Trying to squeeze in as much as possible, we get right to our segment… right after a small glitch from the Retrobots.
Meet the Hosts
Our long in coming audio drama is getting closer. The first scripts are done, and several parts assigned. The only drawback remaining is in waiting for our volunteer voice actors to return their parts, so everything can be compiled. Watch for more word, and a launch date. Be sure to tell your friends, and for contributors through Nathan’s Patreon page, we have plans for interviews, behind the scenes stuff, and chat room sessions with the cast.
We never ask for monetary support for this podcast, but the audio drama involves a lot more effort, and a recurring contribution through Patreon will encourage us to devote more attention to future projects like our unassuming, everyday kind of super hero.
Our main topic really isn’t all that long. It’s a role play type of episode, and it can be difficult to give a topic the depth it deserves, when the ideas expressed aren’t your own. Besides, Keith lost his notes to guide him along, and had to wing It from memory. To allow ourselves to go down a bunny trail, we include the problem of why science makes a faulty platform for discussing topics in a public forum.
The language of science has become the only accepted and recognized way to prove a point, or settle an argument in public settings, or even in discussing morality.
The good point in science is that it tells us what a thing is, how it works, and what affect it might have on its environment. But it has shortcomings. The problem with science is it can’t answer the question “why.” It can’t determine morality.
- It can identify an object, like a hand gun by observing it.
- It can point out how the parts work, where the bullets go, and the mechanism that ends with a firing pin striking the cartridge.
- It can describe the chemical process that occurs, and how expanding gasses push the projectile out the end of the barrel.
- It can also tell what might happen at the point of impact where the projectile lands.
- An experiment might even be practiced to verify and demonstrate the hypothesis discussed to this point.
Science can not make a moral judgement of whether we should use a paper target, a tin can, a lab rat, or your neighbor’s head. Strictly speaking, science can only describe that a destructive event will happen. It can’t place any value on the object being tested in the experiment. It can’t say why it might be morally wrong to pull the trigger that sets off the process.
All science can do is state that pulling the trigger will end up in a destructive event. It’s left outside of science to determine whether the target has any value or not.
We point back to a solo episode done last March, 107 ASSURANCE OF SALVATION that includes an essay Keith wrote titled, The Purpose of Man without God. An attempt at exploring the shortcomings of worldly knowledge, pleasure, or power, and who gets to say where morality comes from.
Our role play runs short, as expected, and any misrepresenting was unintended. Please contact us if you feel we didn’t do well at it, or have a more rounded argument for us to address.
The statement of: Why I hate organized religion is brought up.
For starters, what does that mean anyway?
In Doing research, most results were from religious people giving apologetic reasons why its a bad statement. It doesn’t make any logical sense. Another result was from a foreign language forum, where people there tried to figure out this nonsense statement. They had no words for it in their own language. One blogger who had been against the so called organized religion, but came to grips with the fact that those in her activist groups weren’t making any sense. Was it being organized that her friends were against? Was it religion they were against? That blogger found merit in religion to support her cause. Even Wikipedia commented that the term is meaningless of itself. By definition, religion is organized. Exactly the same as government is organized, a business is organized, sports teams are organized, and so forth.
Finally I managed to find a discussion of people who held this ideology. And our role play begins.
The core issue is a little confusing. People hate organized religion. They love religion, but don’t want to be confined by any one religion. Huh?
People feel it’s OK to pick and choose, treating all the world religions as equal, and have no problem walking down the buffet table of ideas, taking a morsel of what looks good onto their plate, and leaving the rest. A little here, and a little there, mix and matching fragmented doctrines to build their own special plate full of… disorganized religion?
Another defining feature in this crowd is they are fine with religious matters, they just don’t want you to force your morality on them. Nathan points out that those people are often quick to force their own moral judgements on others who they perceive are in disagreement with them. At the best, even if they don’t, and they are passively left to set their own morality, eventually they run the risk of meeting up with someone who may have low morals, is bigger and stronger than them, and force them into a subservient lifestyle.
To wrap up, we share a closing thought where the Retrobots make an appearance.