Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
Well perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say. You are the best judge of that.
Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus and "Homo rationalis"
- Thread starter Bill Van Fleet
- Start date
Well perhaps I misunderstood what you were trying to say. You are the best judge of that.
Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Obviously, I disagree completely.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
So Angellous, does it seem to you that our difference of opinion regarding the topic of this thread would run something like this?
Bill believes:
Our species has developed special skills on this planet that no other species has developed, and with those skills is beginning to be able to change its behavior from that which occurs naturally to that which is more likely to promote not only the survival of our species but also the "good life" for everyone, now and in the future, the "good life" meaning only "as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible." But in order for this to occur, increasing numbers of people will need to see this as a possibility, and therefore participate in this process by studying, understanding, living out, and advocating for the changes in our own personal behavior that are required to bring it about. And since our religions are our most prominent sources of ideas as to what we should do, it will be important for our religions to improve along the lines of the required changes, helping the members of the religions to achieve those changes personally. And some of the most fundamental and important changes in our behavior are the valuing and seeking out of accuracy of belief, the effort to eliminate as much as possible anger and hostile behavior in our interactions, and the effort through openness of mind to understand the other as well as possible, rather than stereotyping others, and, if they have a different opinion, avoiding, attacking, and killing them.
Angellous believes (remember, this is a question):
We have achieved about as much as we ever will achieve, and the way we are now is probably the way we always will be. And because Bill's idea is so unlikely, there is no good reason to take one's time to study it to see if there indeed might be value in what he has to say. If things are ever to get better, it will be because God decides to bring it about, so we don't have to think about this, especially since we have so many other, important things to think about.
Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com
Bill believes:
Our species has developed special skills on this planet that no other species has developed, and with those skills is beginning to be able to change its behavior from that which occurs naturally to that which is more likely to promote not only the survival of our species but also the "good life" for everyone, now and in the future, the "good life" meaning only "as much joy, contentment, and appreciation as possible and as little pain, suffering, disability, and early death as possible." But in order for this to occur, increasing numbers of people will need to see this as a possibility, and therefore participate in this process by studying, understanding, living out, and advocating for the changes in our own personal behavior that are required to bring it about. And since our religions are our most prominent sources of ideas as to what we should do, it will be important for our religions to improve along the lines of the required changes, helping the members of the religions to achieve those changes personally. And some of the most fundamental and important changes in our behavior are the valuing and seeking out of accuracy of belief, the effort to eliminate as much as possible anger and hostile behavior in our interactions, and the effort through openness of mind to understand the other as well as possible, rather than stereotyping others, and, if they have a different opinion, avoiding, attacking, and killing them.
Angellous believes (remember, this is a question):
We have achieved about as much as we ever will achieve, and the way we are now is probably the way we always will be. And because Bill's idea is so unlikely, there is no good reason to take one's time to study it to see if there indeed might be value in what he has to say. If things are ever to get better, it will be because God decides to bring it about, so we don't have to think about this, especially since we have so many other, important things to think about.
Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
Angellous,
Still hoping you will reply to my last post. Did I state your position accurately? There is a fair chance that I did not, but I don't know what part or parts of it you would not consider to be your view.
And I continue to wish you well in your studies.
Bill
Still hoping you will reply to my last post. Did I state your position accurately? There is a fair chance that I did not, but I don't know what part or parts of it you would not consider to be your view.
And I continue to wish you well in your studies.
Bill
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
OK, I'll address the statements individually.
1) We have achieved about as much as we ever will achieve, and the way we are now is probably the way we always will be.
I disagree. I don't think that we have achieved as much as we will, but I am unsure about progress. That is, I have no assumption that humans will progress or regress based on our nature or potential. There are simply too many variables for any speculation.
2) And because Bill's idea is so unlikely, there is no good reason to take one's time to study it to see if there indeed might be value in what he has to say.
You have summed up my position quite well here. Although I would phrase it much nicer and talk with you about other things. Your irrational optimism and radical claims simply fall on deaf ears, but I'm sure that there are many other things that we could talk about.
3) If things are ever to get better, it will be because God decides to bring it about, so we don't have to think about this, especially since we have so many other, important things to think about.
I disagree with this statement. I think that if we do progress, it will be due to a combination of human ingenuity and chance. Much of our progress is made in spite of ourselves - human willingness to thrive, create, and invent in tension with the insatiable desire for destruction. It is this tension that causes too many variables to be either hopelessly pessimistic (as you have painted me with statements #1 and 3) or hopelessly optimistic (as I believe you are). I believe that I am somewhere in between, a sort of agnostic that is skeptical of optimistic and pessimistic claims.
What will happen will happen, and I am cautious of speculation.
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
Angellous, thanks for responding. My responses follow.
But then you end with saying that you are skeptical of optimistic and pessimistic claims, as if I am not. I assure you that I am skeptical of my own beliefs as well as yours, or anyone's. But that doesn't stop me from exploring such thought. And it doesn't stop me from acting. I don't require 100% certainty in order to act. I try to look at what is most probable and base my action on that, always with a mind open to the fact that I could be making a mistake. You sound a little paralyzed.
Let's say that scientists suddenly announce that on July 23, 2059, an asteroid, quite large, will most likely collide with earth, and we will then join the dinosaurs in heaven or whatever happens next. They say they can't figure out how to push it into another path, but with the advances that we have made so far, we ought to start working on this right away. You, however, would not support such an effort, because it is based upon optimism, and you are agnostic with regard to optimistic claims. You have better uses for your money than to support such an effort, and you would certainly not get out there and advocate for us to devote our resources to save ourselves, because optimism is irrational. At least that is what I am getting so far.
Getting back to "Homo rationalis," I believe there is reason to believe that we can get there. Yes, luck will have to be a factor. But our understanding, and our willingness to help, and our wish to make the world a better place for everyone will be necessary. So my effort to participate in that effort, to give back to my species what I can in return for what it has done for me, my wish to protect and save my buddies in the far future, and my wish to make my own life and the lives of those around me as good as possible, all produce in me this strong wish to model and advocate for what I think will promote accomplishing those things.
You are a thinker. Don't you think you might rethink your thoughts and think about the possibility of thinking about these issues further? I think you will be pleased if you do. But then, as you say, I am optimistic.
Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com
Angellous, you almost seem to be equating assumption with speculation in the above. I, too, make no assumption that we will progress, etc. But I don't see why you think speculation is nonrational. I have what I believe to be a position between these two extremes. I think that, given a study of our history as a species, it would not be contrary to rules of logic or rules of evidence to conclude that there is a substantial probability that we will undergo the third exponential change that I have written about, the shift from "authoritarian ethics" to "rational ethics" (as I use the terms in my book and writings), and the enormous changes in how we live our lives that this shift will bring about.
Well I appreciate your wish not to make me feel bad, but I assure you I am quite used to such reactions. To be sure, it causes some loneliness, but that is a human predicament anyway, so I am not alone. But I wish to note that you state that my optimism is "irrational." I would like to know how you are using that term. You know, of course, that many people use the term simply to mean not in agreement with themselves. But I am sure that you have a more useful definition.
The term, "hopelessly optimistic," means what? It sounds like an oxymoron. Isn't optimism characterized by hope? How can it be hopeless? No, I know you must not mean that. You probably mean that unfortunately for me, the effort to stop me from being optimistic is doomed to failure, right? You would perhaps like to save me from my optimism, but you cannot even have the hope that you would be successful. But you apparently disagree with my presumed opinion of you that an effort to save you from your pessimism would be doomed to failure. There is hope for you, just not for me.
But then you end with saying that you are skeptical of optimistic and pessimistic claims, as if I am not. I assure you that I am skeptical of my own beliefs as well as yours, or anyone's. But that doesn't stop me from exploring such thought. And it doesn't stop me from acting. I don't require 100% certainty in order to act. I try to look at what is most probable and base my action on that, always with a mind open to the fact that I could be making a mistake. You sound a little paralyzed.
Let's say that scientists suddenly announce that on July 23, 2059, an asteroid, quite large, will most likely collide with earth, and we will then join the dinosaurs in heaven or whatever happens next. They say they can't figure out how to push it into another path, but with the advances that we have made so far, we ought to start working on this right away. You, however, would not support such an effort, because it is based upon optimism, and you are agnostic with regard to optimistic claims. You have better uses for your money than to support such an effort, and you would certainly not get out there and advocate for us to devote our resources to save ourselves, because optimism is irrational. At least that is what I am getting so far.
Getting back to "Homo rationalis," I believe there is reason to believe that we can get there. Yes, luck will have to be a factor. But our understanding, and our willingness to help, and our wish to make the world a better place for everyone will be necessary. So my effort to participate in that effort, to give back to my species what I can in return for what it has done for me, my wish to protect and save my buddies in the far future, and my wish to make my own life and the lives of those around me as good as possible, all produce in me this strong wish to model and advocate for what I think will promote accomplishing those things.
You are a thinker. Don't you think you might rethink your thoughts and think about the possibility of thinking about these issues further? I think you will be pleased if you do. But then, as you say, I am optimistic.
No need to wear seatbelts, have a healthy lifestyle, etc.
Yes, best not to think about anything, right?
Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'm familiar with many who came before you who said about the same thing.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
O, of course I don't believe this. I spend most of my time in thought. Well, multi-tasking. I've taught my mind to work on problems no matter what else I am doing.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
By "irrational" I mean "not having logical soundness."
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
Angellous,
I am always looking for feedback regarding my ideas. I hold before myself the standard that they be logically sound. Thus, you will help me if you can identify at least one idea of mine that is not logically sound, and why you consider it to be not logically sound. If my book is not logically sound, then I can give up my project and spend more time with my ballroom dancing.
Thanks.
Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com
I am always looking for feedback regarding my ideas. I hold before myself the standard that they be logically sound. Thus, you will help me if you can identify at least one idea of mine that is not logically sound, and why you consider it to be not logically sound. If my book is not logically sound, then I can give up my project and spend more time with my ballroom dancing.
Thanks.
Bill Van Fleet
HomoRationalis.com