should be treated as unquestionable fact. Also knowledge and institutions should be discussed along with how and why they are, and not just that they are. So law IS subjective because it doesn't necessarily have to be that way, but there should be some standard to regulate society fairly. BUT that standard should be subject to critique and a sense that it doesn't represent anything objective.

There's possibly two different definitions of objective being used here? I think you mean objective as in, a law that applies universally to a situation i.e. a drug offence will always result in a sentence and it doesn't matter whether the jury believe in that law or not. Whereas I'm using it to mean that it is not possible to ever factually say that drug use is wrong and therefore a law saying it is wrong is just a societally agreed upon subjective opinion. So I'm saying law is subjective and can be questioned and challenged and should not be presented in a way that suggests that it is a necessary fact. But yeah, for the institution to function it needs to agree on a subjective opinion and uphold it fairly and treat everyone to the same standard. Then you get back to the original issue of it just representing the subjective opinion of one culture at one time and location in history. IMO, that's not an issue as long as there's freedom to discuss it and point out when its not working / when its being racist / when its being conservative or whatever else.

My main issue is with religion being singled out as the sole institution that does this.

Ok, you are saying that religion should be held to the same standard as other insititutions, if we are going to criticize it for its lack of subjectivity, I hear you loud and clear on that.

I would go even further and say that since religion is not something that concerns everyone (at least not in secular societies), it shouldn't be held to the same standards as say, the law and the courts since those potentiallty concern everyone; but I agree there is a difference between objectivity as in holding everyone to the same standards and objectivity meaning objective knowledge.

I also agree we should be free to discuss when something in an institution is not working or whatever else...we are free to criticize and reform, or progress would not be possible and we'd be stuck in mistakes of the past forever.

My beef was more with claiming that objective knowledge can't exist, and I object to this on philosophical grounds but I agree that is not entirely related to the topic, but I wanted to see how much it was connected to what you were saying.

I will say that I am not sure how much laws should be based on subjective opinions which we all agree upon, that seems like saying because a majority agrees to something that makes it right...I mean, in a democracy, a majority of people agreeing to something often does make it law, but not necessarily right. I don't have an asnwer as to what would make it right, but saying the majority should decide seems to me like saying strength in numbers decides what is right...which seems wrong on alot of levels. This seems connnected to the topic because the topic is about fairness and how cultural bias potentially skews institutions in favor of a majority...in your example of penalizing drug use you were clearly talking about how culture and the what the majority of people accept culturally influences public policy so it seems related. The connection between the war on drugs and racism towards minorities has been well documented btw. It begs the question of laws being passed by representatives elected by a majority potentially discriminating against minorities (ethnic or otherwise). See, questioning institutions.

[SaveYourself]

Ok, you are saying that religion should be held to the same standard as other insititutions, if we are going to criticize it for its lack of subjectivity, I hear you loud and clear on that.

I would go even further and say that since religion is not something that concerns everyone (at least not in secular societies), it shouldn't be held to the same standards as say, the law and the courts since those potentiallty concern everyone; but I agree there is a difference between objectivity as in holding everyone to the same standards and objectivity meaning objective knowledge.

yesss I agree on this. Religion bashing is so passé.

I also agree we should be free to discuss when something in an institution is not working or whatever else...we are free to criticize and reform, or progress would not be possible and we'd be stuck in mistakes of the past forever.

My beef was more with claiming that objective knowledge can't exist, and I object to this on philosophical grounds but I agree that is not entirely related to the topic, but I wanted to see how much it was connected to what you were saying.

I will say that I am not sure how much laws should be based on subjective opinions which we all agree upon, that seems like saying because a majority agrees to something that makes it right...I mean, in a democracy, a majority of people agreeing to something often does make it law, but not necessarily right. I don't have an asnwer as to what would make it right, but saying the majority should decide seems to me like saying strength in numbers decides what is right...which seems wrong on alot of levels. This seems connnected to the topic because the topic is about fairness and how cultural bias potentially skews institutions in favor of a majority...in your example of penalizing drug use you were clearly talking about how culture and the what the majority of people accept culturally influences public policy so it seems related. The connection between the war on drugs and racism towards minorities has been well documented btw. It begs the question of laws being passed by representatives elected by a majority potentially discriminating against minorities (ethnic or otherwise). See, questioning institutions.

This is exactly what I'm saying, though!! The law isn't objectively RIGHT or WRONG it's just whatever the culture decrees - a.k.a. always subjective to the time and space. And the questioning you're doing there is exactly what I think should be done to all institutions and an example of how an "objective" intellectual one can fall to the same trap as the "subjective" spiritual one. Then the original criticism of religion that it doesn't allow for a range of cultures / perspectives to climb the ranks can be said of basically all the institutions we've discussed.

[WVBRY]

This is exactly what I'm saying, though!! The law isn't objectively RIGHT or WRONG it's just whatever the culture decrees - a.k.a. always subjective to the time and space. And the questioning you're doing there is exactly what I think should be done to all institutions and an example of how an "objective" intellectual one can fall to the same trap as the "subjective" spiritual one. Then the original criticism of religion that it doesn't allow for a range of cultures / perspectives to climb the ranks can be said of basically all the institutions we've discussed.

I totaly get what you're saying here, and while you understood me, I think I'm trying to imply how relativism invalidates the need for debate in the first place (debate which is necessary to reform institutions).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there will always be a majority in institutions that decides things in favor of a minority. My example with the war on drugs was to point out that what the majority decides isn't always just...for certian minorities, which is what you're saying, too. So if it's the culture that decides what is right vs wrong, it's always going to be the majority that decides, possibly to the detriment of a minority.

I know you're saying as much, I guess what I'm trying to say in addition is that idea that all right and wrong is always subjective seems wrong, because that means it's always a question of a majority deciding. All laws that are written have a context and need to be understand in their timeframe, but it seems that, at least, at the time of their passing, they need to be just for all. That doesn't mean that what is right and wrong can't be debated, it should be, but saying it is purely subjective makes it seem like there is nothing to discuss, because it is subjective. It simply reflects the will of a majority.

It seems introducing diverse perspectives, and cutures, into institutions, while good, isn't enough without a search for truth/justice etc that goes beyond culture. I guess that's what i'm trying to articulate, but it's not easy because I'm sort...of discovering what I think as we go along this discussion.

If all is relative, the cycle of the majority deciding in favor of their interests against those of a minority will repeat itself, with one group possibly being the majority today, and the minority tommorow.

I don't, btw, know how to discover what is right and wrong, I don't have all the answers but it seems that relativism is wrong in that it makes all debate pointless and everything in politics becomes a matter of the majority deciding...

That is where I'm getting at, and I think it is relevant to the topic, since the op asked a question about religious institutions (though I agree with you we should apply it to all instittuions) being bias in favor of one culture. The OP seems to be saying this will lead to discrimination, I'm not sure, it can like I said, but I don't know if it necessarily will. In my opinion, this is a secondary question, the main question should be "what is fair and what is fairness? What is justice?" Or something like that.

[Bertrand]

everything is sufficiently different that one could always find a reason for applying a different standard. saying religion is not secular therefore can't be treated with the same deference we offer secular institutions is just to beg the question on how we ought to treat religion more harshly. if people want to destroy religion because they've defined it as everything that is wrong with the world they should just come right out and say it. that would be the ethical stance, its like, man up to the courage of your convictions. people on these forums should know by now that flattening the religious element out of one's psychic life is just a matter of preference and that within the dimensions of religious belief lies just as much real truth as any other configuration. this idea that doing away with religion is even possible is really dumb in that light and more or less grandstanding with no chance of success anyway, since religion is built into humanity and infiltrates every other domain, albeit unconsciously. these calls to purge it from public life are just requesting society repress what certain individuals have repressed. its not exactly a great public policy nor particularly insightful, despite how these people style themselves as somehow enlightened. they're just sort of stunted in a unique way they'd like to see reflected in how society organizes itself. it can't actually happen or if it did it would simply be the end of the development of society not progress. the rings can go deeper but you don't just hack parts off, all that does is cause violent blowback, which ends up deepening the ring anyway, except through struggle. in this way people think they're heading toward a utopia with this messaging but its more like armageddon. religion already knows this, but secular man would prefer to stick their head in the sand as some kind of long term solution. the soviets already tried this with limited success, in any case. people tend to think of them as somewhat backwards, but as Solzhenitsyn pointed out in his speech at harvard, the soviets were centuries ahead in testing this very idea. the US is just now starting to take the idea "seriously", and yet we already have an example of where that kind of repression leads

[WVBRY]

everything is sufficiently different that one could always find a reason for applying a different standard. saying religion is not secular therefore can't be treated with the same deference we offer secular institutions is just to beg the question on how we ought to treat religion more harshly. if people want to destroy religion because they've defined it as everything that is wrong with the world they should just come right out and say it. that would be the ethical stance, its like, man up to the courage of your convictions. people on these forums should know by now that flattening the religious element out of one's psychic life is just a matter of preference and that within the dimensions of religious belief lies just as much real truth as any other configuration. this idea that doing away with religion is even possible is really dumb in that light and more or less grandstanding with no chance of success anyway, since religion is built into humanity and infiltrates every other domain, albeit unconsciously. these calls to purge it from public life are just requesting society repress what certain individuals have repressed. its not exactly a great public policy nor particularly insightful, despite how these people style themselves as somehow enlightened. they're just sort of stunted in a unique way they'd like to see reflected in how society organizes itself. it can't actually happen or if it did it would simply be the end of the development of society not progress. the rings can go deeper but you don't just hack parts off, all that does is cause violent blowback, which ends up deepening the ring anyway, except through struggle. in this way people think they're heading toward a utopia with this messaging but its more like armageddon. religion already knows this, but secular man would prefer to stick their head in the sand as some kind of long term solution

I was simply stating a fact about political institutions being secular, since it is the case in most countries. As I've stated above I am not a big fan of Christianity or of Abrahamic faiths in general for that matter but I agree with you that religion is built into humanity (that's not a bad thing).

I do think a separation of church and state is desirable, as it allows for more religious freedom and tolerance of religious minorities (as state religions have often persecuted religious minorities).

[Bertrand]

separation of church and state is actually an illusion, and technically speaking impossible (for the foregoing reasons given, i.e.: that religiosity is a psychological feature everyone has to some degree of conscious awareness), but tolerance is a virtue that is possible, and in virtue of being a fundamentally religious idea, has a chance of achieving what separation of church and state cannot, precisely because it can and does penetrate into every crack. that's whats so shallow about these ideas rooted in verbal constructions, its like people think by declaring a policy of separation of church and state it actually achieves anything. at best it codifies a value that was in development long prior, and the law is kept only for so long as that value remains in place. this is why people fundamentally misunderstand religion, because they really believe if they can just rejigger the verbal constructions it changes everything because they assume its the verbal constructions that actually carry the force, whereas they're always a byproduct of some deeper underlying reality. its not like rebuilding an engine with spare parts to be better, that's not how this works. values aren't modular. you don't piecemeal a constitution and the perfect society pops out, as south africa so aptly demonstrates. frankenstein has a short lifespan, despite technically being designed immortal. treating religion, ethics, narrative, laws, etc as technology is an aberration whose time will pass

[Ryan]

Separation of church and state just means they are not sleeping with each other. How is that an illusion/impossible? Their corruption is limited to their subjects for the most part in the western world.

[Bertrand]

in a vacuum sure, in the context of this conversation, you've missed the point

[Ryan]

No, I didn't. I just don't care enough to correct the rest of your crap. You sound like a religious person. Why would I waste sound arguments on you?

[Bertrand]

lol, thanks for stopping by

[SaveYourself]

No, I didn't. I just don't care enough to correct the rest of your crap. You sound like a religious person. Why would I waste sound arguments on you?

wait I meant to like Bertrand's post rather than mark this post as constructive but now I can't unmark it as constructive

basically I do not think it is constructive to assume that:
a) all people who are religious are incapable of sound reasoning
b) you are smarter than religious people
c) not bashing religion = being religious
d) you saying any of the above things is relevant to this discussion

[Ryan]

Fuck off. I will take my chances.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah OP you make good points, well Christ consciousness and Oneness is all about teaching unity and how we are all one and differences are an illusion. Which on paper sounds awesome but in reality it often translates to 'Oneness means everybody being a white straight male asshole (funny how that's the most common image of how "God" is portrayed eh, and I am right about this because I am the majority race and sexual orientation as well as gender.') So they warp and corrupt Oneness to justify their bigotry, racism and homophobia. It can't be bad if it's righteous in their own minds.

Also a little healthy narcissism I would argue is also a definite 'good', the problem this in reality it gets very complicated. How much narcissism exactly is "healthy" and what point does it become unhealthy. Obviously many people are going to disagree based on their personal biases. And you can't twist things either around where the different/outcasts know what they are talking about more than the people whose religion have been protected by society (such reverse arrogance would be quite hypocritical), ie obviously there is good reasons why it was protected and thought above other systems. Oneness means just that oneness, and the true experience of oneness really is divine but many people have the ego idea of Oneness- and thus religion becomes corrupted, as well as almost everything else they touch.

All My Children (one of my favorite daytime soaps too lol RIP Agnes Nixon), not 'I think I like this kid better than that one, fuck you.' Nah God doesn't behave that way though emotionally we still want him to, and that's the root ache.

But it isn't so painful for me because I have my doubts that God exists in the first place, the awesome non-ego feeling of Oneness is more of a psychological thing to me.

[WVBRY]

in a vacuum sure, in the context of this conversation, you've missed the point

I don't think @COOL AND MANLY missed the point. You were challenging the definition of separation of church and state in a vacuum after all.

[Bertrand]

nah

[WVBRY]

Different countries give very different meaning to separation of church and state. In the US, it means that government can't impose religion or religious matters on its people, whereas in Turkey for example it means that the government doesn't meddle in the dealings of religious people, and in France it means that religion has no place in the public sphere. All of these definitions overlap in some ways, but not in others, so your objection is understandable.

Still, government can be structured in a way so as to make religious tolerance more likely to be respected. There cannot be genuine protection of religious freedom when government is in bed with a church or other religious organization, that's fundamentally how I use separation of church and state, as to mean government is not beholden to the interests of a church. I don't think this is a muddled concept.

[Rebelondeck]

People are tribal by nature and tribes form around common belief systems that demonize non-believers to various degrees. It's born out of fear - a protectionist attitude that has served humans throughout history. People fear beliefs more than physical appearance; they will fear physical traits only when they 'believe' they represent something bad. I haven't met many people that were truly open to other beliefs; even the ones that say we should be more accepting or open often aren't very accepting of or open to those who aren't......

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

What I have found is that people have a bias (but I’m not sure where they get it) and they then cherry-pick information that reinforces that bias.

[ooo]

homophilia

[Guillaine]

People are tribal by nature and tribes form around common belief systems that demonize non-believers to various degrees. It's born out of fear - a protectionist attitude that has served humans throughout history. People fear beliefs more than physical appearance; they will fear physical traits only when they 'believe' they represent something bad. I haven't met many people that were truly open to other beliefs; even the ones that say we should be more accepting or open often aren't very accepting of or open to those who aren't......


a.k.a. I/O

Because to be open is to be not rooted in an idea to the point that you are identified with it, which means to be floating in space (identity wise) which means to be defenceless, accepting of putting yourself in a very vulnerable position with respect to most other people and to curb your inner critic and inner panic of the unknown, in order to be free to think. It requires giving up of ideas about yourself, your identity. Plus there are physical risks involved with being ostracized, possibly death.

[photon]

Once I was explaining to my mum and dad, despite how altruistic religion attempts to be, it can still harbour racist ideals. For example, the people who founded a religion all have some form of culture, and as a result, this culture will affect the way they preach, what they expect people to do and how they interpret things. Naturally in their good will they will try and tell others about this religion and tell them how they should do things, however it outright ignores others cultural perspectives and doesn't account for the people who are different hence there is conflict because the "different" people are seen as a problem, as a result, this hierarchal problem seeps into the whole organisation as the "different" people will never be able to climb the religious ranks and put forth their own ideas and perspectives. (This is just one example of how I analyse and break things down)

Thoughts ??

Ethics with a high dimensionality (3D/4D) which means Ethical type probably.

[Rebelondeck]

.........Plus there are physical risks involved with being ostracized, possibly death.

Are you referring to the extremes of tribalism: criminal gangs, terrorist organizations and lynch mobs? Yes, most people identify with tribes for self-identity and or self-preservation. It's also inevitable that ethos will try to impose itself on outsiders, and many tribes don't limit their imposition to polite talk.

a.k.a. I/O

[para]

It is funny how we distinguish 'belief' from 'knowledge'. Even though those ground assumptions we all base our various beliefs on are just that, assumptions. You can create a system that supports any belief if your ground assumptions have a specific quality. Something will always be verifiable as true when the system supports it.

A logical argument can only be constructed insofar we hold certain things to be true. We need to define 'true', we need to define 'definition' etc.

[WVBRY]

It is funny how we distinguish 'belief' from 'knowledge'. Even though those ground assumptions we all base our various beliefs on are just that, assumptions. You can create a system that supports any belief if your ground assumptions have a specific quality. Something will always be verifiable as true when the system supports it.

A logical argument can only be constructed insofar we hold certain things to be true. We need to define 'true', we need to define 'definition' etc.

I agree with the first paragraph but not the second.

Words correspond to concepts, and while it is good to agree on what we're talking about, since sometimes a word can have multiple meanings, I don't think there is a need to go as far as define "definition" for example as most people have the same idea what concept the word "definition" corresponds to.

Personally, I'm opposed to the post-structuralist attitude that words can't have objective meaning.

[Guillaine]

Are you referring to the extremes of tribalism: criminal gangs, terrorist organizations and lynch mobs? Yes, most people identify with tribes for self-identity and or self-preservation. It's also inevitable that ethos will try to impose itself on outsiders, and many tribes don't limit their imposition to polite talk.

a.k.a. I/O

I wasn't thinking of extreme tribalism. Just that there are so many levels of like you say self-preservation that must be risked to think and live your own beliefs. Even just slightly removing yourself from your family safety net, or not having a social group or fitting in in general puts you at risk possible financially, which could impact your health, your mental health needs to be robust to stand it, which could lead to or risk an earlier death for you or for your offspring if they don't have that safety net and are exposed to more health risks. I still believe all those risks are to a large degree worth it, because living in fear is not living at all, but it is hard to break those primal self-preservationist fears.

[para]

I agree with the first paragraph but not the second.

Words correspond to concepts, and while it is good to agree on what we're talking about, since sometimes a word can have multiple meanings, I don't think there is a need to go as far as define "definition" for example as most people have the same idea what concept the word "definition" corresponds to.

Personally, I'm opposed to the post-structuralist attitude that words can't have objective meaning.

What i mean is that, to create a maximal amount of precision, we would have to always define the grounds from where we're speaking of something. To create something that is sound within itself, there would have to be an endless amount of defining and systematizing to be done. But yes, it is not needed for common discussion, as a very small amount of the sphere of concepts will be covered to a degree where precision is necessary. But that was mostly a theoretical speculation.

What does it mean for a word to have objective meaning? Words themselves may have meaning, but words are fingers, that are trying to relate to something that is either itself or not itself. I agree that words are objective, as in, they have a specific nature in some form. But the meaning we extract from these words i can't see should be objective. They are many objectivities, so to speak.

What do you think defines an objective word? What has the authority to define such? We can refer to words and understand each other, but that doesn't mean that we're speaking of the same thing.