quote:

Originally posted by Sykonee Really, cremation is even MORE selfish than burial. You're reducing your body to base ash, such that little of the organic material that makes you human remains. Thus, there isn't much left that is returned to the carbon cycle compared to a regularly decomposed body buried in the ground (or dumped at sea).

What's the other option? Burial. In which case we have miles and miles of land being wasted by people sitting inside a coffin in the ground.

"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children"

___________________
Died Tragically Rescuing His Family From The Wreckage Of A Destroyed Sinking Battleship

quote:

Originally posted by Ek0nomik What's the other option? Burial. In which case we have miles and miles of land being wasted by people sitting inside a coffin in the ground.

Actually, many jurisdictions have opened the door to "green burials" involving no coffin or marker.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Ek0nomik What's the other option? Burial. In which case we have miles and miles of land being wasted by people sitting inside a coffin in the ground. "We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children"

There's always the expensive 'shot into space' method. Heh, the ULTIMATE selfish death: body preserved in a vacuum; not even bacteria gets at the body!

___________________
Everyone has an opinion. Mine just happens to be a little more informed than most.
Electronic Music Critic: Near-Daily Ruminations Of Music I Own, In Alphabetical Order!

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost I don't find the notion of multiple religions to be problematic, and I feel that a particular approach to religious Pluralism provides a very meaningful sense of illumination upon the existence of different religions and their relationship with each other. I'm not sure if you covered this within your Philosophy of Religions Course, but within the context of religious Pluralism exists the concept of the "Traditionalist School", which bases itself upon the the Perennial Philosophy. This school of thought was formalized by the writings of thinkers like Frithjof Schuon and Rene Guenon, and has been championed by a number of major intellectual figures in the philosophical community, hailing from a variety of religious backgrounds, including Seyyed Hossein Nasr, John Hick, Titus Burkhardt, and Huston Smith only to name a few. Essentially, these thinkers advance the notion (and forgive me if I'm explaining this incorrectly in any way) that each authentic Religious Tradition is an expression of the same Divine Source, and are thus each equally Divine in nature, which were revealed at different points throughout human history. I believe an analogy I've come across before likens different religions to the different streams that each spring forth from the same fountainhead. I believe this concept is known as the "Transcendent Unity of Religions", though I'm not entirely sure if that's the official title of this central principle. Although there exists distinctions between these various Religious Traditions (radically so, in some cases), these simply reflect different expressions of the same essential Truths, which are the result of Divine Will (and there are disagreements as to the particulars of the nature of these differences). As I said, those who subscribe to this philosophy are by no means contained to one Tradition or another, and you find this same essential thinking prevalent among some of the adherents to various mystical traditions, particularly Sufism. It's quite convenient to leverage the criticism against advocates of religious pluralism that they're merely attempting to construct some hollow, fluffy bridge (however well intentioned) that reaches out across religious differences by simply acknowledging each of them as valid for the sake of peaceful co-existence (and this may very well be a legitimate criticism on some takes of religious Pluralism), but I feel the Perennial Philosophy is far more substantive by virtue of it speaking towards the mystical heart that pervades all authentic religions.

I can appreciate how well thought out your response is, but in the end I don't think the kind of pluralism you're discussing gets you out of the pitfalls of contradictory religious beliefs (how can a manifestation of the divine be both P and not P at the same time?).

However, I'm going to grant that this argument has convinced me for the sake of asking what I hope will be a more interesting question: do you think that this view devalues the particulars of any religion in favor of a primarily deist notion of existence?

I should say, I don't mean to ask this and sound as if I'm being condescending - deism is a very appreciable stance, and I think that if it is the belief of an individual, one can engage in such belief pretty comfortably so long as they meet their own ethical standards for existence based on the context of their development. Where it becomes problematic, however, is when you have to deal with organized religions which blatantly contradict one another - where it seems as though you're left with two options.

The first is to say that organized religion is ridiculous, and getting in touch with this "innate divinity" is what matters, not any sort of particulars. Again, fine for an individual - but awful for a group. The other is to pretty much say that anyone engaging in organized religion is going "too far" or doing something wholly unnecessary in participating in organized religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This is probably going to appear as an overly simplistic answer to you, Rob; however, I believe that is more because you've made the problem unnecessarally complicated. I think the problem of many religions is a human problem, not a divine problem. It makes a great deal of sense that any divine entity driven/controlled by/adhearing to reason would have chosen to reveal himself to groupings of people at a time when it was possible for those peoples to properly consider that which God intended to reveal to them. This would explain why most the the great religions developed when the cultures in which they developed had reached a similar level in their development (of course you could also argue that this level of developement was necessary for people to have the free time to make up a religion... for the athiests, it's a good argument - feel free to use it). The unfortunate consequence of allowing societies to develope before revealation is that god/gods must now reveal him/itself to an established people with an established civilization. This means that if God wants to reveal himself in such a way that the people can understand (at least partially) he must do so in a manner that fits their experience... therefore to a society like the Hebrews with a tribal cheif as the ultimate power a monothiestic system fits their already established social structure; for the vedic peoples with a less defined social structure a pantheon of gods makes more sense0. Ultimately, different religions are the product of God being required to reveal himself to different peoples in different ways in order to fit with their frame of reference. Since the initial revealation had to be different the evolution of the belief system would necessarally be different, resulting in different religions. If you take the time to study the "great faiths" you'll quickly see that they are more similar then different.

I think this last little sentence here is pretty clear to just about anyone who's even had a passing interest in studying religions, and it is indeed probably the prettiest feather in religions cap insofar as defense of multiple religions.

Beyond that, however, a lot of your stance sounds a bit like a theist rationalization of the existence of multiple religions that is eerily similar to the deism discussed above. I think both of the arguments the two of you have given for pluralism are reasonable (and Craig, the "similar great faiths" notion was actually my belief for a very, very long time), but do very little to resolve concerns regarding contradictions between faith groups, nor do they address the problem of location (geographically and temporally) with respect to who or whom is rewarded for their piety.

They also give me a bit of a problem insofar as discussing the prohibitions of various religious groups. I do see that the discussion of religious groups evolving in different contexts would inevitably lead very different evolutionary tracks for those beliefs, however it is this varied evolution that concerns me the most - as when these belief systems evolve into conflicting world views, we're almost inevitably left with a discussion of who's going to hell and who's going to heaven (metaphorically).

I actually think that for the position both of the two of you seem to be taking, inclusivism might be a more favorable position, as you can basically distill all of this down to a broad ethical code, and though it wouldn't be "easy", I'm confident there are at least a few vague ethics that cross cultural lines and that we might consider "universal", which sounds a lot like the divinity you both speak of.

In any event, well thought out posts from both of you. Thank you for your contributions.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by RJT I can appreciate how well thought out your response is, but in the end I don't think the kind of pluralism you're discussing gets you out of the pitfalls of contradictory religious beliefs (how can a manifestation of the divine be both P and not P at the same time?). However, I'm going to grant that this argument has convinced me for the sake of asking what I hope will be a more interesting question: do you think that this view devalues the particulars of any religion in favor of a primarily deist notion of existence? I should say, I don't mean to ask this and sound as if I'm being condescending - deism is a very appreciable stance, and I think that if it is the belief of an individual, one can engage in such belief pretty comfortably so long as they meet their own ethical standards for existence based on the context of their development. Where it becomes problematic, however, is when you have to deal with organized religions which blatantly contradict one another - where it seems as though you're left with two options. The first is to say that organized religion is ridiculous, and getting in touch with this "innate divinity" is what matters, not any sort of particulars. Again, fine for an individual - but awful for a group. The other is to pretty much say that anyone engaging in organized religion is going "too far" or doing something wholly unnecessary in participating in organized religion. I think this last little sentence here is pretty clear to just about anyone who's even had a passing interest in studying religions, and it is indeed probably the prettiest feather in religions cap insofar as defense of multiple religions. Beyond that, however, a lot of your stance sounds a bit like a theist rationalization of the existence of multiple religions that is eerily similar to the deism discussed above. I think both of the arguments the two of you have given for pluralism are reasonable (and Craig, the "similar great faiths" notion was actually my belief for a very, very long time), but do very little to resolve concerns regarding contradictions between faith groups, nor do they address the problem of location (geographically and temporally) with respect to who or whom is rewarded for their piety. They also give me a bit of a problem insofar as discussing the prohibitions of various religious groups. I do see that the discussion of religious groups evolving in different contexts would inevitably lead very different evolutionary tracks for those beliefs, however it is this varied evolution that concerns me the most - as when these belief systems evolve into conflicting world views, we're almost inevitably left with a discussion of who's going to hell and who's going to heaven (metaphorically). I actually think that for the position both of the two of you seem to be taking, inclusivism might be a more favorable position, as you can basically distill all of this down to a broad ethical code, and though it wouldn't be "easy", I'm confident there are at least a few vague ethics that cross cultural lines and that we might consider "universal", which sounds a lot like the divinity you both speak of. In any event, well thought out posts from both of you. Thank you for your contributions.

It will be interesting to have a scientific point of view, like a neurologist explanation of the process of faith in our brain.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Beyond that, however, a lot of your stance sounds a bit like a theist rationalization of the existence of multiple religions that is eerily similar to the deism discussed above.

Where you would find that my position differs from deism is that I do not reject the possibility of divine intervention in the world. I believe that any revealation by god(s) would come by way of intervention (hell, the mear act of a diety revealing themself in any manner is an intervention). Additionally, I accept that my position sounds like a rationalization for the existence of multiple religions because that's exactly what it is. How could it be anything else? Any attempt to explain the divine can be nothing more then a rationalization since we lack divine knowledge. Similarly, any attempt to explain the existance of religion in secular terms is also a rationalization since it's really nothing more then speculation on the motives of people who lived thousands of years ago with nothing other then deductive reasoning to support said speculations.

quote:

I think both of the arguments the two of you have given for pluralism are reasonable (and Craig, the "similar great faiths" notion was actually my belief for a very, very long time), but do very little to resolve concerns regarding contradictions between faith groups, nor do they address the problem of location (geographically and temporally) with respect to who or whom is rewarded for their piety.

I think you may be putting undue importance on the contradictions, Rob. If you take a close look at the great faiths you'll find that they are largely the same at their core. In fact, you could also throw in a lot of faiths that would not be included in the great faiths catagory and find the same thing.... for instance; there is a hell of a lot the same between the vedas and the woodland indian fables (for lack of a better term) that comprise their traditional belief system. In fact, most of the differences I've ever encountered (particularly amongst the great faiths) can be easily explained as being interpretive or due to the culture to which the revealation was made. I think it was John Stuart Mill who said "only by listening to everyone can we hope to find truth," which is how I approach my faith. What is important is that which is consistant across faiths, not that which is different as the former is the work of the divine and the latter the work of man.

As far as reward for piety goes; if I understand dieism correctly there is none. As for my own beliefs, I don't think a supreme being would keep score that way... which is in keeping with both christianity and the vedic faiths. With Christianity all people are children of god and return to him (unless they outright reject god's love... which is to say all love), with the vedic faiths, all who exist are part of god and will return to god when their karmic journey is complete. You probably see this as being different, I see it as the same... we are all part of the divine and will return to it... hell, this even fits with the nature of the universe as it is all one thing rather then many things in close proximity.

quote:

They also give me a bit of a problem insofar as discussing the prohibitions of various religious groups. I do see that the discussion of religious groups evolving in different contexts would inevitably lead very different evolutionary tracks for those beliefs, however it is this varied evolution that concerns me the most - as when these belief systems evolve into conflicting world views, we're almost inevitably left with a discussion of who's going to hell and who's going to heaven (metaphorically).

Again, this is the work of man... man has that discussion. Interestingly; however, the most learned figures amongst the great religious traditions seem to accept the validity of other faiths and do not argue that those of other faiths will be punished for their beliefs. I honestly think that one only run into a problem with the idea that all the great faiths are from one divine source if one only posesses a superficial knowledge of the great faiths.

quote:

I actually think that for the position both of the two of you seem to be taking, inclusivism might be a more favorable position, as you can basically distill all of this down to a broad ethical code, and though it wouldn't be "easy", I'm confident there are at least a few vague ethics that cross cultural lines and that we might consider "universal", which sounds a lot like the divinity you both speak of.

Where I disagree with inclusivism is that it believes one's beliefs to be absolutely true and the beliefs of other parties to be true to the point that they are consistant with the first party's beliefs. This is an arrogant possition and intellectually dishonest. How can one say that their beliefs are true and site the similarities with other beliefs as evidence of that truth while also saying that other belief is less true? No, my position holds that no one belief system is absolutely true (including my own); rather, there is truth in them.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Sykonee Heh, the ULTIMATE selfish death: body preserved in a vacuum; not even bacteria gets at the body!

Nah, the bacteria inside you will still eat up your remains.

While writing this a professor called on me to answer a question. I replied: "I'm not even in this class." It was awkward. Anywho...

quote:

Originally posted by Sykonee There's always the expensive 'shot into space' method. Heh, the ULTIMATE selfish death: body preserved in a vacuum; not even bacteria gets at the body!

While I am a space travel supporter, perhaps this method really is a waste of the tax payers money.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Actually, many jurisdictions have opened the door to "green burials" involving no coffin or marker.

Hm, to be honest, I have never heard of that. That's interesting. Is there any sort of health effect as a result in the soil? Our body doesn't exactly contain the nicest chemicals.

___________________
Died Tragically Rescuing His Family From The Wreckage Of A Destroyed Sinking Battleship

quote:

Originally posted by Ek0nomik Hm, to be honest, I have never heard of that. That's interesting. Is there any sort of health effect as a result in the soil? Our body doesn't exactly contain the nicest chemicals.

Honestly, I couldn't tell you, the article I read on it didn't touch on that.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Where you would find that my position differs from deism is that I do not reject the possibility of divine intervention in the world. I believe that any revealation by god(s) would come by way of intervention (hell, the mear act of a diety revealing themself in any manner is an intervention). Additionally, I accept that my position sounds like a rationalization for the existence of multiple religions because that's exactly what it is. How could it be anything else? Any attempt to explain the divine can be nothing more then a rationalization since we lack divine knowledge. Similarly, any attempt to explain the existance of religion in secular terms is also a rationalization since it's really nothing more then speculation on the motives of people who lived thousands of years ago with nothing other then deductive reasoning to support said speculations.

I'm not sure you have deism exactly right - they don't entirely reject the possibility gods intervention in the world (in the sense of revealed theology), though some might. More commonly they reject the notion of god intervening in the day to day affairs of man - they reject the prospect of things like miracles etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think you may be putting undue importance on the contradictions, Rob. If you take a close look at the great faiths you'll find that they are largely the same at their core. In fact, you could also throw in a lot of faiths that would not be included in the great faiths catagory and find the same thing.... for instance; there is a hell of a lot the same between the vedas and the woodland indian fables (for lack of a better term) that comprise their traditional belief system. In fact, most of the differences I've ever encountered (particularly amongst the great faiths) can be easily explained as being interpretive or due to the culture to which the revealation was made. I think it was John Stuart Mill who said "only by listening to everyone can we hope to find truth," which is how I approach my faith. What is important is that which is consistant across faiths, not that which is different as the former is the work of the divine and the latter the work of man.

This is all a matter of interpretation though, and clearly through your eyes (and perhaps that of Paradox Lost as well) you see more overlap than conflict - I happen to think this is a situation in which perspective has more to do with interpretation than anything (glass half full, glass half empty). Regardless of the consistencies you can find (i.e. "the golden rule"), someone who is looking for disparities could find them just as easily. To this end, all of this is the product of man, and not the product of god (though I imagine you'd argue this point with me as you have stated that you do believe in divine revelation - I do not, and I'm not sure any measure of "talking it out" will convince you or I to change our positions).

The overlap is, to me, far more an indication of human beings need for societal cohesion than it is of any true religious or faith beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard As far as reward for piety goes; if I understand dieism correctly there is none. As for my own beliefs, I don't think a supreme being would keep score that way... which is in keeping with both christianity and the vedic faiths. With Christianity all people are children of god and return to him (unless they outright reject god's love... which is to say all love), with the vedic faiths, all who exist are part of god and will return to god when their karmic journey is complete. You probably see this as being different, I see it as the same... we are all part of the divine and will return to it... hell, this even fits with the nature of the universe as it is all one thing rather then many things in close proximity.

What kind of a Christian (Catholic?) are you?!?



I can certainly appreciate how well thought out your opinion on the matter is, and it clearly removes you from the pitfalls I've discussed - but you are in the minority to be sure. Even within the various Christian sects there are different definitions as to what qualifies as a mortal sin, so to across the board simplify Christian belief in terms like "all people are children of god and return to him" is, in my mind, something you believe personally, and in no way indicative of Christianity's foundation, nor its evolution over time.

Eastern "religions" (not including various Hindu sects) can also, more often than not, be interpreted as monistic or reductionist materialist, and certainly their concept of "god" (provided they even have one) is vastly different, and many times contradictory, to those of the Western "big 3" (Judaism, Christianity, Islam).

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Again, this is the work of man... man has that discussion. Interestingly; however, the most learned figures amongst the great religious traditions seem to accept the validity of other faiths and do not argue that those of other faiths will be punished for their beliefs. I honestly think that one only run into a problem with the idea that all the great faiths are from one divine source if one only posesses a superficial knowledge of the great faiths.

So would you say that the Jesuits have a "superficial" knowledge of the great faiths (the Jesuits, much like a majority of Catholics, are inclusivist - they deny the truth of other faiths, but provide salvation to those who live appropriately)? And what are the "great faiths"? Who has done the demarcation for said "great faiths", providing their boundaries for conduct?

All of this is the product of man, and none of it, as far as I can see, the product of anything divine.

Respect for others faiths doesn't necessarily mean acceptance of their doctrines, nor does it mean that one will accept another's faith as true.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Where I disagree with inclusivism is that it believes one's beliefs to be absolutely true and the beliefs of other parties to be true to the point that they are consistant with the first party's beliefs. This is an arrogant possition and intellectually dishonest. How can one say that their beliefs are true and site the similarities with other beliefs as evidence of that truth while also saying that other belief is less true? No, my position holds that no one belief system is absolutely true (including my own); rather, there is truth in them.

Again, this is fine and well for an individual, but it's reasoned decision you have made following your education at the hands of man. I'm not trying to exclude anyone here or say that someone's faith or religious beliefs are better or worse than anyone else. I do not, however, find the assertion that there is "truth in all of them" as evidence of anything other than the need of man for social constructs governing how we act as a species in an effort to perpetuate the existence of mankind.

To summarize, I'm pretty sure that no matter how much longer this discussion would continue, we're at a stalemate we won't escape.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by RJT To summarize, I'm pretty sure that no matter how much longer this discussion would continue, we're at a stalemate we won't escape.

In France, it is said that we have only 3 topics of conversation: sex, religion and politics, and that you can be sure you won't agree with your neighbor on at least 2 of them.

I think what it boils down to is that because Craig accepts divine revelation, the rest of his argument falls into place quite nicely and logically. However, because I do not, it's very easy for me to turn the "product of man" discussion around on him and say "Well, I think that what you feel is the product of a divine source is really a bunch of lies perpetuated by man in an effort to sustain the species and assuage fears of death."

Neither position can be proven right or wrong - they both (perhaps oddly) rely on one sort of faith or another, which really just says that my materialism is really not all that different (at the level of core/fundamental reliance on an unprovable idea) from however you'd classify his version of faith/religion.

___________________
last minute disco dot net