Originally posted by FMFcheck and mate.
And according to your interpretation of your religious literature he did this in order to demonstrate to you that the sanctity of life can be cherished by standing aside and doing nothing about the slaughter of 100,000,000 people or more at the hands of Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot?
Originally posted by rwingettI don't think I did say everything about religion is ridiculous. What I am saying is that any belief in the supernatural or miracles is equivalent. It is essentially a belief that the laws of physics do/did not hold at some point. Whether the miracle in question is as tiny as God meddling with the laws of probability to give you a narrow escape from some bad event or the flooding of the whole earth at the time of Noah, it is still a supernatural event and size or complexity is irrelevant. I don't see why we should ridicule one more than the other.[/b]
I only partially agree. There are many things about religion which are ridiculous. But I do not think that everything about religion is ridiculous, or that all religions are necessarily ridiculous. While I certainly find the many supernatural claims of Christianity to be ridiculous, there are certain things about it that I find admirable.
And I do not share the belief seemingly held by many non-religious people on this forum that a society run by "rationally" educated technocrats will produce better results. In many respects it will be worse.
If people are not religious do they behave worse? Are they less loving? I think that if people are less religious they are less likely to be swayed by religious leaders with special agendas, and less likely to do things because they think it is the right thing for their religion (like supporting Israel for example).
I also think it is harder for people to get elected solely on their claim to religion rather than their actual policies.
Originally posted by twhiteheadHaving mythical stories in the literature of a certain religion for instructive purposes is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem comes when its practitioners believe them to be literally true. There are many particulars of Christianity that are not universally (or even widely) held as being literally true, and which therefore do not merit the level of scorn as certain others.
I don't think I did say everything about religion is ridiculous. What I am saying is that any belief in the supernatural or miracles is equivalent. It is essentially a belief that the laws of physics do/did not hold at some point. Whether the miracle in question is as tiny as God meddling with the laws of probability to give you a narrow escape from some ...[text shortened]... r people to get elected solely on their claim to religion rather than their actual policies.
The problem with non-religious people is not with themselves per se, but with the systems they enact. Religious people enact certain systems of control over society which, due to the speculative nature of their supporting rationale, can be shown to be illogical. Non-religious technocrats enact different systems of control over society, but because their supporting rationale is apparently "rational" and "logical", there are no grounds upon which to challenge them, except within those very systems of control (the answers of which are guaranteed to validate the process).
The technocrats' reams of facts and figures that he uses to bolster his systems have scarcely more relationship to reality than the theist's myths, but because they are worded in the language of mathematics they are viewed as being unimpeachable. Never mind that the real world results never seem to match the promised predictions, as long as the technocrat has followed the internal logic of his artificially constructed systems, he would have you believe that there are no grounds upon which to challenge him.
For that reason, the technocrat is potentially a far more dangerous figure than the priest, regardless of how loving he may be in person. Huxley's 'Brave New World' is the surest outcome for any system run by technocrats.
Originally posted by rwingettMention “Technocracy” today and a mix of responses emerge. “It’s in a lot science fiction books,” explained one younger friend. “It’s a model for a utopian world run by technology.”
Having mythical stories in the literature of a certain religion for instructive purposes is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem comes when its practitioners believe them to be literally true. There are many particulars of Christianity that are not universally (or even widely) held as being literally true, and which therefore do not merit the level of s ...[text shortened]... on. Huxley's 'Brave New World' is the surest outcome for any system run by technocrats.
An older gentleman, a product of the 1940s, laughed when I mentioned the word; “It was a crack-pot idea with a cult following. Thankfully it died long ago.”
Another friend who was a child during the Great Depression remembers hearing about it at the kitchen table, and seeing Technocracy literature in the house.
Technocracy was all of the above: a utopian dream, a cult-like movement, and a concept that captured the public’s attention. But it was and is much more; it’s the prime motivator. Today, the fingerprints of Technocracy are deeply impressed upon the political, economic, military, social and spiritual landscape. There isn’t anything that Technocracy hasn’t touched, chiefly because as a type of meta-philosophy, it rests on the most basic principle of human rebellion: By pursuing god-like illumination, Man can become as God.
Man, not God, is the ultimate engineer of human destiny – therefore, Man is God. Technocracy represents the pinnacle of Man’s quest for self-deification: The perfectibility of Man through the thoughts of his mind and the subsequent works of his hands. It’s the cosmic taunt, stemming from the most ancient of days. What God can do, Man can do. The Garden of Eden will be remade.
http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/forcing-change/010/7-technocracy-1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Spain
Originally posted by RJHindsIsn't "Man is God" the mantra of Secular Humanism?
Mention “Technocracy” today and a mix of responses emerge. “It’s in a lot science fiction books,” explained one younger friend. “It’s a model for a utopian world run by technology.”
An older gentleman, a product of the 1940s, laughed when I mentioned the word; “It was a crack-pot idea with a cult following. Thankfully it died long ago.”
Another friend ...[text shortened]... ticles2/forcing-change/010/7-technocracy-1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Spain
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingett"The technocrats' reams of facts and figures that he uses to bolster his systems have scarcely more relationship to reality than the theist's myths, but because they are worded in the language of mathematics they are viewed as being unimpeachable."
Having mythical stories in the literature of a certain religion for instructive purposes is not necessarily a bad thing. The problem comes when its practitioners believe them to be literally true. There are many particulars of Christianity that are not universally (or even widely) held as being literally true, and which therefore do not merit the level of s on. Huxley's 'Brave New World' is the surest outcome for any system run by technocrats.
What human society/culture/state can we point at as being an example of a technocracy that has gone down the path or is going down the path of Huxley's Brave New World? I'm not being argumentative, I just think your answer will help me understand. I have a feeling that any real-world example may be tainted by other ideological purposes, for example Stalinism's taint on the anti-religious aspect of the technocratic element of the Soviet era if that era is held to be an example.
Edit: I would also like to hear more discussion of any significant differences between a pure technocracy and the world of Brave New World.
Originally posted by JS357Just look around you. You're living in that example. The entire western, consumerist culture is it. While they are ostensibly democracies on their surface, they are in fact run by legions of unelected technocrats busy reinforcing their arcane systems of control over a passive and compliant citizenry.
"The technocrats' reams of facts and figures that he uses to bolster his systems have scarcely more relationship to reality than the theist's myths, but because they are worded in the language of mathematics they are viewed as being unimpeachable."
What human society/culture/state can we point at as being an example of a technocracy that has gone down the p ...[text shortened]... any significant differences between a pure technocracy and the world of Brave New World.
While Orwell's '1984'many have been the better book, in many respects Huxley was closer to the mark.
Originally posted by rwingettWhy can't people see the extent to which conventional economics is a technocratic model on which basis many countries have designed their social policies, not fully but significantly? The entire ideology of free market neo-liberalism is based on a set of technocratic, pseudo mathematical propositions that have zero empirical foundation and that have catastrophically failed to do what they say on the tin. Free markets, lack of government regulation, flexible labour markets, maximisation of profit, attacks against welfare (but not military!) spending, et al. The total implosion of neo liberal economics following the Lehman Brothers collapse demonstrated that these technocratic models are total nonsense and yet the technocrats remain at the helm, dishing out immense quantities of taxpayers money in bank bailouts, pushing up their capital balances to permit more loans that nobody wants because they have no markets to sell into. Italy has even abandoned its elected government and put technocrats in place to ensure the neoliberal economic model is applied in full - about as helpful as leeching was in medicine.
Just look around you. You're living in that example. The entire western, consumerist culture is it. While they are ostensibly democracies on their surface, they are in fact run by legions of unelected technocrats busy reinforcing their arcane systems of control over a passive and compliant citizenry.
While Orwell's '1984'many have been the better book, in many respects Huxley was closer to the mark.
IMHO
Originally posted by JS357I guess I am optimistic, in that having works like Brave New World expound on what COULD happen, people would have that and other works like it such as 1984, We, Fahrenheit 451, The book of Dave, and others giving us the attitude of forewarned is forearmed and so would avoid the excesses of all those dystopian novels.
"The technocrats' reams of facts and figures that he uses to bolster his systems have scarcely more relationship to reality than the theist's myths, but because they are worded in the language of mathematics they are viewed as being unimpeachable."
What human society/culture/state can we point at as being an example of a technocracy that has gone down the p ...[text shortened]... any significant differences between a pure technocracy and the world of Brave New World.
Originally posted by sonhouseYahshua (Jesus the Christ) speaking of the last days before his coming said the following:
I guess I am optimistic, in that having works like Brave New World expound on what COULD happen, people would have that and other works like it such as 1984, We, Fahrenheit 451, The book of Dave, and others giving us the attitude of forewarned is forearmed and so would avoid the excesses of all those dystopian novels.
At that time many will fall away and will betray one another and hate one another. Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come.
(Matthew 24:10-14 NASB)
Originally posted by rwingettI was thrown off by the fact that in BNW, Ford is elevated to the position that Jesus was elevated to in Christianity. There are large and small ways this is exemplified in the book. So religion; or you might say state quasi-religion, is present and vital in BNW, as a means of control.
Just look around you. You're living in that example. The entire western, consumerist culture is it. While they are ostensibly democracies on their surface, they are in fact run by legions of unelected technocrats busy reinforcing their arcane systems of control over a passive and compliant citizenry.
While Orwell's '1984'many have been the better book, in many respects Huxley was closer to the mark.
The US is one of the most religious countries in the world and the dominant religion is Christianity. A large segment of it is antithetical to science in some key areas, although I grant you that rank and file Christians love the fruits of science, which come from technologies funded by capitalists from their profits. So Fordism and its worship of mass production consumerism is not necessary as long as Christianity is not incompatible such worship and can fill that role. With few exceptions, (JWs?) this worship of consumerism is strong -- e.g., our friend RJHinds freely admits his enjoyment of material goods; I think he's even related his material happiness to his faith.
I guess I don't believe we are in a technocracy per se, but I would buy into it being an oligarchy of capitalists, technocrats, and political careerists, the latter two serving the interests of the first, which in turn serves the interests of the latter two as payment for services, with a sprinkling of idealists who are tolerated as long as they can be managed.