They do? You have an epistemology that can reliably and provably tell you the name of the person you would be happiest with on Earth? Or what apple pie tastes like for me? Pray tell.
Seems to me you've jumped WAY beyond the word "answers" there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if there are wars relating to sexual competition, perhaps we should do away with sex. Wasn't that the deal with the Trojan war?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So if there are wars relating to sexual competition, perhaps we should do away with sex. Wasn't that the deal with the Trojan war?
Have fun enforcing that pooka. Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems like one empirical good being advanced is not to kill. But isn't competition and extinction part of evolution?
I don't think anyone here has suggested "do not kill" as an empirical value, unless you think everyone on the thread is opposed to the death penalty, war, etc.
I've said this before, and I think the earliest axiom we can come up with for this is: "harm is bad." There may be situations in which all the options available to you cause harm; Darwinian evolution is a result of one such situation, where a failure to harm someone may harm both you and your whole "society."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seems to me you've jumped WAY beyond the word "answers" there.
Those were the questions presented. "What does apple pie taste like to someone else" and "what's the name of the person who would make me happiest" were specific questions earlier in the thread. I am suggesting that these questions are essentially unanswerable by any methodology, but that science is better than any other epistemology at providing reliable partial answers to even those questions.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't referring to the questions, but rather to the assumption you seem to have that an answer only exists if we have the means to discover it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: But science can definitely NOT tell me what the color of the car parked next to mine at work tomorrow will be, no matter how precisely I ask the question. It can't tell me the name of the person to marry if I want to be happiest. It can't tell me if God exists. It can't tell me how to define "faith". It can't tell me what the experience of tasting apple pie is like for you, in your consciousness. It can't tell me if cheating on a test is wrong. It can't tell me why life is of any value.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Do you maintain that these questions have answers?
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Yes, they have answers.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Seems to me you've jumped WAY beyond the word "answers" there.
Which "you" are you referring to?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, I think I interpreted your question the same way TomD did, except with the added confusion of whether you were also challenging TomD for asking for answers or challenging Tresopax for accepting and saying that there were answers (or both).
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I wasn't referring to the questions, but rather to the assumption you seem to have that an answer only exists if we have the means to discover it.
Exactly. Or that those are the only important questions.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So if there are wars relating to sexual competition, perhaps we should do away with sex. Wasn't that the deal with the Trojan war?
Have fun enforcing that pooka.
Sounds like The Giver.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: So if there are wars relating to sexual competition, perhaps we should do away with sex. Wasn't that the deal with the Trojan war?
A) Probably a myth, or at least very different from the story B) If anything I would blame the scheming gods, rather than Paris's libido C) If true...hey, at least we have Western religion pushing chastity as a virtue and trying to do away with as much sex as possible Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: In this discussion, or ever?
In this discussion. I'm well aware that there are people who have wanted to outlaw religion.
I happen to not be one of them, and I don't think I see anyone in this thread expressing that desire.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Nor do I, but I haven't read everything.
Right. My reason for posting the question is that I suspect kat's comment was directed at me. Could be wrong, of course.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Pushing chastity as a virtue is not the same thing as trying to do away with as as much sex as possible.
If you had said it's trying to do away with unchaste sex, you'd be closer to the mark.
Perhaps, we're working from different definitions of chastity. I'm working from chastity as in the opposite of lust, with the best case being celibacy (both in mind and in body).
From that perspective, then it has always put virginity and celibacy in a special place, from the virgin Mary (both before and after the birth of Christ) on down to the celibate priests and nuns. Sure, concessions are made for married couples if only to perpetuate the human race, but even then birth control is advised against, pretty much eliminating sex without a high chance of unintended consequences. Heck, in the best case, if all women were suddenly overcome with religious fervour, decided to make themselves servants of God and became nuns then the whole issue would be moot.
Call it whatever you wish, but we'd certainly be getting a heck of a lot less, not that I necessarily disagree in all cases...
In fact, short of STDs (and maybe, maybe perhaps economics), I can't think of many other arguments against sex that are quite as effective as those rooted in religion.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Heck, in the best case, if all women were suddenly overcome with religious fervour, decided to make themselves servants of God and became nuns then the whole issue would be moot.
Only if they were catholic.
You're making sweeping comments about "Western religion" that really only apply to a fraction of them.
By your definition of chastity (avoiding sex as much as possible), I'd say that most Western religions do not promote it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those were the questions presented. "What does apple pie taste like to someone else" and "what's the name of the person who would make me happiest" were specific questions earlier in the thread. I am suggesting that these questions are essentially unanswerable by any methodology, but that science is better than any other epistemology at providing reliable partial answers to even those questions.
Taste of apple pie: I think the most popular method of answering this question is eating apple pie one time and then assuming that apple pie tastes to everyone else just as it tastes to you. You can argue about how accurate this is, but there's no proof either way, and it most certainly gives you a complete answer to the question.
Person who makes you happiest: I think most people use dating to do this. This relies on a ton of unscientific assumptions in order to make judgements about people, but it ultimately gives one a complete answer. Once again, one can argue over how accurate that answer is, but you couldn't prove it one way or another. There's also plenty of other methods you could choose, ranging from accepting whoever your parents tell you will make you happiest to picking a name at random out of the phonebook. Whether these methods should be considered accurate or inaccurate, rational or irrational, depends again on what starting assumptions you accept. But they definitely give complete answers.
I have no method to answer either of these questions with certainty or proof, but just because I can't prove the answers does not mean correct answers don't exist out there.
quote:You're laboring under a remarkably narrow definition of "science" here that ignores the fact that it includes all of observational reality
If that were true then my religion would be supported by science, since it is based in things I have observed about reality. Even a kid's belief in Santa Claus would be scientifically supported, since it is based on observations that his or her parents told them Santa exists, that they've seen Santa at the mall, that they've seen and touched presents on Christmas that said "From Santa" on them. But I don't think this is what people normally mean when they say "scientific method". It is far far more narrow than just anything based on any observation about reallity. Or so I was taught in science class.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Only if they were catholic.
You're making sweeping comments about "Western religion" that really only apply to a fraction of them.
By your definition of chastity (avoiding sex as much as possible), I'd say that most Western religions do not promote it.
*shrug* Why else do you think I prefaced that particular statement with "In the best case"*
But as for the rest, I accept your criticism. My previous statements only apply to those Western religions that believe in the virgin Mary and have any history (or branch from a religion that does) of their priests (or nuns if they have them) being celibate.
* Catholicism being the one that I respect and am impressed by the most for different reasons than the current discussion
JH: As was made clear by the post I was responding to, I was using my definition, which as it turns out isn't too far from the real one
quote: chaste /tʃeɪst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[cheyst] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective, chast·er, chast·est. 1. refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion; virtuous.
In the appropriate religions: For a married person, that would mean only having sex with your partner for procreation For a priest, that would mean being celibate In the best case, that would mean being a virgin
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, whenever I see threads get longer than 6 pages or so I like to read just the thread title and the last page, to see how far it's drifted. This one's been great for that game.
quote:In the appropriate religions: For a married person, that would mean only having sex with your partner for procreation For a priest, that would mean being celibate In the best case, that would mean being a virgin
I think most Christiain religions push marriage as the preferred "best case" for the average person.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As was made clear by the post I was responding to, I was using my definition, which as it turns out isn't too far from the real one
Actually, the difference between your definition and the "real" one is exactly what I was correcting you about.
[EDITED OUT]
quote:In the best case, that would mean being a virgin
That is incorrect. There's nothing in that definition that supports this.
The definition you quoted is "refraining from sexual intercourse that is regarded as contrary to morality or religion". Note that it does not say "refraining from all sex".
If sex between a married couple is neither contrary to morality or religion, then it is perfectly chaste.
posted
Wow. I totally missed that. I thought it said "only having sex with your partner."
No, what Mucus said about married partners is not correct at all. Unless non-procreative sex is considered immoral or contrary to religion (which is is not by most "Western religions"), non-procreative sex between a married couple is perfectly chaste, using the definition chastity that Mucas quoted.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Thank you for catching that. I saw what I had done and was quite horrified.
Too late Porter, you just ruined the faith, I can't believe your careless key strokes have just created an insurmountable wall that future missionary efforts will never traverse.
It all started with Joseph Smith in the woods and it all ends with Porter at his keyboard. I hope your back gets thrown out again. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in J. Golden Kimball. If the missionaries throughout the years haven't been able to destroy the LDS Church, it can easily weather Porter at his keyboard.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I believe in J. Golden Kimball. If the missionaries throughout the years haven't been able to destroy the LDS Church, it can easily weather Porter at his keyboard.
Ha! I love that quote. Michael Moore said, "damn" during a speech he made at UVSC and then said in effect, "Oh I'm sorry can I say that here? I got my speech coaching from J. Golden Kimball." I swear I was the only one in a room of thousands of Mormons who started laughing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to stop the funny, but I'm hoping that raising the bar for missionaries means that quote isn't as true as it used to be.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You went to that speech?
We can never be friends.
Just gathering intel from one of the enemy's rallies.
Javert Hugo: Have you served a mission? Just curious. I am still certain that no matter how hard 19-21 year old young men try to be good missionaries, they still pose the greatest risk of turning people away from the church. But they are also however vitally important in spreading the gospel throughout the world.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep. I served in Detroit, Michigan and loved every bit of it.
I think the quote is a bit unfair - most missionaries were absolutely wonderful. Some weren't, though, and I'm hoping that the raising of the bar means those that aren't ready don't go and so Prez can spend his time teaching and training rather than baby-sitting.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Yep. I served in Detroit, Michigan and loved every bit of it.
I think the quote is a bit unfair - most missionaries were absolutely wonderful. Some weren't, though, and I'm hoping that the raising of the bar means those that aren't ready don't go and so Prez can spend his time teaching and training rather than baby-sitting.
Well that is only part of the humor, the other part is that missionaries are still 19-21 year old dudes who are going to mess things up in the efforts to emulate Jesus.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just it - I don't think they do screw things up that badly. Most of the missionaries that I knew that were really trying succeeded more or less - at least, they were better than they would have been had they not been trying.
I get why it's supposed to be funny, but the funny rests on an inaccurate premise.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
I would have thought this would be less controversial. I have a pretty good feeling that the cult around the Virgin Mary would be rather less impressive if she was the "Almost-Virgin except for this one time in Cancun Mary". Historically, a decent number of virgin cults formed with her as a model, and women joining them professing total chastity, even attaining sainthood when successful.
Re: "Married couples"
As I understand it, marriage is more of a limited admission than a buffet-style admission to lust. Even ignoring the stereotype of "only in the dark and in the missionary position", I would have thought that Christians would typically be more conservative in the bedroom. Heck, if we limit the discussion to Catholics, without birth control, very many sexual acts essentially become for procreative purposes
To be honest, I'm not sure why the controversy. Does the Bush administration (and its hard core supporters) not promote religiously-based abstinence only programs to cut down on sex? To echo my previous question, can anyone think of a more effective argument to cut down the number of sexual incidents aside from religion when discounting things like arguments from STDs or maybe, maybe economics?
And why is everyone suddenly trying to convince me that religious folk have *more frequent* sex lives than the norm?
In any case, since I've been contacted by a fellow poster, I think I'll pursue that venue, and in a more personal tone than out here, so I will cut down on contributing to this particular topic for now.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It all started with Joseph Smith in the woods and it all ends with Porter at his keyboard. I hope your back gets thrown out again.
If it helps any, I never thought of Mormons in my discussion. Indeed, I would be very surprised by anyone picking a religion due to what sexual practises you're allowed.
(unless, you're a king of England or something)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It all started with Joseph Smith in the woods and it all ends with Porter at his keyboard. I hope your back gets thrown out again.
If it helps any, I never thought of Mormons in my discussion. Indeed, I would be very surprised by anyone picking a religion due to what sexual practises you're allowed.
(unless, you're a king of England or something)
Picking a religion for its sexual practices might be rare, but creating your own, at least in the King's case, wasn't out of the question.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why didn't you think of Mormons? You attributed certain practices to "religion." Why didn't you include a religion that gets pretty steady exposure here? ----
No, in at least of the major religions brought up in this thread, being a virgin is not the "best" case - being chaste is, with the definition previously discussed.
---
I'm guessing groups that promoted celibacy for women were a lot more attractive when the alternative meant a huge likelihood of dying young. Sex before modern medicine and birth control was DANGEROUS for women. Forget the syphilis and the clap - getting pregnant meant taking your life in your hands.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And why is everyone suddenly trying to convince me that religious folk have *more frequent* sex lives than the norm?
I don't see anybody doing that.
quote: I have a pretty good feeling that the cult around the Virgin Mary would be rather less impressive if she was the "Almost-Virgin except for this one time in Cancun Mary".
The "cult around the Virgin Mary" is not widespread throughout "Western religion" (your words).
If you're talking about one particular branch, like Catholicism, that's OK. But what you're saying simply doesn't apply to most branches.
quote:Does the Bush administration (and its hard core supporters) not promote religiously-based abstinence only programs to cut down on sex?
They're trying to cut down on unmarried sex.
If you can point me toward such abstinence programs that are trying to keep people from ever getting married so that they'll remain virgins their whole lives, I'll be very surprised.
quote:To be honest, I'm not sure why the controversy.
It's because you're saying things that simply aren't true. You're assuming that it's generally believed in Western religions that there's something wrong with sex between married couples and that it's better to stay a virgin than to get married. This simply isn't true.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If it helps any, I never thought of Mormons in my discussion.
You were making claims about "Western religion". Unless you're saying that Mormons are an exception to the norm with regards to this (we're not) or that we're not a Western religion (we are), what you're saying is inaccurate.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph: I never used the term "Western religion" after this post.
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But as for the rest, I accept your criticism. My previous statements only apply to those Western religions that believe in the virgin Mary and have any history (or branch from a religion that does) of their priests (or nuns if they have them) being celibate.
You've used it three times after this statement when it was clear that I had only intended to mean the group above.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: Why didn't you think of Mormons? You attributed certain practices to "religion." Why didn't you include a religion that gets pretty steady exposure here?
Actually, I first ascribed them to "Western religion." After I accepted mph's criticism (I'm not sure if he missed it), they only applied to that group in my post above.
I didn't think of Mormons because they aren't representative of Christianity. I would think that the whole controversy as to whether Mormons are even *Christian* would make that obvious. I was also thinking of the fact that the number of Mormons are tiny compared to the number of Catholics, if I'm going to pick an example I'm going to use the biggest group, not one of the smallest.
This isn't to say that Mormons are bad or anything, its just that they're much less relevant.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
