TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Is spirituality conducive to health? (17 posts)

1. Durruti
   Member

   I think this piece should be qualified in some way. While it may be true that spirituality is healthy and even quintessentially human (as Karen Armstrong and other theologians have argued), religious fundamentalism clearly produces neurotic and unhealthy behavior. I'd be interested in seeing a study comparing children raised in a "multi-faith" environment which stresses harmony and peace vs. a fundamentalist upbringing of fire and brimstone. Anyway I thought you guys would find this interesting...

   Newswise — Like adults, kids who are more spiritual or religious tend to be healthier.

   That’s the conclusion of Dr. Barry Nierenberg, Ph.D., ABPP, associate professor of psychology at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, who has been studying the relationship between faith and health. He presented on the topic at the American Psychological Association’s Division of Rehabilitation Psychology national conference on February 27, in Jackson, Fla.

   “A number of studies have shown a positive relationship between participatory prayer and lower rates of heart disease, cirrhosis, emphysema and stroke in adults,” he says. “Prayer has been shown to correlate to lower blood pressure, cortisol levels, rates of depression, as well as increased rates of self-described well being.”

   “But very few studies have attempted to examine how children’s spiritual beliefs impact their health,” he says. Initially, Nierenberg conducted a study of HIV positive pediatric patients (ages seven to 17), comparing religious development, church attendance and prayer to health measures such as symptoms, T-cell counts and number of hospitalizations.

   “One significant finding was that children who attended church were more likely to have higher T-cell counts than non churchgoing children,” he says, “but that finding is difficult to interpret. It’s likely that the more ill a child is, the less ability they have to attend church.”

   “We needed a second study to more precisely examine religious faith and behavior,” he says.

   So they examined 16 children (ages six to 20) who were undergoing hemodialysis due to End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD). The patients were questioned on a scale of spirituality behaviors and attitudes, and responses were correlated to dialysis-related blood levels, including: blood urea nitrogen (BUN), lymphocytes, albumin, phosphorus, parathyroid hormone (PTH), and urea reduction ratio.

   “There was a significant negative correlation between spiritual attitudes and BUN levels,” he says. “As children reported more agreement with statements like, ‘I am sure that God cares about me,’ and ‘God has a plan for me,” their average BUN levels over the past year were lower.”

   “We have a deeper understanding of why there is so little in the literature exploring the relationship between health spirituality in children and adolescents,” he says. “It’s challenging to measure in this population. It can be difficult getting all the necessary permission. The pool of children is limited, and the interviews can be time consuming. But it’s important it’s done for the same reason we study it in adults.”

   http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/549952/

   Posted 15 years ago #
2. JohnA
   Member

   I believe spirituality may be conducive to good health in much the same way meditation is conducive to good health.

   but it is also important to note that meditation does not require a belief in a supreme being - or dogma.

   Posted 15 years ago #
3. Durruti
   Member

   JohnA wrote:

   "I believe spirituality may be conducive to good health in much the same way meditation is conducive to good health.

   but it is also important to note that meditation does not require a belief in a supreme being - or dogma."

   Agree.

   Although I don't think the idea of a "supreme being" or force or what have you necessitates dogmatic thinking.

   The problem arises with dogma itself: literal, unwavering interpretations of religious (MAN MADE) texts, closed belief systems, myopia, xenophobia: finished (extinct) belief systems rather than open (evolving) belief systems. Meditation is obviously healthy. Yet even Buddhist sects (as strange as it may seem) have engaged in extremely violent behavior. Hell, look at the Shaolin!

   Which goes to show why spirituality is not enough.

   Since we're discussing spirituality and rationality (the two are supposed to be mutually exclusive, I disagree) and above all TRUTH, and since I miss arguing with you bright folks at Truthmove...

   Let’s talk TRUTH!

   My two favorite epistemological philosophers are David Hume and Bishop Berkeley. One Atheist, one Christian. I'm neither. Berkeley believed in God and rejected matter of fact, or rather matter as fact; Hume (claimed to) believe in nothing, but regarded matter or materialism as a "necessary evil", ie a necessary condition for living, even though he agreed that the existence of matter (including his own flesh and bones) could never be proven. Asked on his deathbed whether he was still an atheist, he was steadfast.

   Both agreed and demonstrated logically that mankind "knows" nothing. These were true skeptics, a far cry from James Randi.

   Hume: science is predicated on induction, or "begging the question". The Sun will rise tomorrow because it rose yesterday and the day before and so on. Gravity. Quantum Physics. Same...

   Yet to say that the Sun will rise tomorrow because it rose yesterday (induction) is to beg the question. What's missing? Hume called it the "Principle of the Uniformity of Nature". In order to justify a “scientific” belief, one has to ASSUME this principle: that things are so and ever thus. On what logical basis is this principle founded? Circular reasoning. We “know” the sun will rise tomorrow because it rose yesterday. We "know" that an apple falls from a tree when it grows too heavy for the branch to support. But of course we don't "know".

   "Consider Hume's favorite example: our belief that the sun will rise tomorrow. Clearly, this is a matter of fact; it rests on our conviction that each sunrise is an effect caused by the rotation of the earth. But our belief in that causal relation is based on past observations, and our confidence that it will continue tomorrow cannot be justified by reference to the past. So we have no rational basis for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet we do believe it!"

   And here comes Berkeley on the very existence of things like trees, mountains, color, hot, cold, pleasure, pain, stars; sensations and the objects perceived; they require a brain to perceive them, without which they cannot be proven to exist.

   “To be is to be perceived... The very notion of what is called Matter or corporeal substance involves a contradiction... I have no reason for believing the existence of matter. I have no immediate intuition thereof: neither can I immediately, from any sensations, ideas, notions, actions or passions infer an unthinking, unperceiving, inactive substance--either probablye deduction or necessary consequence.” - George Berkeley (1685-1753)

   Berkeley's insights were updated for the Hollywood classic the "Matrix", starring Larry Fishburne and Keanu Reeves.

   When I studied at UBC a professor gave us a paper to write about called "brains in vats" -- this was years before Keanu learned Kung Fu. The question posed: How do you know that matter exists? How do you know that the desk you're writing on isn't a figment of your imagination?

   You DON'T KNOW, of course. And that was Berkeley's point. Theoretically, we could all be "brains in vats". We could be living our present reality as is, or would could merely be imagining it.

   “Bishop Berkeley destroyed this world in one volume octavo; and nothing remained, after his time, but mind; which experienced a similar fate from the hand of Mr. Hume in 1739.” - Sydney Smith, [Sketches of Moral Philosophy, 1849.]

   Kant was furious at Berkeley’s intimation. He kicked a rock and, feeling the sensation in his foot, boldly proclaimed that matter did indeed exist. But he missed the point. It was from Berkeley that the famous dictum arose...."If a tree falls..."

   These sorts of topics are favorites for Hollywood screenwriters depicting stoned teenagers philosophizing about the universe. "Dude, what if this is all a dream!?"

   "Once I, Chuang Tzu, dreamed I was a butterfly and was happy as a butterfly. I was conscious that I was quite pleased with myself, but I did not know that I was Tzu. Suddenly I awoke, and there was I, visibly Tzu. I do not know whether it was Tzu dreaming that he was a butterfly or the butterfly dreaming that he was Tzu."

   The only defense to rational epistemology is that it represent a reductio ad absurdum, which is to say that the conclusion (we’re not capable of really knowing anything) is so absurd that the premise must be rejected out of hand.

   Yet the premise is logical. And therein lies the paradox.

   I agree with Hume that we need to deal with the supposed existence of matter in order to live and function. Therefore we have to TAKE CERTAIN TNINGS FOR GRANTED. The Mathematicians call these assumptions axioms. These are the "laws" supplied to us in our natural environment, and we have to respect and live by them, since they don't waver except in our dreams. It doesn’t make them “true”, it just makes them necessary.

   I also agree with Berkeley that the very existence of the entire universe is wholly unproven and in fact improvable, and that ultimately we are all creatures of faith.

   So to get back to the original post: why is spirituality healthy?

   I think it’s healthy because it touches something inside of us unreachable by simplistic cold equation. It touches our imagination, our emotion and our spirit.

   Posted 15 years ago #
4. truthmod
   Administrator

   I was exposed to much of this thinking in college, mostly under the guise of "postmodernism." The concept that nothing is completely "objective" or "true" and that all is subjective and uncertain, seemed to be very fashionable. I was very skeptical. I recognized the truth (ha--there it is again) in these notions, but I wondered, "So, what's next, what do you do once you realize all this stuff, what can you say when you accept that you can't say anything?"

   I have no doubt that these are important philosophical questions to ponder, and that they exercise and expand our brains, but I quickly saw how such thinking could be used to justify a sinister kind relativism, moral and otherwise.

   Uncertainty is the state of being, and to accept it is something like a spiritual pursuit. But anyone who tries to belittle your pursuit of rational, knowledge-based truth is full of shit. If you can't cope with uncertainty, you'll never know truth.

   Dogmatic faith in a specific religious interpretation may help humans cope with the underlying uncertainty. And maybe this can be beneficial to health, but this is only a workaround--it helps people accept the world, but not to understand it. Maybe this is why religious fanatics can "die in peace" while they and their beliefs have historically contributed to torture and mass murder.

   Posted 15 years ago #
5. Durruti
   Member

   "But anyone who tries to belittle your pursuit of rational, knowledge-based truth is full of shit. If you can't cope with uncertainty, you'll never know truth."

   Well, I did attempt to say that I agree with this premise, more or less. As did Hume (on purely utilitarian grounds). Philosophical skepticism is rough because it asks you to justify a belief system logically. On a very basic level no belief system can be justified. But it's obviously a reductio ad absurdum to claim that belief in the tooth fairy and gravity are the same thing.

   The reason I enjoy talking about these theories is that they exercise the mind, but also because they throw a bone in certainty, period; for someone who is already thinking rationally I don't see the harm; skepticism justifies neither tooth fairies nor gravity. It's not like anyone here is in danger of becoming a deranged mystic because of philosophy 101. I use the number 101 because these questions are not solvable. That's why Zen Koan's and concepts like the "Trinity" exist -- to expose the futility of rational thought in discerning life's great question. Actually this idea is prevalent in all major religions, not because of kookery but because of wisdom. Even the Christian "Trinity", though it seems quite absurd, was conceived for exactly this purpose.

   Scientific principles represent a set of axioms by which we can rationally navigate the universe. But that's quite different from knowledge.

   "Dogmatic faith in a specific religious interpretation may help humans cope with the underlying uncertainty. And maybe this can be beneficial to health, but this is only a workaround--it helps people accept the world, but not to understand it."

   Dogma of any kind is dangerous. That's my personal opinion. Even science, the most utilitarian of unjustified true belief, is potentially dangerous when regarded as infallible. Witness "scientific materialism" and its application in the Soviet Union, or even in something mundane like dissecting a flower. The rejection of the spiritual can be just as dangerous as the rejection of the rational, and as I said I think the dichotomy is a false one to begin with.

   Posted 15 years ago #
6. Durruti
   Member

   What I mean by "dissecting a flower":

   Russell Means wrote the following:

   "Newton, for example, "revolutionized" physics and the so-called natural science by reducing the physical universe to a linear mathematical equation.

   Descartes did the same thing with culture. John Locke did it with politics, and Adam Smith did it with economics. Each one of these "thinkers" took a piece of the spirituality of human existence and converted it into a code, an abstraction. They picked up where Christianity ended: they "secularized" Christian religion, as the "scholars" like to say - and in doing so they made Europe more able and ready to act as an expansionist culture. Each of these intellectual revolutions served to abstract the European mentality even further, to remove the wonderful complexity and spirituality from the universe and replace it with a logical sequence: one, two, three. Answer!.

   Whatever is mechanical is perfect; whatever seems to work at the moment - that is, proves the mechanical model to be the right one - is considered correct, even when it is clearly untrue. This is why "truth" changes so fast in the European mind; the answers which result from such a process are only stopgaps, only temporary, and must be continuously discarded in favor of new stopgaps which support the mechanical models and keep them (the models) alive."

   I believe that people like Richard Dawkins should take responsibility for Hiroshima and Monsanto in the same way that the Catholic church should take responsibility for the Inquisition. In both cases you have a fundamental disrespect for life, one ostensibly rational, one ostensibly spiritual. Neither are rational nor spiritual.

   Posted 15 years ago #
7. Durruti
   Member

   And just to show I'm a good sport...

   Study finds health benefits to owning cats

   07:55 AM CST on Wednesday, February 27, 2008

   McClatchy Newspapers

   MINNEAPOLIS – Here, kitty kitty....

   A new study suggests cat owners are less likely to die of a heart attack or stroke than people who, well, don't own cats.

   And no, dogs don't do the same trick.

   The study, by researchers at the University of Minnesota, found that feline-less people were 30 to 40 percent more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than those with cats.

   Yet dog owners had the same rate as non-owners. "No protective effect of dogs as domestic pets was observed," said the study, which was presented Thursday at the International Stroke Conference in New Orleans.

   Dr. Adnan Qureshi, a stroke expert at the university, said he decided to raise the question because other studies have suggested pets can help reduce stress. He and his team analyzed a group of 4,435 people who had answered questionnaires about pet ownership and other risk factors.

   But the cat-dog differential came as a surprise. "We don't understand this completely," he said, but "it's probably not a coincidence."

   Asked if he owns a cat, Qureshi replied: "No. Maybe I should get one, though. With this new research, I think the time has come to change."

   –––

   CATS VS. DOGS

   –90 million cats are owned in the United States

   –36 percent of U.S. households (or 38.4 million) own at least one cat

   –56 percent own more than one cat

   –74.8 million dogs are owned in the United States

   –39 percent of U.S. households own at least one dog

   Source: American Pet Products Manufacturers Assoc.

   Posted 15 years ago #
8. Durruti
   Member

   As if on cue I just came across this video, linked at Rivero's WhatReallyHappened, showing people in Nigeria being beaten and burned alive over accusations of "witchcraft". This is one of the most disturbing videos I have ever seen -- people are literally being burned alive. Do not click on this link if you are even remotely squeamish.

   http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-neocons/viewtopic.ph...

   If I have to choose an unjustified true belief -- it is science!

   My only wish is that it be tempered with a healthy dose of positive spirituality -- a respect for life that cannot be born from viewing creation as a machine to be exploited. As many crimes have been committed in the name of progress as religion.

   It should be remembered that the original witch hunt was not just a product of superstition: it performed a vital social function in the evolution of capitalism. It was as much about mechanization, commodification and privatization (of the commons) as the deranged beliefs of Christian fundamentalists.

   My God. That video will fuck you up.

   Posted 15 years ago #
9. emanuel
   Member

   I have always made a distinction between spirituality and religious dogma. I meditate, and it makes me saner, which probably makes me physically healthier too.

   Has anyone here read Ken Wilber's book, "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality"?

   Emanuel

   PS - In NYC. Meeting up with Rob and Nicholas tonight. JohnA, are you in town?

   Posted 15 years ago #
10. JohnA
    Member

    where and when are you guys meeting? i might be able to attend.

    I don't feel qualified to discuss the religious questions so eloquently being explored here. but i will say this:

    Since we're discussing spirituality and rationality (the two are supposed to be mutually exclusive, I disagree)

    i wholeheartedly agree with this. in fact - it is a point of frustration for. are you familiar with Bill Maher's crusade on this issue? i feel he sets up a false dichotomy between 'reason' and 'fundamentalism' that seeks to sweep all of the subtle gradations inbetween.

    i do not consider myself an atheist - but i also find it nearly impossible to discuss these topics without descending into a discussion about ontology. and while the atheist point of view attempts to drag the conversation - kicking and screaming - into discussions about the 'literalness' of parable-based religions - they seem unable - or unwilling - to address the overarching issue or this reality and the limits of man's perceptions.

    concepts like 'supreme being' get dumbed down into a cartoon definitions of the great old man with a white beard in the sky - while such concepts as 'collective conscious' get lost in the shuffle.

    i do not believe that science and spirituality are incompatible when seen in the context of relative time, string theory and quantum physics. we now know that time itself is simply a transient paradigm unique to this time-space reality - but perhaps meaningless in the overarching scheme of things. from THIS perspective the idea of the eternal soul - or consciousness - is not so arcane. the idea that 'God' (for lack of a better word) is 'everywhere' is no longer a physical conundrum.

    i have no problem with the fact that primative man's inability to understand his place in quantum reality - thousand of years ago - translated into primative parable-based religions. i can understand why this would happen.

    but i do have a problem with the acerbic viewpoint of atheists who fail to CONSIDER the eternal nature of the human spirit that manifests itself in a very real way upon this reality. concepts like love, hate, self-awareness and spirituality are powerful driving forces in this reality - whether they are viewed as simple chemical reactions and biproducts of biological accidents - or as transcendent manifestations of a divine reality beyond our gaze.

    no one can say for sure that these forces of nature are not curled up in the matrix of time and space - existing and manifesting itself not just here in the actions of man - but also reflective of forces of nature that lay beyond this reality - in dimensions that we cannot see or hear. perhaps we all just tuning forks for vibrations from the 7 dimensions beyond this time/space - past and future existing simultaneously.

    i for one cannot summarily dismiss the divine nature of the human spirit. i accept that human awareness may be nothing more than biological waste product. but i can NOT dismiss the possibility that there is a collective reality greater than our own that we cannot even come close to perceiving.

    Posted 15 years ago #
11. emanuel
    Member

    Sorry you missed our meet up John. It was Rob, Nick, my friend Paul (who is not on TM) and myself. I am leaving town Thursday. Perhaps we can meet next time, whenever that might be.

    As for your post above, I am with you on much of it. However, I do not believe human awareness--if by this you mean consciousness--is a product of the brain. At least not in it's pure sense. Pure consciousness I believe came first, and matter is its product, not vice versa. I am a classic "idealist" in this sense, like Plato, Hegel, Aurobindo, Sankara, and many others. This is opposed to the classic "materialists" who believe matter came first and consciousness is merely a product of the electro-chemical impulses of the brain. I accept that my position seems as absurd to the materialists as theirs does to me.

    Emanuel

    Posted 15 years ago #
12. JohnA
    Member

    actually i agree with you. but, i also know i am limited by my own humanity

    I think - there for i am.

    i think i am - therefore i think i think i am

    but, i do agree with you. i just can't know for certain since i am both the observer and observed in this human experiment. it kinda skews the results.

    what is exciting is that our faith in universal consciousness now seems scientifically plausable - if not yet proven. but our certainty remains based on faith - since none of us can really scientifically know for sure.

    i do think the growing body of evidence documenting near-death experiences is getting pretty compelling - although -again - how can we really know if these experiences are not the last remnants of brain activity as the brain dies?

    but - putting science aside - i do believe in pure consciousness. for me the deciding factor is art. i do not know how the materialists can explain a chemical reaction capable of creating a haiku. I believe art is proof of the existence of God. (and i hate that word)

    without the human spirit art would be just the random assemblage of sounds and colors. but there is something of the spirit of man captured in art that appears to transcend the material world - and separate it.

    How can we explain Mozart's music - and its ability to reflect his unique personality and emotions - centuries after his death? Is there NOT a reflection of human consciousness there? You do not find the same transcendant qualities of 'being' anywhere else in nature.

    there would be no difference between good art and bad art if it were not imbued with the divine. it would all just be relative random hogwash. but there IS something speaking to us in Mozart's music that is pure consciousness. and it is uniquely him. and we can see him and feel him. so how can we say he is dead?

    Posted 15 years ago #
13. Victronix
    Member

    As for your post above, I am with you on much of it. However, I do not believe human awareness--if by this you mean consciousness--is a product of the brain. At least not in it's pure sense. Pure consciousness I believe came first, and matter is its product, not vice versa

    The latest science on consciousness suggests it involves quantum aspects, quantum tunneling, for example.

    Consciousness is awareness of the self, awareness beyond momentary awareness. If you have enough experiences where your consciousness is altered you start to see the role that the brain plays does play in it. Many believe that the ability of humans to have language is connected to consciousness. These are both unique to humans, so to some extent, discussion of the specialness of consciousness should include language as well. It would be hard to evolve the way we have without being able to have complex communications about the self and events in the past and future.

    Posted 15 years ago #
14. JohnA
    Member

    and how do we even begin to explain instinct?

    Instinct is the inherent disposition of a living organism toward a particular behavior. The fixed action patterns are unlearned and inherited. .

    this implies residual inherited memory - from our ancestors. i am not suggesting anything magical is happening here. it is in fact a biological function - but it is also nothing short of a miracle either. not only do we possess self-awareness, we can pass this awareness - and what we have learned - on to our descendants.

    Sea turtles, hatched on a beach, automatically move toward the ocean, and honeybees communicate by dance the direction of a food source, all without formal instruction.

    and then there is collective conciousness and collective intelligence.

    Ant societies exhibit more intelligence than any other animal except for humans, if we measure intelligence in terms of technology. Ant societies are able to do agriculture, in fact several different forms of agriculture. Some ant societies keep livestock of various forms, for example, some ants keep and care for aphids for "milking". Leaf cutters care for fungi and carry leaves to feed the fungi.

    This all suggests that there is consciousness greater than the individual - manifest in the species - that transcends time and space (carried generationally from one place to the next). this knowledge does not die with the individual - but is somehow hardwired genetically into the future.

    why would we assume that the most complex of species - humans - would be exempt from this collective wisdom? in fact - i wonder if our individual intelligence is a handicap in that regard - as our individual egos and sense of 'self' hinder our ability to see the larger picture.

    ants - lacking egos - are ONLY driven by instinct and collective intelligence - unquestioning.

    humans question and are so self absorbed that we are capable of disregarding our own collective intelligence - possess free choice (as the Genesis parable explains) - eat of the tree of knowledge -abandoning our instincts and collective wisdom as a species - and betraying millions of years of learned wisdom in the process.

    we destroy our environment - destroy each other - lie (the only species that can do that) - and become corrupted by our own desires.

    Dr David Ray Griffin describes these actions as demonic forces. the parable of the snake in paradise - in this sense - is an apt one - and we should perhaps not be so quick to discard the collective wisdom of some of these parable-based concepts.

    Posted 15 years ago #
15. emanuel
    Member

    Vic,

    Consciousness--to me and to the classical idealists--is not "awareness of self, awareness beyond momentary awareness." This is the materialist definition of consciousness. Idealists call this simply mind and memory, and it is a part of nature, whereas consciousness is the source of nature. It is pure awareness not conditioned or limited by memory, mind, senses, etc. When one meditates deeply (with enough practice) one can go beyond the mind and body, and have pure awareness. This awareness is experienced as existing "prior to" mind and body, such that if somebody came up to you during this state and shot you in the head and your body and mind died, you would not notice it. You--meaning the real you, the pure consciousness of you--would maintain your awareness.

    All the parts of us and our identity that make us unique individuals are said to be conditioned and limited, temporary and ephemeral. But there is a part of us (not really a "part" at all but the substratum or basis) that is pure consciousness, pure subjectivity, that is eternal, never was born and never will die. This consciousness inside each individual is said to be the same consciousness that is inside every other individual. It's like if two people were meditating deeply as described above, their consciousnesses would be merged as one, because in truth there is only One Consciousness. This Universal Consciousness is present in all of nature, and so the East does not limit "sentience" to animals, but describes levels of sentience to all forms of matter. Consciousness projects the phenomenal universe that we see, hear, touch, etc. We can "realize" this via deep meditation and/or other intense spiritual practices that focus on stopping the thought waves of the mind while simultaneously remaining concentrated and fully aware (not falling asleep in other words).

    Of course none of this can be proven, but this is no criticism of the thesis, because it is admittedly a purely subjective experience. One has to have a little trust or faith in order to undertake such rigorous practice. This is why--to me at least--the ethics of the teacher is so important. If somebody is going to tell me to give up all my desires and devote myself to Self-realization, they sure as hell better have done it themselves. They better not be asking me for money to show me how to meditate correctly, for example, or be living high on the hog, or having sex with their devotees, etc. Why should I trust someone telling me to "give it all up for God" (I hate the word too) if they haven't done so.

    So I have yet to meet someone who has, but I believe that this dude did it:

    http://sivanandadlshq.org/saints/siva.htm

    Emanuel

    Posted 15 years ago #
16. Durruti
    Member

    Some really great posts here by JohnA, Emanuel and Vic.

    My brain feels tired, and that can only be a good thing!

    :)

    One quote by JohnA in particular:

    "concepts like 'supreme being' get dumbed down into a cartoon definitions of the great old man with a white beard in the sky - while such concepts as 'collective conscious' get lost in the shuffle."

    ...bears repeating.

    I admire Dawkins for rubbishing fundamentalism, but he also advocates his own form of fundamentalism, equally foolish, or at least equally unsubstantiated. He erects a straw man when debating the issue of human spirituality, saying, "well, some people like to believe in a flying spaghetti monster". The intimation is that belief in something other mathematics is quite absurd. I disagree, for reasons I've pointed out, and for reasons that I'm not capable of expressing in mere words or numbers.

    The allusion to Mozart is also a good one, for a variety of reasons.

    Posted 15 years ago #
17. JohnA
    Member

    so are you telling me you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster?

    i feel sorry for you

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.