Open mindedness –Where’s ones moral compass needle at?

[VeryGnawty]

I'm tired, so I'm only going to respond to one point.

Now imagine if everyone was like you and didn't respect this belief we have? Do you like people who refuse to accept you have gender identity issues and tell us you have no proof of this, so you are wrong? Of course not.

You assume much.  What I "like" are people who have put a lot of thought into what they do believe.  It is my experience that reasonable people can come to a reasonable compromise.

My best friend thinks it is absolutely ludicrous that I "want" to be female.  His entire life is built around strength and masculinity.  He doesn't understand why any "guy" would "want" to be female.  This is the limit of his understanding about my desires, and he probably won't understand much more any time soon.  This does not stop us from being friends.  We agree to disagree, and then we move on to more important matters.  Even if he does tell me I am wrong, it doesn't matter.  In time, the data always reveals who is correct and who is not.  Even if it didn't, it still wouldn't matter.  I don't need him to accept me as female, I need me to accept me as female.  I don't need him to accept who I am anymore than I need him to accept the fact that I like vegetables when he wants to eat meat.  We aren't friends so that we can blindly affirm each other's beliefs.  We are friends so that we can challenge each other's beliefs, so that we may both become more knowledgeable and productive human beings.

[tekla]

If you have presented it in a rational way...

If religion was presented in a rational way, it wouldn't be religion, it would be science.

[Randi]

If we don't at least try to present it in a 'rational' manner it becomes a disjointed non-cohesive grouping of ideas and nobody will understand what you are trying to say. I also believe that science and religion can coexist happily though I am sure there are many who will disagree. I try to keep an 'open mind' about things I cannot fully explain in order to be able to accept new possibilities when they arise-and they always do!

Randi

[tekla]

A 'rational' explanation is one that any other human of similar intelligence could observe and deduct (think) and come to the same conclusion.  Rational comes from reason meaning:  the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways and/or a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something that supports a conclusion or explains a fact.  Either way no two independent observers are going to arrive at something like Genesis, and the fall, the redemption, the life of Christ, and all that based on looking at the world. 

It's not that's it's good or bad, it's that the province of religion is faith, not reason.  No doubt in my mind that people looked out on the world and lacked answers, so they made some up.  Jesus, turtles, whatever.  It may or may not be the truth.  Science by the way does not say it has the truth, all science has is the numbers on what works what percentage of the time.  That's all science is, a collection of things that work.  We often realize it works long before we arrive at the 'reason'. 

[VeryGnawty]

That's all science is, a collection of things that work.

That's exactly why I like my beliefs to be challenged.  If my beliefs don't work, I want to know about it.  If I were to disbelieve in the existence of gravity, I would rather discover the truth of my disbelief before I jump off a cliff rather than after.

[tekla]

I always used to ask my students which way things fell before Newton 'discovered' gravity.  The point was that Newton didn't 'discover' it at all.  People before him knew things fall down, and if you push something hard enough it will fall over.  He just kind of explained and named it.  And only kind of.  We know that matter (pretty much all of physics could be recreated as long as you kept this statement) repels at infinitely small distances, and attracts at infinitely large distances.  We're not at all sure as to why.

[kate durcal]

I always used to ask my students which way things fell before Newton 'discovered' gravity.  The point was that Newton didn't 'discover' it at all.  People before him knew things fall down, and if you push something hard enough it will fall over.  He just kind of explained and named it.  And only kind of.  We know that matter (pretty much all of physics could be recreated as long as you kept this statement) repels at infinitely small distances, and attracts at infinitely large distances.  We're not at all sure as to why.
[/quote

Love yor response. I could not help to notice that your reputation is 114, wow, I rmember in the past when your rputation was so low; what is your secret? 

[AbraCadabra]

This getting interesting, since believes inevitably have to do with "feeling" something is more right then something else.

Even in science a LOT of gut-feeling is the start of better understanding leading to more knowing. Gut-feeling about hypothesis, after hypothesis, on and on, where NOTHING is proven at all yet.
You would actually need an infinite number of hypothesis to select from to be reasonably sure that the presented conclusion is correct, or call it bullet prove.

Back to "feeling" ... what happens if your feeling changes?! Then your "truth" could change also!

How about that? Maybe things may not be SO rational at all as they seem at times.

Axelle
PS: Ayn Rand in -Atlas Shrugged- went onto this "rationality rant" when I had just come out of my last LGAT 7 day training. (LAGAT = Large Group Awareness Training)
I nearly flipped by all her "rationality only" writing. There happens to be still a lot beyond science, like it or not.

[Julie Marie]

How do they know what the right thing is without a compass?

Most people instinctively know right from wrong.  And you can call that their compass.  But does it have to be a "moral" compass?  Too often, "moral" is turned into a tool to try to get people to do what you want them to do.

No doubt in my mind that people looked out on the world and lacked answers, so they made some up.

And when religion was created, along with heaven & hell, god & satan, the world was a very small place.  For many it was only a few miles in diameter, and flat at that. 

If we ventured back in time to when religion as we know it today was being formed, we'd most likely consider the people of the time to be terribly uneducated and misinformed.  They weren't stupid, they just didn't have the information available to them we have today.

[VeryGnawty]

Even in science a LOT of gut-feeling is the start of better understanding leading to more knowing.

"start" being the key word in that sentence.  Science is the art of using the brain to hammer out all of the gut feeling.  If the data still supports the theory, it can be said to be an accurate description of the universe.  Science may often start with intuition, but it should never end there.

Back to "feeling" ... what happens if your feeling changes?!

Then you'll probably start researching something else.

Then your "truth" could change also!

The physics of the universe disagree with this assessment.

Maybe things may not be SO rational at all as they seem at times.

Things cannot be rational, because they are just things.  Only people can be rational or irrational.

[AbraCadabra]

Very good,
Now being very rational I should not have used "things" and rather "Zusammenhänge" call it "explanations" or "contexts" for lack of a better word.

However even things (objects) are only "out there" for you, because they happen to reside in your brain first. If not in your brain no-thing exists.

The same applies to truth. And in that sense it is YOUR truth. If it is not in your brain it be a no-truth i.e. a falseness at best.

Lots of people talk about something they perceive as ultimate truth. It is only ultimate in your own brain. Everything out there is not, if you are not.

Food for more thought?

Axelle
PS: You may notice that I keep is with Nietzsche when he says: EVERYTHING is PERCEPTION, and that would also included truth. Call it ultimate or not.

[tekla]

I rmember in the past when your rputation was so low; what is your secret?

They only counted the 'yeahs' and dropped the smites, and I collected smites like fleas on a dog, which is a shame I actually liked the smites more because I think on those I was veering dangerously close to the truth.

[cynthialee]

IDK about that Tekla.
The times I smited you was because you were being too cold and heartless. (which can have its uses but you take it too far on occasion)

[VeryGnawty]

I actually liked the smites more because I think on those I was veering dangerously close to the truth.

"Occasionally, men stumble over the truth.  Most of them are able to pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill

[tekla]

you take it too far on occasion

Too far is the only journey that's worth it, because it's the only destination that you really get to arrive at.  You don't even have to worry about when you get there - everyone else will tell you.

[tekla]

the people of the time to be terribly uneducated and misinformed

Oh I don't know, seems to me no one would read that stuff anymore if they hadn't hit upon a couple of timeless truths.  And you can't fault their creativity and imagination, they had that in spades.  They knew what they knew, and tragically much of what they did know has been lost.  Like us they were just muddling about trying to make the best of what they had and pretending that there was no other way.

I mean they wrote one hell of a narrative full of depth, beauty and nuance.  I'll take the authors of Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, the Gospel of Luke and John, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine and they stand as authors every bit as good as the ones we have, and all the ones that came in-between.  The Revelation of St. John is not only one of the most surreal things ever written, it's one of the few things that I think is so dangerous that access to it should be strictly limited, and at that, only under supervision.