Faith
Locked
1234
... 6
1234
... 6
 
|
Ok, all of you "faith" proponents: at what point does practicing "faith" cross the line and become criminally negligent?
Corollary question: at what point does adherence to religious faith cross a moral boundary by allowing the practitioner to select comforting dogma over moral obligation? PS: <complexity> (Added to keep this thread from being completely off-topic.)
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
this is a complex (fidelity to the list topic) question - but there is a lot of case law in the US dealing with exactly this issue - much of it related to the Seventh Day Adventists. Some key points (that I did not see addressed in the article) that would determine criminality would be the age of the victim, was he able to give informed consent for his religious treatment, and did the parents actively prevent him from seeking traditional treatment.
The real interesting question to me - what is the boundary between a parents right to raise children in their faith and societies interest in establishing a threshold set of shared values and practices for acceptance into the society.
If parents can successfully indoctrinate a child to the point that even when he was of an age that would normally allow him to seek medical assistance on his own, despite parental wishes, he held firm to "his" faith and refused treatment - did they harm the child be establishing that kind of mind set?
davew
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 06:59 AM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Ok, all of you "faith" proponents: at what point does practicing "faith" cross the line and become criminally negligent? ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Prof David West wrote at 09/20/2012 08:10 AM:
> The real interesting question to me - what is the boundary between a > parents right to raise children in their faith and societies interest > in establishing a threshold set of shared values and practices for > acceptance into the society. It seems to me this is a question of population density. There's plenty of evidence that nests facilitate altruism (and socialism) and the lack of nests reinforces selfishness (and individualism). I can infer that the extent to which _I_ want to indoctrinate someone else's offspring is a function of the number and type of interactions I'll have with them (including whether I'll have to pay for the consequences of their actions like drinking 64 ounces of high fructose corn syrup or alcohol or bags of microwave popcorn per day). I currently live next door to a "Catholic" family much like the one in which I grew up. The dad does a lot of yelling and the children do a lot of crying and cowering. At one point, the teenage daughter was literally running in and out of the house trying to escape her dad who was chasing her (he's a bit fat and she's young and agile ;-). Our houses are quite close together, which is the only reason I noticed the ruckus. Had we lived back in our rent house on the river, with lots of space between us and our neighbors, this wouldn't have been an issue. Here's an honest and personal question to make the ethics concrete: Should I have intervened? -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Prof David West
Policing the content of parental guidance given to children would be even more fun than policing the uploads to YouTube.
I'd say focus on making child protective services do the job it's already supposed to be doing, which is already one of the most difficult ones any one has thought up.
-- rec -- On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 9:10 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
Well, it would be nice to answer that action on our personal moral principles should cease, when it breaks the law. The trouble is, there are laws and there are laws. The Protestant idea that each of us has a direct and personal obligation to the law, no matter what a duly appointed law enforcement officer may tell us, makes thinking about these issues VERY complicated. Back in the sixties we were taught that we might be obligated to “throw our bodies” on the machine to stop the vietnam war. I am not sure to what higher law we appealed in those days but I vaguely remember that it had to do with the Nuremburg trials. I belief that in military law a soldier is obligated to DISOBEY a law that is illegal? Whether the soldier gets a commendation for disobedience or shot for it depends, in this case, on whether a military judge, in the peace and quiet of a courtroom, comes to agree with the decision of the soldier, which may have been made in a split-second during the chaos of a battle. We have to have a way of thinking about this that rules in civil disobedience but rules OUT stalking abortion providers. Be careful to take note of how I am reasoning here. I am reasoning backwards from my own actions to some principle that would justify them. Pretty shoddy, as a form of reasoning, but, if one believes that beliefs just are those principles implied by one’s actions, then what I am saying here makes more sense. I am trying to discover what my beliefs ARE, not trying to justify them. The pragmatist Justice, Oliver Wendel Holmes, famously said that Justice is what judges do [in the long run, if they think carefully and well about precedent and the facts of each individual case]. On this account, our beliefs get justified by their long term success. By “long term” I mean generations and generations and by “our” I mean the species. This is the pragmatist doctrine of truth. I think the reason that people live about 60 years beyond youth is that it takes about that long for the high=minded protestations of one’s youth to come home to roost. I cannot escape the feeling that in some strange sense I am personally responsible for the Tea Party. And bombing abortion clinics. But this s no doubt liberal guilt gone mad. I guess we got THAT from the quakers? Nick From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Ok, all of you "faith" proponents: at what point does practicing "faith" cross the line and become criminally negligent? Corollary question: at what point does adherence to religious faith cross a moral boundary by allowing the practitioner to select comforting dogma over moral obligation? PS: <complexity> (Added to keep this thread from being completely off-topic.) ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
Depends: was he trying to force her into the Catholic "lick the whipped cream off the priest's knees" ritual?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206008/Probe-launched-Polish-priest-gets-young-children-lick-whipped-cream-knee-creepy-school-initiation.html
If so, then definitely yes. Otherwise, you should have simply, and quietly, have respected the family's faith. --Doug
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:24 AM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:
Doug Roberts [hidden email] [hidden email] ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
The trouble is, as Eric has laid out nicely, one cannot infer the father's intentions from his actions. All I know is he was chasing her. I have no idea what he intended to do after he caught her or even if he really wanted to catch her ... or just chaser her around a bit to show her who's boss. Douglas Roberts wrote at 09/20/2012 10:06 AM: > Depends: was he trying to force her into the Catholic "lick the whipped > cream off the priest's knees" ritual? > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2206008/Probe-launched-Polish-priest-gets-young-children-lick-whipped-cream-knee-creepy-school-initiation.html > > If so, then definitely yes. > > Otherwise, you should have simply, and quietly, have respected the > family's faith. -- glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nick Thompson
Nick
I'm glad you brought up a) Laws b) Protestant ideas in the context of faith. AND That you are still trying to define your beliefs.. I claim with some degree of certainty that at least 90% of the worlds religions don't set down precisely and completely their "Laws" in the form of "Rules"/ Beliefs ... BECAUSE it does not suit their establishments and clergy to do so. If The 10 Commandments was all that there is to Christianity there would there be fewer disputes and no organised church. I am very happy to say that my own religion has gone against the grain and done so, and very precisely too at various points of time. Its pertinent to mention that my religion is a "Protestant" (in the sense of reformist) one and we have done away with priests, churches and all the organisational claptrap. The first time we did so was by a legally registered trust deed drafted by 10 of the best legal brains in India at the time (all of whom were members of the faith) on January 8, 1830. It was a most remarkable document for its time and is so even today. This secular document was the basis for my country's "Tea Party" which allowed us to begin to boot out our British:colonisers (who were playing religion centric divide and rule politics to exploit us) eventually. Today our Beliefs are very few http://brahmo.org/brahmo-prime-principles.html and the Rules of the faith are crisp and precise (to Easterners at least) http://brahmo.org/brahmo-articles-faith.html We believe (like Al Qaeda or Chairman Mao) that an army which travels lightly (and simply) and can blend among the people travels furthest and fastest. Our annual adherent growth is hugely positive y-o-y despite that we don't proselytize or convert. Our Rules are very puzzling to Westerners who hear them. They are surprised to hear that our first rule is "Brahmos embrace righteousness as the only way of life". "Righteousness" apparently has a negative connotation in the West. Whereas to us, it conveys something entirely different we call "Dharma" referring to the "power/force" behind the natural balancing fields of "positive" and "negative" (aka. entropy and non-entropy) streams which propel this universe. Think Yoda instructing young Master Luke the first time. Less tolerant / trusting / evolved faiths however would setup a host of illogical rules like Thou shall not steal / kill / curse/ smoke / drink / covet thy neighbour's camel / wife etc. to the point of reductionism. Hope this helps you to define / understand your faith's beliefs a little better. Sarbajit On 9/20/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Well, it would be nice to answer that action on our personal moral > principles should cease, when it breaks the law. > > The trouble is, there are laws and there are laws. > > The Protestant idea that each of us has a direct and personal obligation to > the law, no matter what a duly appointed law enforcement officer may tell > us, makes thinking about these issues VERY complicated. Back in the sixties > we were taught that we might be obligated to "throw our bodies" on the > machine to stop the vietnam war. I am not sure to what higher law we > appealed in those days but I vaguely remember that it had to do with the > Nuremburg trials. I belief that in military law a soldier is obligated to > DISOBEY a law that is illegal? Whether the soldier gets a commendation for > disobedience or shot for it depends, in this case, on whether a military > judge, in the peace and quiet of a courtroom, comes to agree with the > decision of the soldier, which may have been made in a split-second during > the chaos of a battle. We have to have a way of thinking about this that > rules in civil disobedience but rules OUT stalking abortion providers. > > Be careful to take note of how I am reasoning here. I am reasoning > backwards from my own actions to some principle that would justify them. > Pretty shoddy, as a form of reasoning, but, if one believes that beliefs > just are those principles implied by one's actions, then what I am saying > here makes more sense. I am trying to discover what my beliefs ARE, not > trying to justify them. The pragmatist Justice, Oliver Wendel Holmes, > famously said that Justice is what judges do [in the long run, if they > think > carefully and well about precedent and the facts of each individual case]. > On this account, our beliefs get justified by their long term success. By > "long term" I mean generations and generations and by "our" I mean the > species. This is the pragmatist doctrine of truth. > > I think the reason that people live about 60 years beyond youth is that it > takes about that long for the high=minded protestations of one's youth to > come home to roost. I cannot escape the feeling that in some strange sense > I am personally responsible for the Tea Party. And bombing abortion > clinics. But this s no doubt liberal guilt gone mad. I guess we got THAT > from the quakers? > > Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On 9/20/2012 11:22 AM, glen wrote:
> The trouble is, as Eric has laid out nicely, one cannot infer the > father's intentions from his actions. All I know is he was chasing her. > I have no idea what he intended to do after he caught her or even if he > really wanted to catch her ... or just chaser her around a bit to show > her who's boss. Volunteer to set up a neighborhood `crime watch' web page. Get buy-in from the neighborhood to limit liability, and to pay for equipment. Detect sound and motion events, and record for a while after these periods. Provide links to visitors to move around the recording on the page. Get several sets of camcorders with directional mics and have complementary coverage. Then when there's a particularly compelling chase or scream-fest recorded, tip-off a friend or neighbor to the event and let them report to the police or child services. Bozo is shamed and you've had some fun with a 'Maker' project. If nothing else it should shut him up. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2
I had been nicely ignoring this thread in the belief (faith?) that it would go away without affecting me. Alas, the need for a distraction from grading has drawn me back into its basin of (strange) attraction.
Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly. Action based on belief: ref. William Powers: Behavior, the Control of Perception. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory Faith or belief: my mental models of the world will still be true tomorrow. These models have been built over time by hypothesis, testing, and adjustment (toddler and stairs example). Curt ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Curt -
> Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I love this one... we all hurtle down the highway with order 4000lbs at relative speeds of order 120mph, within feet if not inches of eachother, trusting implicitely that we will not become kinetic energy bombs. Only when we go to British Commonwealth (or related) countries do we even get confronted with this. I just spent 3 weeks in Italy where while everyone drives on the same side of the road I'm familiar with, they also use only their accelerator pedals and ignore both their brake pedals and their rear view mirrors. Once I gave over to the concept that everyone else on the road was (mostly) competent and that none (very very few) were likely malicious, I was able to drive quite effectively, trusting that a nearly totally unfamiliar driving style worked just fine if I joined the milieu with similar levels of assertiveness and care. - Steve ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Sarbajit Roy (testing)
Sarbajit,
One of the great pleasures of FRIAM has been coming to know you over the last several months. Thanks for your thoughts, here. You took mine in an entirely unexpected direction. All the best, Nick -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Sarbajit Roy Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:06 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Faith Nick I'm glad you brought up a) Laws b) Protestant ideas in the context of faith. AND That you are still trying to define your beliefs.. I claim with some degree of certainty that at least 90% of the worlds religions don't set down precisely and completely their "Laws" in the form of "Rules"/ Beliefs ... BECAUSE it does not suit their establishments and clergy to do so. If The 10 Commandments was all that there is to Christianity there would there be fewer disputes and no organised church. I am very happy to say that my own religion has gone against the grain and done so, and very precisely too at various points of time. Its pertinent to mention that my religion is a "Protestant" (in the sense of reformist) one and we have done away with priests, churches and all the organisational claptrap. The first time we did so was by a legally registered trust deed drafted by 10 of the best legal brains in India at the time (all of whom were members of the faith) on January 8, 1830. It was a most remarkable document for its time and is so even today. This secular document was the basis for my country's "Tea Party" which allowed us to begin to boot out our British:colonisers (who were playing religion centric divide and rule politics to exploit us) eventually. Today our Beliefs are very few http://brahmo.org/brahmo-prime-principles.html and the Rules of the faith are crisp and precise (to Easterners at least) http://brahmo.org/brahmo-articles-faith.html We believe (like Al Qaeda or Chairman Mao) that an army which travels lightly (and simply) and can blend among the people travels furthest and fastest. Our annual adherent growth is hugely positive y-o-y despite that we don't proselytize or convert. Our Rules are very puzzling to Westerners who hear them. They are surprised to hear that our first rule is "Brahmos embrace righteousness as the only way of life". "Righteousness" apparently has a negative connotation in the West. Whereas to us, it conveys something entirely different we call "Dharma" referring to the "power/force" behind the natural balancing fields of "positive" and "negative" (aka. entropy and non-entropy) streams which propel this universe. Think Yoda instructing young Master Luke the first time. Less tolerant / trusting / evolved faiths however would setup a host of illogical rules like Thou shall not steal / kill / curse/ smoke / drink / covet thy neighbour's camel / wife etc. to the point of reductionism. Hope this helps you to define / understand your faith's beliefs a little better. Sarbajit On 9/20/12, Nicholas Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote: > Well, it would be nice to answer that action on our personal moral > principles should cease, when it breaks the law. > > The trouble is, there are laws and there are laws. > > The Protestant idea that each of us has a direct and personal > obligation to the law, no matter what a duly appointed law enforcement > officer may tell us, makes thinking about these issues VERY > complicated. Back in the sixties we were taught that we might be > obligated to "throw our bodies" on the machine to stop the vietnam > war. I am not sure to what higher law we appealed in those days but I > vaguely remember that it had to do with the Nuremburg trials. I > belief that in military law a soldier is obligated to DISOBEY a law > that is illegal? Whether the soldier gets a commendation for > disobedience or shot for it depends, in this case, on whether a > military judge, in the peace and quiet of a courtroom, comes to agree > with the decision of the soldier, which may have been made in a > split-second during the chaos of a battle. We have to have a way of abortion providers. > > Be careful to take note of how I am reasoning here. I am reasoning > backwards from my own actions to some principle that would justify them. > Pretty shoddy, as a form of reasoning, but, if one believes that > beliefs just are those principles implied by one's actions, then what > I am saying here makes more sense. I am trying to discover what my > beliefs ARE, not trying to justify them. The pragmatist Justice, > Oliver Wendel Holmes, famously said that Justice is what judges do [in > the long run, if they think carefully and well about precedent and the > facts of each individual case]. > On this account, our beliefs get justified by their long term success. > "long term" I mean generations and generations and by "our" I mean the > species. This is the pragmatist doctrine of truth. > > I think the reason that people live about 60 years beyond youth is > that it takes about that long for the high=minded protestations of > one's youth to come home to roost. I cannot escape the feeling that > in some strange sense I am personally responsible for the Tea Party. > And bombing abortion clinics. But this s no doubt liberal guilt gone > mad. I guess we got THAT from the quakers? > > Nick ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by glen ropella
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 10:24 AM, glen wrote: > > Here's an honest and personal question to make the ethics concrete: > Should I have intervened? > clearly a tough question - given the state of society, the prevalence of guns and predisposition to use them, and the potential for alcohol or other substance abuse - not an easy decision. The "official" response is no, report it to someone who has the "authority" to intervene. I would have made my silent presence as witness obvious - but would not have actively intervened. dave > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Sarbajit,
I looked at your pointers to your religion's beliefs and rules.
The "Articles of Faith" seem fairly non-controversial. I wouldn't think of them as requiring faith in the sense that most religions use that term--belief in something that without faith would be difficult to believe. I doubt that you would find many people on this list -- or many most secular westerners in general -- who would disagree with them, even though they are not members of your religion. When I looked at the home page, though, I was surprised to see that the first heading was "One God." Given the articles of faith, I didn't expect to find "God" playing such a major role.
I had a difficult time with the "Prime Principles" and was not able to attach any coherent semantics to most of what was written.
-- Russ -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Dear Russ
I appreciate your feedback. As I mentioned to Nick, our religion is Protestant in form and derives its "ideological" basis from the ancient "Hindu" coda of Vedas and Upanishads (which are called Vedanta .. or the summation of the Vedas"). I hasten to mention here that the term "Hindu" is defined in India's law as everyone who belongs to India and who does not profess the Islamic, Christian, Zorastrian or Jewish faiths. (Hinduism has no problem with atheists) The Vedas were carried forward primarily in the oral tradition for at least 3 millenia with armies of genetically enforced scholars (located at numerous scattered centres for learning) who rigorously memorised the vast contents and ensured their continuation over time. Inevitably in the process the information got corrupted (by dropouts or dropins). The droputs were not the problem, but the dropins (insertions for diverse reasons) caused many internal inconsistencies. But there were systemic safeguards in place to ensure that by constant comparison of the main works between data centres the data was preserved and transmitted as best possible. So, we now say that these sacred works were correct but are now corrupt, and hence not authoritative. We extend the same respect to religious works of other faiths to say that the Bible, Quran, Talmud etc are genuine works (the author is unimportant) but their authenticity is unprovable and hence cannot be entered in evidence (in their entireity). Now to some of your points:- 1) (Unfortunately) to qualify as a religion, the faith needs a "God". 2) Hinduism had 330 million gods and a vast body of sacred works which take many lifetimes to understand. An army of our own genetic scholars distilled it down to "One God" (the minimum number to qualify as a religion) so that even the Islamists could understand it (Trinitarian Christians still have problems though) .. http://www.irf.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=146&Itemid=129 (the learned Dr.Naik has borrowed heavily from some of our tracts. ) 3) The "One God" artefact on the "homepage" is known in classical Hinduism as the "MahaKavya" (or Great Phrase) and is from the Chandogya Upanishad (6:2:1). An exposition is available here http://personal.carthage.edu/jlochtefeld/texts/IHchandogya6.html "6.2.1. "In the beginning, dear boy, this world was Being--One only, without a second. To be sure, some say that in the beginning this world was only non-Being, one only without a second, and that from that non-Being Being was born. 2. "But, dear boy, how could this be?" he said, "how could Being be produced from non-Being? In the beginning there was Being alone, one only, without a second. " 4) In computer terms, or quantum terms, this simply means that everything which exists is a dipole having 2 states .."0" or "1" ... Schrodingers cat .. alive or dead . Being or nonBeing ... human or zombie .. Schrodingers Cat IS "God". 5) In essence all Religions are only about 2 states "Life" and "Death" (and the endless cycles flipping between these states). 7) The "prime principles" are actually very easy once a mental barrier is crossed. To cross it, please read this http://baencd.thefifthimperium.com/13-TheBalticWarCD/TheBalticWarCD/The%20Cold%20Equations/0743436016___6.htm Sarbajit On 9/23/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sarbajit, > > I looked at your pointers to your religion's beliefs and rules. > > The "Articles of Faith <http://brahmo.org/brahmo-articles-faith.html>" seem > fairly non-controversial. I wouldn't think of them as requiring faith in > the sense that most religions use that term--belief in something that > without faith would be difficult to believe. I doubt that you would find > many people on this list -- or many most secular westerners in general -- > who > would disagree with them, even though they are not members of your > religion. When I looked at the home page <http://brahmo.org/>, though, I > was surprised to see that the first heading was "One God." Given the > articles of faith, I didn't expect to find "God" playing such a major role. > > I had a difficult time with the "Prime > Principles<http://brahmo.org/brahmo-prime-principles.html>" > and was not able to attach any coherent semantics to most of what was > written. > > -- Russ > > *-- Russ Abbott* > *_____________________________________________* > *** Professor, Computer Science* > * California State University, Los Angeles* > > * My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688* > * Google voice: 747-*999-5105 > Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/ > * vita: *sites.google.com/site/russabbott/ > CS Wiki <http://cs.calstatela.edu/wiki/> and the courses I teach > *_____________________________________________* > > > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Prof David West > <[hidden email]>wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 20, 2012, at 10:24 AM, glen wrote: >> >> > >> > Here's an honest and personal question to make the ethics concrete: >> > Should I have intervened? >> > >> clearly a tough question - given the state of society, the prevalence of >> guns and predisposition to use them, and the potential for alcohol or >> other substance abuse - not an easy decision. The "official" response >> is no, report it to someone who has the "authority" to intervene. I >> would have made my silent presence as witness obvious - but would not >> have actively intervened. >> >> dave >> >> >> >> > ============================================================ >> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> >> ============================================================ >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College >> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org >> > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Thanks, Sarbajit. As I understand it Buddhism does not have a God. Does that mean you would not classify it as a religion?
-- Russ On Saturday, September 22, 2012, Sarbajit Roy wrote: Dear Russ -- -- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________ Professor, Computer Science California State University, Los Angeles ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
Buddhism may not have "a God" but Buddhism belief has "gods" who are
superior beings existing at various planes of existence. Their gods, called "Devas", apparently exist at the highest plane of existence well above humans, and animals, and various beings condemned in past lives to inhabit hell (the lowest planes). Buddhism's "demons" called "Asuras" occupy another zone. However, in Zorastrianism, conversely the gods are called "Ahuras" and the demons are called "Daevas" (root terms of devil): So it seems possible that all these zones / planes are actually political statements referring to events in some hoary past at an indeterminate location. http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/religion.htm http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20583/20583-h/20583-h.htm (page 287) Re: Buddhism as a religion: BTW: Are we referring to "God" as "creator- God" ? On 9/23/12, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote: > Thanks, Sarbajit. As I understand it Buddhism does not have a God. Does > that mean you would not classify it as a religion? > > -- Russ > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
I'm not really buying that. My sense of modern (and especially western) Buddhism seems pretty God-free.
-- Russ Abbott _____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Sarbajit Roy <[hidden email]> wrote: Buddhism may not have "a God" but Buddhism belief has "gods" who are ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
There are different types of buddhism: zen and Tibetan are different and are both from the Mahayana side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism Curt http://inwardpathpublisher.blogspot.com/2010/05/your-religion-is-not-important.html On Sun, Sep 23, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
|
|
In reply to this post by Curt McNamara
Since
this thread is still going... Curt said:
"Faith: that the other drivers will stay on their side of the road. I don't have to track every one exactly." ---- Exactly! It is faith when you stop monitoring the other cars when driving, stop looking at the ground you are about to step on when walking, etc. It is faith when you get out of bed without checking to see that the ground is still there. The actions themselves entail the faith; they do not result from faith, they are the faith. An interesting additional issue is when we do and do not explicitly talk about the things we have faith in. It might also be an additional issue on what basis some people have faith in a "super-natural" "higher-power". (Both scare-quotes seem necessary, because pretty everyone has faith in higher powers, and most people have faith in things they don't have natural explanations for, but we seem to be focusing primarily on the times when those faiths overlap.) Eric P.S. Curt, if you are into Power's Perceptual Control Theory, do you know Richard Marken and Warren Manell's work? They wrote a great article for a journal issue I am putting together. P.P.S. The notion of "blind" faith is really very modern. Certainly it was not long ago that faith in the Judeo-Christian God was primarily supported by experiential evidence. "Behold the wonders," "experience God in every blade of grass," "check out this amazing cathedral," "our army won," etc. The fact that we sometimes meaningfully talk about "blind faith" seems to indicate that the normal meaning of the term "faith" is not inherently blind. On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 12:21 AM, Curt McNamara <[hidden email]> wrote:
------------ Eric Charles Assistant Professor of Psychology Penn State University Altoona, PA 16601 ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |