new worlds with different mathematics
- Thread starter Captain Kremmen
- Start date
Do you want me to think like a person from the 21st Century? It's only seven years old. That would mean I had to think like a seven year old!
a lot can happen in 7 years - particularly in a field as dynamic as science
Like the sound of Colin Kapp. Will have to look out for his books.
BTW, the K and the extra p in the surname makes all the difference. If he was called Colin Cap , he would sound like some old bloke down the boozer with a pint of brew XI and a fag in his mouth.
(US Translation: he would sound like some old guy in the bar with a bottle of Bud and a lit Marlborough)
If you find a copy let me know: I read it sometime in the mid/ late seventies and have never seen a copy since.
Seems to me your use of this terminology "normative" is pretentious and obfuscating. I don't think your usage is quite proper, either. But now I get the idea.
Why should I do this thing you refer to, essentially supplicating myself and surrendering to illogic? What kind of a lame and pathetic deity is it that doesn't have a logical and explainable reason for existing?
Personally, no I have never supplicated myself in the way you describe, and see no reason or benefit for it. I once believed in deity because I naively thought it a useful explanation for existence (and only after I saw that supernaturalism is no explanation did the true explanation of existence become compelling.) However it was always obvious to me, even in Sunday school and when I knew no reason to doubt the existence of a historical Jesus, that all the supernatural parts of the story are fabrication.
I do know of many atheists however who did it all by the "book", prayed fervently for "God" to reveal itself, but to no avail.
Last edited:
the descriptions of how you have to act in order to know something within science pertain to methodology, and in a more contemporary sense, also institutional affiliation to some degree
from the platform of ignorance many things appear illogical - even in fields of science
being the cause of all causes is lame?
considering your values as an atheist, its hardly surprising.
(BTW I wasn't so much trying to convince you that you should take up religious principles - hell, its your life - rather I was discussing the general principles by which theist knowledge works, which is nondifferent from the general principle by which all fields of knowledge work (namely evidence is inextricably connected to normative descriptions of some sort or other)
the true explanation of existence being?
once again, from the platform of ignorance many things appear illogical.
For instance the notion of cloning sheep by science two hundred years ago would appear illogical and probably supernatural.
the next question would be "praying for what?"
(in other words is god nothing more than a laborer in our personal garden of fervent material desire?
or is god the supreme controller to whom all others are directly or indirectly subservient)
with a poor foundation of theory, practice often reveals itself to be fruitless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative
excerpts:
Normative has specialized meanings in several academic disciplines. Generically, it means relating to a typical standard or model.
(snip)
In philosophy, normative is usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive) or explanatory when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions. Descriptive (or constative) statements are falsifiable statements that attempt to describe reality. Normative statements, on the other hand, affirm how things should or ought to be, how to value them, which things are good or bad, which actions are right or wrong.
(end of excerpts)
Seems to me "normative descriptions" is oxymoronic, based on the above.
It seems obvious to me that science is about as different from religion as one could imagine.
hence normative descriptions of science (which deal specifically with constative statements) would be how you have to act in order to bridge the gap between ignorance and being sufficiently versed in theories, terms and findings to make sense of the said constative statements
if one upholds the atheistic value that god is not a constant, yes
1. Are you sure that this an atheistic value?
2. Are you sure that some religions do not hold the same value?
certainly (eg - god is an imagination/god is a culturally defined phenomena/etc)
if some type of religion does have that view, there is no practical difference between it and atheism
I wonder if you have some hierarchy of religions regarding their validity.
If so, how did you come by it?
its not so much a hierarchy of religions but a hierarchy of practitioners
in the vedas you don't find so much mention of "isms" but there are 4 general categories (all of which have further subdivisions) of theistic practitioners that can crop up in any circle - basically the terms examine one's motives for taking a "religion" (or dropping one to accept another)
Karmi - interested in material gain ("god give us our daily bread .... or else") - on a side point most "discussion" about religion is about these sorts, since they make up well over 90% of all "theists"
jnani - interested in one's salvation
yogi - interested in the acquisition of mystic perfections (and the fame and adoration that goes with it)
bhakta - interested in serving god with love (bereft of the other 3 desires)
You can take practically any religion you mention and find examples of these four
as for their hierarchy, it is explained as follows
BG 12.6-7: But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pṛthā — for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.
BG 12.8: Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.
BG 12.9: My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me without deviation, then follow the regulative principles of bhakti-yoga. In this way develop a desire to attain Me.
BG 12.10: If you cannot practice the regulations of bhakti-yoga, then just try to work for Me, because by working for Me you will come to the perfect stage.
BG 12.11: If, however, you are unable to work in this consciousness of Me, then try to act giving up all results of your work and try to be self-situated.
BG 12.12: If you cannot take to this practice, then engage yourself in the cultivation of knowledge. Better than knowledge, however, is meditation, and better than meditation is renunciation of the fruits of action, for by such renunciation one can attain peace of mind.
in otherwords you can find examples of christians/muslims/hindus who embody characteristics of bhaktas/yogis/jnani/karmis
LG.
This word Normative.
I'd never heard of it, but I've looked it up, and it seems to mean different things in different fields.
In Economics.
Normative Economics means "How things ought to be" and is contrasted with Positive Economics "how things are".
In Economics normative value judgements are held conditionally.
They may change if the society or underlying circumstances change. They are generally agreed upon by consensus.
Do you think that normative in religious discussion is used like this?
If Yes, how? With particular reference to values being held conditionally, and being held because generally agreed upon.
If No, is a comparison of normative values in religion to those in accountancy useful?
I liked your answer to the hierarchy question by the way.
This word Normative.
I'd never heard of it, but I've looked it up, and it seems to mean different things in different fields.
In Economics.
Normative Economics means "How things ought to be" and is contrasted with Positive Economics "how things are".
In Economics normative value judgements are held conditionally.
They may change if the society or underlying circumstances change. They are generally agreed upon by consensus.
Do you think that normative in religious discussion is used like this?
If Yes, how? With particular reference to values being held conditionally, and being held because generally agreed upon.
If No, is a comparison of normative values in religion to those in accountancy useful?
I liked your answer to the hierarchy question by the way.
there are obvious differences in the subject but the usage is the same.
For instance normative judgments within economics are called upon when the positive judgments of economics are deemed unsatisfactory (if things are running economically ok, perhaps even the normative and positive judgments in economics could be identical)
since there are a variety of persons with a variety of stations in life in this world one can find a variety of religious prescriptions for them - these constitute one sort of normative description in scripture which is different according to time place and circumstance
for instance normative descriptions for priests
BG 18.42: Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness — these are the natural qualities by which the brāhmaṇas work.
are somewhat contradictory to normative descriptions for upholders of martial law
BG 18.43: Heroism, power, determination, resourcefulness, courage in battle, generosity and leadership are the natural qualities of work for the kṣatriyas.
however both a priest and a ruler can (or alternatively, cannot) be a great theist according to their ability to abide by
BG 10.9: The thoughts of My pure devotees dwell in Me, their lives are fully devoted to My service, and they derive great satisfaction and bliss from always enlightening one another and conversing about Me.
normative descriptions that apply to the living entity regarding their relationship with god are not subject to time place and circumstance
note how the normative descriptions are constitutional - for instance,
is it possible to be an exceptional priest without being spontaneously peaceful/self controlled, etc?
Is it possible to be an exceptional ruler without being spontaneously courageous in battle (in times of conflict)/heroic,etc
Is it possible to be an exceptionally devoted to god (either as a priest or ruler) without actually finding god and things related to god spontaneously attractive?
in other words the difference between values in economics and the essential values in religion, is that the values in religion are eternal
CC Madhya 20.108-109: "It is the living entity's constitutional position to be an eternal servant of God because he is the marginal energy of God and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. God has three varieties of energy.
I can see how you are using the word now, but in nearly every other usage normative values are by consensus and changeable. Here you are referring to it as essential,eternal and fixed. I'm not sure whether other people discussing religion use the term in the way that you do, but I don't think it is helpful.
Also, comparing normative values in one field with the normative values in another in which the meaning of normative means virtually the opposite leads to confusion.
thats because they pertain to some changeable phenomena
that is because got is essential, eternal and fixed
if they don't use it in the same way as I am, its probably because they are referring to peripheral aspects of religion (like say the normative descriptions of priests or upholders of martial law)
in what way did I suggest that they were opposite?
(I did indicate how the phenomena they relate to are quite different, but surely that is not the issue, just as discussing a red iceblock and a red fire works by the same values (redness), even though one is hot and one is cold)
I think I get your meaning.
You are saying that normative values in, say, economics are ideals which are variable and by consensus. And that normative values in religion are ideals which are fixed, and learned through understanding of appropriate scriptural sources. The only consensus is that of adepts who are advanced enough to see that fixed truth.
Does that sum up your beliefs, or am I still misunderstanding you?
You are saying that normative values in, say, economics are ideals which are variable and by consensus. And that normative values in religion are ideals which are fixed, and learned through understanding of appropriate scriptural sources. The only consensus is that of adepts who are advanced enough to see that fixed truth.
Does that sum up your beliefs, or am I still misunderstanding you?