Topic: Health and Religion - page 65. (Read 210871 times)

These are baby-doll Southdowns, and yes, they’re exactly as cute as they look in this picture. We only have four today on our “farm”, as sheep have a knack for killing themselves in what would almost be comical fashion if it weren’t so sad. We keep them for their so-so wool, which we clean and card and spin and knit. It’s so-so wool because the Southdowns were bred for their meat, not their fleece, and I can’t bring myself to raise an animal for its meat. Well, I could definitely raise birds for meat. Or fish. But not a charismatic mammal like a baby-doll Southdown.

Here’s the thing I’ve learned about sheep over the years. They are never out of sight of each other, and their decision making is entirely driven by what they see happening to others, not to themselves. They are extremely intelligent in this other-regarding way. My sheep roam freely on the farm, and I never worry about them so long as they stay together, which they always do. But if I only count three in the flock, then I immediately go see what’s wrong. Because something is definitely wrong.

That’s the difference between a flock and a pack. A flock is a social structure designed to promote other-awareness. It has no goals, no coordinating purpose other than communication. A flock simply IS. A pack, on the other hand, is a social structure designed to harness self-aware animals in service to some goal requiring joint action — the raising of cubs, the hunting of meat, etc. Both the flock and the pack are extremely effective social structures, but they operate by entirely different logics.

We think we are wolves, living by the logic of the pack.

In truth we are sheep, living by the logic of the flock.

*  *  *

There’s no domesticated animal species that has had more of a reputational fall from grace than the sheep. To call someone a sheep today is just about the worst insult there is. To call someone a sheep is to call them stupid and — more pointedly — stupidly obedient and in thrall to some bad shepherd.

It wasn’t always this way. Jesus isn’t insulting you when He calls you a sheep. The point of all those Biblical allegories isn’t that sheep are stupidly obedient or easily led, but that the healthy life of a willful sheep requires a good shepherd.

Ask anyone who actually keeps sheep. Sheep are weird. Sheep are evolved to have a very different intelligence than humans. But sheep are not stupid. Sheep are not obedient. And sheep are definitely not easily led.

Of course, no one except a dilettante farmer like me keeps sheep today, so all of the Old Stories about sheep and shepherds have lost their punch. They’ve all been diminished through the modern lens of sheep-as-idiot-followers...

Sheep are evolved to have a specific type of intelligence which has the following hallmarks.

Enormous capacity for other-regarding behaviors. Sheep are unbelievably sensitive to what other sheep are doing and their emotional states. If another sheep is happy — i.e., it’s found a good source of food, which is the only thing that makes a sheep happy — then every other sheep in the flock is filled with jealousy (there’s really no other word for it) and will move in on that good thing. If another sheep is alarmed — which can be from almost anything, as bravery is not exactly a trait that tends to be naturally selected in a prey species — then every other sheep in the flock is immediately aware of what’s going on. Sometimes that means that they get alarmed, too. As often, though, it’s just an opportunity to keep going with your own grazing without worrying about the alarmed sheep bumping into your happy place.

Zero altruism and overwhelming selfishness. The most popular misconception about sheep is that they are obedient followers. It’s true that they’re not leaders. It’s true that they are incredibly sensitive to other sheep. But it’s also true that they are the most selfish mammal I’ve ever encountered. They don’t lead other sheep or form leadership structures like a pack because they don’t care about other sheep. Every sheep lives in a universe of One, which makes them just about the most non-obedient creature around.

The determination to pursue any behavior that meets Hallmark #1 and #2 to absurd ends, even unto death. My worst sheep suicide story? The first year we kept sheep, we thought it would make sense to set up a hay net in their pen, which keeps the hay off the ground and lets the sheep feed themselves by pulling hay through the very loose loops of the net. Turned out, though, that the loops were so loose that a determined sheep could put her entire head inside the net, and if one sheep could do that, then two sheep could do that. And given how the hay net was hung and how these sheep were sensing each other, they started to move clockwise in unison, each trying to get an advantage over the other, still with their heads stuck in the net. At which point the net starts to tighten. And tighten. And tighten. My daughter found them the next morning, having strangled each other to death, unable to stop gorging themselves or seeking an advantage from the behavior of others. The other sheep were crowded around, stepping around the dead bodies, pulling hay for themselves out of the net. That was a bad day.

In both markets and in politics, our human intelligences are being trained to be sheep intelligences. That doesn’t make us sheep in the modern vernacular.

We are not becoming docile, stupid, and blindly obedient. On the contrary, we are becoming sheep as the Old Stories understood sheep … intensely selfish, intensely intelligent (but only in an other-regarding way) and intensely dogmatic, willing to pursue a myopic behavior even unto death.
...
We need a lot more shame in the world. The loss of our sense of shame is, I think, the greatest loss of our modern world... to put it in sheep logic terms: the tragedy of the flock is that everything is instrumental, including our relationship to others. Including our relationship to ourselves.

Why do we need shame? Because with no sense of shame there is no sense of honor. There is no mercy. There is no charity. There is no forgiveness. There is no loyalty. There is no courage. There is no service. There is no Code. There are no ties that bind us as citizens, as fellow pack members seeking to achieve something bigger and more important than our ability to graze on as much grass as we can. Something like, you know, liberty and justice for all...

This is the Age of the High-Functioning Sociopath. This is the Age of Sheep Logic. We have to survive it, but we don’t have to succumb to it. How do we Resist?
...
We resist by changing the System from below, by carving out local spheres of action where we are relentlessly honorable and charitable, relentlessly un-sheeplike. We resist by Making America Good Again, one pack at a time, which is a hell of a lot harder than making America great ever was.
...

People believe in those things because they need to but there is not a single piece of evidence supporting heaven/god. ''On the contrary many people know there is a higher meaning and purpose'' They think they know but it doesn't mean they do. They think the purpose is to go to heaven but they never think what is the purpose once you are in heaven or what is the purpose once you are reincarnated. It doesn't seem to me that there could ever be a good purpose because what happens once you reach it? Perhaps we can't understand it now because our brain is not capable of understanding but imagining gods is not going to do anyone any good.

It's not just doctors who should be preaching the importance of giving up smoking, imams and priests can also get involved, a Christchurch conference has heard.

This was because they often had greater influence over religious followers, Dr Muhammad Aziz Rahman from Australia's La Trobe University told the Public Health Association event.

Pointing to how smoking is "haram" or forbidden in Islam, he said religious messages could work hand-in-hand with scientific facts.

"Quitting smoking should be encouraged in any way possible, and religion can also be a motivating factor," he said.

Dr Rahman told how in 2013 he met with the imam at one of Melbourne's largest mosques and asked him if he could remind his 2000 attendees Islam forbids addiction.

The Imam also spoke during weekly meetings about how strong odours left on the body after smoking can interfere with the prayers of non-smokers during prayer session.

These were coupled with science-based handouts explaining the health benefits of quitting.

Dr Rahman said messages, such as "If health warnings don't motivate you to quit, will the fear of Allah?", really captured the attention of those attending the mosque.

He said similar initiatives could be used in other faith groups or religious communities and could target health issues, such as the importance of breastfeeding or preventing sexually transmitted diseases.

"This is a complementary activity to support existing public health programmes," Dr Rahman said.

People believe in those things because they need to but there is not a single piece of evidence supporting heaven/god. ''On the contrary many people know there is a higher meaning and purpose'' They think they know but it doesn't mean they do. They think the purpose is to go to heaven but they never think what is the purpose once you are in heaven or what is the purpose once you are reincarnated. It doesn't seem to me that there could ever be a good purpose because what happens once you reach it? Perhaps we can't understand it now because our brain is not capable of understanding but imagining gods is not going to do anyone any good.

On the contrary many people know there is a higher meaning and purpose. It is only those who embrace the assumptions of modern nihilism or those who have not truly explored the foundations of their knowledge that suffer from this deficiency.

You seem to have chosen certain nihilistic foundational principles and/or have structured your belief system as one would if those principles were true which is identical in consequence.

I don't claim to have knowledge of heaven but I would agree that if one cannot find meaning and purpose in a finite worldly existence then the prospect of an infinite existence becomes something to be feared rather then celebrated.

As for my personal opinion here it is:

Quit quoting stuff, do you not have an opinion?

''However, you should know that without higher meaning and purpose science itself becomes corrupt over time and and ultimately dies. '' Bullshit. First of all, no one knows if there is a higher meaning or purpose, as I said, heaven would still have no meaning or purpose. We are where we are thanks to science and a few very smart people. Religion doesn't help, it's useless.

At its most pure and fundamental level knowledge is faith and faith is knowledge.

You have rejected faith and are walking in search of 'light' to dispel darkness from the world. Are you certain you have not made a wrong turn and are instead walking deeper into shadow?

The so called Scientist are always changing their minds through their research, one time they said that the consumption of meat is not good, another time they said that not consuming meat is bad for one's health, they constantly change their opinion with every experiment or research that they make.

Islam and the holy book is the way through which we can improve our lives. Many of foreigner doctors are practicing the ways through which the holy book provide us guidance for good health. For example if we look at the prayer when a human being put his/her head on the ground the blood flow reach at the upper part of the body which is neck and brain in the head.

Science is great. I have nothing against science. However, you should know that without higher meaning and purpose science itself becomes corrupt over time and and ultimately dies.

Here are some excerpts from a book on this topic that drives this point home.

Not even trying: the corruption of real science
http://corruption-of-science.blogspot.com/2013/07/not-even-trying-corruption-of-real.html?m=1

I will stick to science. So far it seems like there is indeed no purpose but who knows, religious people are desperate in trying to find meaning, heaven would still be pointless and will still have no purpose. When you are in heaven, what's your purpose? My assumption is not purely based on faith, it is based on evidence and I agree that science still has a lot more to do.

Briefly, the argument of this book is that real science is dead, and the main reason is that professional researchers are not even trying to seek the truth and speak the truth; and the reason for this is that professional ‘scientists’ no longer believe in the truth - no longer believe that there is an eternal unchanging reality beyond human wishes and organization which they have a duty to seek and proclaim to the best of their (naturally limited) abilities. Hence the vast structures of personnel and resources that constitute modern ‘science’ are not real science but instead merely a professional research bureaucracy, thus fake or pseudo-science; regulated by peer review (that is, committee opinion) rather than the search-for and service-to reality...


A few decades ago one could assume that published work was honest and competent (except in specific cases); now one must assume that published work is dishonest and incompetent (except in specific cases).
A few decades ago one could assume that high status (“successful”) scientists were honest and competent (except in specific cases); now one must assume that famous and powerful scientists are dishonest and incompetent (except in specific cases).
*
Overall it seems that things have gone backwards, and not just slightly.
Yet research activity (personnel, funding, publishing, communicating) have all increased exponentially – doubling in volume every 15 or so years (doubling every decade in medical research. And China has exploded with research activity in the past 10 years).
So there has been massive expansion of inputs with first stagnation then decline of outputs. Something has gone terribly wrong: not just slightly wrong, but terribly wrong.
...
How did we get from useful and real science to useless research bureaucracies generating hype and spin for the public relations industry?
Anyone who has been a scientist for more than 20 years will realize that there has been a progressive, significant and indeed qualitative decline in the honesty of communications between scientists, between scientists and their employing institutions, and between scientists and their institutions and the outside world.
In a nutshell – science has gone from being basically honest to basically dishonest (and in the process gone from being real science to professional research).
...
Scientists are usually too cautious and timid to risk telling outright lies about important things, or to invent and emphasize fake data; but instead they push the envelope of exaggeration, selectivity and distortion as far as possible. And tolerance for this kind of untruthfulness has greatly increased over recent years.
So it is now routine, normal, indeed required behaviour for scientists deliberately to exaggerate, to ‘hype’ the significance of their status and performance, and ‘spin’ the importance of their research.
...

Furthermore, it is entirely normal and unremarkable for ordinary ‘scientists’ to spend their entire professional life doing work they know in their hearts to be trivial or bogus – preferring that which promotes their career over that which has the best chance of advancing science.
...
Indeed, senior scientists in the best places are clever, hard-working and intelligent enough rapidly to become expert at hyping mundane research to create a misleading impression of revolutionary importance. Far from resisting, or fighting, the degradation of science; the senior researchers at the ‘best’ places have led (indeed driven) their subordinates into a morass of corruption..
It is a kind of Gresham’s Law at work; when dishonest research is treated as if it were real science; then bad research drives out the good.

The fact that we are here having this conversation right now leads by logical necessity to a first cause that led to this moment.

What one believes about the nature of that first cause is an assumption or an act of faith. If you assume its all random chance without higher purpose then you have chosen your assumption and thus your religion. It is a belief system that shapes one's view of the universe and your place in it. It also rest ultimately on a "truth" that is not proven but chosen. Not all religions believe in God.

I have nothing against people who embrace this worldview. I would only point to multiple studies highlighting the harmful effects of this choice and ask you voluntary embrace a potentially toxic worldview when their are superior alternatives?

 

''God ultimately is beyond science.'' Yeah yeah I heard that many times, so is the other thousands of gods. What is the logic that leads to the conclusion that god is real? That same logic could lead to all kind of different gods not to mention to the other hundreds of possibilities (We live in a computer simulation, aliens from another dimension created this universe, this universe creates and destroys itself in a loop, some other force/process created the universe, etc etc)

There is no evidence for any god just like there is no evidence aliens did, quit the bullshit.

God ultimately is beyond science. Knowledge of the infinite lies at a deeper more fundamental level.

All knowledge traces back ultimately to apriori truth.

If you deny the infinite you  must choose different typically nihilistic apriori. These assumptions in turn warp and fundamentally alter ones relationship with the universe.

The only dishonesty I have seen is a refusal to follow logic to its rational conclusion. Many people who deny God seem to exhibit this dishonesty of self settling into a childlike refusal to think following delivery of some smug barb about fairytales or spaghetti monsters.

It is my opinion that rejection of God is ultimately not compatible with sustained existence in homo sapiens on a multigenerational timeline.

Proverbs 14:27
The fear of the LORD is a fountain of life, turning a person from the snares of death.

Metaphysics is the most important thing in the modern world. But for most modern people metaphysics is gibberish - even worse, metaphysics is boring and irrelevant gibberish...

The usual attitude in English society, as in The West generally, is that the ultimate explanation for everything is a matter of science - of physics, chemistry and biology. It is obvious to everybody that everything began with some kind of big bang as described by physics; with the formation of the stars, solar system, and earth; then chemistry kicked-in until biology emerged; and biology led to plants, animals, intelligence, consciousness then eventually Man - who then developed with the emergence of society, into each of us here and now...

On that basis, there isn't any purpose or meaning to life; and our strivings and relationships are consequences of undirected chance plus past evolutionary pressures. There isn't anything to be said about why we are here, or what we 'ought' to do. Things just are as they are; and no conclusions can be drawn about anything.

Hence the pervasive nihilism of modernity, and the consequent undercurrent of despair. Our dissatisfaction with the pointless futility of everything can be explained, but never gratified.

But, we need to be clear that the above scenario is not a discovery but an assumption. The physics, chemistry, biology explanation did not come from science; instead modern science came from that explanation. Modern science operates within the metaphysical assumption that only modern science is real - nothing else exists.

Science cannot discover any meaning or purpose - neither can science disprove the reality of meaning and purpose; because meaning and purpose are excluded from science by its founding assumptions.

For example, there is no point in trying to claim that random chance plus Natural Selection is insufficient to explain the full range of observed phenomena; because these are the only permissible explanations within modern biology. Anything not currently understood on the basis of randomness and selection is merely something for which the evidence is not yet available.  

Upon such foundations are constructed the entire structure of the modern world - in other words, the modern world in all its vast complexity has no foundations. None At All.

It is this Big Secret which is denied and defended by the vast apparatus of distractions and lies which form modern society and culture. The Big Secret is that there is nothing and no reason and no point to anything...

The most important first step in the modern world is to reveal modern metaphysical assumptions as being assumptions.

That might be easy, if it was acknowledged that there are metaphysical assumptions, but 150 years of philosophical discussion has concluded that the distinguishing feature of modern 'scientific' thought is that it has no metaphysical assumptions - but that it is empirical and purely evidence-based. Having metaphysics is regarded as obsolete religious obfuscation - modern Man is too hard-nosed to be 'fooled' by metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

So modern opinion denies the validity of metaphysical discussion: modern opinion denies that it has any fundamental assumptions at all - it is merely practical, merely trying to 'make life better', just 'getting on with the job' instead of wasting time and confusing or manipulating people with airy-fairy nonsense about 'metaphysics'.

This is why the modern predicament has proved so difficult to solve. The problem is buried at the foundation, but the conventional wisdom is that there are no foundations.

If metaphysical assumptions were acknowledged as real and inevitable, then we would have a good chance of changing them. But since they are regarded as imaginary - then we seem to be stuck with modern metaphysics.

And modern metaphysics is killing us - but, more importantly, damning us.

...Is a metaphysical one - not a matter of 'evidence'. And that insight (metaphysics not evidence) is the first step.

The situation is that Life is a mixed-picture: the decision is whether Life is validated by its best moments or times; or destroyed by its worst.

As I said, evidence does not help - the question is not quantitative. This is a matter of primary assumption.

And the question is not answerable in isolation - Life can only be validated if Life has 'meaning'; and the nature of validation depends on the nature of that meaning.

On the other hand, if you have already accepted that life has no meaning - is merely determined, or random - then you have already made your Big Decision. (Whether implicitly or explicitly) your basic assumptions ensure that for you Life is defined by its worst aspects - indeed the single, most extreme worst-of-Life is the truth-of-Life (both for individuals, and en masse).

Nothing can be done for you - because any possible Good will be negated by One Bad Thing - even when that Bad is merely the evanescence of Good.

On the other hand; if you understand, and live-by, the conviction that the best of Life is the truth of life (despite that this cannot be continuous) - then you have indomitable strength, assurance, and hope.