To Gedeon: Personaly not many. But in my experiance young people who are raised in a Christian family with a Christan circle of friends tend to turn away once they get to univerisity. For the first time they meet people who's opinions differ radically to thiers and drop them in order to fit in etc. Which I think is sad, Christianity was (originally) never about giving people little comfort bubbles. Also I think it's possible to tell when someone is genuine or not. Given that this is the cynical asshole thread it's about time i said something cynical. I mean what's up with those people? Stop being such ****** sheep! If your gonna go for it, make up your own mind! Don't do it because all your friends are doing it.
To Delphinious: Sorry for 'pulling rank' that was not my intention.
I'm not so sure. Could it not be possible that if a person believes something that reality changes for that person? For example the placebo effect? Or alternatively if someone really believed the sky was green for them the sky might well be green? People with 'mental diseases' may very well have a different view of reality which explains the way they behave. I'm no longer arguing a point now I'm curious.Originally Posted by Delphinus
Peteman
Last edited by Peteman; 11-10-2011 at 06:44 PM.
Logic and truth are often associated, but truth and belief are not always so. Now, should we all pursue truth? Probably, yes. But there are plenty of scenarios where belief in something untrue is not necessarily harmful or, even, beneficial. I mean we've all heard of the "white lie", right?
Well done for studing Anthropology. I don't care and that has no relevance to this discussion. I am studing lingustics and the term 'value' is very much applicable to what I said in my last post. The fact that Christianity took values that were already there and called them Christian values, in accordance to their cultural group, does not change anything. And I'm guessing you have not been to Papua New Guinea. I have, and I assure you their notion of love is no different from ours. Not sure what that has to do with anything though.I'm sorry, but I'm studying Anthropology and that is a very wrong assumption. The ones I've mentioned are modern neo-liberal (in terms of all of history not modern politics) ideals at best. The social/cultural 'group' (I use that term loosely as cultures shift and overlap.) It's true that one does not have to be a Chrisitian to uphold those values, but being part of a larger cultural group which does, is. Even the notion of love which I mentioned is not neccessrily the same in western society as ii would be in say...Papa new Guinea
Does the logic in which my mind works, which was shaped by my sociocultural values, depend on evidence? Yes. So does everyone elses. That is how we determine what is true and not true, real and unreal, proven and unproven. And if it is proven to someone else then it is up to them to supply evidence, assuming they want others to believe what they do.Just because they are unproven to you it does not mean they are unproven to everybody. Even the very 'logic' with which your mind works is shaped by your sociocultural values.
Last edited by Harvester_Of_Sorrow; 11-12-2011 at 11:35 PM.
I though we determine reality through logic and dialogue )=
If a group of people believe in something and then they meet people who believe in something else what happens? there is a clash of belief and obviously the group with the strongest speech or the strongest army will win, and that is how we have dealt with true in the whole history. Of course now we have logic, different kinds of logic, and those have reinforced their speech, make it stronger, and all that through dialogue (its worthless to just think and don't speak, because through dialogue we see what is wrong and good about each other speech).
Religions hasn't improved their speech, but logic has and society to, and those have also improved the level of the dialogue. As religion is every hour more behind than those, it makes it more and more weak against the discussions. At the end, you can't say religions have proves unless they do have, because the discussion at the moment have the standard very high and as I said, religion hasn't changed to adapt to this discussions.
And every society follows a logic, as you study anthropology you might know about Émile Durkheim and the Structural functionalism theory, that says that every society is constructed by functional patterns. Also you have others anthropologists like Levis-Strauss, who, influenced by Durkheim, develop the Structuralist theory, saying that every social group have a structure and every human have the same mind patterns (he explain there are 3). This say that logic is not something outside of the human being, the analytic thinking with use of hypothesis and observation is part of us (we call it logic), the how we express it is different, but the base is the same. So we can't say "under their logic it might be true", because at the end their logic has the same principle than us, the difference is in how we don't chose what to put under our logic and what not, what to disprove and what not. Dialogue force us to disprove.
Last edited by ClockHand; 11-13-2011 at 12:17 AM.
^ Careful about attempting to apply the scientific method to the social sciences, it leads to all sorts of problems.
You forgot your F in Modesty.
Religion is interesting ... Peteman was saying how people (generally) break away from religion once they get into a more diverse group, and while I don't disagree or disagree, I think there's something he's missing. People may no longer believe in God, but they don't give up on the values that have been drilled into them. For example, as a Quaker, I've never actually believed in God per se, but I do believe that war is never the answer.
I'm not sure if this post actually had a point/conveyed what I was trying to say. :/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks