Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Moorcock & Religion ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Nathaniel View Post
    Human minds are patern recognizing machines, and we are so good at it that we make a lot of false positives.
    The implication being that seeing a personal god in nature or beyond is a 'false positive' perhaps?

    But if we see a face in the clouds, does that mean that faces do not exist? We can only mistake one thing for another because the thing that we mistake it for actually exists.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Grey Mouser View Post
      The implication being that seeing a personal god in nature or beyond is a 'false positive' perhaps?

      But if we see a face in the clouds, does that mean that faces do not exist? We can only mistake one thing for another because the thing that we mistake it for actually exists.
      By that reasoning, if I see little green men in my spinach, it is because little green men exist. This is the good old "If I can imagine/concieve it, it must be real" argument kicking around in Rene Descarte's era.
      but the wink makes me think you moght have been "tongue in cheek"
      oh dear, now I have confused myself.

      and Rothgo, you are right on the money except for your statement about me being better versed than you in logical deconstruction of causality

      Comment


      • No there was no tongue in cheek. In spite of my use of a possibly dodgy example (at least from your own angle) we're essentially back to the Argument from Design. The universe is such an intricate mechanism. It bears all the hallmarks of having been personally designed in spades, and then some, and then incalculably intricately more some. Imputing a designer is not a false positive to me, it's both a logical and intellectual imperative. That's really what I was trying to say.
        Last edited by Grey Mouser; 05-27-2008, 09:18 PM. Reason: Posting when tired - never a good plan

        Comment


        • See, I have to disagree with you about the use of the word "imperitive". The "design" of the universe, vis a vi its "fine tuning" does not nescesitate a designer. It is perfectly logical to state that it seems so "fine tuned" for life because life (of the sort we know of) evelved to fit that niche

          Imagine a methane planet... a methane breathing organism that evolves to inteligence level on that planet might say to itself "gee, this planet was just customised for me!" when in fact (assuming you acept evolutionary biology) you would phrase it as "this organizm is customised for this planet"

          Darwinian evolution + a basic cosmology (in physics terms) does a pretty good job of explaining the universe without the "nescisarry" recourse to a creator. add in Occam's Razor, which is in one sense, if you can explain something without reference to x, leave it out of your theory. (Keep it simple stupid in the 12th century.

          This is NOT an argument that the big G doesn't exist, merely a counter to the idea that complexity of the world implies it.

          Comment


          • ALL USES OF "YOU" ARE NOT INTENDED TO MEAN ANY PARTICULAR 'YOU'.

            Isn't it easier to just say that you don't want there to be a Creator than to wrangle all this data in that direction, just as we Theists are accused of viewing things through our perceptual grid to the end that we want there to be a G-d?

            I mean seriously, all the polite (and not so polite) phrasing on everyone's part (not just here, but in general on this topic) boils down to the two camps, with a vocal minority in the 'well, let's wait and see' camp.

            You don't groove on a god, we do, and that flavours our collective outlooks , which pieces of data we accept or reject, and thus our argumentation.

            Call a spade a spade, proud and loud.
            Ani Maamin B'emunah Sh'leimah B'viyat Hamashiach. V'af al pi sheyitmahmehah im kol zeh achake lo b'chol yom sheyavo.

            "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick

            Comment


            • There are points made by Nathaniel, Rothgo and Kyrinn that I'd like to discuss but just don't think the Q A is the right place.

              Shall we convene to Reasoned Debate to discuss the Argument from Design and allied topics?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Grey Mouser View Post
                There are points made by Nathaniel, Rothgo and Kyrinn that I'd like to discuss but just don't think the Q A is the right place.

                Shall we convene to Reasoned Debate to discuss the Argument from Design and allied topics?
                There are several threads already running in Reasoned Debate which touch upon Religion and associated topics. Feel free to pick one to continue the discussion, alternatively, if you have a new angle you which to discuss start a new thread there.

                Moorcock & Religion Redux
                Compassion Debate
                Dawkins and the Scientific Method
                The 'Create Our Own Religion' Game
                'Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests'
                Evolution and so-called 'Creation Science / Creationism' (long thread, stretching back 3 years)
                The Fear of Religion (now locked)
                Fear of religion, Part Two
                Carl Sagan once said

                And that's just from the first page. Clearly a popular subject, religion.
                _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
                _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
                _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
                _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

                Comment


                • Right, now lets start with a "Moorcock and Politics" and really spoil the dinner party

                  Comment


                  • Nathaniel, I agree with you 100%, the design of the Universe proves nothing about a possible creator. Its just that the odds of everything lining up this way from to allow the complexity that we see, from Galaxies to subatomic particles and even life, are astronomical. For me this is easily the biggest reason for believing in the possibililty of something bigger than us, and far more than any ancient book.

                    David, I have also been surprised by the amount of religious discussion, but after consideration I think that religion is a popular theme for readers of Mike's books because in his books Mike has always asked philosophical questions from almost every possible angle about Gods, Religions and Politics.
                    Last edited by Tales from Tanelorn; 05-28-2008, 03:49 PM.

                    Comment


                    • A slightly flipant quote...
                      "the chances of things being the way they are, are exaclty 100%"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Nathaniel View Post
                        A slightly flipant quote... "the chances of things being the way they are, are exaclty 100%"
                        The Anthropic Principle is a dude of a principle!

                        Comment


                        • Thanks David!

                          I've started a thread in Reasoned Debate on Chance vs Design.

                          I've already borrowed from a previous dialogue you had with Tales in another thread to get things started.

                          Kyrinn, Nathaniel, Rothgo, be grateful for your input if you get time.

                          Or I might pinch your quotes from here and paste 'em into the thread.

                          http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showthread.php?t=8347

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Grey Mouser View Post
                            Kyrinn, [snip] I might pinch your quotes from here and paste 'em into the thread.
                            Woo-hoo. That tickled!
                            Ani Maamin B'emunah Sh'leimah B'viyat Hamashiach. V'af al pi sheyitmahmehah im kol zeh achake lo b'chol yom sheyavo.

                            "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Phillip K. Dick

                            Comment


                            • I am a little bummed to see that Moorcock is not way into the occult, particularly the often interesting "chaos magick" paradigm. I first heard about Moorcock on something called "Fireclown's Basic Booklist" on the Z Cluster website which was this portal for aspiring or deluded chaos magicians. Many of the chaos magicians were sort of intolerably self-important or wacky, but a couple of them were incredibly insightful, such as Ramsey Dukes in his work "S.S.O.T.B.M.E." which I think is a more fascinating little book than the entirety of Robert Anton Wilson's career.

                              Anyway, I just picked up my first Moorcock book last week. I've always had trouble finding The Fireclown aka "Winds Of Limbo" which was the one recommended on Fireclown's Basic Booklist. In fact, Moorcock books are hard to find in NYC for some reason. There's only 1 or 2 in any bookstore whenever I look. So, fairly fed up with this repeat situation and in need for something to read, I grabbed the one book I found in Barnes & Noble called "The White Wolf's Son." It was not what I expected, but I LOVE it and I'm only on page 110. I guess I am sort of lucky to start off with "the end" of such an interesting series. I've read up on the recurring hero theme and the multiverse, so I had wanted to start with Fireclown because it was a recommended place to start. But, starting at the end of a recursive theme doesn't seem so bad, either. It's not hard to follow, so I'm happy about it.

                              I'm a Dzogchen practitioner and a Buddhist, so a lot of Moorcock's ideas really appeal to me and make sense. There is an entire practice dedicated to dreaming realities called Dream Yoga which is an important Dzogchen practice.

                              I don't know WHY exactly, but his book gave me an eery feeling of becoming unhinged. I'm already sold on Moorcock and I assume he must at least have a passing interest in the occult and various religious studies since he mentioned Alan Moore's "Invisible Man" in this book and Alan Moore is a well-known magician also popular with the choas magicians out there. If so, I hope he will respond to my post with any interesting tidbits he might want to share.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Rothgo View Post
                                The Anthropic Principle is a dude of a principle!
                                hey, I was only using the weak anthropic principle, which at least holds water... its the strong version that is whacky

                                but yeah, dude of a principle

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X