Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Reason for Religion


Jor-el

Recommended Posts

Warm and fuzzies!!!!!   Warm and fuzzies!!!!   :wub:  :D   

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
8 hours ago, eight bits said:

The good news for Jor-el is that I won't post a link to the Beach Boys' California Girls video.

 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha good one Paul!!!!!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

I'm sixty-two, so you'll always be jailbait to me.

Ha ha ha ha ha :wub:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Nah, don't care for my Beach Boys, second hand. As for David Lee Roth, he can go ahead and jump.

You might like Katy Perry's California Gurls, Hammer. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sherapy said:

You might like Katy Perry's California Gurls, Hammer. 

Katy Perry's Ok as far as manufactured Divas go. All her stuff has high production values. I'm more fond of Britney Spears and Jennifer Page. It's just a little crush, I suppose. My sir name is Gaelic for yellow hair so I have blonde in the blood.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sherapy said:

You might like Katy Perry's California Gurls, Hammer. 

Funny, you mentioned her's. I was even thinking of posting that video of that song as well. ;)  :D  

Anyone up for a bit of Snoop Dogg?

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎30‎-‎03‎-‎2017 at 0:27 AM, eight bits said:

Hello, Jor-el

Because he made the case succinctly for a non-religious origin of the golden rule, and of some more specific familiar moral precepts as well.

That could well be.

I understand that you disagree with Hitchens' position, but rebuttal does have something to add to the discussion.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that social evolution and biological evolution have at least this much in common: lots of trial and error.

Anyway, best wishes to Professor Dunbar in testing his hypothesis. Thanks for the link.

Hi eight bits,

Yes I wouldn't be surprised as well, that's why we have a ton of junk DNA around just waiting for the right conditions to be activated... yet it is still there within us, it can't be scrubbed. I see religion in much the same way.

You can't remove that junk DNA and still consider yourself human. In much the same way, we would lose a part of ourselves if the same was done with religion despite what many have said on the subject, and John Lennon's "Imagine" as well.

It is essentially the ying that balances the yang, remove the one and the other falls apart as well.

Edited by Jor-el
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎30‎-‎03‎-‎2017 at 4:42 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Religion, music, and laughter. 

giphy.gif

So, there are two more things other than religion that's part of it. Well, I mean that honestly, that's very interesting. I feel, that though, I see you really putting a lot of thought provoking behaviors into the mix, I still feel that it's based largely on the natural element that comes from each and every one of us. Meaning again, it's natural. Now, I was raised secular, and I do not have any experience in the the mainstream religions, but if you know me, I'm a spiritualist and deeply New Age New Agey. (yeah, weird) So, when we're dealing with belief, I do have that. Now, adding music and laughter, I pretty much have a deep profound interest and experiences in that. ;) I love music, and humor, well, can't live without that. But, that is something I see as a natural thing too. We can't force ourselves to laugh. (well, it would sound fake, would it not?) And we all have a different levels of sense of humors. I think the same goes for music too. We all have a favorite genres. So, if that is part of the ingredients of religion being based in forming the 'Golden Rule', than it would have to boiled down to a certain type of music and a particular sense of humor. 

Actually, I am wondering how it really does work, adding music and laughter as part of it. There is a big part of me, that just cannot see it. 

Ok, here's something here that doesn't mesh here. Checking out the link, there's discussing about having the findings that religion keeps animals from being savage, but to me, it doesn't really show that. ( Although, fascinating thought bringing up how animals keep themselves in check with other. ) Actually, there has been various viral videos of animals helping each other out. Momma dogs adopting orphan chicks, or momma cats taking in lost puppies and loving them just like the kittens in the litter. ( yeah, it's them videos I post and share on my facebook page. There's a poster or two here that knows that. ;) ) 

But, it's telling me, it's more natural than religion. How does a religion keep animals from hurting each other and keeping them in check?

When introducing and discussing on a message board, you are getting posters from all over and with different beliefs, religions, and non-religion paths. So, not everyone believes what you believe. And, the thing is, when something is not proven objectively, it's not something evidential to be taken as truth. If there is conclusive historical evidence that it hasn't always existence, where is that? I have always have caught that it has been around earlier than that. I did a post about this a couple of posts back. (I am curious to your point of view on that.) But, here's the link again to show it's not always from religion: 

Right here.

I cannot see empathy as a learned response. Are you saying, we learn how to feel? Well, that doesn't make sense to me. We feel because something happened. And that probably would tie in to your point about the New York blackout you linked to. That's more of a causation, really. Frankly, when situations happen, it gets tougher to handle. Granted, one must take a breather, or feel grateful it isn't worse. Frankly, got that in a dose back in the fall of 2011 when my area was hit from a winter storm in 2011 . We lost power for eleven days, and things were getting tough. Your tolerant rate level goes down. It take more than 'the golden rule' to help out. It takes knowing the pain and helping out. That had happened in various levels, and that's because others have been there. So, it's really experience that helps. 

It's because each of them, are a couple of characteristics that are bigoted against. A lot of the times, it's religion that feeds into that. The 'Imagine' gives added meaning to imagining something other than what one conforms to believing from what they are use to, (and probably being stagnant to) and seeing a whole new prospect in actually understanding others, not hating them because you're told to do so by a belief or religion. That is why their characteristics and the song itself is very important. It's making you think, that everyone one of us are being hurt because of old ideals and new ones say, we are all in this together. Being a woman, is a big deal, when there is still obstacles in having us being equal. Being Jewish in areas where there has been crimes against them. Being black can still get you bigoted at. And of course, being gay, we have heard and seen the crimes against them. The thing is, WE SHOULDN'T BEING DOING THAT WE ARE ALL HUMAN!!! And we are all from different religions and no religions. 

 

The link said nothing about animals, could you point that out to me, I've looked and didn't find it.

Religion, music, and laughter are elements that allowed humanity to flourish and to evolve the complexity of thought and social interaction that kept us in equilibrium with each other. That is what the article states.

The point you are making regarding conclusive historical evidence is a little one sided here. Any historian, will tell you that a lot of things are perfectly assumed until evidence shows us the contrary.

The link you provided about the golden rule was huge and I honestly just read the highlights, but I did catch that religion played a central part in its spread to the core of human thinking in most cultures. Maybe you could be more specific in the criticism you are trying to make so that I can address it more completely.

Regarding empathy. I think I'll have to repeat something I said earlier. We are all born with the capacity for empathy. No exceptions. We all get a portion of it. What we do with it after we are born is another matter. Either the feeling is encouraged and used and becomes a part of our life or the very opposite happens and the feeling is discouraged and completely disappears as we grow older. That is why we have some who are empaths to a very high degree and others who become sociopaths for the very same reasons.

So what we have is the capacity to feel empathy, but that capacity either increases or decreases over time depending on the stimulate we receive as we grow up. So that is why it is a learned response. You may not like this position or agree with it, but it is an expression of the facts.

The society we are in and the people who surround us, helps this along or actually prevents empathy in many people. There are people out there (and not a few) who cannot even relate to the song Imagine and the reasons for that are obvious when we analyze their environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jor-el

Are we rebooting? You answered that one back at your #501.

Anyway, this sounds interesting (I don't know much about junk DNA, sorry),

Quote

 

You can't remove ...[junk DNA]... we would lose a part of ourselves if the same was done with religion despite what many have said on the subject, and John Lennon's "Imagine" as well.

It is essentially the ying that balances the yang, remove the one and the other falls apart as well.

 

IRL, I don't do anything "religious," but I believe that I do other things that provide for me what religion provides for the religious. I wouldn't be surprised that if I stopped doing those things, I'd "fall apart" (of course, I will eventually anyway, because of that entropy thing we started out the thread out with).

Since we were talking about Hitch, you might find this interview interesting:

https://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/2009/12/17/christopher-hitchens

He plainly had something balancing the rest of him, but equally plainly, that something wasn't religion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎30‎-‎03‎-‎2017 at 5:03 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

For me, religion is something that holds belief for others. To me, it goes hand in hand. I don't know, if you think religion has an objective truth to it, because if it did, then it wouldn't be a religion anymore. It would be truth and called something else. 

Religion is the cup that holds belief. As I said just now. I can see, you're trying to put a technical and evidential point of view to it, but I don't think you can. Religion is something that caters to belief. Not, science, but belief. If you boil it down to defitions: 

You see, that subjective beliefs is what holds it up. Not science, belief. You may seem to think you can look at it in a technical and non-belief way, and I guess someone can do that. But, I don't think you can get everyone to see it that way, because it cannot be objectively done. To have that be done, you really have to have evidence that everyone sees. 

Are you sure, it's not your beliefs? It appears to be very subjective. 

You're being clinical, but about a subject that falls opposite to science. Clinical and science is something that proves itself by evidence that can be seen by everyone in an objective manner. How can you go about showing you're being clinical about it, when you can't prove it as objective? 

You know, one part of me thinks that is innovative, trying to be clinical about it, but I have a feeling that is going to be a very big struggle for you in achieving what you want to achieve. Getting everyone to see what you do. That is like taking someone into a rumored haunted house and expecting them to see a ghost right from the start. 

Uh, these are fiction books, do you realize that? Here

Not that I'm not hot in the idea of getting a good dose of my own thought provoking ideas from historical and other such fiction books. But in the end, it's still fiction. If you're trying to use this as a source of what you are trying to prove, it won't do you any good, because it's still fiction work. Plus, pushing others to read something that they have to purchase to show what you are trying to prove, is not a good idea to do. I don't think anyone will do it, go through the trouble and spending the money. 

And again, this is fiction you are talking about. I'm a bookseller, and I'm aware of this. Plus, I think I have a couple of Stephen Baxter books in my home. Somewhere.......I think. 

Are you sure about that? ;) 

It seems to me, that what you posted ( though good work on this, I can see you did work hard for this and getting all of the various religions and such in there ) but it looks like it's all boiled down to a philosophy than religion. Plus, I think you get the idea how it's looks to me, mostly so, since I looked at this a certain way from a particular post I did. It's post# 440 if you're wondering. :)  :D   

 

No, religion is a term we apply to a system of belief, irrespective of whether one hold those beliefs or not. If you speak about religion you can speak of it in one of two different ways, either as one who sees it from the outside its system, or someone who sees it from within the system.

You hold religious views yourself even if you merely designate them with something softer like "spiritualist". Can one deny that you cannot look at religion objectively because of this?

Basically if someone did say that, you would have every right to call them some interesting names because they would be denying you the capacity to think objectively and rationally, just because you hold some interesting beliefs.

Let's look at this another way... you are a bookseller, thus I bet you have a your store set out in one of two ways... either you use the Dewy Decimal classification system or you have it classified by Themes. So you would have a section on religion.

Now where would you place a book by a sociologist who wrote about religion?

In my view, everyone has the capacity to see subjects outside of their interest fields in objective ways and the same can be said for those who belong to those fields themselves. It depends on what you are trying to do with the subject.

Now, for that comment regarding fiction books.... ;)

I am absolutely shocked that you are shocked that I would post a book that is fiction, and science fiction no less, as a source!!!

The thing is that it is the second one I posted on this very thread. The other was called Nightfall by Isaac Asimov‎ and ‎Robert Silverberg.

Why is it a shock that I would post such books as sources?

Because everybody and I mean EVERYBODY knows that Science fiction is not fantasy. It is in fact a theme that studies mankind in extreme settings. It is the source of discussion for most leading edge themes that haven't even entered the social awareness of most human beings. It is the cornerstone of many of the major advancements we now take for granted.

Yes, it is fiction, but it is a lot more than that. In a way, it is like a prophecy, a showing of the way for humanity. Of all the genres, it is the one that has most contributed over the last two centuries for human analysis and advancement in nearly all areas of human endeavor.

http://www.unsolicitedpress.com/the-buzz/science-fictions-influences-on-modern-society

The reason for the two books I posted is because they show concepts that profoundly advance in one way or another the themes I brought into discussion. In other words, we can call them proof of concept essays.

Like I said at the very beginning of this thread, some people will immediately get what I'm saying, others will never get it, even if we spent 100 pages discussing it.

 

Edited by Jor-el
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Jor-el

Are we rebooting? You answered that one back at your #501.

Anyway, this sounds interesting (I don't know much about junk DNA, sorry),

IRL, I don't do anything "religious," but I believe that I do other things that provide for me what religion provides for the religious. I wouldn't be surprised that if I stopped doing those things, I'd "fall apart" (of course, I will eventually anyway, because of that entropy thing we started out the thread out with).

Since we were talking about Hitch, you might find this interview interesting:

https://www.pdxmonthly.com/articles/2009/12/17/christopher-hitchens

He plainly had something balancing the rest of him, but equally plainly, that something wasn't religion.

Nah, not rebooting, just decided to add a thought here that I found relevant after rereading your post. I'll certainly take look at your link at leisure, I always found his words interesting.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jor-el said:

The link said nothing about animals, could you point that out to me, I've looked and didn't find it.

Actually, it was a project that the scientist mentioned in the article, did years back. Apparently, he's famous or known for that and that was brought up. It's at the beginning of the link/article. 

Quote

Religion, music, and laughter are elements that allowed humanity to flourish and to evolve the complexity of thought and social interaction that kept us in equilibrium with each other. That is what the article states.

 

Yes, it states that, but I don't see how they explain as to how in great detail. Just saying that it does. 

4 hours ago, Jor-el said:

he point you are making regarding conclusive historical evidence is a little one sided here. Any historian, will tell you that a lot of things are perfectly assumed until evidence shows us the contrary.

There is a difference between assumptions and evidence. It's all in how one shows something to be true. The 'perfect assumptions'' are the first step. I feel, if I'm going to find truth in something, the assumptions would have to lead into them actually showing truth through evidence. 

Quote

The link you provided about the golden rule was huge and I honestly just read the highlights, but I did catch that religion played a central part in its spread to the core of human thinking in most cultures. Maybe you could be more specific in the criticism you are trying to make so that I can address it more completely.

Well, I find that ironic. Considering how you lecture me about reading everything before making comments. I think you'll notice in the link, if you read a little more, it's not just religion. There are other instances, that are not religious, that have been known to born good intentions. 

Quote

Regarding empathy. I think I'll have to repeat something I said earlier. We are all born with the capacity for empathy. No exceptions. We all get a portion of it. What we do with it after we are born is another matter. Either the feeling is encouraged and used and becomes a part of our life or the very opposite happens and the feeling is discouraged and completely disappears as we grow older. That is why we have some who are empaths to a very high degree and others who become sociopaths for the very same reasons.

You see, there is where I think it's not understood properly. ( or at least, the manner of what goes on with humans and their feelings and their behaviors through out their lives. ) I have noticed, that when 'feelings' are discouraged, and new feelings not honestly felt, are forced, that causes damage to the psyche. Empaths are those who are naturally very sensitive. I have always felt, sociopaths are those that come by that due to damage to the psyche. 

*I think what is the thing that is done, (and done in a more healthy manner) is encouraging behaviors. Yes, we are born with individual set of empathy, and of course, feelings. It's understanding those feelings, and realizing what is the best behavior to work with, either with the feeling, or despite it. I find it quite often, that we learn about what is good behavior and bad behavior, when the consequences from them happens and teaches us. 

Quote

So what we have is the capacity to feel empathy, but that capacity either increases or decreases over time depending on the stimulate we receive as we grow up. So that is why it is a learned response. You may not like this position or agree with it, but it is an expression of the facts.

How is it an expression of the facts? How is that fact? It's not that I don't like it, it's that it's how I have learned through out life, as observing it. Look at this site.  It shows how it's natural. I see it as not teaching it, but learning to read it and cultivating it. 

From the main point: 

Quote

The term “empathy” is used to describe a wide range of experiences. Emotion researchers generally define empathy as the ability to sense other people’s emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feeling.

And that it is more so something we already have. 

 

Quote

Empathy seems to have deep roots in our brains and bodies, and in our evolutionary history. Elementary forms of empathy have been observed in our primate relatives, in dogs, and even in rats. Empathy has been associated with two different pathways in the brain, and scientists have speculated that some aspects of empathy can be traced to mirror neurons, cells in the brain that fire when we observe someone else perform an action in much the same way that they would fire if we performed that action ourselves. Research has also uncovered evidence of a genetic basis to empathy, though studies suggest that people can enhance (or restrict) their natural empathic abilities.

It's cultivating it, getting more from something already there. 

 

Quote

he society we are in and the people who surround us, helps this along or actually prevents empathy in many people. There are people out there (and not a few) who cannot even relate to the song Imagine and the reasons for that are obvious when we analyze their environment.

I, again, don't think you are understanding my point. Empathy is not something that is the message of the song, 'Imagine'. That's sympathy. 

 

4 hours ago, Jor-el said:

No, religion is a term we apply to a system of belief, irrespective of whether one hold those beliefs or not. If you speak about religion you can speak of it in one of two different ways, either as one who sees it from the outside its system, or someone who sees it from within the system.

So, you're placing it in as a generalization. But, I think you are boiling it down really strongly here. If you are referring to religion as that, then one can see sport fans as religious. In my case, I have my beliefs, but I don't follow a set path, that you would see those doing in a religion or religiously. 

Quote

You hold religious views yourself even if you merely designate them with something softer like "spiritualist". Can one deny that you cannot look at religion objectively because of this?

I don't know what you mean by objectively. Maybe outside of it, but objectively? It's something that I personally don't follow. I have beliefs, that I hold inside, but it does not mostly intermingle with my daily life. I think there's the difference there. 

Quote

Basically if someone did say that, you would have every right to call them some interesting names because they would be denying you the capacity to think objectively and rationally, just because you hold some interesting beliefs.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that would be the case. How is what I believe, allowing others to keep me from thinking outside the box? 

Quote

Let's look at this another way... you are a bookseller, thus I bet you have a your store set out in one of two ways... either you use the Dewy Decimal classification system or you have it classified by Themes. So you would have a section on religion.

Now where would you place a book by a sociologist who wrote about religion?

Libraries have the Dewy Decimal classification. (well, at least they still do). And bookstores, yes themes, but that's not just all. Alphabetical order, and it depends on the themes. And it's not always what one bookstore company would label a particular book title, that another would label it a different theme. I have worked for two companies, and I have seen various types of the same book, classified under many different themes. A philosopher writing a religious book, might be filed in Religion, or it might be filed in Philosophy. And that's if the publisher didn't demand it there or somewhere else. I remember an author who didn't like that her books were classified in one genre, and kept insisting it should be in a different one. 

Quote

In my view, everyone has the capacity to see subjects outside of their interest fields in objective ways and the same can be said for those who belong to those fields themselves. It depends on what you are trying to do with the subject.

Now, I don't get you here. You're saying one thing, and then saying another. Is it within the subject or outside it? 

Quote

Now, for that comment regarding fiction books.... ;)

I am absolutely shocked that you are shocked that I would post a book that is fiction, and science fiction no less, as a source!!!

The thing is that it is the second one I posted on this very thread. The other was called Nightfall by Isaac Asimov‎ and ‎Robert Silverberg.

Why is it a shock that I would post such books as sources?

Using fiction books as sources? Seriously?! Fiction?! 

Quote

something invented by the imagination or feigned;

here

Something made up being used as a source for facts? Do you see why I'm puzzled here? 

Quote
4 hours ago, Jor-el said:

Because everybody and I mean EVERYBODY knows that Science fiction is not fantasy. It is in fact a theme that studies mankind in extreme settings.

 

giphy.gif

Yes, Science Fiction is not fantasy, but it's not truthful to the core, either. Where did you get the idea, that it's a fact that studies mankind in extreme settings?!?!? :w00t: 

Science fiction: 

Quote

fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

same site

Did you understand that? It's those types of settings within a fictional environment. Maybe I can explain it in an example here. Let's take another form of fiction genre. Historical fiction. Granted, it tends to be set in a historical setting, but usually the story is fiction, made up. I have read so many historical fictions of the last Romanov family and their tragic place in history. We know from history, they unfortunately were killed in a basement in Russia. Somehow, the many different historical fictions I have read on the family and that fateful night, somehow has some new made up character, who just so happens to be with them in that basement, and for some reason, they SURVIVED! :o  Do we now believe these characters existed? No! Of course not. 

Do you see what I'm saying here. It's still fiction. Made up mostly. 

 

Quote

It is the source of discussion for most leading edge themes that haven't even entered the social awareness of most human beings. It is the cornerstone of many of the major advancements we now take for granted.

Granted, I'm going to give you that one. But, it's probably more of encouragement, then teaching. I have heard of Star Trek fans, and Scotty fans mostly, who went on to major and get great jobs in such fields, because of James Doohan's influence as the character. There have been items invented today, that were imagined in the series. And a lot of great science fiction authors use science and such to make some compelling science fiction stories. But, to teach facts, regular science books and shows would be the teaching element. The fictional stuff are just things that heavily influence on a subjective level. I'm not knocking creativity, I'm all for it. But one needs to learn from the tried and true, and they were once the influenced creative ones. 

Quote

Yes, it is fiction, but it is a lot more than that. In a way, it is like a prophecy, a showing of the way for humanity. Of all the genres, it is the one that has most contributed over the last two centuries for human analysis and advancement in nearly all areas of human endeavor.

http://www.unsolicitedpress.com/the-buzz/science-fictions-influences-on-modern-society

The reason for the two books I posted is because they show concepts that profoundly advance in one way or another the themes I brought into discussion. In other words, we can call them proof of concept essays.

Like I said at the very beginning of this thread, some people will immediately get what I'm saying, others will never get it, even if we spent 100 pages discussing it.

So, again, I will ask about your goal here and now wonder if you are trying for an objective reasoning and thought on this subject, or just want to see the varying different subjective ones?. I think this is the big kicker here. This connects my point of the subjective like of the topic, and wondering if you are going for it being objective. I don't think it can be. Your link there, pretty much just said what I did, being an influence. Nothing wrong with that, but that's not the end all of facts and evidences. It's the beginning. Even something said in the link of your's there: 

Quote

he use of science fiction as a manual of the technological and cultural advances in society is a brave pathway to take. Many advanced technologies stem from the imaginative realms created by creative authors and filmmakers in the science fiction realm. The enhancement of communication, space travel, and transportation is beneficial to making those within the society well connected and informed. Moreover, it is exciting to watch fantastical ideas turn into tangible realities. However, large amounts of hi-tech inventions could stall the progression of humanity at an intellectual level. The entertainment field could lure people into its visually stimulating environment and cause a decrease in the want to learn. Science fiction is fiction, but it does have its way of finding itself coming out of the pages and into our hands. - 

Where does the fiction stop and the facts start? Are you trying to influence, or show something as a definite? (I'm still not knocking it. Hell, one of my favorite phrases is "Necessity is the mother of all inventions" going in with you find ways in creativity to help yourself) 

Now, about those who get it, and those who don't. And this is where this is boiled down to the subjective over objective. I see only a few, a few, getting it. Those who don't, are numerous. That should be very telling there. If you are happy with your reflections on it, great. :tu: It shouldn't be a problem if not all do, even if that is numerous. 

So, when reflecting to the OP, I personally, cannot see religion being the sole birther of the 'golden rule'. Too many elements and backgrounds in this to show me that. I don't see the objectiveness of it. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
14 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:
19 hours ago, Jor-el said:

Because everybody and I mean EVERYBODY knows that Science fiction is not fantasy. It is in fact a theme that studies mankind in extreme settings.

 

14 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Yes, Science Fiction is not fantasy, but it's not truthful to the core, either. Where did you get the idea, that it's a fact that studies mankind in extreme settings?!?!? :w00t: 

I wanted to conclude my puzzlement of seeing Science Fiction as a 'theme' that 'studies' mankind in extreme settings. It's something else entirely, and that would be labeled under the Non-Fiction category. Science Fiction does not study, just telling a story with Science ideas, within a Fiction setting. In which, again, is not good to use as an objective source of information. 

And again, yes Science Fiction is not Fantasy, but, ............... in bookstores, and I think libraries too, Science Fiction and Fantasy usually gets classified under one genre. Meaning, it goes hand in hand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 

I wanted to conclude my puzzlement of seeing Science Fiction as a 'theme' that 'studies' mankind in extreme settings. It's something else entirely, and that would be labeled under the Non-Fiction category. Science Fiction does not study, just telling a story with Science ideas, within a Fiction setting. In which, again, is not good to use as an objective source of information. 

And again, yes Science Fiction is not Fantasy, but, ............... in bookstores, and I think libraries too, Science Fiction and Fantasy usually gets classified under one genre. Meaning, it goes hand in hand. 

And the point you missed in being analytical is that the concepts I spoke of whether religious (Nightfall) and overcoming/defeating entropy (Xeelee Sequence) are extensively described in the novels.

It is not about urguing things with facts, I am not at University anymore handing in my dissertation. It is rather about concepts that are novel approaches to some difficult problems we face as human beings.... That is the intrinsic value of science fiction. It can lead to some fascinating conclusions that actually make sense.

Naturally when people prefer facts, they are stuck with them and don't go any further. No "what if's" for them.... and no fascinating conclusions to be drawn out from our subconscious genius that makes us human beings.

Edited by Jor-el
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Jor-el said:

And the point you missed in being analytical is that the concepts I spoke of whether religious (Nightfall) and overcoming/defeating entropy (Xeelee Sequence) are extensively described in the novels.

It is not about urguing things with facts, I am not at University anymore handing in my dissertation. It is rather about concepts that are novel approaches to some difficult problems we face as human beings.... That is the intrinsic value of science fiction. It can lead to some fascinating conclusions that actually make sense.

Naturally when people prefer facts, they are stuck with them and don't go any further. No "what if's" for them.... and no fascinating conclusions to be drawn out from our subconscious genius that makes us human beings.

I'm all for discussing the subjects, topics, and characterization, of novels, and I could still do that, if I read those books by that author. And since I didn't, I can't. I have to remind you on the points about using anything that is suggesting someone to buy or go out to borrow books, to back up what you are trying to say. So, in essence, I cannot consider what you're using here. You'll have to understand if someone decides to not take you seriously on your points you want to make, because they do not have to go get a book to help you out. 

(If anyone wants to use books as their sources, I do believe they need to quote the points, with showing the book title, author, pages and such. Not having them to go out and buy or borrow it themselves. )

I do like what various novels have brought into the mental reflections. I had a quote sometime back, that came from one book of a series of Native American historical fiction books. I used it as my sig. ( wait a minute. Was it this forum, or the other forum many years back?) Anyways, I love discussing it, when it's agreed from all sides, that it's discussing ideas, not something being used as a back up for proving a point. And are you not saying, that you stated that religion is the reason for the 'golden rule'? This is where it came from, right? Are you using fiction series, which Science Fiction is still is, to back up statements you made? Or, are you showing how you came with your 'subjective' thoughts of you thinking the 'golden rule' is from religion? Are you discussing this on the subjective or an objective point of view?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.