"Cargo Cults" replied by kookookachoo @ Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:53:08 -0000

kookookachoo — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 07:53:08 -0000

OK, don’t be a sendin’ me to Wikipedia. The first thing they mention is NOMA, the biggest crock of shit ever posited. Are you mad? I’m not even reading the rest of it. If you believe what Wikipedia has to say on a subject, there is no hope for you. I’m moving this discussion to a new topic “Religion and Science”

Edit: I went back to it, temporarily. They are demanding more information, verification and editing. How can you trust such a place!? Wikipedia is not trustworthy as a source of good and true information.

Re-edit: Is the 19th century, 20th century and the late 20th century now part of the Dark Ages? I am talking about the period before the “Enlightenment”, when people (and scientists)began to question religious authority. Approx. 325 AD to 1450 AD or thereabout. How nice that they were able to accomodate science RECENTLY. And the Middle Ages are only part of the Dark Ages. And just because Christian scholars acknowledged the earth’s sphericity doesn’t mean that the church itself did. I’ll continue in the new forum…

"Cargo Cults" replied by Arandur @ Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:48:14 -0000

Arandur — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:48:14 -0000

I’ll get to the specifics in a couple of days, but consider this, a quote from Wikipedia with references to numerous scholarly sources:

Perspectives on the historical relationship between religion and science

Medieval artistic illustration of the spherical Earth in a 14th century copy of L’Image du monde (ca. 1246).
The 19th century was a period in which the perception of an antagonism between religion and science was especially strong. During this period what scholars today call the historical conflict thesis developed. According to this model, any interaction between religion and science almost inevitably would lead to open hostility, with religion usually taking the part of the aggressor against new scientific ideas.[5] The framing of the relationship between religion and science as being predominantly one of conflict remained common in the historiography of science during the late 19th and much of the 20th centuries, was favoured by many scientists in the last 100 years, and is still prevalent in popular culture. However, most contemporary historians of science now reject it, considering that the conflict thesis has been superseded by subsequent historical research,6 as is expressed by Gary Ferngren in his historical volume Science & Religion:
“
While some historians had always regarded the [conflict] thesis as oversimplifying and distorting a complex relationship, in the late twentieth century it underwent a more systematic reevaluation. The result is the growing recognition among historians of science that the relationship of religion and science has been much more positive than is sometimes thought. Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule.[8]
”
Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis⁹ is the supposition that the Catholic Church from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat, and that only science, freed from religious dogma, had shown that it was round. This claim was mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: “there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth’s] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference.”10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_betwe…

"Cargo Cults" replied by kookookachoo @ Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:31:46 -0000

kookookachoo — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 06:31:46 -0000

OK, I’ll pick a time. The Dark Ages, from 325 A.D. to approximately 1490 A.D. When and how during that time did the church encourage, invent, fund or in any way aid scientific inquiry? Perhaps you can find something during those 11 centuries as an example? I doubt it, though.

And, the Western scientific tradition came out of the catholic church? What are you smoking?

P.S. And, can I have some?

"Cargo Cults" replied by Arandur @ Sun, 06 Apr 2008 05:26:28 -0000

Arandur — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 05:26:28 -0000

Scientific thought was most certainly not encouraged in any way by religious folk or religious institutions, especially the christian religion.

Now, or in the past? Science as in the scientific method, or scientific/observational-style thought? Pick anything, any time period, and you’ll see religious folk pursuing it and encouraging it. Not necessarily all, but there is a definite influence there. The Western scientific tradition came directly out of the Catholic Church, which founded academies and universities and provided nearly all of its sponsorship at times. Many of the sciences’ most revered contributors were very religious men—and many were religious clergy. Jesuits and monks have a long standing tradition of pursuing the sciences, with full Church support. Gregor Mendel, originator of genetics, was a monk. Many Jesuits were noted astronomers. I could go and pick up some names, dates, institutions, bishops’ statements, even papal proclamations if you would like.

"Cargo Cults" replied by kookookachoo @ Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:18:41 -0000

kookookachoo — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:18:41 -0000

OK, sorry to burst your bubble, Scientific thought was most certainly not encouraged in any way by religious folk or religious institutions, especially the christian religion. Come on! They certainly are two different disciplines. Completely different! I agree with you there. The church is only willing to go along with scientific thought that they can reconcile somehow with their religion and they did not encourage it in the first place. Now, Greece, I can’t tell ya, I believe they had “gods” (?) They also apparently had freedom of thought and inquiry? Like I said, I don’t know…

I’ll get out the atheist handbook again for our thoughts on scientific endeavour (that spelling for our missing rb) and the influence of the church. Working…

"Cargo Cults" replied by Arandur @ Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:27:05 -0000

Arandur — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:27:05 -0000

There is a serious and fundamental flaw in your thinking that is blinding you.

You seem to think that religion and science are in conflict, that faith is in contradiction to reason, and that the Bible is meant as a scientific or even rigorous historical document. None of that is true, and so none of your arguments apply.

I don’t accept the questions you “throw back at me,” because they’re based on assumptions that are different from those I used when I put them to you, so they’re apples and oranges comparisons.

Sciences has not been “shown to be the next logical step” in religious thought, because they are two entirely different disciplines. Science describes the natural world—and most of the foundation of scientific thought came out of and was encouraged by religious people or religious institutions, from Greece through the Christian academics and university systems of Europe.

As for the atheism of our day, I think it has more to do with people being confused and deluded by that false science vs. religion dichotomy. Aside from that, my point in putting the question to you is that religious thought is not a “primitive” form of science. Rather, many (most, I would even say) very intelligent and educated people find it eminently reasonable to have religious beliefs of some kind or another, because they see how science and faith reconcile. What you seem to be trying to do is say that religion is inherently unreasonable, and it makes no sense for people to be convinced of religion, and so you put those people down as “primitive.” Again, false dichotomy.

You will continue to be confused as long as you think science solves all your problems and you effectively worship it as your religion, rather than seeing that the two are different disciplines of thought and knowledge that complement each other in the discovery of truth.

"Cargo Cults" replied by muadib @ Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:45:10 -0000

muadib — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:45:10 -0000

I am also pretty sure that most.. if not nearly all.. of the “scientific” type information contained in the bible is quite flawed. i.e. the age of the earth, how the earth was created, how man was created.. and on and on..
Ideas like the big bang, and evolution make a hell of a lot more logical sense then that some jealous and over loving god wanted to create the earth and his children so he can punish some of them and have the rest as buddies for eternity.

(think back to my experiment i was talking about in the other thread… How would someone who’s brian has not yet decided for or against the existence of a god think? would they find the god story more logical? or the big bang evolution story? My guess is that they would go for the one with proof.. not the one that is based on a book of myths written thousands of years ago)

Another example is how do you think when you hear other cultures beliefs (like the cargo cults).. Do you think.. wow that’s really weird and off the wall. or do you think.. yeah! that sounds right on the money!

"Cargo Cults" replied by muadib @ Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:31:53 -0000

muadib — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:31:53 -0000

well i could throw those questions right back at you..

How can you subscribe to a religion when science has been shown to be the next logical step forward from a belief system based in myth?
and what about the enthusiastic acceptance of atheism by many of the most intelligent people of our day, especially those who are hard core scientists or other academics?

:-]

"Cargo Cults" replied by Arandur @ Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:58:39 -0000

Arandur — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:58:39 -0000

You’ve mentioned death. What else do you think religion, specifically Christianity, is designed to answer that is better answered by something else today?

How do you reconcile this condescension of “primitive” solutions with the development of various forms of science and study throughout the ages, and with the enthusiastic acceptance of religion by many of the most intelligent people of our day, even those who are hard core scientists or other academics?

"Cargo Cults" replied by muadib @ Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:28:22 -0000

muadib — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 10:28:22 -0000

All religions are “cargo” religions to some extent. Even christianity(I only pick on christianity because it seems to be the only religion represented by people on this forum). It was the “primitive” mind’s (primitive, as in knowledge in how the world works) way of explaining things that couldn’t possibly be understood at the time. And of course the fear of death.. If you don’t actually die when you die.. (heaven) Then you don’t have to be afraid of it.

"Cargo Cults" replied by kookookachoo @ Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:31:31 -0000

kookookachoo — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 08:31:31 -0000

I usually get them off the guy then figure out they were shorts, too. Shorts or pants, they get thrown off to the side with nary a glance thereafter!

"Cargo Cults" replied by absoluteliquid @ Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:33:47 -0000

absoluteliquid — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:33:47 -0000

cargo pants = stealth backpack

and if you have the ones that convert to cargo shorts… WELL!!!

"Cargo Cults" replied by ratboy @ Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:42:51 -0000

ratboy — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 17:42:51 -0000

yes…definately “off” topic…kiss

"Cargo Cults" replied by kookookachoo @ Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:48:08 -0000

kookookachoo — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:48:08 -0000

OOh, off topic, yes, but I love cargo pants on a guy, especially when I get to remove them!

"Cargo Cults" replied by Satolkin @ Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:29:21 -0000

Satolkin — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 06:29:21 -0000

absoluteliquid wrote:
>The Gods Must be Crazy was a wonderful flick illustrating the basic concept although I’m pretty sure there were no cult relationships… I am more familiar with cargo pants…

Good example of the basic idea.

Cargo pants rock, BTW. Flask, passport, wallet….

"Cargo Cults" replied by absoluteliquid @ Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:57:30 -0000

absoluteliquid — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 05:57:30 -0000

The Gods Must be Crazy was a wonderful flick illustrating the basic concept although I’m pretty sure there were no cult relationships… I am more familiar with cargo pants…

"Cargo Cults" replied by Satolkin @ Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:33:20 -0000

Satolkin — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:33:20 -0000

kookookachoo wrote:
>Would this apply to the Spaniards (Europeans) coming over way back when being met up by our native people? They are thinking these are some kind of gods, but eventually find out that they can be killed like any other man, etc.?

It’s a little different. It’s a sort of “pseudo- technology” adapted by the “conquered,” and used as ritual after the “conquerors” leave.

An example- an island tribe, whose island was occupied by the U.S. military during WW2. When the military pulled out, the native population put together uniforms, started performing drills, even have fake cargo and equipment sitting around. All this is done as a way to make the prosperity return that was experienced while the military was there.

Not that great an explanation, but that’s it in a nutshell.

Along the same lines- until the real serious crunch in airline security post 9/11, there were small airports in remote parts of Africa that had metal detectors at their gates.
Made out of wood.

A “safety totem” rather than an actual operational safety device. Cargo cults operate on the same sort of principle.

The movie I mentioned, BTW, is “Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.” It sucked, but there is a part where Max stumbles into a group of isolated kids who have a full system of myth and ritual, developed from the plane crash their ancestors were in, which stranded them in their location. Not exactly a “cargo cult,” but very similar.

"Cargo Cults" replied by FiNiX @ Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:46:23 -0000

FiNiX — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:46:23 -0000

Satolkin wrote:
>It’s a real phenomena, guys, and if you’ve got any interest in sociology, it’s pretty interesting.

Yes. It is most definitely real.

"Cargo Cults" replied by kookookachoo @ Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:55:59 -0000

kookookachoo — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 07:55:59 -0000

Would this apply to the Spaniards (Europeans) coming over way back when being met up by our native people? They are thinking these are some kind of gods, but eventually find out that they can be killed like any other man, etc.? Aren’t these “cults” eventually assimilated in with a more mainstream society? Especially in this day and age. There ARE unexplored parts of the world, yes, but those places are eventually explored. Wouldn’t such cults eventually be assimilated, perhaps over many decades, but assimilated by the rest of the known world? Is this a “temporary” phenomenon?

Oh, I’m being so sociological. My ten days virtually alone here have left me unable to think. God help me! Whoops!

P.S. I didn’t read the whole text of the link, what do you think this is, college? lol

"Cargo Cults" replied by Satolkin @ Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:25:04 -0000

Satolkin — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 04:25:04 -0000

Yet I notice nobody has named a movie, yet.

It’s a real phenomena, guys, and if you’ve got any interest in sociology, it’s pretty interesting.

"Cargo Cults" replied by absoluteliquid @ Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:44:44 -0000

absoluteliquid — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 17:44:44 -0000

It smells a little over done to me…

"Cargo Cults" replied by ratboy @ Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:53:42 -0000

ratboy — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 15:53:42 -0000

“sophistication”?...wake up and smell the irony…

"Cargo Cults" replied by Satolkin @ Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:18:09 -0000

Satolkin — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:18:09 -0000

Well, they seem bizarre to the modern, technologically advanced societies that inadvertently spawn them, but they make sense, when you think about it. You’re talking about relatively primitive, talismanic/ shamanistic societies who witness “miracles,” and a real sort of prosperity, and attempt to replace them with simple shells of what they witnessed, without the real technology behind them.

It makes an interesting commentary on humanity/ society and it’s ways of understanding things, depending on the stage of “sophistication” they’ve reached.
I think it’s kinda cool and interesting, in other words.

Can anyone name a movie that has a cargo cult in it?

"Cargo Cults" replied by ratboy @ Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:44:33 -0000

ratboy — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 01:44:33 -0000

Seems a logical conception to me…that’s why I believed in Santa Claus for many years…Christmas day…come downstairs…mucho prezzies which I’d been told came from the portly red-suited chap…why would I not believe…?

"Cargo Cults" replied by FiNiX @ Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:55:28 -0000

FiNiX — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 19:55:28 -0000

What do you think of cargo cults?

Recent Posts in '"Cargo Cults"' | GOD STILL LOVES US