The culture surrounding something versus the thing itself.

[5tomidnite]

I've been dying to start a thread about this topic for some time now. I find that when a topic is discussed be it paranormal or otherwise, the discussion ends up relying on the culture built around the subject instead of the subject itself. That ends up diluting the conversation and nothing productive is achieved for the most part.

I'll give several examples of what I mean about the culture of something versus the thing itself.

In Christian culture it is accepted that if your bad when you die you go to Hell to be tormented by the Devil and his minions. If you're good you go to Heaven to be with God and his minions. It also accepted that there are Seven Deadly Sins. None of these things are in the Christian bible old or new testament. The deadly sins are from a poem; that your tormented in Hell comes from the Artist Dante and you have to await resurrection in your grave until judgement day where God brings Heaven to Earth and gives you immortality if he deems you worthy and oblivion if you are unworthy.

In science culture it is accepted that dark matter exists, that we know everything there is to know about the world and that the Higgs-Boson particle is the "God Particle". In actual science dark matter is a theory with supporting math but with no actual scientific proof of it's existence. No scientist is saying we know everything about the world to the contrary we are learning new things all the time. According to one physicist I saw in an interview the Higgs-Boson is considered the God Particle for purposes of attaining funding but what it's intended to addresse is the mysteries of mass and gravity nothing more.

I think that it would nice that when we discuss topics paranormal or otherwise that we first ask ourselves if the points we are about to make are derived from the subject itself or the culture surrounding the subject. I say this because I know I can be guilty of arguing elements from the subjects culture versus its actual reality. I used to be really bad about it when it came to religion.

Anyway thanks for reading.

 

[Muadib]

The nickname "God Particle" is actually not accepted by most scientists, in fact they hate the name because it's sensational and misleading. The name was developed by Leon Lederman in his book "The God Particle" written in the context of failing government support for the Superconducting Super Collider. The name has been adopted mostly by the media and those outside the scientific community because it's controversial and it generates headlines. You're correct that the particle itself has nothing to do with god.

As for your comments on Christianity, whether or not the concept of hell and the devil was originally in the bible, the concept has been adopted by most of the proponents of Christianity and is now taught as canonical. There's no question that many a preacher makes his living by preaching about the concepts of hellfire and eternal damnation, and that most of the followers of Christianity are taught this and accept it, so I don't think the discussion of that sort of thing is outside the scope of Christianity. Of course, there are many interpretations of Christianity but the vast majority do believe that hell is a literal place and that the devil is real. It's not dissimilar to the concept of the Rapture, which also has no biblical support that I'm aware of but has been adopted by most Christians and is now taught as canon. When you're dealing with religion, there are so many different interpretations of what is and isn't Christian, Jewish or Islamic and many of them have everything to do with the individual believers culture, so leaving them out isn't really an option.

I like where you're going with this as it relates to the paranormal though, if we look at the concept of dark matter as an example (something with supporting math but no actual proof of it's existence) we can apply that to the idea of multiple dimensions as a solution to the problem of UFO's or paranormal phenomena in general. Other dimensions may exist, but if we hold to what the math says about them they are so tiny as to be almost unnoticeable and are not viewed as physical spaces that advanced beings may inhabit. To say nothing of the difficulties involved in crossing the barrier between our world and another dimension, which if we go by what physics has to say would be impossible. I've often referred to this explanation as using the unexplained to explain the unexplained, because it sounds great but doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Nevertheless, it has become a part of UFO culture, so often it is discussed and many people end up believing it's the answer even though we know even less about other dimensions than we do about UFO's in my opinion.

 

[5tomidnite]

As for your comments on Christianity, whether or not the concept of hell and the devil was originally in the bible, the concept has been adopted by most of the proponents of Christianity and is now taught as canonical. There's no question that many a preacher makes his living by preaching about the concepts of hellfire and eternal damnation, and that most of the followers of Christianity are taught this and accept it, so I don't think the discussion of that sort of thing is outside the scope of Christianity. Of course, there are many interpretations of Christianity but the vast majority do believe that hell is a literal place and that the devil is real. It's not dissimilar to the concept of the Rapture, which also has no biblical support that I'm aware of but has been adopted by most Christians and is now taught as canon. When you're dealing with religion, there are so many different interpretations of what is and isn't Christian, Jewish or Islamic and many of them have everything to do with the individual believers culture, so leaving them out isn't really an option.

I know. I hate that leaving it out isn't an option but I'd still love to have a conversation where I'm getting the actual information about the subject rather being distracted by the things people add to it

Thanks for responding

 

[Muadib]

I know. I hate that leaving it out isn't an option but I'd still love to have a conversation where I'm getting the actual information about the subject rather being distracted by the things people add to it

Thanks for responding

You're welcome. I think the issue of whether it's relevant or not depends on whether it's widely adopted or not. For example, the Heaven's Gate cult had its own interpretation of what constitutes Christianity but you won't find many people addressing that in a discussion on Christianity because it's definitely seen as outside of mainstream Christianity. The concept of hell has been around for so long and worked so well as a motivating factor in the past that it's been widely adopted, while reincarnation, which was taught as scripture by the early church, has largely been forgotten. I don't really see it as that much of a problem and even if I did, I think it's unavoidable. If you want the actual information about the subject there's always the history books, but even those are subject to the author's interpretation of the facts and surrounded by conflicting opinions and viewpoints. I guess what I'm saying is that there is no definitive guide to these subjects, so I think the culture surrounding the issue can be important and shouldn't be left out. That's just my two cents though, take it for what it's worth.

 

[5tomidnite]

I guess what I'm saying is that there is no definitive guide to these subjects, so I think the culture surrounding the issue can be important and shouldn't be left out. That's just my two cents though, take it for what it's worth.

Everybody's two cents is worth something to me. I come on this forum seeking enlightenment not people's agreement or disagreement. So you do me a favour when you contribute to a thread I start or respond to a comment I post.

 

[Frank Stalter]

It doesn't matter the subject, the time or the place . . . .

 

[5tomidnite]

I like where you're going with this as it relates to the paranormal though, if we look at the concept of dark matter as an example (something with supporting math but no actual proof of it's existence) we can apply that to the idea of multiple dimensions as a solution to the problem of UFO's or paranormal phenomena in general. Other dimensions may exist, but if we hold to what the math says about them they are so tiny as to be almost unnoticeable and are not viewed as physical spaces that advanced beings may inhabit. To say nothing of the difficulties involved in crossing the barrier between our world and another dimension, which if we go by what physics has to say would be impossible. I've often referred to this explanation as using the unexplained to explain the unexplained, because it sounds great but doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Nevertheless, it has become a part of UFO culture, so often it is discussed and many people end up believing it's the answer even though we know even less about other dimensions than we do about UFO's in my opinion.

I missed this wisdom earlier because I've been sneaking on to the forum while guests were over. What you write fits into my point. It's difficult to discuss a topic while throwing in extraneous information that can't be verified or even validated as part of the phenomena.

 

[5tomidnite]

It doesn't matter the subject, the time or the place . . . .

...yep...

 

[Randall]

I'm not entirely sure if ufology applies to what you are getting at, but it is really common for people, particularly skeptics to use some fringe topic in ufology culture ( the culture ) to support their opinion that ufology as a whole ( the thing itself ) is some whacked out religion, cult or pseudoscience, when in actual fact it is nothing of the sort. Ufology itself is an objective topic composed of several components, including the cultural element, and within the cultural element are the fringe topics of UFO cults and religions. However there is no requirement in ufology that one must become part of those cults.

I'm not so sure why it is so hard to get the above across to some people. Perhaps those with an anti-ufology bias know that if they accept it, that it will weaken their position, so rather than admit they are wrong, they continue to ignore it and push their false beliefs onto other skeptics. Then it becomes a case of skeptics parroting other skeptics instead of thinking for themselves.

 

[5tomidnite]

I'm not entirely sure if ufology applies to what you are getting at, but it is really common for people, particularly skeptics to use some fringe topic in ufology culture ( the culture ) to support their opinion that ufology as a whole ( the thing itself ) is some whacked out religion, cult or pseudoscience, when in actual fact it is nothing of the sort. Ufology itself is an objective topic composed of several components, including the cultural element, and within the cultural element are the fringe topics of UFO cults and religions. However there is no requirement in ufology that one must become part of those cults.

I'm not so sure why it is so hard to get the above across to some people. Perhaps those with an anti-ufology bias know that if they accept it, that it will weaken their position, so rather than admit they are wrong, they continue to ignore it and push their false beliefs onto other skeptics. Then it becomes a case of skeptics parroting other skeptics instead of thinking for themselves.

It applies. You're stating good reasons why someone might focus on the culture of something versus the thing itself. The person arguing may not be able to refute the "truth" of a subject so instead they attack the culture around it. For someone trying to get to the truth of something it is difficult to find answers when it seems like most people are skipping over the facts in order to attack the people bringing forth the subject. That's the core of my complaints that inspired this posting. Of course I find it applies on either side of an argument. Some will not accept the subject may be flawed so they attack the culture of the presenter of the dissenting arguments.

You've done a good job at extrapolating on what I was thinking.