Symposium Philosophicum IV

This collegium and forum are dedicated to the study, discussion, re-creation and application of classical Roman and Greek religion and philosophy.

Moderator: Aldus Marius

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:10 pm

Yes, because I *AM* a politician :lol:*

Draco

ps: not yet, but there are intentions...
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Wed Jan 21, 2004 6:30 pm

intentions? interesting. You will join the right party? Or will you be opposing me? :lol:
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Horatius Piscinus on Sat Jan 24, 2004 5:55 pm

[Hortius motioned to rise from his couch. Camelli came to his side to assist him in rising. Slowly, ever so painfully, in every slight movement, his bones crackled like distant thunder. Gathering up his toga unto his left forearm, then stepping forward as though to address a crowd from the Rostrum, and planting himself braced atop a cane of twisted vine, he began to speak.]

"Do we need religion?" Do you mean by this question that in this postmodern world where deconstructionist argument has debased the rational tradition, so that logic and human reasoning is no longer enough to provide us with answers, where science, rather than provide us with the hope for a better tomorrow, only delivers more advanced ways of destruction, where objective argument is replaced by subjective meaning and relativist theories, where our political leaders are leaving behind public service for greed and their own personal special interests, business leaders are looting the very companies they oversee, religious leaders are fondling their lascivious desires, and where individuals are torn from traditional families and communities of faith, finding it more difficult to discover their self-identity in the multiplicity of modern society, faced at every turn with an overwhelming amount of information and an overabundance of choices with no form of guidance available to them? Then, yes, we need religion.

Today we are seeing one reaction to the postmodern world with fundamentalism pervading both secular and religious institutions. Fundamentalism is a rigidly closed mindset, a worldview that shuts off dialogue and threatens to move us toward the agenda of extremists. We can see the effect of such attitudes in Northern Ireland, in Palestine-Israel, now threatening to explode in Nigeria once more as well. It enters into our politics over such issues as immigration, feminism, and human rights for homosexuals, with rigid battlelines of ideology impairing our ability to resolve problems within our own countries, or to resolve international differences through negotiation, or even to provide meaningful aid to such places as Africa, wracked with disease and famine, and still plagued by tribal genocide. Once before fundamentalism plunged Western Civilization into a Dark Age. Perhaps Afghanistan under the Taliban should remind us all what is threatened by fundamentalist thought today. On the other side, the other reaction to the postmodern world is a drift towards cynicism, nihilism and anarchy. The consequence of a complete breakdown of civil and moral authority is Liberia. Such extreme reactions to the postmodern world, rigid authoritarianism or anarchy, is not the only possible future we face. The basic values that underlie all traditions of faith hold out the hope of our societies evolving towards new understandings.

Religion can be a powerful force for change and renewal. That is true for individuals and for societies as a whole. At the core of the world's major religions are basic truths that bridge cultural differences. Religions can therefore offer us guidance in an increasingly confusing world. It is not a matter of which religion can lead us to truth, for as Symmachus told us, "What does it matter by which wisdom each of us arrives at truth?" Basic truths transcend cultural or religious boundaries imposed by mankind. We have seen in the past how a Gandhi could appeal to the basic truths of Hinduism, and where those truths resonated among Christians. Or how a Martin Luther King Jr. and a Mandela could resonate basic truths within different cultures and different religious traditions. It is important for us to keep such historical examples in mind as globalization now places people of different cultural backgrounds and different religious traditions side by side within the same community. Instead of allowing fundamentalism to dictate our options in a format of "us and them," we need to create more dialogue between the various faiths so that they can find their common ground, the basic truths that underlie all faiths. And this can only happen if individuals first turn to examine their respective faiths before bridging the differences between faiths. People of faith, in all religious traditions, need to take back their respective faiths from the fundamentalist perspective.

Those of us who are members of SVR include gentiles of pagan traditions as we also include Christians, as well as some who have backgrounds in Judaism and Islam. It is understood among us that Classical philosophy of the gentiles traditions gave rise to Christianity, and greatly influenced rabbinical Judaism and Sunni Islam, and Hinduism, too, to a less extend. It is also understood that the Classical world offers us a model of a culture of multiplicity, where peoples of different religious traditions and different ethnic cultures did live side by side. The five traditions of Western Civilization thus already have a common origin and a common core of values to be rediscovered. When you ask whether WE need religion, then I look to us living in communities, really in circles of communities, widening out from our families and neighborhoods to the worldwide community. Marcus Aurelius said, "My city and country, so far as I am Antonius, is Rome, but so far as I am a man, it is the world." (II 1) Our Stoic Seneca likewise addressed a "brotherhood of mankind," recognizing that in spite of the many differences that might exist, we all share in a common humanness. I think that today when individuals can contact one another so easily, whether through travel or communication such as we enjoy on the internet, then we are forced to find our common ground. Where we find it, as individuals, is in our core beliefs that come from our respective religious traditions. Where we as communities interrelating with other communities are to find our common ground will also be in our respective religious traditions, for in spite of whatever differences exist - between Christian and gentiles, between Jew and Muslim, and so forth, - our common core values lead all people of faith to accept and respect one another. Thus we postmodern communities of multiplicity, and the developing worldwide community need religion as the one thing that may yet bind us together within our respective communities, and these into the greater community of humankind.
M Horatius Piscinus

Sapere aude!
User avatar
Horatius Piscinus
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 7:39 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:20 pm

Do we need religion?

As the human race became more powerful than their surrounding animals they lost the need to battle for their survival. The sence of life, surviving to be able to reproduce, is almost fulfilled from the day a new child is born. Now enough children survive their childhood years to secure the reproduction of our race.

Most animals have to fight everyday for their life, for the survival of their species. They must gather food or hunt, try to hide it from other predators, watch out they are not killed by concurrents or larger predators, they have to be careful for poisoned plants, human guns, etc.

Every other day that an animal survives is a victory, and a step closer to the survival of their species. The day an animal has reproduced itsself enough to protect its species, it has fulfilled its duty.

We don't have to fight for the survival of our species anymore. When we are born the sence of our life has already been fulfilled, i.e. help the species survive. So we live a meaningless life. And people do not like to be helpless and hopeless. So they have created something called 'religion', to give their life a new meaning. Logically this meaning lies after death, because then it is no longer verifiable. Religions give the life a new 'artificial' meaning, because we created this 'meaning' ourselves.

Religions have another advantage: we do not have to fear death anymore: it will be a reward for life. We will live (again) after our death.

Do we need religion? No. Peole who are strong enough to face the facts do not need religion. They know that we already have fullfilled our duty as human species.

Do we need religion? Yes, because people who are not strong enough to face the meaningless reality otherwise would endanger the prosperity of our species by dying far too early (suicides, no more reproducing because "they don't want to give their children a 'meaningless life'", ...). But these people do not see the reality; that religions are fake, and that the goal of life already is archieved when they're born.

Thus religion is not needed, as the strong and intelligent people of this human species know. But we allow it to give the weak a goal in their life, and thus our species a greater chance of survival.

People, enjoy the meaningless life!


A true cynic has spoken!
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Sun Jan 25, 2004 8:23 pm

A little note on the side:

Before other people feel insulted by my point of view (you can't be careful enough in this world where we eat eachother for a small difference (e.g. color of skin, language, sexual orientation, etc.) ) I'd like to say that I have spoken as a theoretical cynic. It was not my intention to offend anyone.
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Comprehendo...

Postby Aldus Marius on Tue Jan 27, 2004 2:00 am

Salve Locate...

I understand...and as a Christo-Pagan of sorts whose spirituality, though not yet fully worked out, is yet deep and intensely meaningful to me, that's saying a lot. In ancient times, budding orators were trained to speak from the perspective of any and all sides of an argument, even the sides least similar and most personally distasteful to their own actual beliefs. Carry on, mi Locate; you do the Cynics' position proud, however little you may identify with it yourself.

In fide,
Aldus Marius Peregrinus.
User avatar
Aldus Marius
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 2175
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:16 am
Location: At the Ballgame

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Tue Jan 27, 2004 12:06 pm

Thank you very much for the trust, mi Mari! You're very welcome!

Now it's Curio's turn to speak. Let the wine flow, amici!
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Thu Jan 29, 2004 6:33 pm

Curio seems to have fallen asleep (maybe the cause lies in this delicious wine...). Can somebody wake him up, please? I can't reach him from this side of the table...
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Curio Agelastus on Fri Jan 30, 2004 1:09 am

**With a start Curio sits up**

I'm sorry amici, I'm not sleeping much at the moment. **Curio goes to stand in front of the gathered philosophers**

So, the question is... oh yes, do we need religion?

Well to start with, it could be argued that there is nothing we need. Ultimately, nothing matters. This may be difficult to believe, especially if looking in horror at the burned-out skeleton of your house, but when put in a large enough perspective, it simply has no effect. This may sound callous, but the same applies to historical events, when put into perspective - it simply doesn't matter.

However, leaving aside this somewhat nihilistic view, certain things can be said to matter with a certain frame of reference. For instance, within the frame of reference of a human life, food, water and oxygen are all essential. Therefore I am assuming that by "needed" the frame of reference is the well-being of the human race, or alternatively humans individually.

Taken in this context, I personally believe that the answer is no. It is true that in past centuries, religion could very well in some cases be described as an opium for the masses. However, this does not mean that opium was necessary - merely deemed expedient by those administering it.

The reason I say that religion is not needed is that, unlike our cynical friend Locate, I don't believe that there are people who are strong enough to face the facts, and people who are not strong enough. Instead, there are those in whom life has instilled a sense of cynicism or disillusionment, and those in whom it hasn't. Whether one is better or the other, I make no decision, although personally I am one of the former.

However, religion is clearly not needed on an individual scale, since so many people do live without it. Although many people may prefer to join one church/religion or another, it is not an essential part of life. On a community scale? It is certainly good to have something to believe in, but whether that need be a deity, a national identity, an ideal, a dream, an ambition... There are many things that can drive a person, and faith in one's God is just one of them. On a national scale, very few states have gone without a national religion. The only example that springs to mind was Communist Russia, which was atheistic in nature. It could be argued that the belief in the ideals of communism replaced religion, and thus that the point that religion is needed still stands.

However, in this case the comment of the founder of Protestantism, Martin Luther, may be of interest; "Whatever you hold close to your heart, whatever you cherish, that is your God." However, if this is true, then religion is expanded from belief in a deity to belief in SOMETHING. If this is how Luther's comments are to be interpreted, then yes, religion is needed. No person can live with no hope, no goals, no dreams. Or at least such a person is rare.

But assuming that religion has a more limited meaning, then it is not needed, since both people and states have successfully lived without it.

I apologise that this speech was little more than a rambling on topics that interest me, I hope it interested you also, even if the comments to be directed my way are derisive.

**Curio sits down, shaking as he always does after public speaking.**
Marcus Scribonius Curio Agelastus
Rector ColHis, Senator

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
User avatar
Curio Agelastus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:38 pm

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:29 am

Before concluding on this first topic, I will give the chance to comment on the other philosophers.

I suggest everyone gives his opinion about the four other speakers. Keep in mind the philosophy you chose to defend!
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Too late ?

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:12 pm

Salvete omnes,

After a very long period of inactivity, I have decided to make a modest come-back (no jubilations or flower-throwing desired), not with the intention of writing a new codex iuris civilis or to draft a classical weekly, so to speak, but simply to jump in now and then and comment on topics that raise my interest.

This symposion is one of them. If I may jump in this late, I would be happy, as most influential philosophies are taken already, to present an eclectic's opinion during this weekend.

Licet, symposiarche ?

Q. Pomponius Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Oops..

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:16 pm

Oops, still carrying my old titles in my signature ... No usurpation or coup d'état intended, collegae ...

Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Fri Jan 30, 2004 7:34 pm

All right, you can jump in, mi Attice, and if somebody else wants to jump in too; he's welcome (Coruncianus?). So, we're awaiting your opinion, atticus!
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sat Jan 31, 2004 12:13 am

Salvete omnes et salve Locate,

Yes, as a matter of fact do I have comments ;). In general, I found myself in agreement with most speakers most of the time, Piscinus in particular (except his very last paragraph which I thought was a bit hyperbolic), although I didn't get Romulus' point very clearly. But I found some things to disagree with in your speech, o Locate!

Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:As the human race became more powerful than their surrounding animals they lost the need to battle for their survival. The sence of life, surviving to be able to reproduce, is almost fulfilled from the day a new child is born. Now enough children survive their childhood years to secure the reproduction of our race.


This drive for survival is an instinct. Whether we need it or not is pretty much irrelevant, it still determines much of our actions, although in a more refined way. Secondly, most human beings that are now born are not bound to reproduce in poor countries such as Congo, Somalia or Afghanistan. But even if we take the Western world, we, as fed and protected people, still struggle to attain the best partner, the best health and the best position to survive, not merely physically but also socially and psychologically.

Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:We don't have to fight for the survival of our species anymore. When we are born the sence of our life has already been fulfilled, i.e. help the species survive. So we live a meaningless life. And people do not like to be helpless and hopeless. So they have created something called 'religion', to give their life a new meaning. Logically this meaning lies after death, because then it is no longer verifiable. Religions give the life a new 'artificial' meaning, because we created this 'meaning' ourselves.


All meanings are created. But what is believing in the Gods makes one happy and at peace with oneself, while not believing doesn't? Then religion, methinks, does have a use although it may not be falsifiable and may in fact be false.

Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:Religions have another advantage: we do not have to fear death anymore: it will be a reward for life. We will live (again) after our death.


In Buddhism, living after death (reincarnation) is not seen as something positive. The suffering just starts all over again. Even in christianity and in Roman pagan religion, there is punishment after death in the form of hell, Hades... There are rewards too but these are for the happy few.

Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:Peole who are strong enough to face the facts do not need religion. They know that we already have fullfilled our duty as human species.


So why not become sperm donor and then kill yourself?

Valete et vale optime amici!
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Quintus Aurelius Orcus on Sat Jan 31, 2004 11:52 am

Salvete omnes

although I didn't get Romulus' point very clearly

What part of my post did you not get, Draco? If you need clearification, i would be happy to do so but i need to know what you did not understood.
I have to side with Draco that i to found myself in agreement with Piscinus and some paragraphs of Draco's post.

We don't have to fight for the survival of our species anymore. When we are born the sence of our life has already been fulfilled, i.e. help the species survive. So we live a meaningless life. And people do not like to be helpless and hopeless. So they have created something called 'religion', to give their life a new meaning. Logically this meaning lies after death, because then it is no longer verifiable. Religions give the life a new 'artificial' meaning, because we created this 'meaning' ourselves.

I do not fully agree with Locatus' post here. He hoes have a point saying that fighting for the survival of the human species is gone, but it doesn't mean that we don't have to fight for our survival( as an individual). Its a harsh world out there and it doesn't get any beter on it. People are blaming pretty much everything in society but society in general. We came to the point in our history where we are so concerned in making money in our kapitalist society that the individual is left out. I'm getting of track here. Religions can give meaning to an indidivual life,it is far by the point where we created religion to give our lives a new meaning. Religion has been with our species since we were able to walk on two legs and it will remains with us until the end of our species. In one way or another, religion will survive and i believe that i already stated this.

Religions have another advantage: we do not have to fear death anymore: it will be a reward for life. We will live (again) after our death.

True, but the fear of dying is still there, religion can not erase the fear of death. And if i'm not mistaken, Locate, reward and punishment in the afterlife only exist in monotheistic religions like Christianity, Islam and Judaism. I'm not really sure if a form of reward exists in Roman pagan religion, but it also surface Hellenic religion, but that could be Orphic way of thinking.

Do we need religion? No. Peole who are strong enough to face the facts do not need religion. They know that we already have fullfilled our duty as human species.


I believe that our duty as human species is yet not fullfilled. Look at the world, its a everyday fight for survival in one way or another.

Do we need religion? Yes, because people who are not strong enough to face the meaningless reality otherwise would endanger the prosperity of our species by dying far too early (suicides, no more reproducing because "they don't want to give their children a 'meaningless life'", ...). But these people do not see the reality; that religions are fake, and that the goal of life already is archieved when they're born.

Calling religions fake is rather far stretched in my opinion. Consider it a tool for survival. Religion brings hope and if i may quote the character called the Architect from the move Matrix: reloaded saying to Neo when he refuses to go to the source but wants to save Trinity: hope is mankinds greatest strenght but at the same time its greatest weakness.
There is some truth into this. Hope for beter life or afterlife brings strength but at the same time also weakens humans. If i remember correctly, it was hope that was one of the evils that Pandora locked up in her box.
valete optime
Romulus[/quote]
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Rector ColRel
Rogator
Princeps gentis Aureliae
User avatar
Quintus Aurelius Orcus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 937
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:05 pm
Location: Ghent, Belgica

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Sat Jan 31, 2004 2:08 pm

Well, well, obviously I'm the one who gets the most reactions.

But by reading those reactions I can see you don't understand me very well.

Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:But even if we take the Western world, we, as fed and protected people, still struggle to attain the best partner, the best health and the best position to survive, not merely physically but also socially and psychologically.


Indeed, psychology and sociology has become a part of our fysical reality (not the fysically strongest gets the best job, but the individual with the best combination of psyche and fysics). But this is a battle that every INDIVIDUAL tries to win every day. It does not count for the WHOLE human RACE.


Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:All meanings are created. But what is believing in the Gods makes one happy and at peace with oneself, while not believing doesn't? Then religion, methinks, does have a use although it may not be falsifiable and may in fact be false.


As I said (but everyone has seemed to be forgotten this passage):
myself wrote:Do we need religion? Yes, because people who are not strong enough to face the meaningless reality otherwise would endanger the prosperity of our species by dying far too early (suicides, no more reproducing because "they don't want to give their children a 'meaningless life'", ...). But these people do not see the reality; that religions are fake, and that the goal of life already is archieved when they're born.



Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:In Buddhism, living after death (reincarnation) is not seen as something positive. The suffering just starts all over again. Even in christianity and in Roman pagan religion, there is punishment after death in the form of hell, Hades... There are rewards too but these are for the happy few.

That does not change anything to my point. Death has been given a point by religion. That point can be afterlife (christianity, islam etc) or 'justice' (hell, heaven), ... . My point is that the meaning of our dead is: you're death. More space for the other living creatures! No more, no less.


Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:So why not become sperm donor and then kill yourself?

Indeed! indeed! Why not! I've been thinking about this very long (as well as becoming a sperm donor, as killing myself, as the philosophical problem that's hiding behind this question).
This is another discussion, but I'll give you a part of the answer: Because we have evolved to a stadium of unnatural wealth (as species) we now can dedicate us to a goal that is not natural: humanity.

Romulus Aurelius Orcus wrote:Hope for beter life or afterlife brings strength but at the same time also weakens humans.

Indeed, some people use there believe in the afterlife to transform theirselves into a suicide bomb, others kill themselves because of their fear of death. A human indiviual is far too weak. As a species we are far too strong. Hope is an individual weakness.

Romulus Aurelius Orcus wrote:I believe that our duty as human species is yet not fullfilled. Look at the world, its a everyday fight for survival in one way or another.

The goal of human species IS fullfilled: there are now 6 000 000 000 people on this planet and that number is growing eveyday. Suffering has nothing to do with it. Every species suffers.


Romulus Aurelius Orcus wrote:He does have a point saying that fighting for the survival of the human species is gone, but it doesn't mean that we don't have to fight for our survival( as an individual). Its a harsh world out there and it doesn't get any beter on it.


As I said, the SPECIES will survive. The individual battle has nothing to do with the natural point of our life.
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

Postby Curio Agelastus on Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:35 am

Salvete,

Several people here, whether in response to Locatus or in response to the responses, have spoken of the "Duty" or "goal" of the human race. This is, in my opinion, to misrepresent the issue. There is no goal, or duty, because we are divided. The same applies to other creatures. It may be argued that the goal of a race is to perpetuate the survival of that race. However, because of our divided nature, this is not true. For instance, it means nothing to me whether the human race lives for another 2 generations or another 200 generations. I care nothing for bringing extra life onto this planet, because the way I see it there is enough already - my efforts are devoted instead to myself and those others who already exist. So what "Duty" does the human race have? It has none. The human race has no goal, duty or meaning. As the profound song sung by soldiers of the First World War goes, "We're here because we're here because we're here because we're here..." and so forth. There are individual goals of individual people, but no goals of the race.
Marcus Scribonius Curio Agelastus
Rector ColHis, Senator

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
User avatar
Curio Agelastus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 470
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 9:38 pm

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Sun Feb 01, 2004 1:21 pm

Salve Locate,

Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:Indeed, psychology and sociology has become a part of our fysical reality (not the fysically strongest gets the best job, but the individual with the best combination of psyche and fysics). But this is a battle that every INDIVIDUAL tries to win every day. It does not count for the WHOLE human RACE.


A question that came up while I was listening to Curio and Coruncanius: when do you consider this battle won? Wasn't it already won in the Roman Empire, when homo sapiens sapiens was by far the dominant lifeform on the planet? You could be tempted to say yes but look a few centuries later: pestilence threatened the human population of Europe severly and later influenza exterminated much of the South American-Indian population. The perpetuation of the human race is not just a given. The world could end at any moment. The threat is not as acute as it was in the '80s but it's still there. In that perspective, EVERY human being matters.

Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:As I said (but everyone has seemed to be forgotten this passage):
myself wrote:Do we need religion? Yes, because people who are not strong enough to face the meaningless reality otherwise would endanger the prosperity of our species by dying far too early (suicides, no more reproducing because "they don't want to give their children a 'meaningless life'", ...). But these people do not see the reality; that religions are fake, and that the goal of life already is archieved when they're born.


I hadn't forgotten it but it wasn't a direct answer to my position that religion is not useless (id est it has a use other than giving people what you say is false hope). First, you can't logically prove religions are wrong. Most of their statements can't be proven and as such, they can't be proven wrong either. Indeed, for many people religion may be an illusionary anchor in the world. But for some, who have really put thought in it, it's not.

Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:That does not change anything to my point. Death has been given a point by religion. That point can be afterlife (christianity, islam etc) or 'justice' (hell, heaven), ... . My point is that the meaning of our dead is: you're death. More space for the other living creatures! No more, no less.


I can be dead but not death, mi Locate 8). Sorry. Anyhow, I disagree again. You just can't know what will happen. You believe there's nothing after we die, just like a christian believes he wil be judged by God after his death. They are both beliefs. Yours is a non-belief but it's still a form of belief (not religion, however).

Q. C. Locatus Barbatus wrote:
Gnæus Dionysius Draco wrote:So why not become sperm donor and then kill yourself?

Indeed! indeed! Why not! I've been thinking about this very long (as well as becoming a sperm donor, as killing myself, as the philosophical problem that's hiding behind this question). This is another discussion, but I'll give you a part of the answer: Because we have evolved to a stadium of unnatural wealth (as species) we now can dedicate us to a goal that is not natural: humanity.


Hmm, good answer. And indeed in this, religion is not needed per se.

Vale bene!
Draco
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Quintus Pomponius Atticus on Sun Feb 01, 2004 2:39 pm

Salvete,

Draco scripsit :

First, you can't logically prove religions are wrong. Most of their statements can't be proven and as such, they can't be proven wrong either.


I must contradict you. Though it is bon ton today to profess being an agnostic, and to refrain from questioning religion under the banner of equality and cultural relativism, a lot of religious statements càn be scientifically falsified (the claim that the world is only 6000 years old, Methusalem attaining the age of 969 years, miracles - half the New Testament is filled with them - etc. etc.) or at least 'forced into retreat'.

By that last I mean e.g. that we can, by pointing at clear evidence, prove that at least the bearing of a certain religious claim is limited. E.g., we cannot prove that God does not exist, but we càn come up with a lot of facts that invalidate the image religions portray of him.

For example the famous paradox that goes as follows : if God allows evil to happen, he is not an all-benevolent father, if he cannot prevent it, he is not allmighty.

Valete,

Atticus
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Praetor

"Ars longa, vita brevis" - Hippocrates
Quintus Pomponius Atticus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2002 6:03 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Q. C. Locatus Barbatus on Sun Feb 01, 2004 3:33 pm

It is hard to realize we have won, isn't it?

I haven't explained my point for individuals. I look around me on this planet and what I see is that humans are anywhere, that animals are in danger, that we can destroy this planet with weapons, that we are trying to colonize other planets, ... . Face it, the human race as won. It's as simple as that.

As the biological goal of life is fulfilled (te reproduce itsselves) we live a pointless life as individuals of our species. This biological need to stay alive is something that is subconcious (I do not walk on the street thinking: "our species must survive!").

Religion indeed can give our life a meaning. But Religion is something we invented ourselves, so this meaning will be a fake one.

We have the luxury to dedicate our forces now to what I call humanity: caring for each other, discussing philosophy, helping each other, starting a career, looking for hapiness,... . We would not have been able to create 'humanity' if we still had to fight everyday for our survival. So the biological goal being fulfilled, it gives us the chance to dedicate ourselves to other goals. This makes my theory less deterministic than you would think at a quick first view. We are free now to do with our time what we want, but the day that a asteroid whipes out 99% of the people, humans will go back to the struggle for life, no more 'solidarnosk', no more love, no more pacemakers, but egoïstic fighting for a pray someone else catched.

Now we can give our lives a point as individuals. Take this chance, as long as it lasts!


Some people where commenting on Draco's speech that he looked very much like a poliutician. I said:
myself wrote:True, and I'll say why later...

Well, this is why:
Draco wrote:So do we NEED religion? NO, we don't need religion. But can it be useful? Yes, it can. Like any tool can be useful if they are used for the right reasons and by the right people.

This is what we call in Belgium the 'CD&V-syndroom'. No matter what you think, it's always right!

I suggest we start discussing a new topic Tuesday 03/02. Until then we can discuss the previous one...
Quintus Claudius Locatus Barbatus
Rector
Princeps Gentis Claudiae
Consul
Senator
Patricius
Q. C. Locatus Barbatus
Senator
Senator
 
Posts: 525
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 6:32 pm
Location: Gent

PreviousNext

Return to Collegium Religionum et Philosophiarum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron