Saving Theists a Ton of Grief

In objective scientific terms - it does not enlighten our view of the cosmos in any way whatsoever. You can't use it to charge a mobile, prop open a door, calculate pi or explain away dark energy. Totally useless. Hence the justified skepticism of most pragmatic materialist scientists.

However, people claim to have discovered, contacted or experienced this "essence" with striking results on their lives. They allegedly become more alive and more themselves, finding purpose and meaning in life, overcoming previously insurmountable problems and even start being kinder to the sullen guy next door. There seems to be some objective evidence that people do endure hardships better, live longer and are happier if they believe in this "essence". Perhaps they understand the cosmos in a different way?

The Tao is like a bellows: it is empty yet infinitely capable.
The more you use it, the more it produces; the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

Free from desire, you realize the mystery, Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.

I've said too much already...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

God is the source of all being, not just a single individual being, no LG? IMHO he is the essence of you and me and the cat across the road. That's why Jesus said

Otherwise God's limited to being just one more individual god among many. Isn't that what Baal etc. were? However, that doesn't mean God isn't conscious - quite the opposite - God is the root of consciousness.

So, if God is the transcendent source of all being, does it make sense to speak of God as "angry" or "just" or "cantankerous" or "witty"? The only thing God might be is loving - because that is the expression of unlimited being. The rest I think is a consequence of that, or is us.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Consider it something like a large group of siblings - if they hurt each other in conflict they effectively "hurt" the parent. I don't buy that argument of limiting god by giving him an identity - its just like saying that the prime minister is limited by having an identity because then he just one amongst many ministers - the distinction is that he actually the PRIME minister - similarly the idea may be there that there are many gods, but amongst them one is actually god in the true sense (cause of all causes etc)

So why can't god be conscious if he is the root of all consciousness - and how can he be conscious if he doesn't have a sense of self?

If he is not the source of all varieties where did we get them from? ebay?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I understand what you are trying to say - how is it possible for god to exhibit mundane traits that are clearly the result of ignorance - like wrath, envy, lust etc

- basically it boils down to the question of whether what god does is moralistic or whether god behaves in moral ways - the answer is that what god does is moralistic, otherwise he is not independent - in other words even if there is an exhibition of a trait that appears mundane it is only due to our experience that it is mundane (in otherwords we get angry for mundane reasons but god gets angry for transcendental reasons)
In other words there is a proper application for every emmotion we experience that can help us advance in spiritual life
We can be greedy for spiritual advancement
We can be angry with those who defile the dear devotees of the Lord (Although an advanced devotee never considers themself a dear devotee of the Lord, so you can't use this excuse to break someone's teeth because they called you names

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)
etc etc

The conclusion is that there is no scope for ignorance when one comes in contact with god, so what would ordinarily become a vice in mundane life becomes a virtue in spiritual life

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

At that age a baby would be working on instinct - and instinct is amoral. I don't think (no evidence) a baby would feel "angry" or "frustrated" - as these, IMO, are the product of a more complex emotional make-up that the child will quickly develop as they grow. At the very young age I am thinking about, their emotional response would not really get past the instinctual.
You tickle them - they giggle and are happy - yet they don't know why. Soon they work out what makes them happy and seek more of it.
You take food away - they grow hungry - which they don't like.
But it is not until they have the necessary experiences, and the necessary intellectual capacity to identify right and wrong, good and bad, that they can be anything other than amoral.

The other thing to note / think about is that at an early age the child will work purely on the fact that actions = reaction, and the reaction is either pleasant or painful. They thus seek actions that bring pleasant reactions. There is little else consciously driving them - and certainly not a concept of right and wrong / good and bad.

I guess, the more I think about it, that morality only really comes into play when one is (sub?)consciously aware that one's actions have an effect on other people.
Until that time there is no morality in a person's actions.

So if someone grew up in the forest all by themselves, with no other companions, animals etc - would there be any consideration of morality in that person's actions?

I think morality is a byproduct of the instinct to survive.
Humans have contact with others - societies.
To survive in this society as an individual you must, on the whole, share common understandings of what is acceptable.
This forms one's moral code.
It is not the formal laws, but the bedrock on which they are based.
One might almost consider them an evolutionary product not of the individual but of the society.

 

What joy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Think for a second about early life. The majority of animals around you would leave you dead - but then you didn't understand what 'dead' was. Things went on around you that you couldn't explain. When the ground shook, what was it? When fire, (something you didn't understand but knew hurt like a bitch), spewed forth from a hole in a big rock, (volcano). When bolts of electricity struck trees and golfers, when seas and rivers rose and resulted once more in that death you didn't understand. When you sat down and grunted at one of these people who didn't grunt back - and you didn't know why. Why is uguwoogu not grunting? Anyone's guess.

Fuck me, what a life that would have been. Even now, some thousand upon thousands of years later and we find most people dropped off in the middle of nowhere don't actually make it out alive. They don't know what to eat, what animals to avoid, what paths to take. Why, I admire the few tribal people left running round the jungle while their penis dangles freely. How could any man let his wiggly hang loose when his neighbours are pythons and tarantulas? It really is quite something.

When it comes to communication, how does one of these people tell his buddies that snakes bite and leave you unable to grunt? How does one tell his buddies that the ground shook and left 30 of his other buddies dead and underground?

Now I will attempt, (although the basis of this I cannot guarantee obviously), to give an early perspective of things.

It is one man's duty to explain the sun to another. He starts by informing the man that the sun is very very powerful, (which as we all know is quite undeniable). He knows that during the day the sun is there, no man can look at it, and it can cause some serious pain when it wants to, (sucks living without 50 block). This man also knows that when the sun isn't there, life can be decidedly worse - rain, storms, cold etc etc.

We almost have a two edged sword - do you root for the sun, which burns but generally helps life grow, or the rain and cold, which freeze or soak your nuts off but generally help things grow. You end up with a good and bad for each. I like the sun because it provides warmth and saves me on heating bills. I hate the sun because I get burned red raw and get heat stroke when I over do it.

These are gods. Something given a human persona, a human form that is sometimes nicer than pie, and sometimes quite disastrous.

Then, following the traditions of the majority of ancient cultures you have animal life. Again, how would you explain to a buddy that elephants are nice and tigers eat your bits? By personalising them. The all mighty elephant god - power, generally pleasant - slow to anger. Tigers - fearsome, evil.. don't go near one unless you're a christian that takes the biblical quote "preach to all of gods creatures" seriously.

This man then teaches his children - by use of stories, (an early version of old wives tales). Believe it or not, but they work, (well, I've personally never seen the benefit of rubbing butter on your testicles when you have an itch, but still) - and that is their very purpose. They are easy ways for what we will call the 'uneducated', (and don't take that word wrongly, we really cannot dispute that ancient people were 'uneducated' with respects to the works of the universe), to explain how things work - not why they work, but how. Tigers hurt, deadly night shade leaves you unable to grunt, move or anything else etc.

Humans can certainly be quite greedy. A man stands there wanting the bulk of the meat for himself. Animals do this very thing - but with them it's generally settled by 'stepping outside'. Humans learnt that their greed, their nature, was undoubtedly the same as the big being in the sky, or whatever they had elevated to supreme status. Surely that is logical, (for an early people), Not only them but animals showed this same trait - surely any supreme being would be the same. And thus sacrifice was born to give this supreme being it's fair share. This evolved whereby when shit got bad, (earthquakes/bad weather etc), it was a sign that this supreme being wasn't getting enough. And so on.

We can see a certain trend with ancient cultures. Indians worshipped elephant and tiger gods, South American gods were snakes, Egyptian gods were crocodiles, vultures and jackals. Mankind simply elevated that which was more powerful then they. Some, like elephants, were relatively friendly whereas some were outright mean. Rabbits were a symbol of fertility, rats were a symbol of doom.

Some eventually considered that gods would look like they do and so many human-like gods were born. A god for war, sex, thunder, vanilla ice cream. Some eventually considered that any powerful enough being could do all those tasks in one - and so all those gods were amalgamated into one being, (elohim - still left as a plural). Some then went further and said god would really be like them and look like a hippy rabbi.

gods, ghosts, goblins, mermaids and whatever else you can think of are a way to provide answers that generally work and certainly back in the day helped individual survival. A need of society? Absolutely.

That cultures spread stories, beliefs, knowledge and ideas is undeniable. The most popular current form would be movies most probably. Before some Japanese dude got into it, we had no ideas concerning godzilla - and yet now he is a household name. As cultures spread, they would spread those stories which would then be incorporated into the stories of other cultures.

From a biblical perspective, Abraham was Sumerian - a man who grew up listening to all the Sumerian stories. As he travelled, and founded a new people, those stories would have travelled along with him - being shared and ammended to fit with the current society. Utnapishtim and Noah are the same, just slightly ammended to fit a new people. Adamu, the serpent and the fruit of enlightenent and knowledge became Eden, (a Sumerian word), Adam and Eve, the serpent and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Sargon became Moses etc etc. Some few thousand years later it was time for a new belief - a new human ideal, and yet was that even original? (the answer to that is clearly not), and yet it served the current purpose which was much needed forgiveness. In a way it made it ok to die, to be killed. To have a god die just like everyone else at the time was dying, and say it was ok, is a tremendous lift to society.

If there was a god and it came down puffing on a ciggy and drinking Stella, I would feel more comfortable in myself, would feel that what I did was acceptable while human opinion became irrelevant.

Humans are like that. My daughter still looks at me for acceptance to do something from an older persons perspective I would probably look at dubiously. Do I like her bouncing around like a lunatic on a trampoline? It sometimes worries me, but my acceptance means the world to her - and I can confidently state that acceptance means the world to all of us. We undergo all kinds of things to get acceptance - not just from parents but from friends, enemies, colleagues. Hell, I started smoking because at some stage I sought acceptance from my peers. You probably took your would be wife to meet your parents to receive acceptance for your choices in life. The ultimate acceptance: you can come to heaven/you are forgiven - created specifically because that is what humans need the most. Funny thing is it's not even unique to humans, but every social species. Even my dog seeks acceptance - it is the most important thing any social animal can get.

I suppose this in itself is a minor reason for the shared stories in ancient texts. Easier acceptance. If you come along and completely change a belief system, you wont win many friends - if you adapt that which is already accepted, you can't lose.

Why do you think christmas, easter, pentecost have worked so well? Because they were adaptations of already accepted holidays.

My apologies for typing a lot.

 

Well lol - it was kind of like a 20 minute history of the universe, but I don't think I clearly expressed myself ....

You are saying that religion is a response to reality or an abstraction from reality. But the very question we are discussing is what is "real" so before we talk about the relationships between religion and science I am asking you to tell me the principles by which one social structure is held to be an abstraction from the other.

- for instance all the views you place on religion do not come from the definition that religion gives to itself - you are defining religion according to a speculative archeological perspective on ancient society - the point I am trying to indicate is that you begin your statements from the point that religion is an abstraction from archeological evidence - this indicates that you have applied principles to determine that religion is an abstraction of the world presented by archeology. I am asking you to tell me what those principles are.

So before we venture off on topics of the correctness or incorrectness or archeology or religion, tell me th e general principles by which one social structure is seen to be an abstraction of another - it might be easier to turf the words "religion" and "science" for the time being and use the words social structure A and B.

What are the principles you apply to determine that social structure A is an abstraction of social structure B? When you answer this then we can move on see how this applies to religion being an abstraction of the world of science or whatever.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

My god, you're good! I'm just going to continue to follow along and take notes on your techniques. Damn. I mean, wow. I'm highly impressed!

 

Yes, well. For the past few years I've been attempting zen buddhism. I find that I've experienced some of the things you've mentioned above. Interesting. Is it not possible that all of the experiences of humans regarding the mysteries of the cosmos are just shifts in perspective? Fully internal paradigm shifts with no corresponding counterpart in objective reality? Hmmm...

 

super, was my line of BS too much BS for you?

 

Well, maybe a bit. My poor brain needs to have things presented in a fairly simple fashion. I guess it's the way of describing certain ideas in a philosophical sense that throws me. For instance, here's what I get from your post:

You must, by necessity, be "outside" of a thing to observe it. In order to ascertain the ultimate nature of an electron, I would have to be an electron, therefore, my label of "electron" is simply a handle I give to the outward behavior of some entity that behaves consistently like what I define to be an "electron". Yes?

 

I think western theism has much to learn from Zen. I have quite a few Buddhist friends who regard themselves as atheist, but who value a spiritual practice. I like the 5 precepts (might adopt them myself one day!).

I agree with you about shifts in perspective - Science & Zen are both attempting to gain a metaperspective. I think Zen "enlightenment" must be having a totally clear perception of ourselves and the world resulting from non-attachment, mindfullness and present centredness. Zen as the study of our mind from within seems the subjective sister to our objective scientific study of the Cosmos.

 

Yes.

 

Perhaps it's the drink, perhaps it's just me, but I don't know what it is exactly that you want me to answer.

Not really, no. Defining belief perhaps, not religion. Religion is simply a collection of those that have conformed to a belief/set of beliefs.

Sorry but I disagree. My statements have reflected that the evidence shows that beliefs and stories have spread from one culture to another.

I probably would if I ever said such thing. Obviously it's just me, but what does "religion is an abstraction of the world" mean?

 

You are saying that religion is a made up thing and that science is a real thing - In other words you diametrically oppose them (you don't for instance say that science and religion are both perspectives of truth - which would be a third option).

You state that religion was created (or abstracted) from the "real world" - this is a definition of your creation and not a definition you find refered to in religion.

So in other words you say that religion is an abstraction from the "real" world.
My point was that this is begging th equestion since the very issue we are trying to discuss is "what is real". So rather than get into the correctness or incorrectness of science or religion i was asking you to explain the general principles you are applying to determine that one "reality" is an abstraction of another (as you are clearly saying with religion).

I asked that you present your general principles in neutral language (Social structure A and B) so that we can then apply those principles to other situations and see if they are in fact correct principles for determining that one social structure is an abstraction from another.

Superliminal caught on what I was saying straight away with the first post - try reading it again and come back with a response

Previously posted by Lightgigantic .....

"You are saying that religion is a response to reality or an abstraction from reality. But the very question we are discussing is what is "real" so before we talk about the relationships between religion and science I am asking you to tell me the principles by which one social structure is held to be an abstraction from the other.

- for instance all the views you place on religion do not come from the definition that religion gives to itself - you are defining religion according to a speculative archeological perspective on ancient society - the point I am trying to indicate is that you begin your statements from the point that religion is an abstraction from archeological evidence - this indicates that you have applied principles to determine that religion is an abstraction of the world presented by archeology. I am asking you to tell me what those principles are.

So before we venture off on topics of the correctness or incorrectness or archeology or religion, tell me th e general principles by which one social structure is seen to be an abstraction of another - it might be easier to turf the words "religion" and "science" for the time being and use the words social structure A and B.

What are the principles you apply to determine that social structure A is an abstraction of social structure B? When you answer this then we can move on see how this applies to religion being an abstraction of the world of science or whatever "

 

One's reality consists of that which their perception makes "real".

At any given time, there exists in a person the remnants of what they have percieved, and that which they are percieving.

Since for a person, the above is the sum total of their existence at a given time, they cannot at any given time attest to exactly what is outside of it - no matter how real it is according to the remnants of said perception.

We can only claim what we think is there, and it may or may not turn out be confirmed by that which we may come to percieve or are currently percieving.

But our perceptoin is a reflection of a thing, not the thing itself. That perception is inherently skewed by the aforementioned remnants and by the mechanics of the perception itself.

To me, a good word for that which is unskewed by this inevitable circumstance is: "the tao".

 

You know, you've still got me so confused as to what you're trying to ask of me that I have had to go back a page or two to find out where and how this started, and hopefully try to find the connection. Alas, I couldn't.

It started just after I stated that you can believe in anything you want to, but it becomes an issue when you try and promote it as reality without any evidence to suggest it's existence.

I don't see how you've got from that statement to social structures a and b - or even c and d for that matter.

Not really no. I was saying that you can believe in anything you want to - be it gods, goblins, ghosts, fairies, mermaids etc - but when you try to promote the existence of these things as real, you really need some evidence. Right now I can't even figure out what you mean by religion being 'made up' and science being 'real'.

It's seemingly not just me either. From what you quoted it seems even Cris was a little confused: "Frankly I must add that I am not sure what those english words mean "How one social structure can be an abstraction of another" - perhaps it is a new term in sociology?"

Umm.. Well, both religion and science are 'real' in that they exist. Of course if you then want to claim that a floaty space being exists, then you really do need to provide some evidence - certainly more important than waffling on about structure a and b.

Again, sorry.. but I don't understand the question. I didn't say anything about religion. I have noticed that even other people have had to have a word with you about jumping to non-existant conclusions about what people are saying, but nowhere here have I even remotely mentioned religion... I merely got your social structure abstraction crap because you asked what the crime is in perceiving god as a person - and I said none, as long as you have evidence to support the claim. It's quite bizarre.

There you go again. Look, let me restate my original statement in the hopes it clears things up:

You can believe in anything you want to. If you are going to promote that belief as being real, you really need to provide some evidence.

Give that man a cigar. In fact, give that man more than a cigar - because all I see is you waffling on about irrelevant crap and making claims that I said things I never did. "You are saying that religion is made up and science is real". Show me where I said any such thing.

If SL caught on, ask him - although it does appear he was actually being sarcastic. By all means ask him a completely irrelevant question concerned with something he never said.

 

Basically this is your overview of religion - at a certain point of time in history while some men were sitting around in their ancient communities they made up the concept of god in response to the mystery of physical phenomena - this is an archeological perspective on how religion appeared in the world and doesn't correlate to how religion defines its own appearance in this world - in other words you have given an ontological (ontology deals with the nature of reality, or the idea that some things are more real than others) superior position to the archeological perspective - this is why I say that it is your position that religion is an abstraction of the scientific world.

Now from this point it is useless to venture onto to topics of the correctness or incorrectness of science or religion since you have ALREADY applied GENERAL PRINCIPLES that give a superior ontology to science than religion.
So rather than examine the nature of science and religion I am asking you to examine the general principles by which you established that science is ontologically superior to religion. I asked you present that in neutral language (if you felt a need to refer to science or religion in your presentation, better to call them social structure A & B) to make the discussion less surcharged with innuendo and easier to let the ideas stand on their own .

Here is an example
Suppose i said that coca cola is a variation (or abstraction) of water
So I will call water social construction A and cocacola social construction B
I could say something is more real when it has been in existence for thousands of years and does not owe its appearance in this world to industrial manufacture.
I could say that if a person can live without B but cannot live without A, A is ontologically superior

Not to say that these general principles are correct, but they are examples of how i am revealing the GENERAL PRINCIPLES I have APPLIED to come to the conclusion that cocacola is an abstraction from water. From here it opens the discussion up as we can apply these general principles to other situations to see if indeed I have applied the correct general principles to determine that one thing is ontologically superior to another.

 

I finally understand completely and I like the concept so much that I will adopt it. Gracias, senior wes.

 

Again, I hadn't even mentioned religion. I simply pointed out that you can believe in whatever you want to as long as you provide evidence for it's existence when you try and promote it as real to everyone else. How many times am I going to have to say this before you pay attention?

Ok. A belief in god, ghosts, leprechauns or mermaids is not religion.

Let's sort this out here and now.. You answered for me and told me that I think that "religion is made up" - I can only assume you disagree and think that 'religion' is a natural thing found living in the jungles of Borneo, otherwise I don't get what you're claiming I think.

Religion is a group of people that share the same beliefs, (specifically pertaining to supernatural entities), science is a principal aimed at gaining knowledge of the world and universe. Both are "made up", in that they are human things, but both are "real" in that they exist. You claimed that I think "religion is made up and science is real". Needless to say, your statement is nonsensical bollocks, (bollocks is a phrase often used to indicate that something is nonsense).

I didn't give a superior position to anything. I said that if you want to claim something is real, provide evidence. K?

No I haven't. I said that if you want to claim something is real, provide evidence. K?

But I didn't do any such thing. I didn't even mention religion. I gave a perspective of why early people would believe in powerful entities - I didn't say anything was more or less real than anything else, (especially given that religion does exist - ergo, is real), and merely stated that if a person expects others to believe in the space daddy they do, that they provide evidence.

Then I could ask why you say that coca cola is an abstraction of water, but given that I never said any such thing, I don't get why you're asking me. You asked me this question the minute I stated that if you want to claim something is real, provide evidence. K?

A foolish statement.

You can't even get what I said "correct", how can you expect to get anything else "correct"?

 

*kowtow*