Santa V God

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

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

I’m guessing he’s rather pre-dated by (amongst others?) Nagarjuna and Dogen (in my particular line of ignorance).

I think the trouble resides in trying to determine the nature of reality.

Exactly.

Science says "if it is real, it can be measured, handled and manipulated."

Clearly insufficient on its own, IMO. As is any other single “approach.”

s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Cultivated is just a fancy word for conditioned.

Alrighty then.

This is a hard wired genetic imperative. Nothing to do with the higher functions of the recently developed human brain.

Are you sure this process cannot be enhanced by nurturing?

For to grow up free from the influence of religious paradigms you would have to have been brought up in total isolation from the concept of God, is this the case?

That's a two edged sword that cuts both ways, Tao, that can be applied equally towards atheism, agnosticism, theism, deism, pantheism, statism, and just about any other ism out there.

I had heard of the concept of God as a child, and I had heard of the concept of atheism as a child. However, I received no conditioning towards God belief as a child, but did receive conditioning towards atheism via the scientific literature I read as a child. If I understand your hypothesis correctly, my childhood conditioning should have swung me towards atheism. However, I'm not an atheist.

Very funny but you know well that is gobbeldy gook.

Gobbeldy gook? Here are some scientific abstracts and articles regarding this phenomena known as Idioglossia.

Ginny and Gracie Go to School - TIME
Autonomous languages of twins. [Acta Genet Med Gemellol (Roma). 1987] - PubMed Result
Prevalence and developmental course of 'secret language' - International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders

Children are often thinking about things for the first time and can come out with a simplicity that is touching. But that has nothing to do with intuition as discussed.

tao

Why? Because you declare it to be so? How closely have you observed children without your blinders? {Apparently not enough to be able to even recognize the idioglossia phenomenon. (I didn't know the proper name for this phenomenon until I googled it, but I have observed children enough to be able to recognize and identify the phenomena through my observations.)}

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

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

In what context? Here are a few... takes:

1. There is information in a photon that can not be physically observed (measured).
1a. Similar to the uncertainty principle.

2. There is information in a photon that can not cause anything because if it did then statement (1) would be broken.
2a. Causality is upheld... the observer caused it.
2b. Who should care which slit it went through... or which slit the photon was made to appear to have gone through... the source, or the observer?

3. The information that can not be observed is the perfect history, or the exact state.
3a. The fantasies of 19th century science linger on in textbooks and schools.

4. The information that can not be observed by any means is by no means ever destroyed.
4a. No energy was ever destroyed.
4b. Thermodynamics was upheld.

[Tao_Equus]

Netti here is a start on looking at what I have attempted to say from the anthropohistorical perspective: My commentaries are in black.

http://www.pni.org/research/anomalous/classif_art/pjsa/culture.html

This phenomenon is, of course something which is extremely common in certain so-called preliterate cultures particularly where the 'diviners' and ‘indigenous healers’ (e.g.- the sangomas in South African Blacks in ) are
regarded as having the ability to apprehend information by other than the conventional, sensory means or to influence events without using the recognized physiological or physical mechanisms. For example, Tedder found that all thirty preliterate cultures reviewed, believed that such mechanisms (i.e. psi) could he used to cause evil, and Levy-Bruhi has pointed out that unnatural deaths in the primitive tribes were attributed to people who held grudges against the victim.
Parapsychological j of S.A. 1982, 3:1, 1-5

As you can see here in this study there was a 100% conformity. I have read similar studies done in Brazil and in Papua New Guinea where again there is 100% conformity. If you wish I will dig them up. This is 3 areas remote from each other where primitive tribal cultures all share exactly the same supernatural ideas.




There are several parapsichiatric issues relating to this.

Firstly, the methods used by the ' indigenous healer' involve a great deal of superficially irrelevant ritual. Such rituals usually involve carrying out complex sequences of actions. This may, in fact, be regarded as the non-psi ("magic") components that may create a special environment or altered state of consciousness conducive to the occurrence of that allegedly elusive phenomenon, psi.

Ritual is a vital aspect of the conditioning. Whether it be Buddhist meditations, Catholic bead counting, or Evangelical speaking in tounges a high degree of ritual behaviour serves to re-inforce and give structural legitimacy.

Secondly, the ‘magical thinking’; that allows members of such 'primitive’ tribes to regard extrasensorimotor phenomena as normal , is perceived as an example of possible schizophrenic though disorder by the official diagnostic system of the American Psychiatric Association (APA). While ‘magical thinking’ (e.g. telepathy, clairvoyance) can certainly be symptomatic of psychosis, and is particularly common in schizophrenia , there is a need for psychiatrists to be aware of the of the background of their patients. In this regard, the APA itself recognizes that 'magical thinking' can be normal in primitive cultures.

In the same way believing in the miracles of the saints or of Jesus are a normalised acceptance of supernatural belief. Because religious beliefs have become normalised behaviour they are socially acceptable which gives them cultural acceptance but by no stretch of the imagination can they be viewed as facts.

Thirdly, the belief in external agencies, such as the sangoma or black magic, being able to induce certain occurrences, makes essential the perception of bewitchment within these cultures as normal and not a delusion, per se. Similarly, the ego-defence mechanism of projection in which defective behavior or thinking within oneself is attributed to external agencies, indigenous in the primitive culture.

This deals specifically with the belief that what people are seeing is outside agency of the type that Cyberpi especially seems fond of describing. It is not, it is a self-validating aspect of the psyche which though can be agreed upon by people sharing the same set of beliefs will not be observed by a neutral observer.

Fourthly, Eisenbud stresses the remarkable consistency of specific facets of the belief in psi phenomena in the preliterate culture. He emphasizes that with the advance of Westernized scientific endeavour such phenomena have been rejected and ridiculed as the defective beliefs of the 'primitives’.

Neppe, V.M. & Ewart Smith, M.

Likewise 5000 years from now the chances are that today's cultural norms of religion will be viewed as naive and primitive.

Pacific Neuropsychiatric Institute: PSYCHIATRIC INTERPRETATIONS OF SUBJECTIVE PARANORMAL PERCEPTION
ESP ‘feeling’ or ‘impression' or the paragnost suddenly and often spontaneously obtains an impression inside his head of an event which turns out to be contemporaneous (i.e. in the present.), precognitive (i.e. in the future) or rarely retrocognitive (i.e. in the past). This is usually auditory or visual, but is sometimes just described as 'meaningful', not involving specific modalities.
Frequently, such an 'impression' has a great deal of conviction. It is usually fragmentary and it is often coloured by the conscious or unconscious images, memories or emotions of the percipient 7. As with the hallucination proper, the interpretation of such a pseudohallucination should be in holistic context.

An 'impression' or 'feeling' nay become strongly fixed in the experients belief system. It may become a belief, the truth of which is firmly held, despite others regarding such a belief as patently untrue or extremely unlikely. The experient may, further, not regard such an impression as illogical. In this instance, the 'impression’ may apparently fulfill qualities of a delusion. To other members of his culture it would regarded as a 'false’, fixed belief that is held against objective and obvious contradictory proof to the contrary.


This deals with what spirituality actually is. Pseudohallucination. Because billions of people have their own unique experience of this does not give it credibility. In fact quite the contrary. The huge variance to be found in the particular paradigm of the individual combined with the similarities of expression show it to be a part of human brain function. Just because we can be logical does not mean that we always are.


I have only just started putting together the qualifications you have demanded Netti and to be honest if I were to post some of what I have looked at I believe I would be stepping over the boundary into offensiveness. It saddens me that I will be forced to be very careful about what i post for fear of people thinking I am calling them all nutters. If it is any consolation I have long considered myself to be a loony.


tao

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I sometimes feel that way about some of the threads I start.

Well no-one makes you start them do they, ya loony???!!!


s.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Well, I wasn’t suggesting one or the other. I was suggesting one might usefully use both. And perhaps one can also have ciabatta and mozzarella. Each one is a legitimate ingredient. The more the viewpoints the more "solid" the hologram we linguistically label as “reality.” Pass the Barolo.

s.

Are you sure it's safe to pass the Barolo? {Has enough time passed since the Borolo Wars that we won't risk starting a new Borolo War, which will then start a movement to stamp out Borolo because someone will declare Borolo to be the root of all the evil in the world?}

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

The ultimate void is lack of an afterlife. Not all religions address the afterlife in any kind of detail. Judaism for one. Basic Buddhism doesn't really address it either. Nirvana is attained in this life.

I do enjoy reading your posts Netti-Netti . Just wanted to add a little two pence worth here.

"Basic Buddhism" (the Pali Canon?) seems to have quite a lot to say about Nibbana, doesn't it?

Yes, it is to be attained in this life I think, as per the Pali Canon, as long as one is a monk in this life?

"Void" sounds rather nihilistic I think, in reference to Nibbana ("peaceful, sublime, wonderful, amazing, a state of supreme happiness, peace and freedom" - Bhikkhu Bodhi).

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Are you sure it's safe to pass the Barolo? {Has enough time passed since the Borolo Wars that we won't risk starting a new Borolo War, which will then start a movement to stamp out Borolo because someone will declare Borolo to be the root of all the evil in the world?}

I'm selflessly prepared to offer myself as an arbitration service to both sides; and am willing to accept ongoing samples as part of the service, to ensure no redemption of hostilities.

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Are you sure this process cannot be enhanced by nurturing?

Of course it can.

I had heard of the concept of God as a child, and I had heard of the concept of atheism as a child. However, I received no conditioning towards God belief as a child, but did receive conditioning towards atheism via the scientific literature I read as a child. If I understand your hypothesis correctly, my childhood conditioning should have swung me towards atheism. However, I'm not an atheist.

Then you do not understand my hypothesis correctly. That relies on the overwhelming cultural acceptance of belief. If you had grown up in a, (non-existent), culture where 99% of people were atheistic and the remaining 1% were viewed as misguided and delusional then it is highly unlikely you would become religious.

Why? Because you declare it to be so? How closely have you observed children without your blinders? {Apparently not enough to be able to even recognize the idioglossia phenomenon. (I didn't know the proper name for this phenomenon until I googled it, but I have observed children enough to be able to recognize and identify the phenomena through my observations.)}

I have observed my children very closely and recognised them and aided them in reaching milestones of development that put both of them at the top of their classes.

Ginny and Gracie:
...the twins' private communication has turned out to be something less than a true invented language. Linguists Meier and Newport now call Gracie and Ginny's speech "deformed English." What had seemed to be a vocabulary of hundreds of new words, when slowed down and analyzed on tape recordings proved to be about 50 complex mispronounced words and phrases jammed together and said at high speed...

These two children were actually the victims of abuse by neglect and as there were two of them they were able to compensate by developing their own way to communicate. But their very limited vocabulary was built upon the mixture of English and German they had picked up from their family. Likewise other cases of this usually involve twins. The development of speech in the child has been very well studied and there are no examples that I have ever come across that show one to have developed a proper language with a distinct syntax.

tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Well no-one makes you start them do they, ya loony???!!!


s.

lol....no they dont.

Leads me to ask.. on a site dedicated to comparative religion is "no religion" a valid view to present here?

tao

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

There are several parapsichiatric issues relating to this.

Personally, I wouldn’t be holding up psychiatry as a model of “objective” science.

On Being Sane in Insane Places -- Rosenhan 179 (4070): 250 -- Science

Ritual is a vital aspect of the conditioning. Whether it be Buddhist meditations, Catholic bead counting, or Evangelical speaking in tounges a high degree of ritual behaviour serves to re-inforce and give structural legitimacy.

Buddhist meditation has been shown to cause changes in the brain. But guess what, that needn’t be relevant.

He emphasizes that with the advance of Westernized scientific endeavour such phenomena have been rejected and ridiculed as the defective beliefs of the 'primitives’.

Again, just my personal take here, I don’t necessarily put much or any credence in the fact that the “advance of Westernized scientific endeavour such phenomena have been rejected and ridiculed as the defective beliefs of the 'primitives’ "; what arrogance. I’m not anti-science, I just don’t think it’s the be all and end all of looking at and living in the world.

This deals with what spirituality actually is. Pseudohallucination.

Can't imagine why you might cause offence.

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Leads me to ask.. on a site dedicated to comparative religion is "no religion" a valid view to present here?

Well you've not been shown the door have you?

s.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Personally, I wouldn’t be holding up psychiatry as a model of “objective” science.



s.

I agree when it comes down to treatment. But in the study of how and why people think as they do there has been a lot of good work done. We have touched on other threads about the increasing use of drugs to modify behaviour and my feeling is that no drug has yet been developed that is of help to a patient. Though some for controlling violent behaviour, for example, help everybody else.

tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

To the extent that the same kinds of religious imagery has historically shown up in cultures that are far removed from each other, one might reasonably conclude that the underlying archetypes are functionally independent of social environment and logically orthogonal to cultural reinforcement, social norms and habits or doctrinal belief systems.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Or are drawn from universal principles.

According to Carl Jung, what we see is an expression of "universal dispositions," which can be easily mistaken for a cultural inheritance.

You might be interested in Dr Anthony Stevens. He has written numerous books along neo-Jungian lines with titles like Archetypes: A Natural History of the Self and The Two Million-Year-Old Self.

Here's an abstract for an article entitled Thoughts on the Psychobiology of Religion and the Neurobiology of Archetypal Experience:

Abstract. There is good reason to suppose that religious belief and ritual are manifestations of the archetypal blueprint for human existence encoded in the genetic structure of our species. As a consequence, religion has become a focus of study for psychobiologists and neuroscientists. However, scientific explanations of religious experience do not "explain away" such experience nor are they substitutes for the experience itself. On the contrary, scientific discoveries may be seen as corroboration of religious insights into the unus mundus, the essential oneness of all experience, which links human nature with the nature of the cosmos.

Blackwell Synergy - Zygon, Volume 21 Issue 1 Page 9-29, March 1986 (Article Abstract)

If you like, a good way to dig up related article is to identify articles that cite the one you have and get authors' names and titles through Google Scholar

I suspect this is pretty obscure stuff, so there may not be much along these lines.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

I do enjoy reading your posts Netti-Netti .

Hey, hey! Likewise.

"Basic Buddhism" (the Pali Canon?) seems to have quite a lot to say about Nibbana, doesn't it?

Yes, it is to be attained in this life I think, as per the Pali Canon, as long as one is a monk in this life?

I think some people become monks after they reach Nibbanna. Being a monk does not appear to be a prerequisite. I suspect there are many whose life circumstances do not allow them to live as monks, especially in Western cultures that do not value their holy men and women and do not support them.

"Void" sounds rather nihilistic I think, in reference to Nibbana ("peaceful, sublime, wonderful, amazing, a state of supreme happiness, peace and freedom" - Bhikkhu Bodhi).

The English translations of the Pali have been described as atrocious. To get the meaning, I think you have to cover a lot of territory rather than deal with individual passages.