HB71 - Requires Louisiana Schools to display the 10 commandments passes with Bipartisan Support 82 - 19 (1 Viewer)

[DaveXA]

I don't think religion should be encouraged at all, much less to be practiced in public.

As far as teaching religion, that depends on what do you mean by teaching religion. If you mean catechism/Sunday school, yeah, keep that in your church/home. But, teaching religion from an anthropological and historical perspective, that's different.

When I first learned I had to take 3 semesters of religion at Loyola, I thought it was going to be catechism.. Much to my surprise, the first thing we touched upon was Hinduism (I still remember Siddhartha's tunic was green). There is value in learning how religions have affected societies throughout history, without preaching particular religion. I do believe that, the more people learn about other religions from an anthropological and historical perspective, the more they'll realize all gods are human inventions.

While I disagree with your conclusion, I do agree with the most of rest.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

While I disagree with your conclusion, I do agree with the most of rest.

I recently read something about teaching that I wish I’d heard years earlier:
Nonfiction teaches us through information
Fiction teaches us through imagination

Both a very important, neither should be held as more important nor should they be segregated and treated as a binary
The problem comes when each side tries to mitigate the other and especially when each side tries to emulate the other
When mythology/religion tries to imagine it’s information, it completely undermines its power - it subjects itself to critical analysis (that all information based learning should be subject to)
Mythology/religion cant ‘prove’ its information just like poets can’t prove love
But the story can and should be enough

 

[SystemShock]

Mythology/religion cant ‘prove’ its information just like poets can’t prove love

Poets may not be able to, but science can

Love, Actually: The science behind lust, attraction, and companionship - Science in the News

by Katherine Wu figures by Tito Adhikary In 1993, Haddaway asked the world, “What is Love?” I’m not sure if he ever got his answer – but today, you can have yours. Sort of. Scientists in fields ranging from anthropology to neuroscience have been asking this same question (albeit less eloquently)...

sitn.hms.harvard.edu

 

[tenordas]

Poets may not be able to, but science can

Love, Actually: The science behind lust, attraction, and companionship - Science in the News

by Katherine Wu figures by Tito Adhikary In 1993, Haddaway asked the world, “What is Love?” I’m not sure if he ever got his answer – but today, you can have yours. Sort of. Scientists in fields ranging from anthropology to neuroscience have been asking this same question (albeit less eloquently)...

sitn.hms.harvard.edu

Yes and no. Science is a process for discovering how things work, not a philosophy or a religion, though many want to treat it as such.

"Science" in point of fact, is often wrong, and that is fine because it is part of the scientific process. Just in the last few years, the discoveries made by the Webb telescope have caused many scientific "facts" to be thrown out the window because we now have data that tells us otherwise.
At the time of the infamous Scopes trial, "science" said the human body possessed nearly 100 vestigial complexes. By the 1970s, the medical scientific community had reduced that number to three: the appendix, the tonsils, and the coccyx. In the last twenty to thirty years, medical science has discovered that none of those three are, in fact, vestigial complexes. Science simply hadn't yet discovered their function in the body, but now has.
This is how the scientific process works, and always should. Nothing should ever be considered the "end answer" in the scientific world. Carl Sagan himself said that.

 

[SystemShock]

Yes and no. Science is a process for discovering how things work, not a philosophy or a religion, though many want to treat it as such.

"Science" in point of fact, is often wrong, and that is fine because it is part of the scientific process. Just in the last few years, the discoveries made by the Webb telescope have caused many scientific "facts" to be thrown out the window because we now have data that tells us otherwise.
At the time of the infamous Scopes trial, "science" said the human body possessed nearly 100 vestigial complexes. By the 1970s, the medical scientific community had reduced that number to three: the appendix, the tonsils, and the coccyx. In the last twenty to thirty years, medical science has discovered that none of those three are, in fact, vestigial complexes. Science simply hadn't yet discovered their function in the body, but now has.
This is how the scientific process works, and always should. Nothing should ever be considered the "end answer" in the scientific world. Carl Sagan himself said that.

I don't know what that has to do with what I posted or what you are getting at, but anyway, any emotion we feel is a product of chemical reactions and electric impulses in our brains.

 

[Boy_of_wonder75]

I don't know what that has to do with what I posted or what you are getting at, but anyway, any emotion we feel is a product of chemical reactions and electric impulses in our brains.

This is going to be a matter of definition.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I don't know what that has to do with what I posted or what you are getting at, but anyway, any emotion we feel is a product of chemical reactions and electric impulses in our brains.

Well one of the takeaways from teondras’s post would be that emotions aren’t necessarily the PRODUCT of chemical reactions, et al - it’s that those are one of the ways we measure or indicate emotions

You can say they are electrical/chemical but you can’t (shouldn’t) say they are only that

Also there will soon be some brain chemistry breakthrough that will reveal different or deeper markers

I anticipate that we will soon discover that emotions are more like a neural network among people/animals instead of autonomous functions
We’ll be seen more like fungi than individual entities

 

[SystemShock]

Well one of the takeaways from teondras’s post would be that emotions aren’t necessarily the PRODUCT of chemical reactions, et al - it’s that those are one of the ways we measure or indicate emotions

And what would it be, then?

You can say they are electrical/chemical but you can’t (shouldn’t) say they are only that

I can say they are only that. Unless you have evidence to the contrary...

Also there will soon be some brain chemistry breakthrough that will reveal different or deeper markers

And you base that claim on... ?

I anticipate that we will soon discover that emotions are more like a neural network among people/animals instead of autonomous functions
We’ll be seen more like fungi than individual entities

And this neural network, how does it work? With anything other than brains?

 

[SystemShock]

This is going to be a matter of definition.

Definition of what?

 

[DaveXA]

I don't know what that has to do with what I posted or what you are getting at, but anyway, any emotion we feel is a product of chemical reactions and electric impulses in our brains.

I would just add that while functionally, you're correct, that emotions are manifested from brain activity, we still do choose our emotional reactions to some degree. I do believe there's something "more" but that's more a philosophical/religious debate.

 

[Boy_of_wonder75]

Definition of what?

Love. There are plenty of people who don't define love as an emotion, but an act of the will.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

And what would it be, then?


I can say they are only that. Unless you have evidence to the contrary...


And you base that claim on... ?


And this neural network, how does it work? With anything other than brains?

It’s this:

in Just-
spring when the world is mud-
luscious the little
lame balloonman

whistles far and wee

and eddieandbill come
running from marbles and
piracies and it's
spring

when the world is puddle-wonderful

the queer
old balloonman whistles
far and wee
and bettyandisbel come dancing

from hop-scotch and jump-rope and

it's
spring
and

the

goat-footed

balloonMan whistles
far
and
wee

 

[SystemShock]

Love. There are plenty of people who don't define love as an emotion, but an act of the will.

Fair enough. Where do acts of will originate?

 

[SystemShock]

It’s this:

in Just-
spring when the world is mud-
luscious the little
lame balloonman

whistles far and wee

and eddieandbill come
running from marbles and
piracies and it's
spring

when the world is puddle-wonderful

the queer
old balloonman whistles
far and wee
and bettyandisbel come dancing

from hop-scotch and jump-rope and

it's
spring
and

the

goat-footed

balloonMan whistles
far
and
wee

Sit tight. I called 9-1-1. They'll be there momentarily.

 

[DaveXA]

Fair enough. Where do acts of will originate?

That's the big question for sure.