Santa V God

[cyberpi]

Tao, I'd say that your model of the world is like the internals of a computer. It is easily explained bit by bit from the small to the big, wherein the bits obey the laws and the pathways. The Earth and physical sciences fits the model. So imagine living inside of a computer... for a bit.

It also seems to make sense to reason that people are just bits in this giant computer, because it takes a bit to move a bit. The bits also come and go, some hanging around longer than others. If a person can move a bit, then in that moment he owns the bit.

There is someone in this computer though that is moving around bits on us. Sometimes a few unseen bit changes in far off places combine to make a new situation. How it was known and calculated that the right bits would cause the situation is a mystery to me. I know from science how the small bits can cause a cascade of more bits to move, but someone knew ahead of time what the smaller bits would do and accomplish. People can do this to a limited degree, this estimating and moving around of bits. In fact if they obtain the right keys, so to speak, then they can move around many bits. But from inside of this giant computer I can't see the keys... I only see the bits. I know that the keys work but I don't know how or who or which ones will be pressed next. I can see though that the bits appeared from somewhere and that they do cause changes. I'm not entirely certain which are the key bits. The bits leave this computer too though and I can't see where they go either, like history that faded and left us. Still out there somewhere, but no longer visible here in the present state... of this giant computer.

[Ciel]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

Tao, I'd say that your model of the world is like the internals of a computer. It is easily explained bit by bit from the small to the big, wherein the bits obey the laws and the pathways. The Earth and physical sciences fits the model. So imagine living inside of a computer... for a bit.

It also seems to make sense to reason that people are just bits in this giant computer, because it takes a bit to move a bit. The bits also come and go, some hanging around longer than others. If a person can move a bit, then in that moment he owns the bit.

There is someone in this computer though that is moving around bits on us. Sometimes a few unseen bit changes in far off places combine to make a new situation. How it was known and calculated that the right bits would cause the situation is a mystery to me. I know from science how the small bits can cause a cascade of more bits to move, but someone knew ahead of time what the smaller bits would do and accomplish. People can do this to a limited degree, this estimating and moving around of bits. In fact if they obtain the right keys, so to speak, then they can move around many bits. But from inside of this giant computer I can't see the keys... I only see the bits. I know that the keys work but I don't know how or who or which ones will be pressed next. I can see though that the bits appeared from somewhere and that they do cause changes. I'm not entirely certain which are the key bits. The bits leave this computer too though and I can't see where they go either, like history that faded and left us. Still out there somewhere, but no longer visible here in the present state... of this giant computer.

Cyberpi, I offer salutations.......
It takes a God mem'brain' to recognize the structure.

- c -

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

.... Forced and over-simplified.

Indeed, by the overzealous and improper use of Occam's Razor.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Ordinary self-ambitious people, you think they are a product of the modern era?
Because they used it in their stories to convey a heady mix of a place in eternity/spirit realm for the believer and linked the spirits/gods to natural events and to animals. A whole supernatural world-view was built to give the individual and the tribe an importance in 'the scheme of things'. Over 10s of thousands of years this evolved into complex structures and successive generations were taught it as fact at the campfire. Each generation being given this so young for so many generations has created what we have today, people that believe because people have never done anything else.

Tao

In your speculative accusing others of imposing their world view, are you not also guilty of imposing your own world-view here?

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

With respect I do not. What I attempt to do is to explain the origin and evolution of religious belief in the context of ordinary human ambition. Ambition is a part of the foundational quest to survive and prosper and if any single human characteristic was shared between ancient and modern man it is that. The psychology of survival is very simple and is not a solely human characteristic but an animal one.

I can understand what you are attempting to say, yet I disagree because of context. Ambition does not mean the same thing in a modern context as it would in an ancient context. Ambition in a modern context is above and beyond the "foundational quest to survive." That leads to the presumption of capitalist "and prosper." Prosperity is *not* an animal psychological imperitive, it is distinctly human and modern. Animals might kill a threat to their meal or a rival for their mate, but they do not kill or otherwise disadvantage others to preserve long-term wealth or political status.

[China Cat Sunflower]

With all respect to everyone participating here, I still don't know what the God that you're proposing exists is. What exactly is it? If it's not something that can be quantified or measured in any objective way, then why does religion seek to interject it into the realm of science? I don't see how there can be anything approaching rational debate about something as amorphous as God, so why not just leave it in the metaphysical realm?

See, I don't think it's about faith or belief at all. I think it's about preserving the cultural and political hegemony of religion because it's such a dandy way to corral and control people. I'm all about live and let live, but I would suggest to my spiritually oriented friends who have a more impersonal definition of God in mind when they use the term that they are abetting a religious power structure which has no other concern than its own self preservation when they fail to differentiate what they mean by "God" from the standard monotheistic conception.

Chris

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

I can understand what you are attempting to say, yet I disagree because of context. Ambition does not mean the same thing in a modern context as it would in an ancient context. Ambition in a modern context is above and beyond the "foundational quest to survive." That leads to the presumption of capitalist "and prosper." Prosperity is *not* an animal psychological imperitive, it is distinctly human and modern. Animals might kill a threat to their meal or a rival for their mate, but they do not kill or otherwise disadvantage others to preserve long-term wealth or political status.

But animals rarely if ever can be seen to think in the long term in the way that the human brain has evolved to do. As a consequence of being an opportunist omnivore in a complicated hierarchical social environment humans have evolved to a unique degree the sense of foresight. I think to suggest that ambition to be top dog, or at least get a sizeable share of community resources, is a relatively modern phenomenon is frankly ridiculous. It is as I stated before a basic animal instinct and was in the ancestors of Homo Sapiens long before we developed language. It is in all animals and in both sexes even if there is a wide variety of particular expression.

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

In your speculative accusing others of imposing their world view, are you not also guilty of imposing your own world-view here?

Not at all. I am doing my level best to present a rational theory for the origin of religion and faith in human society that does not involve any supernatural entity. I am imposing nothing. Since the ancient Greek and Chinese philosophers, and even more so in the past 200-300 years with the birth of modern science we have for the first time in history been able to ponder and truly study causation in a way simply not available to the peoples from which supernatural belief originated. In all that study no rational case has been made for the existence of any entity that has any bearing on our lives. I do not preclude that there is a "universal creator", (though that goes back to the question of what created that), but the notions of spirit and of deity I see in the world around me from out and out hardline doctrinal to wishy washy vague spirituality all stems from the human psyche and not from any evidence that any deity or spirit force exists. It is a cultural heritage not an innate and inevitable experience.

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Cyberpi,

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

Tao

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

I'm interested in the anthropology you mentioned elswehere. References, citations.

It is unclear why you would want to go back to primitive religions.
Long before Buddhism came along, the Chinese had folk religions that involved sorcery and magic. As in the case of the Bon religion in Tibet, some of these pre-Buddhist practices have continued to exist alongside Buddhism. Since they antedated Buddism by hundreds of years, it is unclear how sorcerers' practices helped validate Buddhism.

It is quite possible that the sorcerers of ancient China had lucrative practices from ostensibly manipulating energies and spirits. I don't know that, but let's assume. What does it matter in relation to Buddhism, which some say has no G-d concept at all?

Moreover, what does it matter in relation to the G-d concept of a personal monotheistic deity?

One other thing. How would you presume to know that the sorcerers of ancient China were all just a bunch of money grubbing fakes?


This is much too simplistic. Religions have been evolving for a long time, rather than simply being passed on without being reworked and modified.

Ok so you want me to write an anthropological thesis to prove such simple and self evident logic. If you insist. But you are going to have to wait a day or two for it. I wonder how you will try to dodge that.

Tao

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Ok so you want me to write an anthropological thesis to prove such simple and self evident logic. If you insist. But you are going to have to wait a day or two for it. I wonder how you will try to dodge that.

Hi Tao,

I think understand the logic. Let's see if we're on the same page. I think it amounts to being an indirect smear of religion via argumentum ad veracundium. You cast aspersions on the religious authorities in order to discredit the divine. This sets the stage for an implied argument to the effect that religion must be bogus because the object of worship is bogus.

The argument runs something like this: "The shamans liked to get high and the scribes just wrote up some stuff that would help them subjugate the masses. Since the religious elite were all quacks and power-mongers, the gods they invoked must be false gods." Is that about it?

Btw, I have already taken issue with this logic several times, as for example when I point out in my Post 186 that human imperfections do not reflect on the Creator who is by definition Transcendentally Other and that human applications of faith have no relevance to the validity of a G-d concept.

But we can go round and round like this for a bit longer even though am quickly running out of ways to same the same thing over and over again on account of your fortitude. I just though we'd keep it interesting by actually introducing some facts from the anthropological research you say supports your point of view.

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Hi Tao,

I think understand the logic. Let's see if we're on the same page. I think it amounts to being an indirect smear of religion via argumentum ad veracundium. You cast aspersions on the religious authorities in order to discredit the divine. This sets the stage for an implied argument to the effect that religion must be bogus because the object of worship is bogus.

The argument runs something like this: "The shamans liked to get high and the scribes just wrote up some stuff that would help them subjugate the masses. Since the religious elite were all quacks and power-mongers, the gods they invoked must be false gods." Is that about it?

Btw, I have already taken issue with this logic several times, as for example when I point out in my Post 186 that human imperfections do not reflect on the Creator who is by definition Transcendentally Other and that human applications of faith have no relevance to the validity of a G-d concept.

But we can go round and round like this for a bit longer even though am quickly running out of ways to same the same thing over and over again on account of your fortitude. I just though we'd keep it interesting by actually introducing some facts from the anthropological research you say supports your point of view.

I am sorry you think so little of me that you think I am here just to smear religion. Why cant I just be trying to state the truth as I perceive it to be looking dispassionately and without an agenda? The ultimate root of religion in humanity and religious corruption certainly go back together into pre-history but I do not state that to be the only reason shamans appeared in early tribal cultures. I state several time that they held multiple roles including medicine and as tribal historians for example that of course provided a very important and highly valued contribution to society. These valued roles actually helped to reinforce the supernatural aspects of a shamans teaching as a tribal elder. For you to think that I am merely smearing for the sake of maintaining an argument is disheartening to me as I have made a genuine effort to present a case that is simple, concise and most essentially fits the facts. As I do not feel I have been smearing for the sake of it, but trying to provide a valid rational, it begs me to wonder if given the reactions I am getting to this simplest of theories that I am not touching some raw nerves, getting a bit too close to the bone for some peoples comfort.

tao

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Indeed, by the overzealous and improper use of Occam's Razor.

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?

s.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Why cant I just be trying to state the truth as I perceive it to be looking dispassionately and without an agenda?

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:

How on earth does it have no bearing? Anthropologists have given us a rich and detailed study of the evolution of the human community and the role of belief within them. Religious doctrine in even the most primitive tribal culture is in the hands of an individual(s) who enjoys a special status and degree of power within the group. As keeper of the wisdom, of the lore, of the medicinal knowledge and of the spiritual mores of that group they enjoyed many privileges.

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.

The ultimate root of religion in humanity and religious corruption certainly go back together into pre-history but I do not state that to be the only reason shamans appeared in early tribal cultures. I state several time that they held multiple roles including medicine and as tribal historians for example that of course provided a very important and highly valued contribution to society.

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:

They would of course do everything possible to maintain their elevated status. Including inventing hocus pocus stories and rituals

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:

These valued roles actually helped to reinforce the supernatural aspects of a shamans teaching as a tribal elder.

Where is the evidence for this?

...it begs me to wonder if given the reactions I am getting to this simplest of theories that I am not touching some raw nerves, getting a bit too close to the bone for some peoples comfort.

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.

[seattlegal]

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?

s.

Well, because you need both oil and vinegar to make a proper salad dressing. {Even if the vinegar has been made with sour grapes and the oil has been refined to the point of tastelessness. }