RE: One God versus many
November 30, 2021 at 5:04 pm
(This post was last modified: November 30, 2021 at 5:07 pm by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
(November 30, 2021 at 11:16 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:(November 30, 2021 at 12:34 am)Oldandeasilyconfused Wrote: My goodness. Quantum physics may just as well be written in sanskrit to me.
I find religion complex in the way of a person with a degree in Social Anthropology.
Of course I'm sure it isn't always complex. It's just that so far that's how it has turned out to be with the religions I've actually studied. They include aspects of Islam and Hinduism as well as some time studying Australian aborigine mythology and present day culture..
I think I'll stop here.
The reason why quantum mechanics is hard to understand is there is actually a real, measurable, but highly counterintuitive thing there to be understood.
The reason why religion is hard to understand is there is nothing whatsoever to understand, but whole lot of committed bullshitters make muturally conflicting crap up as they go, shout at you to follow their bullshit of the day, while making outlandish promises of rewards if you do, vile and not always vailed threats if you don’t.
equating quantum mechanics’ difficulties to understand with the “difficulties” of understanding religion is like equating the difficulties in reading great work of literature in a complex writting system in which you are not tutored, with the difficulties in reading shakespearean meaning into a crayon scratches of extremely overindulged 3 year old who claims what he scratched was the greatest of all literature.
Bollocks once again.
The raison d'etre of Social Anthropology is to understand what cultural practices, including myths and religion, mean to believers.
The approach you're using is known as 'the quaint custom' method usually used by we the people. Pretty much invented by James Frazer in the nineteenth century. His 2 volume book, 'The Golden Bough' was first published in 1890. For reasons passing all understanding, it remains in print. Yes, I've read it, or at least a great chunk of the abridged version.
To simply simply dismiss an argument or a person's beliefs as nonsense is an ad hominem fallacy, simplistic and intellectually lazy imo.
I think I need to agree to differ.
(November 30, 2021 at 5:04 pm)Oldandeasilyconfused Wrote:(November 30, 2021 at 11:16 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: The reason why quantum mechanics is hard to understand is there is actually a real, measurable, but highly counterintuitive thing there to be understood.
The reason why religion is hard to understand is there is nothing whatsoever to understand, but whole lot of committed bullshitters make muturally conflicting crap up as they go, shout at you to follow their bullshit of the day, while making outlandish promises of rewards if you do, vile and not always vailed threats if you don’t.
equating quantum mechanics’ difficulties to understand with the “difficulties” of understanding religion is like equating the difficulties in reading great work of literature in a complex writting system in which you are not tutored, with the difficulties in reading shakespearean meaning into a crayon scratches of extremely overindulged 3 year old who claims what he scratched was the greatest of all literature.
Bollocks once again.
The raison d'etre of Social Anthropology is to understand what cultural practices, including myths and religion, mean to believers.
The approach you're using is known as 'the quaint custom' method usually used by we the people. Pretty much invented by James Frazer in the nineteenth century. His 2 volume book, 'The Golden Bough' was first published in 1890. For reasons passing all understanding, it remains in print. Yes, I've read it, or at least a great chunk of the abridged version.
To simply simply dismiss an argument or a person's beliefs as nonsense is an ad hominem fallacy, simplistic and intellectually lazy imo.
We're talking at different levels. I think I need to agree to differ.
