Santa V God

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Tao, you should not be surprised to learn why I'm running out of ways to say the same thing. It's because you keep repeating the same thesis even though I've pointed out several times over that it's logically unsound.

Here's an example in the context of something you said recently. In post #186, I suggested that the study of "cultural inheritance and habitualised behaviour" has no bearing on the central thesis of faith perspective -- i.e., the validity of a G-d concept. Your response, which appears in Post #192, completely ignores what I've been saying about levels of analysis and standards of evidence:

My reaction is simply this: the above has nothing to do with the validity of a G-d concept. You are describing imperfect religious establishments and casting aspersions on religious authorities in what appears to be an attempt to call the existence of G-d into question. Indeed, that has been the thrust of your posts since you started this thread. I have no problem with it because it makes for interesting conversation. But to suggest that metaverbal issues relating to faith can be settled at the very literal level of observations about human culture strikes me as misguided. I'm not totally sure it is deliberately misguided.

At any rate, I'm perfectly willing to address the matter in the way you have proposed in the hope that the problems will be clarified in due course. At this point I would point out again that you have not shown the evolution of religious establishments to be relevant to the issue of G-d identity, as reflected in a G-d concept. In fact, you have provided very little detail at all about evolution of religious establishments.

Regarding the logical disconnect problem, I'll try top clarify it again. As I said, by definition G-d is ultimately transcendent, which means He transcends church history and all world kingdoms as well as individuals. The way humans conduct themselves reflects on their imperfect understanding of right intention and right action. It seems to me that rather than see it in these terms, you have you have tried to bring the existence of G-d down to a credibility problem that presumably has been created for G-d by those who presume to represent Him. Hence your focus on alleged scheister shamans, the (allegedly) power-mongering warlord Muhammad, etc. I'd say if it's not a smear campaign against religion, then it's flawed reasoning. The connection you are attempting to make is for the most part out of touch with traditional - and I dare say a well neigh universal understanding of G-d as a Transcendent Being. If you want to challenge the concept of a transcendental G-d, you are of course free to make your case.


My response is the same as before: Why does it matter? How do their practices validate a G-d concept? Secondarily, where is the anthropologic evidence of this from societies that actually treated them as privileged persons rather than as humble servants? Your argument includes a tacit assumption about a connection you have never developed. Moreover, you cite no evidence. You are substituting philosophy when you need facts. In this context, I note another statement you made that I found puzzling:

You probably don't mean the religionists who became renunciates because they liked the idea of leading the supremely privileged lifestyle of a beggar. So who do you mean? Do you have any names? Biographies?

To get back to your more recent post, which also raises an issue of fact:

Where is the evidence for this?


Not for me. I'm interested in the anthropology of religion and hope to learn something here.

You contend that the religious deceptions were already going long before Buddha and Jesus. OK, so let's go back in history and see how the purveyors of Chinese folk religions established themselves as a priviledged elite who were possessed of great wealth and status. Looking forward to something on that.

sorry but I will not be dragged down into the mire of impetuous response by the meaningless peripherals you wish to drag me into. I will as promised, shortly present a qualified set of data to support that which I have stated. I know what I have said even if you do not. I will not be rushed nor pre-empted by you thinking you have me on the back hoof. You asked me once and I said I would oblige. please have the grace to await my qualified response. I have already noted in my preliminary research that you will have to interpret the data I will present in the context of reductionism I represent as it seems sadly no one else has as yet the balls to state the bare facts as I do here. No doubt because they are poosy-footing around the fragile ego's of those who disagree. I ask that when I do present my qualified dissertation that you see it as such and not as me playing some mpmorpg. As for running out of ways to say the same thinf then you should have ever sympathy with me. The only difference is I try to work with ANY rules you wish to impose where as you shift the goalpoasts in every post.


.

[Dream]

Tao-Equuis said balls.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Dream

Tao-Equuis said balls.

Balls, Balls and Bollocks...
I have here people perfectly willing to agree with me that certain paradigms are self evidently corrupt yet want me to accept that their lovely fluffy paradigms truly represent the fact I somehow, despite my genuine efforts, cannot or will not see. I present the simplest, most easy to comprehend analysis and it is deanded that i qualify 100 fold beyond what any theist expects to be asked for. I'm telling you now this has begun to really piss me off. I'm sick of intellectual cowardice.

tao

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Balls, Balls and Bollocks...
I have here people perfectly willing to agree with me that certain paradigms are self evidently corrupt yet want me to accept that their lovely fluffy paradigms truly represent the fact I somehow, despite my genuine efforts, cannot or will not see. I present the simplest, most easy to comprehend analysis and it is deanded that i qualify 100 fold beyond what any theist expects to be asked for. I'm telling you now this has begun to really piss me off. I'm sick of intellectual cowardice.

tao

Easy big fella there are those who do not wholly disagree, but you must see by now how emotionally invested people can be in seeing you as wrong, even if it means to skew the meanings of phrases, words and definitions.
I have my own ideas of the whole, god-not god thing but it is only belief and will-0-the wisp impressions. When it comes to hard empirical evidence I would have to submit to the superior argument.

You make a good case for religion-as-control measure and I have really enjoyed reading your posts, especially those that gave me pause to consider and reconsider. It would be a pity to lose that ability I should think, so please continue!

[Paladin]

BTW Tao, I was interested in what you thought of the period in which the bicameral mind began to break down, and if there might have been individuals who had already moved beyond this level of thinking and used that newfound awareness to hold the rest hostage by playing on their fears.
And if that model has anything worthy within it are there those who even now are moving beyond what we know as self awareness or self consciousness to a different level of thinking?

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Paladin

...you must see by now how emotionally invested people can be in seeing you as wrong, even if it means to skew the meanings of phrases, words and definitions.

I see this discussion as being quite tame. As for skewing meanings, I have not seen any of that.

But since you mention it, I do think it does come down to style and expressive intent. For example, consider this statement from "The Second Plane" by Martin Amis: "If God existed, and if he cared for humankind, he would never have given us religion.” The statement flows nicely and has the ring of considered opinion. But it's a silly statement.

The "if God existed" part alone is loaded with controversy. Yet the author acts as though the matter is settled. The rest of the statement is pure conjecture, involving Mr. Amis' self-styled ability to second guess what a caring G-d's intentions would have been if G-d had existed.

As you can see, a statement that seemed to make good sense at first glance turns out to be sheer gibberish from a semantic point of view. However, even though it's meaningless at face value, it may nevertheless have some value as the expression of a personal point of view. Some people might agree with the sentiment even if they recognize the problematic reasoning.

And of course we get the point even if we don't take Mr. Amis literally. He is telling us that he doesn't like religion and further, that he would almost have us see religion as proof that G-d does not exist, and if He did exist, that He would be altogether useless as a source of positive values.

We get it. But we also see that Amis is a bit of a coward: Since G-d won't come forward and defend Himself, it's easy to blame Him for mankind's imperfections and absurdities.

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

But since you mention it, I do think it does come down to style and expressive intent.

Yes, I think so too. Rhetoric has certainly gotten a bad rap over the years and I don't know of anyone who is above skillful use of it in an argument.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Cyberpi,

That reminds me of creationist or intelligent design pseudo-science efforts to explain evolution.

Tao

It has been an observation, and an interaction. Nothing pseudo about it. You have yet to ever see my wife, but she moves a few bits in this world too. I likewise say that as an observation, and an interaction. I understand though... you disbelieve me. You don't trust me. You think I'm just trying to satisfy some... mental addiction. Seems reasonable I guess... people don't get married without reason and most reasons are to merely fill a need.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

It has been an observation, and an interaction. Nothing pseudo about it. You have yet to ever see my wife, but she moves a few bits in this world too. I likewise say that as an observation, and an interaction. I understand though... you disbelieve me. You don't trust me. You think I'm just trying to satisfy some... mental addiction.

Speaking about observation and interaction, I'd like your take on this:
Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiement.
(Probably belongs on the science board.)

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Balls, Balls and Butterflys...

Soz had a glass or 2 too many when i was out last nite

[greymare]

hehehehehe "bollocks"

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Paladin

BTW Tao, I was interested in what you thought of the period in which the bicameral mind began to break down, and if there might have been individuals who had already moved beyond this level of thinking and used that newfound awareness to hold the rest hostage by playing on their fears.
And if that model has anything worthy within it are there those who even now are moving beyond what we know as self awareness or self consciousness to a different level of thinking?

The development of social paradigms must be intimately related to the development of language. But taking advantage or seizing the opportunity is to be found in most social mammals. Language simply gave it new avenues of expression.
Transcendence is the holy grail of spirituality but I am far from convinced that it is not just a more complicated expression of the angst denial we touched on earlier. It is not limited to the spiritually enlightened or searching either but found throughout art and literature. I think humankind has a natural tendency to push the boundaries, to find new frontiers. This is simply one expression of that.

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

But since you mention it, I do think it does come down to style and expressive intent. For example, consider this statement from "The Second Plane" by Martin Amis: "If God existed, and if he cared for humankind, he would never have given us religion.” The statement flows nicely and has the ring of considered opinion. But it's a silly statement.

The "if God existed" part alone is loaded with controversy. Yet the author acts as though the matter is settled. The rest of the statement is pure conjecture, involving Mr. Amis' self-styled ability to second guess what a caring G-d's intentions would have been if G-d had existed.

As you can see, a statement that seemed to make good sense at first glance turns out to be sheer gibberish from a semantic point of view. However, even though it's meaningless at face value, it may nevertheless have some value as the expression of a personal point of view. Some people might agree with the sentiment even if they recognize the problematic reasoning.

And of course we get the point even if we don't take Mr. Amis literally. He is telling us that he doesn't like religion and further, that he would almost have us see religion as proof that G-d does not exist, and if He did exist, that He would be altogether useless as a source of positive values.

We get it. But we also see that Amis is a bit of a coward: Since G-d won't come forward and defend Himself, it's easy to blame Him for mankind's imperfections and absurdities.

How is Amis any different from you in that regard? It seems to me you are critical of him for starting with a premise where as your language has an equally rigid start point. It is like you want one rule for the theist and another for the atheist. Makes no sense to me.

tao

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Who knows, maybe Occam's got a good full beard these days.

Would it be too simplistic just to acknowledge that the subjective (spiritual) and objective (material) viewpoints are both valid but mutually incompatible?

Actually, it's already been done by Stephen J. Gould.

Besides the political aspect, I think the trouble resides in trying to determine the nature of reality. Science says "if it is real, it can be measured, handled and manipulated." When confronted with spirit, equally real to those who understand and intuit, science is at a loss because they haven't yet found a satisfactory way to measure, handle and manipulate it.

Institutional Religion simply doesn't like being challenged for authority...in that much Tao is correct. In some rare instances perhaps spirit can be manipulated by those so tuned, although that is something I do not consider wise. And then again perhaps that is a part of the failings of science in this regard, approaching the realm of spirit with an incorrect attitude. Perhaps it is spirit that manipulates us, something an atheist could not allow for within their own paradigm. It is a consideration summarily dismissed without due process; it is an unthinkable thought.

I can't help but be reminded of Faraday. How strange his ideas of magnetism must have sounded to those who had never considered, how magical, mysterious, spooky, even heretical. Playing with demons, I can imagine. But Faraday found ways to measure and manipulate this unseen phenomena. Perhaps one day spirit will be made evident for the masses...certainly some in quantum physics seems to point in that direction. Neutrinos come to mind.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Actually, it's already been done by Stephen J. Gould.

Besides the political aspect, I think the trouble resides in trying to determine the nature of reality. Science says "if it is real, it can be measured, handled and manipulated." When confronted with spirit, equally real to those who understand and intuit, science is at a loss because they haven't yet found a satisfactory way to measure, handle and manipulate it.

Can you precisely measure happiness, sadness, joy? Does that make them not real?
(Interestingly, my son playing Santa Claus brought me much joy, and made Santa Claus real for me.) Hmm.

Institutional Religion simply doesn't like being challenged for authority...in that much Tao is correct. In some rare instances perhaps spirit can be manipulated by those so tuned, although that is something I do not consider wise.

Agreed.

And then again perhaps that is a part of the failings of science in this regard, approaching the realm of spirit with an incorrect attitude. Perhaps it is spirit that manipulates us, something an atheist could not allow for within their own paradigm. It is a consideration summarily dismissed without due process; it is an unthinkable thought.

Another "semantic stopsign?"