Evolution/Creation 2 (aka Religion III)

[Azred]

Originally posted by Sigmar: As you probably know males used to be the more important figures in the early days of man and so he was used instead of she.

I must respectfully disagree with you, Sigmar. Most early religions--I mean religions from the late Stone Age (pre pharaonic Egypt, etc)--were gynocentric. Agricultural societies tend to venerate the Moon, associated with females (for obvious reasons that I will not ennumerate here), more than the Sun (associated with males).

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Azred: That is a much more complex issue. Patriarchal societies give rise to patriarchal religions; that is the simple answer. Digging a little further...the Holy Spirit is the "feminine" aspect of the Trinity. It nurtures, guides, and comforts. This kind of Trinity is very old: Osiris the Father, Isis the Mother/Spirit, and Horus the Son is an early example. Mary, the Holy Virgin, was originally not divine. However, as the Catholic Church spread into new areas they inevitably ran into older religions that possessed a central female divinity (the Isis Cult, ranging from Egypt through the Middle East and up into Europe; found even in Poly/Micronesian cultures). In order to gain a "foothold" with these people, Mary was "promoted" in importance--indeed, many non-Christians initially identified very closely and very quickly with Mary as a central divinity, which is why she is so widely venerated and is so "popular". It could even be stated that Mary is the linchpin that holds the Catholic theological belief structure in place; however, let those who are Catholic correct me, if they so choose. Find "Myth and Ritual in Christianity" (I forgot the author's name) for more information about this (and other topics).

That patriarchal societies give rise to patriarchal religions is obvious. However, my point was more in the nature of: how about upgrading the bible to reflect the rather more balanced outlook which is prevalent today? Why do we still have to refer to 'he', when such terminology is patently absurd? Or is that because our society is not quite as 'female' friendly, as it would like to believe?

I thought Sigmar's statement rather telling 'Indeed you are correct Silver Cheetah, God is an "it", but we feel by calling it a he makes it feel closer to us.'

Hmm. Which 'us' would that be, Sigmar? I take it you're refering to the collective male 'us' here, rather than the female 'us' which I personally belong to. Calling god 'he' certainly doesn't make it feel any closer to me!! (I meant to bring this up before, actually... I think it's quite important...)

[ 04-25-2002, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Silver Cheetah ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: It is just your opinion that 'some scientists' are using scare tactics to convince people of this and that.

I beg to differ. I find statements such as "hundreds of acres of rainforest are being destroyed everyday!" to be highly suspect - to say the least. (that comment was made early in the original thread by Sir Michael, I believe) If that IS true, then that means that over 1000 acres are destroyed every week. That's over 52,000 acres every year...for how many years now? Just HOW big IS this rainforest? It must be immense to have not been totally consumed yet.

Of course, I'm neither a scientist nor a geography major, so I acknowledge that the statement MAY be true...it just sounds like a major exaggeration to me.

Environmentalism is very much against the interests of many large and extremely powerful multi/transnationals. They have spent and are spending large amounts of money to put forward a viewpoint that is advantageous to their interests, namely, that we don't have major problems on the environment front, and that business as usual should be allowed to take place without hinderance. I would agree that environmental organisations tend to present situations in the worst possible light. In this, they follow the example of the media generally. What grabs people's attention in this day and age are extreme situations, presented as such. That's what sells papers, gets people watching tv (thus consuming ads) and so forth. If environmentalists present their case in anything less than the strong terms used elsewhere, then they have absolutely no chance whatsoever of being heard. I think this says more about the nature of the society we live in than anything else, to be frank.

Environmentalist present "worst case scenarios"...not hard core facts. WHY? To create concern about their cause. In other words, they try to SCARE people into worrying about the environment. I'm not saying thier cause isn't worthy, I just said they used "scare tactics" to promote that cause. I stand by my statement.

As with anything else, you will find environmental 'extremists'. But as you have asked for religion not to be judged on the actions of 'a few fanatics', I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to those concerned about the environment. Most of us are just ordinary people who care about the world we live in. What's so bizarre about that?

It's not bizarre at all and I never said it was. I'm afraid you pretty much missed my entire point with this paticular Post. Sir Michael was complaining about "being pressured to join this church or that" and wanted to know why Christians (or other religious flavors) "couldn't leave people alone and let them do as they please".

He also wanted to know why people would do some seemingly senseless acts "in the name of religion". I simply turned his questioning around to show that the same points could be made about ANY issue in which people beleived strongly.

If you will look at the last part of that Post again, you will see that I was NOT judging all environmentalist based on the actions of a few. I acknowledged that these actions were taken by the "lunatic fringe" - if you will. I was just pointing out that, unfortunately, religion is generally not granted the same courtesy.

Look at the Posts in the 2 threads. Most of the original Posts by non-beleivers were at least partially deragotory in their tone towards ANYONE who clung to religious beliefs (and some were just out-and-out insulting). Granted, some of the Reply's generated by those Posts were equally derisive and two wrongs DON"T make a right.

Anyway, I sincerely apologize if you took any offense at my Post....I assure it was not meant that way. It is very difficult to convey voice tone and expression through text, so the translation doesn't always come across accurately.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: That patriarchal societies give rise to patriarchal religions is obvious. However, my point was more in the nature of: how about upgrading the bible to reflect the rather more balanced outlook which is prevalent today? Why do we still have to refer to 'he', when such terminology is patently absurd?

Centuries of societal inertia is quite difficult to overcome (which is why China will eventually return to an emporer, or some variation of that form of government--but that is neither here nor there). I am quite certain that someone, somewhere, has composed a more updated version of the Bible that doesn't rely so much on the masculine pronoun, though.

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Or is that because our society is not quite as 'female' friendly, as it would like to believe?

*ssshhhh* You might wake everyone up from the dream that they are more "enlightened" now than they used to be. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: I don't have any fundamental problem with science - rational thought is a great thing.... However, if science is always about facts, how come scientists around the globe disagree almost to the point of coming to blows on any number of major issues? Global warming, for instance. Science would like to be about facts, but the fact is, the world is just too fecking complex to fit into some of the models and theories we hold about it. (A lot of what people accept as objective fact is actually subjective theory which is accepted as fact because it supports the worldview of the person using the so called fact to bolster his/her argument.) Hence the large numbers of disagreements, and hence the doubts about the 'factual' nature of all scientific thought. There is also the question of who is funding scientific research, what use the information gained is going to be put to, and by who, who gains and who loses from discoveries made, and so forth. Another reason for conflict, and another reason to doubt much of what is presented in the guise of 'fact'. (Those interested in the nature of science might like to read Thomas Kuhn, who argues that science proceeds not primarily through the patient accretion of facts, but by revolutionary interpretative shifts in which one scientific paradigm displaces another. His work raises the question of the rationality of science.) Like I said, I'm no science debunker. Just an interested observer.

Certainly didn't mean to question your scientific voracity. [img]smile.gif[/img]

As I mentioned... a hypothesis is fluff until it's been rigorously tested by the scientific community. Of course this always results in a lot of noise (the fun part) as other scientists do their darndest to shoot holes in the theories of every one else. (No Nobel for YOU Mr. Cold Fusion!!) [img]smile.gif[/img]

If there wasn't the volume of disagreement in the scientific community about controversial subjects I would start to think the system was broken.

RE: the complexity of the universe - this IMO is the true challenge of science... to make order out of the chaos. IMO it's something that's far beyond our capabilities... but who knows... maybe if we don't kill ourselves off we might get there in a million years or so.

- I've read a thing or two about Thomas Kuhn... since I'm also a Kuhn and my 6 year old is named Thomas. His writing is a bit behind his namesake... but maybe someday.

[ 04-25-2002, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: quote: Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: It is just your opinion that 'some scientists' are using scare tactics to convince people of this and that.

I beg to differ. I find statements such as "hundreds of acres of rainforest are being destroyed everyday!" to be highly suspect - to say the least. (that comment was made early in the original thread by Sir Michael, I believe) If that IS true, then that means that over 1000 acres are destroyed every week. That's over 52,000 acres every year...for how many years now? Just HOW big IS this rainforest? It must be immense to have not been totally consumed yet.

Of course, I'm neither a scientist nor a geography major, so I acknowledge that the statement MAY be true...it just sounds like a major exaggeration to me.

Environmentalism is very much against the interests of many large and extremely powerful multi/transnationals. They have spent and are spending large amounts of money to put forward a viewpoint that is advantageous to their interests, namely, that we don't have major problems on the environment front, and that business as usual should be allowed to take place without hinderance. I would agree that environmental organisations tend to present situations in the worst possible light. In this, they follow the example of the media generally. What grabs people's attention in this day and age are extreme situations, presented as such. That's what sells papers, gets people watching tv (thus consuming ads) and so forth. If environmentalists present their case in anything less than the strong terms used elsewhere, then they have absolutely no chance whatsoever of being heard. I think this says more about the nature of the society we live in than anything else, to be frank.

Environmentalist present "worst case scenarios"...not hard core facts. WHY? To create concern about their cause. In other words, they try to SCARE people into worrying about the environment. I'm not saying thier cause isn't worthy, I just said they used "scare tactics" to promote that cause. I stand by my statement.

As with anything else, you will find environmental 'extremists'. But as you have asked for religion not to be judged on the actions of 'a few fanatics', I would ask that you extend the same courtesy to those concerned about the environment. Most of us are just ordinary people who care about the world we live in. What's so bizarre about that?

It's not bizarre at all and I never said it was. I'm afraid you pretty much missed my entire point with this paticular Post. Sir Michael was complaining about "being pressured to join this church or that" and wanted to know why Christians (or other religious flavors) "couldn't leave people alone and let them do as they please".

He also wanted to know why people would do some seemingly senseless acts "in the name of religion". I simply turned his questioning around to show that the same points could be made about ANY issue in which people beleived strongly.

If you will look at the last part of that Post again, you will see that I was NOT judging all environmentalist based on the actions of a few. I acknowledged that these actions were taken by the "lunatic fringe" - if you will. I was just pointing out that, unfortunately, religion is generally not granted the same courtesy.

Look at the Posts in the 2 threads. Most of the original Posts by non-beleivers were at least partially deragotory in their tone towards ANYONE who clung to religious beliefs (and some were just out-and-out insulting). Granted, some of the Reply's generated by those Posts were equally derisive and two wrongs DON"T make a right.

Anyway, I sincerely apologize if you took any offense at my Post....I assure it was not meant that way. It is very difficult to convey voice tone and expression through text, so the translation doesn't always come across accurately.[/QUOTE]Grr, I just wrote a really long and well thought out reply to this, and lost the whole thing!!!!!!! Argggggggggggggggh! Oh well, let's try again...

Not to worry, didn't take any offense at your post! However, I did perceive it as rather 'enviro-debunking', hence my reply. I think I might have read it too fast however, - I think I did miss one or two of your points!

Re the rainforest, no, Sir M's statement wasn't hysterical hype. The earth used to be 14% rainforest, now it's 6%. And yes, the amount of rainforest on the earth is still massive. The Amazon rainforest alone covers a billion acres. If it was a country, it would be the ninth largest in the world. So you can see how massive amounts of logging can be carried out, and quite a bit of rainforest remain. Mostly, the rainforest is cut by multinationals, and then other multis come along and farm or ranch on it. A lot of our meat is raised in the third world, because it's cheaper. And a lot of the pasture used to be rainforest. (Hence a lot of people's pissed offedness with McDonalds. Although there are many other reasons.) It's estimated (although of course, estimates vary! [img]smile.gif[/img] ) that at present rates of consumption, the rainforest will be pretty much gone in 40 years, unless we put major safeguards in place.

Re 'scare tactics', - okay, examples please! I can't really defend a point with no meat to it. I've tried to show the situation with regard to the rainforest, if you have other examples which hold up, let's have 'em!

Re your other points, sorry for the misunderstanding! Sometimes I read too fast..... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Azred: Or is that because our society is not quite as 'female' friendly, as it would like to believe?

*ssshhhh* You might wake everyone up from the dream that they are more "enlightened" now than they used to be. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] [/QB][/QUOTE]

Hehe. Love you, myth person!!

[Silver Cheetah]

Originally posted by Thoran: I've read a thing or two about Thomas Kuhn... since I'm also a Kuhn and my 6 year old is named Thomas. His writing is a bit behind his namesake... but maybe someday.

You're a Kuhn? Now, how cool is that!

[Azred]

Originally posted by Silver Cheetah: Hehe. Love you, myth person!!

Really, now? You know that I am merely a fountain of "useless" information, yes? [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

careful, now! you might get my belle a trifle suspicious.... [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

[Thoran]

The rainforest is an interesting issue. My father is a semi-retired forester (works for the lumber industry as a timber purchaser/project manager). For years I've had access to a number of forest conservation mags as well as forestry industry mags. One thing I can say is that by and large the people that work in the forest industry are conservationists. The value of a stand of timber is in it's managment, not in it's exploitation (renewable vs. single use argument). Most lumber companies own vast tracts of managed forest... which effectively cuts off development in those areas (a real positive in first world countries). So, given that history I have real problems with the tree spiking radicals... much of that mania is based in ignorance in my opinion. Rainforest is a different matter though, it's nature is not conducive to a managed forestry approach (based on the reading I've done it appears that rain forest needs to reach a "critical density" in order to develop the multi-level ecosystem that they support. So I totally support conservation efforts that involve a "hands-off" approach. I do not believe the doom and gloom predictions of the radicals about how rainforest takes hundreds of years to recover though... abandon areas of the Amazon have reverted to rainforest quite rapidly. As long as we don't turn it all into a desert wasteland, we won't lose it.

All in all I applaud the environmentalist even if I feel they're a bit over the top, I believe their fervor helps to keep the exploitation in check. (my yin and yang philosophy of forest management [img]smile.gif[/img] )