As Above, So Below - the religion thread (formerly: People of California, beware)

Who?

You don't know who he is!? I DON'T believe it.

Sorry Tim.

Somebody posted something about the Flying Spaghetti Monster in another thread, and I was reading about it online. What are our religious friends' takes on this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spagetti_Monster

I'll post this video in both the religion topic and funny videos topic, because it is funny but also very serious and moving. It can be interpreted as an attack on religion but I prefer to see it as a plea to think for yourself and live your own life and learn from others. Also it's a nice view on puberty, the phase when people often start to doubt the way they were brought up is normal and the other ways weird or wrong. There simply is no wrong and right, just differences and those differences should be cherished.

Just take 8 minutes to sit down and watch it. And enjoy. It's brilliant.

Instruction Manual for Life

Well, maybe you're reading a bit much into it, Steven.

The overall message to me seems to be that it's OK to question established values, and build from there.

That doesn't negate the fact that differences not always need to be celebrated, but may be subject to as harsh questioning as established values are. That, however, simply doesn't seem to be the point here.

But your critical and analytical note is a valuable one, and one to keep in mind.

Interesting how you only wonder if we should accept fundamentalists' point of view, but you don't turn it around. You do not wonder if fundamentalists should accept other points of view? Learning from eachother goes both ways.

By the way, those were just a few things I get from this animation. There are many messages you can take from it.

One thing that is very important to me is autonomy vs heteronomy. That's why for me it isn't an attack against religion per se because there are many religious people (monotheists, polytheists, pantheists) who believe in god but still write their own instruction manual for life, so to speak. They think for themselves, take responsibility for their own lives and don't rely on powers and instructions from above. The message of autonomy is an important one to me, like cherishing differences and letting go the idea of normal and weird (perhaps those are better words than right or wrong).

I know what fundamentalism is. And I didn't ask if they would, I asked if they should.


I think it means a lot! I'm glad I have a more hopeful view then and that I am able to get some meaning from it.

No, no tone here. I just really like the video and it means a lot to me.
And I like the music by the way!

..or not, as the case may be.

If this could only be true of all grown-ups in life There are times in life where I know it is best to do what my father told me growing up which is "keep your mouth shut and your thoughts to yourself."
Thomas

Well, if we were discussing WOMEN then i would wistfully join

I've been out of this thread for a while. I see there are 60 unread posts, which is better than the 1000+ unread messages waiting for me in the Hans Zimmer thread. I do plan to read them all.

Anyway, I was reading Nassim Taleb's FOOLED BY RANDOMNESS again this week. It's the sort of book that you need to read regularly if you're working in a financial market context, because you need to remind yourself of how much of your success you can't take credit for, and how much of your failure you shouldn't attribute to luck. The end of the book makes a case for stoicism (centred on behaviour) as being to the only answer to true uncertainty in life, and it's quite a compelling exhortation. The book above all cautions against the traps of empiricism. Sciences that are dependent on non-replicable experimental data, but empirical observation, are labeled 'soft'.

The book is full of ideas I appreciate. The idea that emotion plays a role in guiding us to local equilibria for decision-making seems to make a great deal of sense. Hence the rare value of decision-making unaided by emotion of some sort. (Note that emotion does not equate to hysterical thought processes here.)

Taleb is as skeptical as they come. Popperian is the word. Anyway, the close of chapter 13 'Carneades comes to Rome: On Probability and Skepticism' is subtitled 'From Funeral to Funeral'. Taleb begins with discussing Carneades' visit to Rome, and holds high regard for those who change their mind frequently, showing little path dependence in thinking. George Soros (who knows how little he knows), Robert Merton and Long Term Capital Management (fooled by randomness), the fictional Monsieur de Norpois (of Proust) and Cicero all make appearances. The coda to the chapter reads as follows:



I notice that a theme that often emerges in conversation with those who find religion little more than folly is the hypocrisy issue. The issue being that many individuals with beliefs have acted in a way that is inconsistent with their beliefs. It often resolves with the believer - who probably doesn't see themselves as a hypocrite, and probably isn't being seen as one by the interlocuter - asserting that the ideal (the belief) exceeds the individual's part in it (the believer). That even if all believers were in some way not up to the ideal - because they were, after all, only human - the ideal would remain worthy. What I find interesting is that Taleb is using a very similar justification here in defense of the failings of those who are, ideally, completely rational in their judgements, but whose human nature often fails them.

I guess the other observation that comes to mind is that it is rarely easy to reverse a previous train of thought. And not always for the purposes of saving face (whic his point about incentive compatibility would suggest). Some decisions can't be re-decided down the track, so you might have believe you did the right thing. Is it human nature to cling to a system of thinking, and is that tendency not independent of the system of thinking and embedded in the human agent to a large extent?

Anyway, just thought I'd share that.


* On the issue of 'soft sciences'. Taleb is particularly sceptical about economists and applied statisticans, partly because he knows both breeds so well, but intellectually his reason is that induction is the Popperian one - that induction is useful for falsification, and not much else. He is less suspicious of hard science, provided replicable experimental data and a true and demonstrated desire to be proven wrong are at its basis. But as I'm sure he'd admit, he's no philosopher, so don't feel I'm saying to take him seriously - I'm just trying to give context.

The Nobel prize-winning finance theorist. (I think he shared the award with Byron Scholes.)

Interestingly, this is much the same mechanism that creates a universal feeling of paranioa, as experienced and put forward most by "Truthers" and Complot Theorists: the need to add a structure, a mechanism and an intention to random dynamics or wild coincidence is a need within the human brain to bring order and structure to chaos.

It's one of our most wonderful traits that make us commit some of our greatest mistakes.