Bill Hutchinson

Barrie Ontario, Canada

Someone is shy

Bill hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Bill Hutchinson
Posted over 3 years ago
William Li: Can we eat to starve cancer?
Tell your husband to look into the Paleo diet, or caveman diet (different names for the same thing). There are many forums full of friendly, helpful people willing to share their experiences with health problems. These diets have a basis in ideas that run counter to much of modern thinking in regards to nutrition, but if you do your research and honestly try it for a month I am sure he will see dramatic improvement.
Noface
Bill Hutchinson
Posted almost 4 years ago
“What view of religion might advance humankind’s psychological maturity?”
Ok, I think I know where we are going wrong here, I think it has to do with the definition of "believe". You seem to be using it as a term that is synonymous with religion (I.e with spiritual overtones), whereas I am using it in a much broader context. This is not to say one of us is correct and the other wrong, but it does make it a bit difficult to have a conversation. When I use the word believe I mean to say that everybody has beliefs, even if they are not religious ones. For instance I believe in the colour orange with minimal evidence, basically my own subjective perception of the colour and anecdotes of other people's experiences with it. Now I BELIEVE that is sufficient evidence to support my claim that orange exists, yet I can not see the world through anybody elses eyes to verify my own observations. Therefore I believe in the colour orange without being able to prove that it exists. How would I prove it's existence to somebody who is colour-blind? Perhaps the colour-blind individual is correct and my perception is flawed. No matter what line of reasoning you excersise you will eventually reach a point where you must accept your evidence on faith. To return to the original question, I believe ( ;) ) that the definition I provided earlier is important to the advancement of humanity because I think we need to do away with "religion" (by my definition) but that spirituality is an important aspect of the human condition. If we did away with every spiritual belief system we would still be subjected to the damaging effects of people elevating politicians, or offices or countries above the interests of their fellow human beings. This is the behavior of "religion" by my new definition and as you can see that is the destructive aspect of the phenomenon, not necessarily the spiritual side of things. I hold one thing sacred: our duty to our fellow humans, from the past through the present and for those yet to come. That is the step that we collectively must take.
Noface
Bill Hutchinson
Posted almost 4 years ago
“What view of religion might advance humankind’s psychological maturity?”
that each person has accepted the others belief system (belief in reason or feeling) BEFORE accepting the arguments as to WHY they should accept those beliefs. It hardly seems necessary to point out the folly of giving a rational argument supporting reason to somebody who has yet to accept reason as valid. It is because each individual already has a set of beliefs, implanted and shaped by forces beyond our conscious control, and we go through life finding support for those beliefs. If your belief system is one of logic and reason and you are raised in a religious setting then chances are that you will be unhappy with the church and stray into science, and vice-versa. Anybody who thinks that we choose what to believe, I propose you try this experiment: if you currently do not believe in god, stop. Believe in Him, now for about one minute. Are you capable of changing your belief? This is not to say our beliefs do not change, merely that we cannot consciously control how, when or what. Anyway to return to my original definition, we've all seen people frothing at the mouth over politics, religion, Mac vs. PC, science and atheism as well as countless others. If one takes a step back and looks at the whole picture, is the behavior of these individuals that different? Every one of those groups contain extremists, moderates and fair-weather folk, every group believes it is ultimately advancing a cause, every group sees itself as necessary and right and just. Would alien visitors find people arguing over books to be more important than those arguing soft drinks? Would God?
Noface
Bill Hutchinson
Posted almost 4 years ago
“What view of religion might advance humankind’s psychological maturity?”
Good day all, I haven't had a chance to read through all the comments yet, though they are quite enjoyable, I just wanted to get this idea out there before I hit the hay: "religion" is the behavior all humans exhibit towards institutions, which themselves are physical manifestations of intangible cultural values. I understand that this definition is very broad, covering everything from Christ vs. Buddah (quite possibly the least exciting Celebrity Death Match ever) to Coke vs. Pepsi (is it legal to have them under one roof? Are they like two subcritical masses of uranium, perpetually isolated from each other to prevent meltdown?) sorry I digress: I blame the hour. I shall attempt to explain my reasoing concisly: everybody everywhere accepts everything on faith. Not only this but we as conscious beings are unable to alter these beliefs directly. The standard comparison is between "science" and "religion" (for now let's just assume we mean the religions of Abraham) so let us begin there. To start with both religion and science have their dogmas. In a religion their dogma is easy to spot because it comes at the end (x = god, x + y = god, xy^2 = god) so basically any formula that does not reach the conclusion of god is thrown out, dismissed as "not a string producible within our theorem. The dogma of science is a bit trickier to spot (and much harder to think of an algebraic metaphor for) but basically it is the scientific process itself. Any conclusion that cannot be reached via the METHOD is deemed invalid. Now we get to the tricky part of belief. A person of the scientific world view believes in reason, logic and repeatable results. A person with a more religious persuasion may believe in their feelings "what the heart tells them". The first person will make all sorts of logical rational answers as to why logic and reason are better, while the religious individual will try to express their emotional experiences. This leads to a situation where it is necessary (con't)