Assuming that you are not so unique as to have never encountered a normative description in scripture, the question remains why you haven't picked it up.
Here you go...
- Thread starter swarm
- Start date
I've read a lot of normative descriptions in many scriptures from many cultures.
I'm unable to effectively distinguish value of your myths vs any one else's myths from normative standpoint and frankly normative descriptions from the bronze age are a dime a dozen and don't really fit my circumstances. Should I really care about what burnt offerings are proper and pleasing to Thor?
Now normative statments which have a factual basis I find useful. But stoning my neighbor because he worked on a day holy to JHVH doesn't seem to produce any actual JHVH or Krishna or whoever, let alone lead to a happy and peaceful life.
===
For those playing the home game: In philosophy, normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong.
Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are factual statements that attempt to describe reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
===
It really seems like you are saying if I read your scripture I'll think there ought to be a god and then there will be???
Surely you have better than this?
But I'm game. Throw out your best normative statements and I'll see what happens.
I've got one word for you - epistemology
Hence moving up the grade from theory ( a mere assortment of information) to application (engineering some sort of "doability" around the info) requires a bit more brain work ... what to speak of venturing into conclusion
It can also be taken to mean how one has to act in order to be something. For instance a possible normative description for a post graduate degree can be found under the prerequisites.
Here's a good brief intro
Here's a more complex thread I posted on the subject
Its too bad you don't have more words. I've studied epistemology, what about it?
Thanks, I have a working morality. It doesn't involve deities any more than Epicurus' did, or the Buddha's did, or any of the myriad of moral atheists, agnostics and non theists who manage to be moral without needing any deities. If your claim is I should be seeing god because your holy book has normative statements, you'll need to be more precise about the connection.
So your normative statements tell one how to "be" god. What a head trip.
Fine - Being freed from attachment, fear and anger - got that part going.
But what "Me?" Who/Where is it at?
So you seem to think science is found in science books? It is just reported in books. It is found by observing the world. Where is what is in your books actually to be observed?
FYI, I can't seem to find your Max Planck quote anywhere and it doesn't really sound like him. Do you have a source?
If you've studied, as you claim, a wide array of theistic claims, and come with an offering to thor as a typical example, the evidence tends to indicate otherwise (unless you have access to a community where the worship of thor is prominent ...)
actually the claim is that normative descriptions point the means to becoming familiar with any given knowable.
You can proudly boast of your adherence to scientific norms in regards to uncovering something about science, yet you can't bring the same to bear in regards to theism. I point out that the reason for this is that you don't have access to any tools of application. IOW all you see is an assortment of information (which, in the absence of normative descriptions that shape application, is, by necessity, full of inconsistencies, contradictions etc).
IOW the best recipe to land one to a state of seeing inconsistencies etc in absolutely anything is to to remove (or be blind to) the normative descriptions which shape the very act of application
:shrug:
lol .... errr ....quite the opposite actually
"totally hard core meditation - nailed it!"
and once again .. lo and behold ... the science books are about means and ways to observe the world. Karl Popper did an experiment once where he asked his class to write down their observations.
Can you guess what their response was?
are you talking about the OP, post #1, or something else?
Last edited:
I do still make too many assuptions - but I don't think everyone is like me! We are all different but the same.If you aren't already open minded, sure.
Perhaps, but there are those who have found the middle way.
you seem to be wrapping at lot of other stuff into the term.
Then you should have no trouble understanding why I find you gullible.
Just ask.
Yep, willing to consider.
Balance for its own sake is a path into error. What is presented can be right or wrong or some where in between.
Actually, their is always 2 extreme sides with balance in the middle. Their isn't right and wrong, we aren't meant to judge. Positive and negative would be a better way of saying it
Discerning what is, from what is not, from what is uncertain is not a matter of passing some judgment or assign blame. I think you past is coloring your thoughts on this.
You might be surprised the things I know.
Young pup.
Stop thinking every one is you.
However I can relate to people that have tunnel vision, cause I use to be there - and it's quite obvious that many people still have tunnel vision. By sharing some of my past, I feel it shows I'm not afraid to open up, and that I'm not trying to attack any believes - I'm saying, sometimes it is tough to see the things we can't see.
You mean, insane? There's quite a few here.
Almost as tough as trying to see things that aren't there.
Thor is a legitimate god, worshiped by my people long before Mary got horny. I see no essential difference between Thor and Krishna, except Thor could kick Krishna's ass. But we can move to neutral ground and go with Zeus if you like. Or are you a god bigot?
Actually those are positive, not normative, statements.
"Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are factual statements that attempt to describe reality."
Interesting claim, but not one most Buddhists and many philosophers would agree with. If there is something actual happening, then the scientific method is applicable. While developed independently, Buddhism makes use of very similar observational, experiential and demonstrable techniques. I would recommend the first part of Ken Wilber's work "eye to eye" where he goes over the similarities and their implications.
You've no idea what tools I have.
You really need to expand your vocabulary so that you can say what you are wanting to say correctly.
At any rate you seem to be saying I need some one to tell me the right way to think about what you present, so go ahead.
So you are telling them how to not be god? Pretty odd direction for a hindu.
http://www.memelyceum.com/documents/popper.pdf
They wanted to know what he wished the to observe. Of course they weren't Buddhists who spend a lot of time just observing with out any necessary object. I'm sorry, did you have a point?
Here http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1142598&postcount=184
I'm not. - Life of Brian
Such as neutrinos?
Somethings are worth doing not because they are easy, but because they are hard and by testing ourselves against them we are tempered and made strong by the struggle - win or lose.
once again, unless you have access to a community that worships thor, it appears your analysis of theism in general is not particularly well rounded ... particularly if we are discussing the role of application
I don't contend that that is the definition of a normative statement. Perhaps it might pay to have a look at "prescriptive statement" as opposed to "descriptive statement"
One major characteristic of norms is that, unlike propositions, they are not descriptively true or false, since norms do not purport to describe anything, but to prescribe, create or change something. Some people say they are "prescriptively true" or false. Whereas the truth of a descriptive statement is purportedly based on its correspondence to reality, some philosophers, beginning with Aristotle, assert that the (prescriptive) truth of a prescriptive statement is based on its correspondence to right desire. Other philosophers maintain that norms are ultimately neither true or false, but only successful or unsuccessful (valid or invalid), as their propositional content obtains or not (see also John Searle and speech act).
http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cach...scriptive+statement"&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
IOW a topic that discusses whether a means is successful or unsuccessful is a topic that discusses normative or prescriptive issues.
example
IOW the statement "You have to perform X, Y and Z to understand B" is a normative or prescriptive statement (and not a descriptive one) since one weighs it up in terms of being valid or invalid. In fact your whole argument to this thread, that the role of application in theism is invalid, is a topic completely rooted in normative descriptions.
It makes it difficult to even begin discussing it when you can't recognize this.
:shrug:
I am not talking about the specifics of normative statements that surround science. I am simply talking about your willingness to accept the necessity of normative descriptions in science(or even Buddhist, if you want to start discussing the 8fold path) and your complete inability to entertain that theistic claims are also surrounded by the normative descriptions that frame them.
lol
The moment you start blatantly disregarding the normative descriptions that surround a claim, it becomes perfectly obvious
Actually I am saying that you need to bring the correct means of application to discern a claim (and as a side point, one can develop a clue what this is exactly by examining the means persons use who make the claims).
Once again, this isn't such a radical concept. You can even spend 6 years doing just precisely this in a physics degree.
:shrug:
well feel free to cite a reference (since you are apparently so well read on the matter) in the gita that confirms your analysis of Hinduism.
There are however copious references to the futility of such an endeavour
BG 9.20 Those who study the Vedas and drink the soma juice, seeking the heavenly planets, worship Me indirectly. Purified of sinful reactions, they take birth on the pious, heavenly planet of Indra, where they enjoy godly delights.
BG 9.21 When they have thus enjoyed vast heavenly sense pleasure and the results of their pious activities are exhausted, they return to this mortal planet again. Thus those who seek sense enjoyment by adhering to the principles of the three Vedas achieve only repeated birth and death.
Your absurd philosophical statement about buddhists aside (since the 8fold path is by definition, a normative description), the scientific observation of the world is completely contextualized by the ideas that surround it (which in turn give rise to normative descriptions).
Science, or even buddhism, is not unique in this regard. Even looking through a pair of binoculars tends to offer a normative trend amongst those wishing to view things in the distance (ie they prefer to favour looking through one side of the lens ... a normative description that isn't challenged by those who advocate it is futile by dint of their experience and evidence of looking through the other)
Thats fine.
It was the OP that was pertinent to your original request
(but if you want a reference on some subsequent post, try google)
Last edited:
I fail to see what any particular community, or lack of community, has to do with Thor's godhood. A god either is or is not in and of itself. But if its really necessary I could get in touch with some Thor worshipers I know, or we could pick a different god or goddess from one of those handy...hmm... I know a worshiper of Kali but they really aren't local, a couple FSMs are handy, some goddess worshipers ... what exactly do you need? UUs are pretty generic, we could just pick a god at random and get something going for you.
At the moment? Is it really surprising that a non theist doesn't participate in theist communities? But that doesn't mean I never did. I spent a nice solid 11 years being religious religiously. Even got a nice pat on the back for teaching the religion's catechism.
And I've participated, and participate in non theistic communities. But if you could get to a pont so I know why you are going on about it, that would help.
Actually that was the definition of a positive statement. Here they are together... Normative in red, positive in green.
normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong. Normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Positive statements are factual statements that attempt to describe reality.
Changing to a synonym doesn't magically change what it means to what you wish it was.
Well, not really.
First, are you the sort who holds that normative statements have practical application and therefore can be discussed rationally or do you think that they are merely socio/emotional expressions of preference and devoid of actual content?
I'll presume the first since you seem to want there to be an implied injunctive to your normatives.
Norms are (more or less) formal systems and unlike positive statements where there can be direct correspondence, it is necessary to rely on coherence and consistency with the rules and definitions. Of course since norms aren't actually put together with rigorous attention to coherence and consistency, there is often quite a bit of discordance and confusion where conflicting norms collide.
Of course the third form, discredited but still very popular among religious, is truth by authority. It of course is measured by obedience to the authority and compliance to its dogmas. Theists often have this so ingrained into them that they become violent if the authority is questioned in any way.
Successful as a matter of effecting a prescibed purpose, sure. (I succeeded in doing good.) Successful as a matter of achieving a particular effect though would not be. (I succeeded in making H2O.)
While it is nice of you to show your lack of understanding here, it is impeding our discussion.
Try using these forms instead...
Perform steps x, y and z in order to produce effect b.
X, y and z are relevant to b in this manner and that manner.
Unnecessary claims about what "has to" be done and getting presumptuous about other people's understanding just so you can pretend something is "normative" isn't helping the other person actually do or understand anything.
That is not my argument. I am merely saying that I never see any "god" from you theists. Instead of producing "god" you get huffy and start making excuses about how its all my fault and then instead of showing me how to correct this, or showing me how you can do the correct thing you are off hiding in excuses and tangents.
You really need to learn the difference between and injunctive, a descriptive and a prescriptive.
"Life has suffering" Descriptive, I'm saying what something has.
"To avoid suffering do not take what is not given." Injunctive, I'm directing an action.
"It is wrong to steal." Prescriptive and not a part of the eightfold path, I'm condemning an action.
Outline the means and claim more clearly.
Cite a reference that I find it odd you think hinduism is teaching people how to not be god? The reference is myself and I'm frankly the top authority in the world on what I find odd.
Yes you aren't the first theist to cop out when pressed to make good on you vacuous claims.
Google failed to return that Planck quote except from you.
Soma, or at least our best understanding of it, is an interesting experience. Have you ever tried it?
Last edited:
Its quite simple
If you don't have a community, its not clear what information source you are using to discern issues of application
Its not necessary, at least at this point of the argument, that you participate in them.
You seem to have latched on to the connection between descriptive statements and "reality" and somehow concluded that normative descriptions deal with the illusory or something.
For example, "children should eat vegetables", "smoking is bad", and "those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither" are normative claims. On the other hand, "vegetables contain a relatively high proportion of vitamins", "smoking causes cancer", and "a common consequence of sacrificing liberty for security is a loss of both" are positive claims. Whether or not a statement is normative is logically independent of whether it is verified, verifiable, or popularly held.
To say that normative statements surround a claim of knowledge is simply to suggest that there are issues that impede or assist the endeavour. It does not mean that the knowledge itself is any less real or something.
errr .. yes ... hence you have issues with the application
and "persons who avoid suffering do not take what is given" is what?
The claim, in its most basic form, is that there are prerequisites to rendering something knowable.
If you can't accept this, no point going into further details
No
Cite a reference where it states how one can be a god, since that's what you are holding as normative of hinduism.
or alternatively you aren't the first atheist to diverge from the topic when direct answers are given to your questions.
Do I have to wade through your doubts of the previous 183 posts of the given thread before you get to the OP?
must be something with atheist web browsers .....
http://www.google.com.au/#hl=en&sou...gle+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=&fp=e23b035f480f10e3
No problem then, community all lined up.
Nope. normative statements affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong.
The is disagreement in philosophical circles about whether normative statements have practical application and therefore can be discussed rationally or they are merely socio/emotional expressions of preference and cannot be discussed rationally.
Yes, so?
Specifically it suggests there are social/emotional issues and taboos inherent to the community and that you are claiming the knowledge cannot be accessed except through the community/emotions.
All of which seems both questionable and vague. If you would ever get to some specifics that would help.
I can't have issues with something I never encounter. Put something on the table and let's see if I have issues with it.
Descriptive fragment... "persons" are described as those "who avoid suffering"
Injunctive fragment... "do not take what is given."
You might note your sentence is not affirming how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong.
It tells the people to not do something, but makes no judgments like a normative statement would.
Ooo, blinding flash of the obvious again. Of course you are actually claiming there are normative prerequisites, but whatever. Show me something actual instead of beating around the bush.
You sure are touchy about the god thing aren't you?
Like you have ever given anyone a direct answer since I've been here. I doubt you even can any more. Its really quite sad.
If you want me to got to the OP don't link to the end of the thread - d'uh - I'm not a mind reader you know. You see the little number on the right of the post? Right click and select "copy link" then paste that and the person goes right to where you wanted them to go.
So I'll address that next.
from http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1121072&postcount=1
(see how it works?)
Not a contradiction of what? This makes no sense as is.
Yes or no, you have personally perceived god?
We'll hold off on the rest until you get back with an answer.
(see how it works?)
Not a contradiction of what? This makes no sense as is.
Yes or no, you have personally perceived god?
We'll hold off on the rest until you get back with an answer.
great
now we can see what percentage are present within the present folds of theistic communities or what practices they hold are systemic from ancient germany, since you want to hold the worship of thor as typical of them ( hint - 12th century Scandinavia might warrant special attention).
lol
you can't even rebuke the claim without bringing normative descriptions (pertaining to how a rational argument ought to be) to the table
it's not a case of T/F
not at all
I am suggesting that there are actions typical of the community, and that these actions are the critical element in resolving the claim ... much like there are critical actions within any community resolved to some knowledge based outcome ... and furthermore, these tend to be unique and tailored to that end.
If you don't believe me, try and give an accurate measurement of temperature with a tape measure or an accurate measurement of distance with a thermometer.
:shrug:
If one couldn't discern the value of applying thermometers to the task of measuring temperature, that would be the specific issue that requires attention first ... particularly if one continued to express that solidity of evidence behind using tape measures in discerning distance.
IOW if you have no capacity to discern the problem or article of investigation, you have no scope for the tools.
Or to say another way, application is completely unassailable when it stands outside of the theory that frames it.
huh?
You're full of a million and one arguments why there are no relevant issues of application within theism, from picking one's nose in public to bronze age stagnation.
Its not that there is nothing to put on the table.
Its that there is no space on yours.
:shrug:
nothing injunctive about it ... unless one is seeking a (possible) means on being free from suffering
huh?
You don't find any clues there on how a person free from suffering ought to act?
It doesn't tell anyone (directly) to do anything.
It says that people who are free from suffering have certain qualities by which they are recognizable (or call it a norm for being free from suffering, if you like) .
Of course recognizing the value of being free from suffering, a person might choose to adopt the principle ... but, hey, thats a question of application.
er .. well I did reference a thread I made some time back (which for some bizarre reason, you chose to focus on a question of what was the reference to a small quote of small part in post 184 .....which I see in this last post of yours didn't even warrant a mention the moment it got cleared up)
... and I did provide a general intro to the idea in a scriptural commentary (although it didn't appear that you made it to the purport), to which you alluded you had already achieved (needless to say, if you added a few normative descriptions for anger, fear and attachment, it would have helped your case)
.......... all this strikes me as beating around the bush
You are talking about advaita vedanta
You are not talking about hinduism, since it includes the broader picture of the various schools of dvaita and visishtadvaita Vedanta, which offer contrary conclusions to what you advocate.
err .. like getting anal over a footnote 183 posts away from a referenced OP?
Must be something with atheist web browsers
It appears that not only can't they locate the quotes of prominent physicists but that they also can't open an OP to its first page.
Last edited:
sift though this to see what contributions you have already made on the subject
lol
and how would you propose to tell whether I am lying or telling the truth (especially without any normative descriptions to go by)?
LOL
I'd rather be free, no matter how I'm percieved.
But your post is a perfect example of the tunnel vission I was reffering to in my earlier post.
Just cause you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't their.
Sorry to be the one to inform you, but we all see things differently and some see things that go well beyond the things they see with the 2 eyes we were given. Their is another eye that not everyone uses. I love the "mind's eye" - and it doesn't bother me if you don't think it's real, cause I know it's real, and I use it frequently.
Your awfully quick to judge the things you don't understand.
We all have the ability to see more then our eyes can see. I hope you can see more oneday.
Your life is yours, but we are all made up of the same materials (different but the same). Furthermore we are all a part of something more.
I agree with doing things that are tough. Nothing is ever easy, it always takes practice and effort. Somethings come more naturally to us then other things, but anything is possible as long as we are willing to put in the work. Doind harder tasks might frustrate us at times, but it's always more rewarding once the task is done. And even when we fail, as long as we can learn from our mistakes, it makes us stronger.
So although we have some disagreements, our philosophy on life is similuar when we stick to the physical things. However I still see more to it then that, but to each their own. If your way was as simple as figuring out the physical, all the power to you. My way I needed to understand things that I didn't understand. I wanted all the answers. And eventually I didn't get all the answers, but I did find the answers I needed for me.
But don't disregard the things not understood. Their is more to life then just this. Although this is the 'free will' life we should be cherrishing.
Yes, the insane continuously make those claims. That's why they're insane.
More insane gibberish, sorry to inform you.
Sorry, I'm not planning to give myself a lobotomy or drop too much acid any time soon.
You're awfully quick to be gullible.
poster 1; show me god..
poster 2; i see him here..
poster 1; i don't see him there, you must be wrong
poster 2; don't know why you can't see him, i see him there,i'm not wrong
poster 1; yes you are
poster 2; no i'm not
poster 1; yes you are
poster 2; no i'm not...
etc
etc
etc...
it gets old...
poster 2; i see him here..
poster 1; i don't see him there, you must be wrong
poster 2; don't know why you can't see him, i see him there,i'm not wrong
poster 1; yes you are
poster 2; no i'm not
poster 1; yes you are
poster 2; no i'm not...
etc
etc
etc...
it gets old...