When faith bends its morals to attract money rather than building a spiritual life. Because every generation has its Prophets and false prophets, teachers and false teachers it seems though many of the religious leader chose to abandon their beliefs for personal gain and fame.
Religion was never meant to be sedentary in nature but evolve using the past as a foundation. Things like the teachings of dharma (which is the way of life that Jesus actual taught,,) helping guide people into living this style of life. Not making promises that are not true; In my opinion this failure to change is just what is killing belief,
Allan
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 8:45 AM, archytas <nwterry@gmail.com> wrote:
There's a tedium in academic writing we don't have to suffer here.
Rigsy is right that most words are hidden behind, though I'm not sure
the smell is sweet! Academe seems to have entirely failed in
providing us with some general way of reliable interpretation of how
the world works and how we can control this in a reasonable way. I
broadly agree with Hitchins on religion - dated stories with too much
current influence when we could do better etc. I suspect, though,
this neglects something of religion as a challenge to much bad in
feudalism and debt peonage - and, of course, there is something wrong
with assuming the spiritual means believing in talking snakes and the
rest of the fables. A book by David Graeber (Debt: the first 5000
years)touches on this several times and surprised me in that many
religious words and freedom words stem from 'debt freedom'.
I don't know about a happy medium rigsy (perhaps Molly is one - LOL -
no I know that's not true) - but something happier is indeed
required. The moral aspect worries me because moralising so easily
closes to totalism - yet economics so often looks like the most
dreadful examples of cults that will do anything for what they claim
is a greater good. "Austerity" is clearly a nonsense with sucker
appeal and is full of moral urging.
It all looks like a can of worms at the moment.
On Dec 18, 2:52 pm, rigsy03 <rigs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Consider Steve Jobs and the stories that have surfaced about his
> "conflict" resolution style versus his contribution to technology. And
> I could add many names from history/economic development that
> discarded drawing room manners for sheer autocracy-
> belligerance,included. Religion has been concerned with an alternative
> to real life that the masses could cling to. There is a happy medium.
>
> On Dec 17, 4:00 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > We have rules on ad hominem and such in here. It's only one example
> > of an "ad" and in general such stuff is regarded as fallacy. More
> > recent work on argument tends to say we need to recognise what kind of
> > argument we are in as the rules vary in different forms. One form of
> > argument is called eristic and its aim is to reveal deep divisions. Ad
> > hom may be allowable in that. I'm writing a paper for a conference
> > based on the notion that religion has a deep and generally malevolent
> > influence in human behaviour - which has an implicit ad hom - that
> > general religious stuff is the province of a kind of cowardice (there
> > are lots of examples from the other side of course - such as atheists
> > being immoral).
> > The main book I've been reading is by Walton (below) and a digest
> > might be as follows:
>
> > Dialogue types:
> > Dialogue Type Initial Situation Participant's Goal Goal of Dialogue
> > Persuasion Conflict of Opinion Persuade Other Party Resolve Issue
> > Inquiry Need to Have Proof Verify Evidence Prove Hypothesis
> > Discovery Need for Explanation Find a Hypothesis Support Hypothesis
> > Negotiation Conflict of Interests Secure Interests Settle Issue
> > Information Need Information Acquire Information Exchange Information
> > Deliberation Practical Choice Fit Goals and Actions Decide What to Do
> > Eristic Personal Conflict Attack an Opponent Reveal Deep Conflict
>
> > What informal logic is seeking to explain and use:
> > 1.an account of the principles of communication which argumentative
> > exchange depends upon;
> > 2. a distinction between different kinds of dialogue in which argument
> > may occur, and the ways in which they determine 3.appropriate and
> > inappropriate moves in argumentation (e.g. the difference between
> > scientific discussion and negotiation);
> > 4. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it can be
> > said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude) is a
> > logical consequence of another;
> > 5. a typology of argument which provides a framework of argument and
> > analysis by indentifying the basic types of argument that need to be
> > distinguished (deductivism is monistic, hence one of the simplest
> > typologies; others will distinguish between fundamentally different
> > kinds of argument);
> > 6. an account of good argument which specifies general criteria for
> > deductive, inductive, and conductive arguments;
> > definitions of positive argument schema which define good patterns of
> > reasoning (reasonable appeals to authority, reasonable attacks against
> > the person; etc.);
> > 7. some theoretical account of fallacies and the role they can (and
> > cannot) play in understanding and assessing informal arguments;
> > 8. an account of the role that audience (pathos) and ethos and other
> > rhetorical notions should play in analysing and assessing argument;
> > 9. an explanation of the dialectical obligations that attach to
> > arguments in particular kinds of contexts.
>
> > Walton, Douglas N., 2007. Dialog Theory for Critical Argumentation,
> > Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
>
> > What I'm seeking to establish is that economics and economic behaviour
> > as we have it is a form of religious madness and uses religious
> > coercion to get us to play its games. I actually believe this but
> > want to do more than just assert the position. I'm not concerned to
> > dismiss religion but rather demonstrate the dangerous madness of
> > "economics" as a religious practice and threat to democracy
>
> > In a crude sense one must bow to religious madness to take part in its
> > fellowship. My contention is that economics works in the same way -
> > under the maths belief in talking snakes is implied. The driving
> > question is what a scientific economics might be and how this might be
> > a moral matter because truth dialogue in science is not value-free but
> > moral. In the context of history, religion has often been concerned
> > with economics and particularly freedom from debt. What I'm searching
> > for is something that breaks religion and politics from the dominance
> > of power-interests and perhaps rediscovers more reasonable
> > spirituality.
>
> > It would help if I could build a truth-pattern analyser! Comments
> > appreciated. Judging on the current draft I don't know what I'm
> > talking about yet!
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário