Santa V God

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Now Thomas ...

You miss my point ... you can disprove the existence of Santa Claus, you cannot disprove the existence of God.

Thomas

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Thomas

You miss my point ... you can disprove the existence of Santa Claus, you cannot disprove the existence of God.

Thomas

You could go around with the blind faith that the "essence or spirit" of Santa Clause makes us do the things that Santa clause is meant to do. Such blind faith would be no different to a belief in God. To be frank I find this argument that you cannot disprove God an extremely dishonest one. It is a fudge not a valid argument.

Tao

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Paladin

A well thought out and articulate argument but I must disagree on several points since the main thrust would seem more an argumentum ad populum approach to belief in a deity.
Sure the main cultural meme has been ripe for moving the locus of control outside the human race but that doesn't mean that ethical behavior arises only in response to that idea.

Originally Posted by Operacast

the answer to your question is that if there were to be found, at any point either in the ancient past or in the present or in the future, an entirely countercultural figure who would introduce from scratch a radical unprecedented form of atheism within an entirely pious and isolated community, like, say, within a hitherto theocratic culture on an isolated island out in the Pacific, and who did so in the same breath with an equally radical and unimaginable kind of altruistic ethics of a sort none of us can yet conceive of, and if that brand of combined atheism and radical altruism took root throughout that isolated community with total success and was entirely "mainstreamed" as a result, then I would see reason to suppose that a visceral engagement with deity is not essential to our successful social/cultural development after all. Hence, the supposition that some form of deity is probably real as well could also be scrapped. But after a lifetime of reading, I've yet to find such an innovator. If I do, I'd accept a return to my previous skepticism. But there doesn't seem to be any such figure (so far:-).

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

The truth is that from pre-history to this day man has never had an atheist culture. There are very good reasons why. That all involve an ignorance of the real causes of natural phenomena and the imposition of structured or ritualised reinforcements of the power structures in every society. To say that God exists because atheism has never worked is a false premise. Atheism has of yet had no opportunity to exist as held belief structure. A combination of lack of education and a false education, which suited the establishment, has seen to that. In essence, to remove the vested interest and the power politics of historical changes in the analysis of belief changes is impossible. They are one and the same. To my mind yet further proof that God has nothing to do with it. At every juncture belief change has walked hand in hand with political change. They are two sides of the same coin.

Thank you, Operacast! While my own studies are not quite as in depth and focus primarily on neolithic pre-history, I have been thinking along similar lines for years.

What I feel both Tao and Paladin are overlooking, is the practical application aspect. I disagree that early shamanic societies *did not know* what they were dealing with metaphysically. I would argue, using such evidence as communion with spirit, sky-walking, vision quest and other well known if less understood (to the scientific community) metaphysical practices.

Whether Santa, G-d, or whatever graphic illustration of the underlying causality...it is merely a symbolic reference to give face to the faceless, form to the formless, and explanation to the unexplainable. Not that it isn't realized or actualized, but that there is no simple and straightforward illustration that completely illuminates the whole.

How does one illustrate the concept of love? How *can* one illustrate the concept of love, and have that illustration be relevent across all cultures, time and place?

[Tao_Equus]

Juan,

Originally Posted by juantoo3

What I feel both Tao and Paladin are overlooking, is the practical application aspect. I disagree that early shamanic societies *did not know* what they were dealing with metaphysically. I would argue, using such evidence as communion with spirit, sky-walking, vision quest and other well known if less understood (to the scientific community) metaphysical practices.

We have quite recently discussed the 'origins' of belief in supernatural deities on another thread. We agreed there that every ancient way of life was essentially shamanic and that they all used powerful hallucinogens in their rituals. This is the setting for the genesis of all religion. Now while I would state that such Shamans had a wonderful, rich and deep understanding about many aspects of their physical environment, (the where, the what and the when), they were ignorant of the facts of science as we are today. This is fundamental for the explanations they gave for the why and how are the metaphysics that gave rise to religion. We know their explanations for the why and how to be wrong so the whole root of religious belief is built on false reasoning. I know exactly what hallucinogens do and I am sorry but they are powerful and impressive but they are no gate to another realm. They get you high or terrify you, highten some senses, dim others, change your vision and your thought processes so you can see what is not there and imagine with great lucidity. But that is the effect of the drug not a proof of a spirit realm. And the similarity of experience in far flung corners with every other states this is an effect of the drug, (which was always the same alkaloid).
Humans are naturally curious. We want to know why!! If we dont know why we will make a theory that best fits what we can observe. Our ancestors did not know what we know about the things that they used to explain their metaphysics. Yet we still hang on to their explanations. Modern knowledge shows a complete dearth of evidence for any supernatural interference anywhere in nature, from us to the dance of galaxies. Yet we still cling desperately to the idea that it does.

How does one illustrate the concept of love? How *can* one illustrate the concept of love, and have that illustration be relevent across all cultures, time and place?

Hmmmm... I am tempted to go off on a tangent and give the biological explanation of what love is. But that deserves a thread of its own.

Tao

[Paladin]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Thank you, Operacast! While my own studies are not quite as in depth and focus primarily on neolithic pre-history, I have been thinking along similar lines for years.

What I feel both Tao and Paladin are overlooking, is the practical application aspect. I disagree that early shamanic societies *did not know* what they were dealing with metaphysically. I would argue, using such evidence as communion with spirit, sky-walking, vision quest and other well known if less understood (to the scientific community) metaphysical practices.

Whether Santa, G-d, or whatever graphic illustration of the underlying causality...it is merely a symbolic reference to give face to the faceless, form to the formless, and explanation to the unexplainable. Not that it isn't realized or actualized, but that there is no simple and straightforward illustration that completely illuminates the whole.

How does one illustrate the concept of love? How *can* one illustrate the concept of love, and have that illustration be relevent across all cultures, time and place?

I'm not sure I addressed the practical and may I add utilitarian aspects of religion and belief in deity(s) though it is an interesting invitation. It would seem from the above that you are arguing that God is merely a symbol and has no independent reality? Hmmmm very interesting indeed.

There are many people who live from the religion meme and that's fine as far as it goes but time is still turning and other memes have already been established. Beyond magical beliefs which gave way to belief in higher power there came the belief in the "individual" apart from the religious community then there arose what Graves called the "green" level or a more egalitarian meme.

If we keep evolving- and I have no reason to believe we will not -there will I suppose, arise the consensus that all these memes have an intrinsic value and are in fact nested within the individual. After this we may see reforms and variations in levels of cooperation and social interaction transcending rather than re-forming.

To think that things must continue in the way they have always been done is to sink into stagnation and defies logic. At least the kind of logic that the Greeks gave us. You know, like Socrates. Or was he really just an Atheist as he was accused?

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

When did you actually interact or witness? Are you sure it is not just your way of interpreting what would have happened anyway even as a non believer? If so, faith aside, how can you be sure?

A number of times this year. Two weeks ago. It is repeatable.

Relative to the existance I submit the focus on believer versus non-believer is misguided. When you place faith in someone you know they exist. When someone places faith directly in you, you can see the things they do because they know you exist and what you are looking for and asking for. You can see when someone responds to your needs. With Santa clause there is interaction but it is directly with the parents and society, and someone there is lying... pretending... with outright deception. Realize that the 'faith' the child first places in the Santa was not in Santa, but it was in the parents and the society. It is good to place faith in a known liar... but then when the lies are revealed then it is good to rebuke them. Afterall that is what you think you are doing by speaking against the existance of God; however, I tell you God is still real.

Similarly I agree that the word 'God' in the world is full of tradition, gossip, and outright lies. The 'faith' there is not really in God, but it is in the parents or the church who passes on the teaching. Which again is good, but the word can be just like 'Santa' depending on who tells it. The faith placed in the story told by friends and religion is good, but it is bad on the part of the friends and religion because of the lies, the unsubstantiated gossip, the entropy, etc... Again, I know your viewpoint; however, God is still real. I have seen it... God's power here is beyond the word 'power'. I tell you honestly: I have personally placed some faith in God, and God has placed some faith in me.

How can I be sure... well I've seen God by the interaction and some amounts of love, faith, and honesty vested in my direction. To see it or to receive it I believe I also had to be actively vesting the same in others. I'm certain I further had to come clean on some lies that I had told and some commandments that I had broke. I'm certain though there are people who know God much better than me. I consider every day a day in school.

Tell you what Tao, I've requested something of God tonight and I will put it in a PM to you and if you agree then we will see if we can't convince God to reveal something. Either way though you can of course still believe whatever you wish. But if the evidence is received then hopefully we will agree that it wasn't from Santa.

[Netti-Netti]

Tao,

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Modern knowledge shows a complete dearth of evidence for any supernatural interference anywhere in nature, from us to the dance of galaxies. Yet we still cling desperately to the idea that it does.

Previously you wrote:

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I can safely dismiss God for lack of evidence of his existence

I think you are giving lack of evidence too much weight.

Lack of evidence does not prove anything one way or another. It may just mean that our understanding of how to get at the truth is faulty.

[Operacast]

Originally Posted by wil

Namaste Operacast,

er, WOW!

Now Tao will have to be the final say in this regard but imho your post in no way was a tangent to this thread (or what I'm considering to be a sister thread which is simultaneosly being run on the adjacent track) but actually provides some insight that I could never do as I don't have the research that you do.

So if I may summarize with my own brand of interpretation please provide your comments on it.

a. you are a believer

Yes.

Originally Posted by wil

b. you see the possibility of what you believe in being mythological

Yes.

Originally Posted by wil

c. it doesn't matter to you because you see any number of benefits over time from this mythological belief.

ie the ends in this case justify the means.

Here, the answer is "not quite". I wouldn't probably change many of my life choices were I to find that deity is no longer a common denominator after all behind the most significant cultural breakthroughs in social/cultural altruism. However, if I were to determine that it indeed isn't so after all (via a successful innovator on some isolated island of the skeptical sort outlined in my last posting whose reform would be hypothetically 180 degrees away from any theism, countercultural or otherwise), I would then feel it important to accept openly and not deny that my initial assessment of deity as the common denominator behind any cultural "mainstreaming" of altruism is now in question.

The means toward the ends of the further "mainstreaming" of communal caring by all for all is still critical, but if those means do not involve deity in my hypothetical island-skeptic scenario (above), then clearly any means toward "mainstreaming" communal social caring anywhere will be demonstrably proven not to involve deity anywhere at all, that common denominator of deity up to that point having been shown up as a transitory coincidence only.

Now as of this moment, nothing in the anthropological/cultural record contradicts the uncanny presence of countercultural brands of theism in all instances of culture-transforming ethics. Hence, my conclusion for now that we're not dealing with a coincidence at all. But when and if something contrary to this pattern, such as my hypothetical culturally successful skeptic on that isolated island, emerges, then my first priority would not be to safeguard a pattern for cultural reform now evidently based on a coincidence only. Rather, it would be to redouble my efforts in attempting to ascertain what might be the real common denominator behind both the successful sensitizing efforts of the Buddhas and the Christs and those of my hypothetical island skeptic.

There's no point in standing by an assumption regarding means if those means are not involved in but one instance of cultural success. That single instance alone would automatically disprove those "means" as being any sort of common factor at all. Under such circumstances, standing by such "means" would be a futile waste of energy. Determining other factors as common denominators instead would not be, however, and would be eminently worthwhile. So far, I've simply not seen the need to do that. But when/if my hypothetical culture-transforming island skeptic comes along, I would indeed see the need.

Cheers,

Operacast

[Alex P]

Lets look at who santa is...

We can see that he stems from many cultures and folklore... But in each he differs quite a bit, from what I have read here and there, then confirming with wiki lol.....

Santa we know is strongly linked from the early Christians with saint Nicholas of Myra... He was famous for being a very generous and charitable gift giver mainly to the poor, he gave much to his comunity, one of his most famous gifts of generosity, he helped three daughters of a man with dowries so they didn''t have to become prostitues.

Pre christian time there is a link to him with the early gothic/germans? An incubus named Krampus, which is an old german word for claw (Krampen) (Santa CLAWs...)

Also in german tribes you have the link of santa with the God Odin. As I have said before many times that christanity as a religion is mixed, a cross breed from paganism, and these germanic pagans brought this concept with them when converted to hold on to some traits. Such as many more they brought with them from their winter festivities the Yule goat, christmas tree, yule log and christmas ham and so on...

Skald poetry spoke of Odin as long beard and great beard and yule figure.. Children would put their boots full of food by the chimney (sound familiar) such as carrots, sugar, wheat, grain and berries so Odins magical flying horse (sleipnir) could feed.

The only man differences with Odin when he was checking his list, for all that were nice, and checking it twice, what he was using his sack for was to capture the naughty children, so best behave kiddies.

We could go on, but now I am looking at this properly lol... We cannot help but see a connection surley? Not only this but God, and Santa.... Have identical traits.... They all stem from religions they all differ to a degree many names, many different traditions, many changes and yet a connection....

God
Jehovah
Allah
Jesus
and soooooo on

Santa
Odin
christkind
julemanden
sion corn
Reyes Magos (biblical magi )

So I guess in a way... No, I don't believe we can proove that either really do or don't exist... Because like God, Santa has many forms and represents so much and comes from many backgrounds...

*goes to his window hearing something fly past the sky *hohoho**

[Tao_Equus]

Operacast,

I find it rather amusing that you set up conditions that are impossible to achieve. History does have its examples of trying, Mao's cultural revolution for example. But all such imposed ideologies do is drive the believers in God underground. Where they wait for conditions to change again.

The only way we will get a truly atheistic state, from root to tip, is by religious indoctrination of successive generations being halted for several generations. Something that is unlikely to happen any time soon.

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Alex,

So you agree that the God notion is just human mythos!! My first convert !!

[Alex P]

No, not at all.. lol.

I agree that they both cannot be prooven 100% either way. Sorry lol.

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

You could go around with the blind faith ...

I find it interesting that you immediately assume faith is blind. My faith is not at all blind, it's soundly reasoned, and well informed, entirely consonant with the Western philosophical tradition, and reasonable according to many aspects of Eastern philosophy, as well.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Such blind faith would be no different to a belief in God.

Once again your presumption that faith is necessarily blind — For this reason alone I think your arguments are founded on faulty data, or put another way, you are blind when it comes to matters of faith?

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

To be frank I find this argument that you cannot disprove God an extremely dishonest one. It is a fudge not a valid argument.

Nonsense. It's more honest than your equating Santa Claus with a Deity, and it's way more honest in not being founded on supposition.

Thomas

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by Thomas

I find it interesting that you immediately assume faith is blind. My faith is not at all blind, it's soundly reasoned, and well informed, entirely consonant with the Western philosophical tradition, and reasonable according to many aspects of Eastern philosophy, as well.

Thomas brother, in January 1997 discover magazine reported there were astronomers that had come to a conclusion that a dozen planets were orbiting distant stars..

"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity perturbs the motion of the parent stars."

So the astronomers, the visible effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of unseen heavenly bodies..... And this is just related evidence not direct observations, but this is adequate for those scientists and many others to accept these conclusions...

I was just reading the details about this and saw your post and thought, hey to a degree that is how faith works right?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

History does have its examples of trying, Mao's cultural revolution for example.

Oh my, is he touted as an example of a successful pedestal worthy atheist??

As to the origins of Santa or religions. Anyone remember the show McGiver? I'm sure there are other examples in your life. I hardly remember the premise, but McGiver would get himself into situations that were seemingly impossible to get out of, but with a hairpin and a match, or a can of oil and a scarf, or a mirror and a toothpick... He'd devise some way to solve the situation and save the day. He supposedly thought out of the box. Well when encountered with a seemingly impossible situation, one could sit for a moment rather than get excited and contemplate, WWMD What Would McGiver Do? Now McGiver is obviously a made up character, it is a TV show, and we can rant as to the distructive nature of television violence, or we can look at how we can benefit by taking the best out of the story and utilizing it in our lives.

I see the same with the stories of Santa, Krishna, Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Mohammed, etc. You can choose to focus on the negative, complain about this that or the other thing. Or when confronted with an issue sit down and doodle in the sand, or under the bodhi tree, or climb a mountain...contemplate, think outside the box, look within for a solution. Utilize the stories for their value today, in your life right now. Millions believe they have value, and to them they do! Other millions believe they have no value and to them they don't! That is the power of belief, faith and choice.

So it is fine if you don't believe. But why do you insist I am not allowed to?