I have come to realise that Science means Freedom for people.
In fact the more science a country embraces, the more Democratic Freedom their people seem to have.
Any possibility of a debate on this? If no, I'll assume its true.

That's nicely provocative

You could apply reason with reference to wherewithal rather than freedom, e.g:

1) Higher education leads to better science
2) Affluence permits higher education
3) Democracies are affluent
4) Democracies have better science

However, there's certainly more to it. Culture has a role - there's currently some debate on the net regarding the relatively low level of scientific output from Islamic nations during the past few hundred years:

A Lecture by Seyyid Hossein Nasr
http://web.mit.edu/mitmsa/www/NewSite/libstuff/nasr/nasrspeech1.html
- "Many people feel that in fact there is no such thing as the Islamic problem of science..."
- "[They felt] that there was something wrong with Christianity [as] it buckled under the pressures of modern science and rationalism in the nineteenth century, and this would not happen to Islam."

And -

Science and Islam in Conflict
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/science-and-islam
"All over the world, no matter what the cultural or language differences, science is more or less guided by scientific principles—except in many Islamic countries, where it is guided by the Koran. This is the ultimate story about science and religion."

So there are at least three factors to consider:

Wealth
Education
Culture/Religion

I'm inclined to think the nations 'embracing science' most fully are those rich nations in which post-religious culture is most in evidence, such as in Europe, and where religion appears to represent no obstacle - witness the surge of progress in India and China.

I also think that the three aforementioned factors (wealth, education, culture/religion) are all important to the development of a society that is both free and scientific.

So, I would modify your observation and suggest that -
conditions for free society = conditions for science.

Certainly there is a relationship. I don't know that it is so direct. I'm thinking mainly of the book "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations," by Landes. This is a different view of the history of societies than put forward by Diamond.

Landes evidently stresses the significance of cultural traits in the transition to industrialisation and the consequent growth of wealth and power - so there, again, are the two factors of culture and wealth. The third, education, is obligatory. But I would be interested to know how Landes sees the relationship between freedom (or liberty) and science. Does he see them both, as I do, as arising concurrently as products of the same set of conditions?

_______________

TFF, thanks for mentioning Landes.

I've just read Chapter 1 of The Wealth and Poverty of Nations at

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0393318885/ref=sib_dp_pop_ex?ie=UTF8&p=S00R#reader-link

Having come from England to live in Thailand twelve years ago, I've had plenty of time to consider the effects of climate on human activity. What I just read, I can endorse 100%. Landes retraces my thoughts and observations exactly.

I suspect, from what I’ve read so far, that Diamond carries the climate argument too far. However…

J.M. Blaut has said (quote from Landes’ book) that it has become clear "from many sources of evidence including physiological studies, that human bodies of all sorts can labour as effectively in the tropics as elsewhere if the bodies in question have had time to adjust to tropical conditions".

That, I most emphatically refute. Indigenous people are certainly better adapted to their climate than those from cooler regions, but they themselves are nonetheless hampered in their daily activities. Wisdom and prudence dictate that vigorous activity is much less common than in temperate climes. I feel quite certain that mental vigour is likewise affected. As Landes says, "The world has never been a level playing field".

I think it very likely that climate is yet another factor affecting a nation's development, and hence it's evolution in terms of both liberty (or, as Mike put it, Democratic Freedom) and science.

Mike Kremer 2 redewenur

Yes I'll endorse that last observation of yours.

Plus science has the unique added attribute of giving all of us the added freedom of well being.
For whenever scientific announcement is made, we all of feel content in the knowledege that mankind is still walking the right path into the future.

I'm not so sure about religion, it should allow us to walk along the path of righteousness. But distractions make religions dawdle and slow.

Religion does not belong to the set of conditions for a free society and for science.
Religion is a condition that manifestly opposes both freedom and science.

I won't waste forum bytes going into that; Sam Harris, Daniel Dennet, Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg and many others are masters of the subject.

"Religion does not belong to the set of conditions for a free society and for science."

I agree.

"Religion is a condition that manifestly opposes both freedom and science."

I'm not sure I agree with this, regardless of who maintains it.

TFF: "I'm not sure I agree with this, regardless of who maintains it."

I'm sure you realise that I mention the above people not in an attempt to lend weight to my personal views, but because their well publicized and eloquent presentations express, for the most part, my own evaluation of the evidence.

It's good to know that you would not agree with such propositions simply because specific others maintain them.

I just had to come back to this interesting topic with a few words from Lawrance Krauss. What he is saying is that information censorship and the promotion of ignorance is the greatest threat to our freedom.

It underscores my opinion that "Religion is a condition that manifestly opposes both freedom and science."

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.1_index.html

"What really upset me and really offends me about these people is that they would rather children be ignorant than be exposed to knowledge that might — quote unquote might — weaken their faith. And that attitude of course is the same with the Taliban.

I do believe the greatest threat to our freedom, in a democracy or not in a democracy, is sort of the censorship that controls information. And knowledge, one way or another, breeds freedom. And so for me, to actively promote ignorance is the worst thing you can do."

Which, in similar words, is what Mike said at the outset:

"In fact the more science a country embraces, the more Democratic Freedom their people seem to have."

www.myspace.com

Anonymous, your post does not seem to have anything to do with the topic. It is a web page with many links. Did you mean to indicate one specifically? If so, be specific. Otherwise you are spamming and we won't have that.

Amaranth

Hello Mike,

I would like to respond to your original question. You said:

"I have come to realise that Science means Freedom for people.
In fact the more science a country embraces, the more Democratic Freedom their people seem to have".

This has not always been the case. Case in fact was Nazi Germany. While the same can be said for Stalin's Russia, and even later. While I follow what you are saying and I agree, knowledge is the light that illuminates the world, but sometimes the wrong people get in charge, and do bad things with good minds.

Thomas Jefferson said and I will paraphrase "democracy cannot survive without morality". So, if science loses it's morality it will be hard for the democracy to flourish. In the past democracy has managed to overcome the Hitlers and Stalins, it is an on going struggle. Extremist in either direction, left or right can be the down fall of democracy and the science that so flouishes under that umbrella. We need to keep on constant check to be sure that the science is serving the people, instead of the people serving the science. And that my friend is where all the argument begins.

Best Regards,
odin1

Good point odin1. While you're waiting for Mike to log in, I'll add few thoughts.

The hole in your argument is that the Nazi regime (for example) seized the power, the economic base, and the science, none of which had evolved under that system. The same can be said of Stalin and the October Revolution. It's arguable that the USSR made significant scientific progress - and there were many great Soviet scientists - but I think it was not as significant as it could have been, given the population and natural resources. The catastrophic waste of a dismally inefficient economy and a vast mechanised army would hardly have occurred in a modern democratic political environment. The Soviet Union had a population similar to that of the United States, yet the overall development of science and technology in the latter was much greater. As much as we like to criticise the 'consumerism' that is part of democracies, it promotes technological development. The general public have sufficient wealth to buy the products resulting from scientific research, thus expanding the high tech industries and promoting further research and development.

Science and freedom? Let's use the plural, here, and speak of the sciences --that is, the hard and soft ones.

BACKING UP ODIN'S POINT
The sciences represent all the knowledge we have about our three-dimensional and measurable universe. They are nothing more or less than very valuable tools of the intellect to be used for good or evil.

THE SCIENCE, KNOWLEDGE AND HUMANITY
I agree: When used by moral, ethical and loving people, the sciences can bring more and more joy and happiness and the liberty to be more and more humane human beings. When used by nations under the leadership of amoral tyrannical governments it can bring us nothing but misery.

Do I need to remind people that, in the 1930's and 1940's, the fascist and Nazi governments, which took us into two world wars, had some of the world's most brilliant scientists?

BTW, what are certain greedy corporations, with hundreds of scientists at their service, doing for the environment?

VERSE 13, GRAY'S ELEGY
I like the point Thomas Gray makes, about the need for knowledge, in his great poem:

But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page,
Rich with the spoils of time, did ne'er unroll;
Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage,
And froze the genial current of the soul.

http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Poetry/Elegy.htm

I doubt that you do; but those scientists were not a product of fascism - they had been trained in an infrastructure that pre-dated the brief rise of fascism. When Hitler took power, he inherited a Germany that had long since become the cultural and scientific centre of Europe. He and his regime merit no credit for the resources, intellectual or otherwise, at their disposal.

Expanding upon my original statement that:-
"I have come to realise that Science means Freedom for people.
In fact the more science a country embraces, the more Democratic Freedom their people seem to have".

It helps to look at my statement in the context that there are 6.5 billion people alive today. Science tells us that.

Everyone of us, without exception, wants to live a decent free and good life, in harmony with everyone else.
Thats a natural normal human attribute.
If you dont believe that, there is not much point in continuing.

In the Middle Ages we had religion, which offered that particular group a newer type of freedom. The certainty that by becoming a member and following its teachings, humanism, love with all, and for all, was the panacea of life, even after death. It was the Science of its day.
It might have worked, had not peoples with other beliefs came onto the scene.
Its the expansion of other beliefs that caused the problems for the Church.

odin1, mentions Nazi Germany and Stalin, as does Revlgking.
odin1, mentions that "the wrong people get in charge, and do bad things with good minds"

And thats where the Science of the masses, the outside majority of 6.5 Bil people comes in.
Nothing thats bad or hurtful for people can last forever.
Those that were under the Nazi boot, or Stalins Gulags, knew they were downtrodden, they hated their oppressors, they bided their time. They learnt thru the science of Radio about the freedom of those on the outside. You can't rule a down trodden country forever.

The Science of TV and satellites has allowed us to see and savour the freedom of all peoples wherever they might be
Religion has now become secondary to freedom, I mean real freedom as it should be.
Unfortunately religion was never able to detect the expansion of the bad, in far off areas. Much less do anything about them.

as Revlking said;- "When used by moral, ethical and loving people, the Sciences can bring more and more joy and happiness and the liberty to more and more humane human beings" ...Agreed.

Of course nothing is perfect, but Scientific knowledge today, does root out and discover the Hitlers and Stalins of today for all to see. I'm also thinking of those that have been tried at the World Court in the Hague, for crimes against humanity, and the gassing of villages elsewhere.

So todays Science is able to visually show everyone, the the good.
It also shows us the bad, luckily as I intimated above, the huge majority in our world want without exception to live a good and harmonious life with everyone else, (my 5th sentence above.)

I think somewhere in the Bible G-d said "Find me just ten good men and the world will be saved"
Today that equates to "Just ten good satellites can root out the evil men"

Hurrah for modern science in all its guises.
Have faith, ....One day it will mean health and happiness for all.You dont need an inquisition to believe that.

Ready, you totally missed my point:
I made the point that science, as Einstein reminded us, without a moral and ethical religion--note that I did not say a "stupid and superstitious kind of religion"--is useless and without meaning. It is even dangerous and evil.

Science is a tool, which provides us with facts--often wrong ones, BTW--about physical nature, nothing more. Freedom comes from sources other than science.

BTW, MK acknowledges he got the point when he wrote:as Revlking said;- "When used by moral, ethical and loving people, the Sciences can bring more and more joy and happiness and the liberty to more and more humane human beings" ...Agreed. Thanks, MK.

Nevermind, Revlgking, at least Mike got your point.

In the context of the use of science, I think the word we're looking for is ethics rather than morality.

I would agree with Mike that an ethically good society is most likely to result in the ethical use of science. I would disagree with you that an ethically good society requires a religion. Furthermore, science does not require a religion in order to be useful and have meaning.

We are, of course, discussing the relationship between science and freedom.

Certainly, it's more than just a chicken and egg question as there are other factors that result in the coexistence science and freedom. Religion, however, is not one of those factors. As I said earlier, religion does not belong to the set of conditions for a free society and for science.

science on its own(without new-research) is just 'canned' knowledge, and by having more knowledge at your disposal to make better judgments on reality, you actually start to have less freedom(of thought); philosophically speaking... but when people embrace science for the purpose of discovering new science, and can do so without social resistance, i think that this would be called true freedom.

Hello everyone,

to keep it simple, I would say science does have the potential to promote democracy provided -the society that nurchers it is "ethical or moral" whichever word you would rather use.

But, then an ethical and moral society could only be enhanced by it's science-the effect of science to a tyrannical regime would be only technical in nature.

A tyrannical regime would benefit from science ,I feel, what benefits the powers that be. It would more than likely depend on an outside-influence or intervention by an ethical or moral society to change to Democracy. It could change I guess on it's own by science, but it could take a lot of time,depending on conditons and influences surrounding the people in question.

Best regards,
odin1

Odin1, your comment about the possibility of there being an "intervention by an ethical or moral society to change..." poses the question: Is it possible to have a totally free, secular and democratic approach to all isms?

I believe it is possible; and ought to be possible.

IMHO, the following: RELIGIONISM, SCIENTISM, RACISM, SEXISM, AGEISM, FASCISM, and the like are all extremes which I want to avoid.

IMHO, in a free, secular and democratic society, no ism ought to be free to impose itself on people who choose to be free from it.

Sure, it is okay for me, or for that matter any member of society, to dialogue about (the method I prefer), debate about, and even declare: My ism (including atheism) is the one true and good ism.

However, I do not have, and ought not have, the right to insist that the state ought to be given the right to impose any ism, including mine, on others.

BTW, am I making it clear where I stand?

Hello Revlgking,

I think I understand what you are saying, if not you set me straight. But, I think you may have gotten the impression that an ethicial and moral society would or should force its morality and ethics on the regime in question.

I didn't mean it this way, I was merely making the point that that type of regime would problably not change to the point that its people would really enjoy the fruits of a "good free science" unless the regime fell or was destroyed by a dispute, such as Nazi Germany, and Japan.

Had Germany not invaded Poland, which started the war, who knows how long Nazi Germany would have stayed Nazi, and what their science would have produced. It is very possible that over time the leaders their would have became more receptive to free thinking and that the science would have flourished to a point that it influenced a free society. Or, it could have stayed a facist state and invested only in the gears of war. And, if that scenerio was the road taken, ultimately the gears of war would have to spring on someone, then is when they would be changed by defeat, or would win and continue on a broader scale.

I do not feel anyone should impose their beliefs on anyone.
Hope that cleared it up.
best regards,
odin1

Rev,
I agree with almost everything you have said in this thread except ...
"However, I do not have, and ought not have, the right to insist that the state ought to be given the right to impose any ism, including mine, on others."

You have the right to insist, you just don't have the right to achieve what you insist. Relatively minor disagreement.

I agree entirely that science can be used for good, evil, or either. We need something else to make us good (and able to appreciate freedom). And yet I think I see where Mike, et. al. are coming from. For once they are thinking and communicating on the same poetical (and to me, often irritating) wavelength which I have been inured to associate with you.

Science is a remarkable achievement of the human mind, perhaps the most amazing thing we have ever done. It's not that we have "figured IT out." That's not it at all. We've figured out - and are figuring out - HOW to figure things out, how to extend pure reason to the world we actually live in. It seems so obvious to us today. We take it for granted, "It makes perfect sense." But it has taken us many millennia to figure out how to figure things out.

Because they are thinking in the way you are (or so I believe) they are exhibiting a similar characteristic, but it's a mistake that probably all of us in the modern age, including many or most scientists - to equate science with all the good things we have, the material things that technology has wrought, as well as the knowledge we have gained "gravitation, magnetism, combustion, etc."

But we forget sometimes that Science is more than that. It's a process of figuring out. And this is where the real poetry of what they are saying is sinking in, because while I'm sure they are mindful of that stuff in the last paragraph, I'm pretty sure that Mike and Red get this. What they're missing, I believe, is that not everyone else DOES.

Sagan wrote (approximately):
"They accepted the products of science; they rejected its methods."

That is the thing that many people and indeed some scientists don't get. As a society, we can take science not just as a metaphor, but as an example of how we can interact with each other - everyone learning and striving, generally respecting each other, communicating freely, criticizing without malice, changing gradually, erasing the board and starting over when necessary. These things and many more are lessons that the wider society COULD learn from. But they won't if they don't understand that science is not just their latest mpeg player or their favorite game.

Hello everyone,

I just want to say, science has made the world we live in today.
With all the illness, we have cures-we can set thousands of miles apart and discuss subjects like this in seconds. Science has given us the ability to leave our world and look at other worlds. I applaud science and all the people associated with it.
The point I am trying to get across is for all it's good, in the wrong hands it can destroy. Even good ethical people can be forced to do bad things if they are in an "unethical society or regime". For example, Wernher Von Braun in Germany, developed the B-1 rockets that terrorized England in WWII. They killed hundreds if not thousands of people, not to mention the property destroyed. After WWII he goes to America and helps develop the US Space program, which ultimately put a man on the moon. The same man working under two different stimuli, two different results. This is my point. I am on the side of science, but let us never forget it takes more than science to benefit mankind. We need an ethical and moral environment. This is just my opinion.

odin1

i don't think that you can attach a tag of "good or bad" to science; science is knowledge(and methodology to acquire new knowledge) which is/are neutral.

rev wrote: "Is it possible to have a totally free, secular and democratic approach to all isms?...IMHO, in a free, secular and democratic society, no ism ought to be free to impose itself on people who choose to be free from it."

i think that the idea of democracy is incompatible with many isms; especially in western society: the doctrines of most isms demand the rejection of all other isms.

I disagree,

you ask the people in England that buried their loved ones because of B-1 rockets if it was bad or good. We aren't talking about knowledge, we're talking about how it's used which is the end result. To the scientist and Nazi's when they pressed the button and the B-1 rocket soared into the heavens, it was a sense of accomplishment. When the people in London heard the buzz from that marvel overhead, they had a different feeling. Also, the Nazi's used this science to impose itself on people who chose to be free. It is not neutral when people are enslaved or intimidated by by those that have the intellectual advantage.

Best Regards
odin1

I agree.
However, all nations, including tyrannies, and even local communities do have courts and laws. The challenge is: avoiding legalism. One of the reasons I love the Golden Rule is that it seems to help us do this--avoid legalism.

It seems to me that freedom is not the right to do as we like; it is have the opportunity to find out what is best--and I realize the question of relativity here--and, also, to have the opportunity to do it.

Here's a question: Am I expressing my prejudice if I say: I feel that the most democratic, just and best societies have been those built on a Judaeo/Christian foundation?

Regarding Fascism and Nazism. I think it is fair to say that the majority of Europeans who were conned into following tyrants agreed to go along with the con because the tyrants promised them economic prosperity. I could be wrong, but I feel that people trapped in the tyranny of poverty, especially when there is a lack of food, do not make good democrats.

This is why, 1n the 1930's, so many people opted either for Communism (labourers+political power) and/or Nazism (industrialists+political power)--both are forms of extreme socialism--wingisms. Left (proletariat--the poorer classes), or right (the rich elite upper classes who control the markets), both are the same, given power.

Germany, Italy, Japan and the like would not be the democracies they are today if the majority had remained poor when they became democracies.
THIS IS WHY I AM SUCH AN ENTHUSIASTIC NUT FOR THE FEATHERS--NOT WINGISM--APPROACH TO THE POLITICAL ECONOMY.

I've been away- had a great time!- and in reading the whole topic one after the other I am puzzled. What is meant by science? Pure research for discovery sake, saving lives, building ever more clever machines, growing healthier rice- or something else? It seems to me that the conditions for science to prosper in any regime have to allow for unproductive as well as productive science to happen. This can only really occur in an atmosphere that is supportive in all aspects and one that can allow time for development of ideas into discoveries. Therefore the society would probably have to be rich, unencumbered by restrictions of ideology of any sort, possibly democratic (but maybe not) and unafraid of controversial thought. I don't think my ideal crucible for the development of thinking happens anywhere- and I believe that development of original ideas needs all of them/

I am intrigued by the mention of climate as a deterrent of research. Surely climate control of labs can overcome that, if indeed it is a factor, (which I find hard to believe)?

Hello everyone,

Welcome back Ellis. You know, China will be the perfect regime to watch. They have recently opened their doors to the rest of the world, they are an economic power house now. But, they are still communist. And as far as I know they still do not embrace religion, I know christian missionarys are still sneaking bibles in the country. Will their economic surge, and scientific explosion (such as their space program) change the way China thinks and revert to Democracy? What is you thoughts on this?
odin1

China Communist? That depends on who have their hands on the political and economic power and get to run the government. If the leaders are the rich and powerful elite, China is more fascist than communist. Does anyone really believe that it is a people's democracy--like the USA

"Am I expressing my prejudice if I say: I feel that the most democratic, just and best societies have been those built on a Judaeo/Christian foundation?"

well do you know about every judaeo/christian society that has ever been built? i think that's a poor generalization because history states otherwise; the dark ages, the inquisition, the crusades, the massacres of the old testament(judaism), the christian 'priests' of our era, there are many examples.

for a just/moral multicultural society there needs to be tolerance; not totalitarianism

however, the 'isms' of the eastern societies are more tolerant of other 'isms.' an example; the hindi believe that there is more than one 'right-way' and will not try to force their metaphysical opinions on you(tolerance) but a christian, a muslim and a jew will try to convince you that your ism is a lie and will even try to convert you to their ism(totalitarianism)

BFP, the bad examples of J/C, which you give, no more represent the basic teachings of J/C than do any numbers of bad examples I could give of the actions of certain atheists.

For example, how about atheistic Communism--under Stalin and Mao? Do they represent the actions of moral, ethical and loving atheists? I do not think so.

On the basis of what Stalin and Mao, not to mention Hitler, did, would it be fair of me to argue: See, atheism invariably results in gross evils?

BFP, your response to my question, please! I have a feeling you will ignore it. BTW, I agree that I am prejudiced in favour of J/C over Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

I agree with you: No beliefs--even noble ones--should ever be imposed. The Judaeo/Christian principles that I value teach this.

rev; "for a just/moral multicultural society there needs to be tolerance; not totalitarianism"

all of the example that we collectively mentioned were the result of totalitarianism. totalitarian 'isms' are never moral or just simply because they oppose freedom.

the reason i mentioned judaism, christianity and islam is because these 'isms' demand for the rejection of all other 'isms' >>this is called totalitarianism.

Hitler was a Catholic- so I guess he was a Christian. I don't think Stalin was, but Mao was more complicated. For most of his life he was venerated like a god. He certainly believed in himself (joke!)

Still seeking an answer to what is science- or is this discussion about freedom, not only of speech but also thought, and the pursuit of research and discovery for its own sake. We are kidding ourselves if we think research, science and discovery are happening under these ideal conditions in our own countries, just ask anyone seeking a grant to do research from Govts or an institution! Though I suppose if you had massive independent wealth you could pursue your own (lawful) path without hindrance.

I have my doubts about China becoming a democratic society any time soon. I think they learned from the demise of the Soviet Union. But they are enjoying a burst of economic growth now. All this economic growth can fund the science they need, such as weapons. The question is though, will this growth in economics and science in China, revert it to a Democracy? You can call them Communist or Facist whichever you like best, right now you have a hand full of people in that country that call the shots, and they have a huge army to make sure it stays that way. I hope I am wrong, but I don't trust the Chinese. Because I don't think they have the "ethical or moral" attributes to make sure the science serves the people, instead of the people serving the science.

best regards,
odin1

odin- The Chinese are pragmatists. If it is to their advantage they will do something to appear to change. They are also a very proud nation and humiliating them is not a sensible idea. During their history China has always had a very strong central govt. which governs though a large and strong bureaucracy (and I can't imagine that changing soon). The society is also still very stratified according to class. High status depends on the position in the govt rather than money and to a lesser extent birth. It is these same people who are profiting from the present boom-- though it must be acknowledged that the eastern part of China superficially looks like many other prosperous Asian areas. It has also always been a characteristic of China's foreign policy that they rarely invade other countries for conquest. However they retaliate if threatened. Now before I get howled down-- China feels that Tibet (and Taiwan) have always been a part of China.

But true democracy-- that's a long way off if ever!

Hello Ellis,

I don't think they will change either. Right now they are enjoying the best of two worlds, power and money and I am referring to, as you said the bureocracy. And I hope, they keep
that very large army within the boundaries of that very large country. The wrong person in charge Ellis with a few turns in world events---who knows what could happen.

best regards,
odin1

Sounds like fascism, to me.

BFP, I have a feeling that this is generalizing. All of the Christians and Jews that I know believe in democracy.

Interestingly, my son is married to an Iranian Muslim. My only three grandchildren are half Persian. She and all of the Muslims I have met, through her, are great supporters of democracy. As an accepting and tolerant kind of person I refuse to generalize. It is just not the moral, honest and useful thing to do.

the scriptures on which the mentioned 'isms' are built upon demand the rejection of all other 'isms' if one doesn't follow the scriptures of ~ism then they don't really represent the 'ism' for what it teaches.

The above is another generalization and, therefore, untrue statement.

What's your point, BFP? That some Big Brother be appointed to impose scientism/secularism on all of us?

Think about this: The book of Genesis is totally inclusive. So are the Ten Commandments, which came later. This is the basis of Judaism.

Jesus was a Jew who lived and died as Jew. He made the attempt to reform Judaism and bring it back to being inclusive, from which it had strayed.

in fact, it was not a generalization:

christians: "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" John 14:6

muslims: "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Qur'an:9:5

jews: "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
Talmud: Baba mezia, 114b

my point:

"for a just/moral multicultural society there needs to be tolerance; not totalitarianism"
and
"totalitarian 'isms' are never moral or just simply because they oppose freedom"



what do you mean by 'inclusive'? judaism, christianity and islam do not respect the faiths of other belief systems, this was my initial argument <intolerance: rejection of all other 'isms'>.



my point is that in a functional society there needs to be tolerance and not totalitarianism.

BFP, it is good to dialogue with you. You are free to believe what you choose to believe; so am I.

You write I couldn't agree more!!!!

Then you comment:
To make this stick, you will need to demonstrate that all Christians and Jews think alike.

You will find it easier to herd cats!!!!!

Rev said:
To make this stick, you will need to demonstrate that all Christians and Jews think alike.

That is exactly what you do not need to demonstrate. Thought control is actually the aim of a totalitarian society. A functional and (to use one of your favourite words) an humane society is one that accepts many points of view, whilst, possibly continuing with their own beliefs. This is not often the result in a religious or ideology-driven society where control is seen as more important than freedom.

Rev I know you dislike interruptions but I have crashed on regardless since we are talking tolerance.

i don't think that this is a matter of belief but is rather a matter of semantics and definitions;

the thoughts and opinions of every true christian must be guided by the bible; the ~ of every true muslim must be guided by the qu'ran and still; the ~ of a true jew must be guided by the torah and the talmuds

this you can't argue with. the scriptures of all three of these religions demand the believer to reject the integrity of every other religion.

i understand that there have been many schisms in each of these religions, but they still hold true the idea that their faith is the 'one-and-only-true-path'

rev i understand that you are obliged to argue otherwise but the scriptures speak for themselves and those who try to over-ride the written scriptures of their religion aren't genuine followers, no offense.

Anon, does this mean that when Jesus asks us to be gentle as doves we are expected to lay eggs? And what about the law about the stoning of disobedient children, required by the Bible? If we are expected to take the Bible at its word, it seems that, in practice, even the fundamentalists interpret the Bible.

Did Jesus advocate the stoning of children?

Ellis, are you joking? Or is this a serious question?

If so, in the the spirit of dialogue, I ask: How much do you know about what it says of Jesus in the Gospels? Are you aware that he risked being stoned, on more than one occasion, because of what he said, and did, in the name of spiritual, social, political and economic reform?

Take a look at John 8:1-11, which tells the story of how he, publicly, defended the rights of a women. His action was a heroic one.He was for the rights of women, and children, before the law, long before our time.

BTW, what we call Palm Sunday was more than just an innocent and happy parade down some church aisle with people waving palms. When Jesus turned over the table of the crooked moneychangers--the ones who ran the Temple banking system--he no doubt sealed his fate (John 2:12-22.). It was this final act, in the name of economic justice, that led to his arrest and execution in the most horrible way.

THE JEWISH TEMPLE-AREA HOUSED THE CENTRAL JEWISH BANK
Are you aware that, in Jesus' time--and even before this--Temple money--gold, silver and bronze--were supposed to be pure metals, and they were supposed to circulate free of interest to fellow Jews?

WHO WERE THE MONEYCHANGERS?
Note that they were not called money exchangers--the kind we have today. Today, each nation has its own paper-money system (the fiat kind). Thus we have an exchange system.

But ancient moneychangers, particularly in Israel, were actually expected to melt down and change the stamp on each coin so that it became a Temple coin.

There are few historic details about how the banking system, in ancient times, actually operated. But it is not hard to imagine that certain honest moneychangers--for example, Matthew--took any foreign coins (the ones with graven images, as mentioned in the second commandment), melted them down and changed them--perhaps for a small fee--into Temple coins. Keep in mind that in ancient times coins circulated by weight, not by denomination.

WHY JESUS CALLED THE MONEYCHANGERS THIEVES
It is not hard to imagine that, in the melting process, crooks and thieves had, and no doubt took, the opportunity to debase any coins on deposit to them to their own profit. Often they would hold on to foreign coins because it was lawful (see. Deut. 23:19) for them to make loans to Gentiles and charge interest.

i think that jesus was executed more because of his effect on the public rather than on "being good" riling up the public never really pays good; perhaps your remember "don't tase me bro!" which side do you support?

im certain that if someone in an islamic country started bad-mouthing their traditions, they would eventually be executed too. can you see where I'm coming from?

why do people instinctively side with the minority or the unfortunate?

on a side note, jesus did in fact advocate stoning children(among many other things) rev:

Matt 5:17-19
Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Rev wrote:

Anon, does this mean that when Jesus asks us to be gentle as doves we are expected to lay eggs? And what about the law about the stoning of disobedient children, required by the Bible? If we are expected to take the Bible at its word, it seems that, in practice, even the fundamentalists interpret the Bible.

I just questioned it. And yes I am serious because as an admitted pedant I do not like to see such illogical writing. You are coupling Jesus (and his New Testament) and the Bible (the Old Testament) in the one statement. Whilst it is possible that your reader will understand what you actually mean the way you have stated it is by no means clear, and that is the way misunderstandings are generated.

From BFP Clever rebut, BFP. Touche! I must use this the next time I dialogue with a fundamentalist Bible-thumper. Taking the Bible literally can be dangerous, eh?

BTW, in my Good News version Jesus does talk about "making the law come true". This could mean reforming and making it be in harmony with the law of LOVE, which he thought of as primary.

Do modern Ultra Orthodox Jews keep the old law, literally? I do not think so.

Personally, I have never accepted the Bible as a rule book.

i once seen a documentary by richard dawkins; he was interviewing priest on the street and he asked how he felt about homosexuals, and what the bible said about them (homosexuals were stoned to death) so richard says "so you believe that homosexuals should be stoned to death like the bible dictates?" ...and the priest's lips started shaking and he looked very very nervous; he said nothing and richard backed off haha

be careful of your claims; many religious folk say stuff like "our holy books holds all conceivable knowledge possible" or "our holy book came directly from the supreme infallible being" claims of this tone always come from uneducated fanatics.


"Do modern Ultra Orthodox Jews keep the old law, literally? I do not think so."
im pretty sure that there are some communities who do exactly that.

"Jesus does talk about "making the law come true". This could mean reforming and making it be in harmony with the law of LOVE, which he thought of as primary."
it always bothered me that 'jesus' (who was supposed to be the manifestation of god himself) was very different from the Judaic god which was an angry, jealous, vengeful being, yet it said "god is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow" and few people seemed to notice

BFP, thanks for your dialogue about the authority of the Bible.

IMO, the Bible has no more authority over us than we give it. I read it like I do any kind of media. Some of it is true and valuable; some of it is propaganda, and much of it is nonsense.

IMO, Jesus was a reformer, unitheist and uiversalist--
GØD is not the name of a super being. It is my acronym for that non-material whatever, in which we, and all the universe, live and have out being and, which at same time permeates all this is. Check out:
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13600&hl=

PHYSICALISM
BFP, do you acknowledge that there is a non-material whatever? Or are you a total physicalist (materialist)?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

rev:"PHYSICALISM
BFP, do you acknowledge that there is a non-material whatever? Or are you a total physicalist (materialist)?"

i don't believe that there is a metaphysical plane of existance, i believe that all that is mystery today will eventually be explained empirically, the integrity of the material world cannot be debated, while the existance of a metaphysical dimension itself is simply a matter of opinion ...and the properties of the hypothetical metaphysical plane have never been defined(besides being invisible) i feel that there isn't enough reason or purpose to believe in a ~, i believe that the idea of ~ is purely speculation and superstition.

As I understand it, the space into which the cosmos is expanding is not metaphysical, in the philosophical sense of the word; it is just not physical.

BTW, Can you imagine a scientist, on the edge of the cosmos, saying: "I just put my hand out into something, out there. and it is not physical? :lol: It really is an awesome universe, eh? It Makes me believe there really could be GØD, or GOD.

To this I will add: This fits my concept of GØD, not as A being, but as the NO-thing in which things originate and from which they emanate, evolve, circulate, expand and grow in all directions, unconsciously.

CONSCIOUNESS and SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS
As I understand it, science can only speculate when the first conscious and sentient beings appeared on earth. The same is true for the first self-conscious and human-like beings. I suspect they were when the first artists, the ones who began to record events on the walls of caves and became the first historians--or story tellers.

Humane beings? Who were the first humane beings? Again, speculation. I like to think that they were the first spiritually motivated people, philosophers--the first to say, as Moses learned in Exodus 3:14, "I am that I am"... and who I will be. Perhaps they were the philosopher/artists and story tellers who invented heaven and the gods, up there, who, in return for our giving them praise and respect, invite us to join them.

The first philosophers ... also invented hell--depicted in our bad dreams--in the hope that the fear of it would motivate us all the more to want to go to heaven--the place of pleasant dreams.

"As I understand it, the space into which the cosmos is expanding is not metaphysical, in the philosophical sense of the word; it is just not physical."
I understand you're not playing word-games. There are some ideas that are difficult to understand and articulate. This is almost certainly one of them. I suspect that few if any physicists would consider this "space" non-physical.

Definitely not 3 (or 4 dimensional) "Riemannian Space" or "Minkowski Space;" and possibly not even "Hausdorff Space" (in which any two distinct points can be separated by a function). More likely it is something like "de Sitter Space" (the inside of a black hole?).

...but look at this about "our 3-D space." I knew it was an artifact....

"Dimensionality and fractals" ( doi:10.1016/S0960-0779(02)00028-0 )
Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Volume 14, Issue 6, October 2002, Pages 831-838
B. G. Sidharth
Abstract
In this paper we first show that the usual three dimensionality of space, which is taken for granted, results from the spinorial behaviour of Fermions, which constitute the material content of the universe. It is shown that the resulting three dimensionality rests on two factors which have been hitherto ignored, viz., a Machian or holistic property and the stochastic underpinning of the universe itself.
However the dimensionality is scale dependent in the sense that at very large scales, or at very small scales, we encounter a different dimensionality, as indeed is borne out by observation and experiment. For example the large scale structures in the universe are cellular in nature on the one hand, and we encounter fractional charges and handedness at very small scales.
Finally it is shown how fractal dimensions can emerge and as an illustrative example it is shown how this could explain the magnetism of objects like Planets on the one hand and White Dwarf stars and Pulsars on the other.

Samwik, you have given us some very heady stuff to think about. Much of it is new information to me. I only wish I had enough science to understand, in simple terms, what it means, in detail; and to be able to explain, in simple and practical terms, what it implies for our known universe.

BGS' Abstract mentions, "the stochastic underpinning of the universe itself."
Stochastic? Does this mean, having to do with random and variable processes. If so, it certainly helps me understand what the great mathematician, Alfred North Whitehead was trying to say when he wrote about process philosophy and theology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/#WPI
Out of his work came panENtheism, which, to avoid confusions with pantheism, I call unitheism.