Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> 
>>  It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
> 
> No, really, it doesn't.  At least not to me.

Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:09:53 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> 
>>>  It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
>> 
>> No, really, it doesn't.  At least not to me.
> 
> Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?

I couldn't possibly speak to all religions.  Some involve meditation, 
which would be very roughly analogous.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>   Defining "species" based on the decisions made by groups of living beings
> (even if those decisions are instinctive) is just silly.

Here's my problem with that:

By this very statement, the fruitflies are different species. It's simply 
the decisions made by a group of *humans* that determines whether the fruit 
flies reproduce. They're not going to do it on their own. The only way it 
would happen is if humans decided to pick up teeny tiny scalpels and make it 
happen.

And isn't instinct driven by genetics? How can you say genetically-dictated 
behavior doesn't contribute to two creatures being different species, but 
then say a species in theory can be determined simply by looking at the 
genetics?

Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call 
them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of 
those two to term without the genetics of human beings. Namely, the genetics 
of human beings that gave us hands and brains big enough to invent 
artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization and artificial wombs. I'd 
argue that if trying to bring a child to term kills the mother and the child 
before the child is born, the two creatures are a different species.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> And isn't instinct driven by genetics? How can you say genetically-dictated 
> behavior doesn't contribute to two creatures being different species, but 
> then say a species in theory can be determined simply by looking at the 
> genetics?

  Genetically-dictated behavior may end up causing (true) speciation over
time (if it keeps the two groups genetically separate long enough). However,
by which definition can you say that they are *already* different species
when they are still fully capable of interbreeding?

> Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call 
> them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of 
> those two to term without the genetics of human beings.

  You could as well argue that dog races which differ greatly in size are
of different species. However, they are not considered such. Even if one
dog race weights a hundred times more than another, they are still part
of the same species.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> by which definition can you say that they are *already* different species
> when they are still fully capable of interbreeding?

Who says they are, if they won't?  I already supplied my definition. :-)

>> Imagine if a whale and a dolphin were genetically compatible. I'd still call 
>> them separate species, because it would be impossible to bring a cross of 
>> those two to term without the genetics of human beings.
> 
>   You could as well argue that dog races which differ greatly in size are
> of different species. However, they are not considered such. Even if one
> dog race weights a hundred times more than another, they are still part
> of the same species.

I'm just trying to figure out what your definition might be.  I think 
different dog races are the same species by my definition, while the whale 
and dolphin would not be by my definition. So your analogy fails in that 
respect.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On 1/17/2011 10:50 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:09:53 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:07:50 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>
>>>>   It means, "We would like to encourage you to do
>>>> something specifically religious, not not just religious, but specific
>>>> to a specific 'set' of religions, since some don't."
>>>
>>> No, really, it doesn't.  At least not to me.
>>
>> Do all religions have such thing as "prayer"?
>
> I couldn't possibly speak to all religions.  Some involve meditation,
> which would be very roughly analogous.
>
> Jim
The effects are certainly analogous, based on study of the effects. A 
fact that is quite funny since you don't have to "meditate" *at* anyone 
specific to get the result, or about anything specific, etc., so anyone 
can do it, where prayer is supposedly "specific" to the deity(ies) in 
questions.

That said, no, not all religions use either. Though, the only obvious 
one I can think of would be Scientology. In principle, performance of a 
ritual, whether it involves something like prayer or not, would qualify 
as religious, if directed at connecting to/effecting supernatural 
forces. Prayer is simply the most common one for the two "recognized" 
religions when ever this stuff comes up (i.e. Christians and Jews), may 
be allowed for something like Muslims, if they bother to include them, 
and isn't, technically, part of the third one they tend to mention, to 
be "inclusive" - Buddhism. However, this is likely because 90% of the 
people talking about religions in this context, don't know a bloody damn 
thing about the religion, other than its been used as a "safe" one to 
pick when talking about their "inclusiveness" for so long that its 
almost Pavlovian to include it.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:29:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> In principle, performance of a
> ritual, whether it involves something like prayer or not, would qualify
> as religious, if directed at connecting to/effecting supernatural
> forces.

I think pretty much everyone follows rituals of some sort, regardless of 
whether they admit to it or not.

Is it more or less religious, for example, to pray to a god, than it is 
to wear a red shirt to a ballgame because the last time you went to a 
ballgame wearing a red shirt, your team won?

Religion and superstition are very closely related in a lot of ways - so 
much so that some would say they're the same.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/19/2011 11:38 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2011 19:29:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> In principle, performance of a
>> ritual, whether it involves something like prayer or not, would qualify
>> as religious, if directed at connecting to/effecting supernatural
>> forces.
>
> I think pretty much everyone follows rituals of some sort, regardless of
> whether they admit to it or not.
>
> Is it more or less religious, for example, to pray to a god, than it is
> to wear a red shirt to a ballgame because the last time you went to a
> ballgame wearing a red shirt, your team won?
>
> Religion and superstition are very closely related in a lot of ways - so
> much so that some would say they're the same.
>
> Jim
Why hedge the matter and say "some would say". There is hardly any 
difference at all between someone ringing a bell, to scare off evil Kami 
at the new year, or someone putting on the same shirt they did the last 
time their team won. The only real difference is that one is followed by 
a lot of people, the other, just by one. Its still the same thing. The 
only thing making Prayer different is that it often includes a process 
which "can" sometimes trigger the same effects as meditation, where as 
ringing a magic bell, or wearing a particular shirt, doesn't.

Mind, this wouldn't stop some people arguing that this was evidence of 
something "different" going on, then insisting that "different" means 
"spooks and 2,000 year old zombies".

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 19 Jan 2011 20:28:07 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say". 

Because while you believe there is no difference, some believe there is.  
Who am I to say they're (or you're, or - for that matter - I'm) wrong?

> There is hardly any
> difference at all between someone ringing a bell, to scare off evil Kami
> at the new year, or someone putting on the same shirt they did the last
> time their team won. The only real difference is that one is followed by
> a lot of people, the other, just by one. Its still the same thing. The
> only thing making Prayer different is that it often includes a process
> which "can" sometimes trigger the same effects as meditation, where as
> ringing a magic bell, or wearing a particular shirt, doesn't.

Depends on the individual.  In both cases one can make the argument that 
correlation does not imply causation.  So what?

> Mind, this wouldn't stop some people arguing that this was evidence of
> something "different" going on, then insisting that "different" means
> "spooks and 2,000 year old zombies".

That doesn't mean there's a need to be offensive to those who take 
comfort in wearing the red shirt to the basketball game, or to those who 
take comfort in saying a prayer to a deity, real or not.

Similarly, I have on occasion used Tarot cards to help clarify my 
thinking on topics.  In my opinion, one has to read the cards 
themselves.  Why?  Because there's absolutely nothing mystical about them 
(or about astrology, for that matter).  They're nothing more than systems 
to help one frame thinking about something.

I haven't had to use that particular method to identify my own 
motivations on something (or to help me think rationally about a decision 
I was about to make) for quite some time.

Some people who read Tarot cards (especially for other people) look at 
the results and say "it's mysticism" because the results are often what 
people want.

But the principle at work, I think, really is confirmation bias.

Last time I seriously used the cards was deciding whether or not to take 
a new job.  I was having trouble focusing on what was important for me 
and what was important for my family.  We talked about it and went back 
and forth, and I decided that I'd use a system to help me frame my 
thoughts.

Now, ultimately, I knew I wanted to take the new job.  I knew it was a 
good decision, but I had some doubts.

So I put the cards down in a prescribed pattern where every single card 
has a specific meaning based on where it is.  And I referred to an 
interpretation of the individual cards' meanings that helped me organize 
my thoughts.

And after I used that technique to clarify my thinking and what I wanted 
out of a new job, I accepted the offer.

Nothing mystical about it at all.  I used a system to identify what I 
wanted and to identify/weigh the pros and cons before making a decision.

Now, if someone decides to say a prayer to a deity in order to make a 
decision and as a result of framing their thoughts for this deity 
(whether it exists or not is immaterial), is able to make a clear 
decision.

Some call that divine intervention.  You and I call it applying reason.  
In either case, a decision is reached and if it goes well, whomever 
credit goes to, a positive result is reached.

It's really no different than what I used to do when faced with a 
particularly challenging IT problem - I'd call my wife.  I found that in 
explaining the problem to her, I could often find the solution, but the 
act of trying to explain it to someone who's not an IT professional 
really helped me understand the issue better.

So there again, I don't think it's necessary to be offensive to those who 
are happy to believe that some supernatural power intervened - whether 
that's the case or not.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Why hedge the matter and say "some would say". There is hardly any 
> difference at all 

There's actually a fairly big difference between ritual and superstition, 
even if the ritual is only practiced by one person.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message