Re: *******Does God Exist?*************

"Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Acme Posting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>  news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...

(...continued from 1st part just posted in same thread)

>> >When an
>> >idea or ideal loses its connection with material history or social
reality
>> >it becomes a "god".
>>
>> Never thought of that. Interesting concept. Maybe you would
elaborate.
>
>Well, it'll take at least a doctoral thesis to get to the bottom of
that.
>But basically this idea is quite simple. Take a contemporary person
like
>Mother Theresa from Calcutta whom the present Pope has just promoted
to
>sainthood. How does this happen? Well, a myth is generated to support
the
>idea that what she did, which was basically dedicated social work as
a nurse
>among some of the poorest people on Earth, is a testament to the
"glory of
>God". Of course, she was a much too modest and realistic person to
ever
>really believe it herself. But that's not how one billion plus other
Roman
>Catholics see it. They all want new saints because that's a
comforting and
>nice thing which ensures and supports them in their beliefs. Of
course, the
>Church clergy is all in favour, too, because what's good for the
ordinary
>Catholics is good for the Church, at least as long as it promotes
loyalty
>and strengthens the faith.

I like this example and will use it. Thanks. And now I understand what
you meant. Thanks for using examples - nothing as powerful as short
logic on top of shared experience in a newsgroup post.
>
>So now Mother Teresa has basically been made into a "god" (although
the
>Roman Catholic theologians would never admit that). The idea of her
is now a
>caricature of what she was when she was alive, thus losing the
connection to
>historic reality.

I'd say she is now a ritual object for brain programming purposes.
Same as Barnum in a salesperson's award ceremony. Pictures, plaques,
uniforms, decorum, music, formal processions in a pecking order, etc.,
etc. Same for some political gatherings, I suppose, though I've never
been involved that much. Military of course. Damn, it's everywhere.
Even a lot of ritual words, pictures, etc., now on TV.

Is this additional attention and acknowledgement of Mother Theresa a
bad thing on balance? Won't that many more people have her for an
example? Won't some of those seek out the facts later, or naturally
separate out the mumbo-jumbo? And even if not, isn't the world better
off with more Mother Theresas regardless of motivation? It's really
hard to argue against nuns! (except for what is taken away from
themselves). You have to ask, what was in the outermost loop in the
reformer's mind when he cooked up this dogma and implementation? And
look at the result. Is the result good or bad on balance? If it wasn't
for Christ, we'd still be worhipping emperors and frogs (Hmmmm, as I
look out over the ornaments on my lawn, maybe I shouldn't have said
that!).

Well, what I meant was how Christ (as philosopher) did move western
thought towards the equality principle. Biggest nudge of all IMO. One
could think of religion as his noble tool.

<snip agreement of "unfalsifiable" not science>
>
>> Beyond that, "manifest" implies "observed" or based on observation,
>> i.e. empirical. If it isn't empirical, then it's faith (or religion
in
>> the largest sense). I know of no third choice.
>
>True enough! But it's worth noting that religion is just a social
construct
>with a certain structure based on theology and ceremony. It's not
always
>about "god". A good example would be traditional Buddhism. Religion,
in my
>view, ought to be considered a social construct and like all human
social
>constructs created to carry out certain societal tasks and missions.

Up to here I think you could substitute "salesperson award ceremony"
(and lots of other things) for "religion." I know just barely enough
about Buddhism (and maybe Confucianism?) to understand and agree. But
wasn't the success of those ethical systems dependent on the culture?
Would such work in all cultures? Aren't there cultures where religion
is indicated to acheive social order and other necessary goals in
reasonable time? How about the affects of changing technology and
cultural things like music videos?

If not, then what is the alternative to organized religion, other than
a police state? Isn't it better to have religion by free choice so
that the rest of us can have freedom? Isn't that a fair social
contract between us and them? (I know that in many places it is not a
free choice.)

>The
>question of belief should be viewed as seperate from organized
religion. It
>should be regarded as a psychological and socio-psychological
phenomenon.

Agree with that. "Belief" means "human," i.e. subjective by my
definition. That's all psychological to me, from brain physiology,
what we know from PET scans, etc., evolutionary needs, Freud,
programming, etc.

>The hinge which holds religion and belief together consists of
theology and
>ceremony. Thus the choices facing the person wanting to become a
"member" of
>a religion is rarely confronted with the real meaning of his choices,
either
>in psychological or in philosophical terms.

That seems right. New distinction for me. Good brain food.
>>
<snip>

>> sometimes wonder about what things might exist three feet in front
of
>> me. Maybe I read too much sci-fi. <g>
>
>No, you are quite right. But we both have to remember that this view
is
>extremely rare and priviledged. When people experience reality
through their
>senses they absolutely take for granted that "what they see is what
they
>get". I can't really find it in myself to blame them.

I think it depends on what hat you are wearing at the time. Military -
better not be daydreaming. Philosophy - dream away.
>
<snip>

>...I really wanted to express with the "material reality" is how
extreme a step
>is for a human psyche to suppose the existence of an "invisible",
>monoteistic, all-powerful god. How much energy has to go into
maintaining
>this illusion? What outrageous interpretations of real events must be
>fabricated? What doubts have to be denied and suppressed? For it is
clear
>that (many) deists believe fervently that "god" is intervening in
reality on
>their behalf. Such a stressful, obsessive life!

Basically agree. I have had these same thoughts with the same
intensity in reaction to some (arguably) ruined lives or at least
damaged lives I've seen. Yet some of those people are quite
accomplished in their fields and seem quite happy. Moreover, they cost
us less tax money for prisons and welfare, no? Social message of
american Christianity to me: Work hard, stay out of trouble, don't
have fun, don't ask for anything. If someone freely chooses that, why
complain? But if that is "imposed" on someone, like children, then IMO
it has to be bad. Every human being has a basic right to free will and
intellectual freedom in my view. But I still respect it for social
engineering in moderation. As an american parent, what are my choices?
Home schooling, religion, or the public sex/drug emporium? If I don't
have time for home schooling, I think I would take religion, at least
during the most susceptible years. And as a parent I could ameliorate
the programming or contradict it selectively to keep the open mind.
>
>> himself. One of the paradoxes is to keep asking "...and what came
>> before that?" Other examples: "What is further away or outside of
>
>Again, you are absolutely right. Such classic paradoxes are
entertaining,
>but they don't prove anything. But it's not so much a question of
what a
>hypothetical "god" might be capable of doing as what the imagination
and
>understanding of the human psyche is able to sustain.

"It's not so much a question" - That depends on what you prefer to
discuss, an objective God (i.e. universe with no earth for the sake of
argument), or human god? It makes no difference to me. Both topics are
interesting. So let's talk about the human god then.

<sarcasm>
I am way over-qualified in psychology. I'm a behaviorist actually. I
started studying and predicting human behavior at about the age of
one, and have done that as an expert scientific observer and in
applied statistics continuously since my 20's. I've had great success
by objective measurements (i.e. not what most colleges use to test
their psychology theories). So that would be equal to, let's see, not
to pin down my age that much, about 5 Phds. Exactly the same with the
English language, except I probably only started with that by age 2.
I'm guessing you are similarly way overqualified in these two areas
too. And if a psychologist with, say, only one or two Phds in
psychology were to join in, we could both help him or her along as
required to keep up with our discussion.

Some of these psychologists with one of those Phds from a college are
problematic in the sense that they make up their own words for very
elementary things we already know by other words. And sometimes they
lack very much practical behaviorism experience in the field. Like
(and this is very hard for overqualified people like us to believe)
they actually argue with each other about things like whether a cat is
born with a natural curiosity. Really! I could link you to a post! And
I've heard them say ridiculous things like that dogs don't love us,
it's just a pack instinct. Harvard Phd! And some don't even know how
many digits of accuracy you need per independent variable (just
because it's not in any statistics textbook). And some of them don't
even know what "statistically and scientifically valid real-time test"
means. Imagine! And they think they can do statistics, and even
*apply* it, and even apply it to *humans!* I know how incredible that
sounds. But it's true! But you and I could help them along with our
examples from real life, and our accomplishments by objective tests,
like we do with our own children.

They also sometimes have a habit of quoting books written by other
comparative amateurs when they can't think of any ideas on their own.
We could just be polite and overlook that, not smirking too obviously.
Well, of course Freud, Jung et al are very helpful as these are the
giants and the innovators, the ones who first put names to the obvious
things. But some of these college types quote later people like this
idiot named Davidson who obsesses over the simplest things for anyone
with a reasonable amount of analytical ability.

Well, if even you and I get hung up on some psychology issue in spite
of our gross overqualifications, which I just can't imagine, but just
in case, I could always ask my scientifically trained grandmother to
join in. With 8 children and 35 grandchildren, and I forget how many
great-grandchildren, she has equal to about 15 Phds in psychology. But
I'm sure we won't need such ridiculous overqualification as that.
</sarcasm>

(If you turn out to be a psychologist I'm in big trouble! <g> But you
really don't sound like one, or at least one of the persnickety ones.
I always give a shot across the bow before arguing with psychologists.
Usually a lot shorter than this, but they have been ignored lately.
Thus this bigger shot, just in case. Please tell me if it went to far
so I won't make the same mistake, and apologize if so.)

>There are limits,
>right? Those limits can be discerned by studying the mind, as
scientists
>since before Freud's time to the present day have done with great
success.
>Now, if "god" has the same limits on "his" alleged existence and
powers as
>those which are "natural" to the human mind, then that is as close to
a
>proof as I think is possible that "god" is a simple psycho-social
figment of
>the collective human imagination.

I agree. I used to argue a lot with religious people. I must have come
up with about 200 gadzillion logical contradictions. Not one ever had
the least affect on any of them. So, you know what they say about
doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
Anyway, of course there are ontradictions, and no religious dogma I've
ever heard of could be true just on that account, never mind
falsifiability and the rest. So where do we go from there?
>
><snip>
>> >
>> Another reason I prefer "empiricism" over "science" in this
argument
>> is that there is a big dogma about "The Philosophy of Science" that
>> some people like to argue forever. If someone wants to argue
>> "empiricism" down to angels dancing on pins, I simply change it to
>> "seeing is believing." If they attack the
>> reliability of perception I bring up 10,000 carrier landings
without
>> an accident. Nobody has got past that one yet.
>
>That's funny! But such discussions can turn into long walks in the
dry
>desert.

Well if I managed some humor then I won't snip it!

There are techniques to avoid unnecessary argument. Sometimes they
even work. One of my favorites is replacing a term with "X" where X=(a
definition of the term the arguer has already accepted). It works
great. Did it just recently with respect to the "...said that..."
argument (I.e. replacing mashed up (purposely vague) direct quotes
with a simplified inference).
>
>> The reason I like "faith" better than "religion" is that a lot of
>> people can't generalize the word "religion" to politics, occult,
some
>> of soft science, etc., but they seems to have no trouble
generalizing
>> "faith" to everything that is not science or fully based on
empirical
>> observation.
>
>That's a controversial line to follow. I think it's much better to
stick to
>the idea the religion and faith are basically unrelated social and
>psychological phenomena.

You know, I think that is a useful distinction. Especially when it
looks like you are analyzing religion in more-or-less separate cases
wrt both individuals and cultures. In the arguments where I have
replaced "religion" with "faith" it was all about individuals only, so
had that context in mind. But for all I know, I've been jumping back
and forth not realizing your distinction. I'll watch for it, and
thanks.

<snip agreements about deism, judgement>
>
>> > Of course, science is axiomatic in its
>> >basic hypotheses but that is how the human mind and human society
progresses
>> >their knowledge.
>>
>> That's the argument for "science" in a nutshell. I use the phrase
>> "things that apparently work" (and never forget "apparently" if you
>> value your time!). Faith never results in things that apparently
work.
>> And all anybody cares about is "apparently." I don't care if I am
not
>> in Ultimate Truth eating a fine steak dinner, as long as I
>> "apparently" am, and that applies to everything of concern to me,
>> including "apparently" going to heaven, if there should
"apparently"
>> be one. Nobody has got past this one either. (There's always
tomorrow
>> <g>)
>
>That's a very nice argument. And it's true, too!

Thanks! It has flown very well so far. I'm starting to become pretty
enthused with it myself. <g>
>
>> >Testing every hypothesis against objective reality.
>>
>> Agree, and highly important. This is the main distinction regarding
>> objective thinking. If there is a quick, easy test, people are
>> objective and usually correct. If there is no test, people are
>> unobjective and usually incorrect. A most interesting challenge to
me
>> is thinking up ways, or mind-games, to enforce objectivity.
Examples:
>>
>>  * Imagine a debate, argue against yourself.
>>  * Argue with someone else, and listen!
>>  * List the ways your case is self-serving.
>>  * Make your investment in process greater than the issue (e.g.
spend
>> time studying and/or respecting reasoning or logic in general).
>>  * God tells you to choose, and if you're wrong you are struck
>> dead.
>>  * What would an AI (reasoning) computer say?
>>  * Adopt the perspective of a visiting ET
>>  * Try to convince yourself or at least imagine there is a test.
>>  * Remind yourself that nobody is a perfect reasoner, but people
act
>> as if they were in particular cases, and how that is invalid.

"Invalid" should be changed to "contradictory."

>>  * Avoid investment in results. E.g. if you state an assertion very
>> strongly, or intimidate or insult someone you are arguing with, you
>> create too much of an investment in the result. Give yourself an
out,
>> or easy way to admit you are wrong without eating humble pie.
>>  * etc.
>>
>> I would love to hear more ways!
>
>Well, I think you've done a good job of listing as many as you have.
I can
>only think of two points to add. They are:
>
>1) Try to come up with a thesis that is falsifiable (this is useless
advice
>when arguing about "god").

Great! Why didn't I think of that?

>2) Express happiness for the opportunity to learn whenever you are
proved
>wrong.

Great again! I forgot it. But it's very important to me. In my
standard invitation to argument, I usually say, "Maybe I'll win (i.e.
be wrong and learn something), or maybe I'll lose (i.e. correct you
about something and learn nothing).

There's another one I forgot which I think is very important:
Sometimes you can reword an assertion that could not be tested so that
it can now be tested, without substantially changing the argument.
I've done this successfully but now can't off-hand remember an
example. I'll think of one. For a maxim I'd offer, "Try to cast the
argument as one that can in fact be tested." If you can do that, you'd
achieve objectivity right there without needing anything else, even if
the argument was entirely self-serving (those are the toughest ones
for me).
>
<snip agreement about difficulty of real-world understanding v. formal
logic>
>>
>> Another way to think about the philosophical or "administrator" POV
is
>> to compare it to gambling. In figuring the odds in any gambling
game,
>> you have no "default case." It is only a question of probability,
or
>> math if you like. Thinking this way, it's not such a hardship to
have
>> doubt because in gambling doubt is a routine part of the game.
>
>Using Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, sort of. Yes, I get the
idea. But
>my opinion is still that the only way to obtain real progress in this
(old)
>debate over the hypothetical existence of "god" is to utilize
psychology and
>psychological reasoning. As you said yourself, trying to fashion a
material
>scientific hypothesis to prove or disprove the existence of "god" is
a waste
>of time.

Yes I think it is, but I thought I saw you doing it. Besides wanting
to examine just your side of it, there are related issues of interest.
Even in a cosmological sense, I personally am not going to discover
any unified field theories. I'm doing well just to get the box of
Cheese-its open without spraying them all over the kitchen. But with
someone who is not a true believer like yourself, it's fun to argue
about and good practice. It's a good way to get an idea of a person's
philosophy to provide context for other arguments. I also have a
curiosity about related subjects after reading much speculative
science and spec fiction, and some amateur work with telescopes (until
the neighbors learned to pull their shades down <g>).
>
<snip>

>> >cultural "fictions", revealing the sad truth that many people
cannot face
>> >the reality of life without a crutch!
>>
>> I fully agree, and think that last is quite a profound and useful
>> statement as it relates to objectivity. I think one main obstacle
to
>> objective reasoning is that (local) reality is just too terrible.
>> Perhaps one would go insane if one achieved complete objectivity.
>
>Very penetrating. Indeed, it is quite possible the a forced abolition
of
>religions would make large numbers of people crazy. There had been a
lot of
>speculation along those lines by ethnologists and other social
scientists.
>
Well, brain-programming aside, there are some very strong basic
psychological needs as I'm sure I don't need to tell you. A
personality needs to hold together in face of extreme challenge. I
think we both probably know a few people with personalities that would
collapse if we said certain things to them, and that's not giving us a
lot of credit. Everybody could probably say that. I don't know what
it's called in psychology (in spite of my 5 Phds <g>). I call it a
"framework." A person needs a framework allowing them to deal with
reality compounded by our intelligence and rapidily changing
technology and social parameters like mobility. Obviously religion can
provide it. Others like you and I can invent our own framework out of
a patchwork of philosophy, science, upbringing, experience, etc.,
etc., and sometimes that works and I think sometimes it doesn't, and
tomorrow might be the day when I find out mine can't handle something
and that I would have been better off with religion! I'm just rambling
here, so don't pay too much attention.

>> probably for good reason. Also, I've imagined that I'm a visitor
from
>> earth, learning that the inhabitants actually need to *kill*
things,
>> burn them, and put the *dead flesh* into these these fanged
sphinter
>> holes in their heads filled with acid, making disgusting knashing
>> noises.
>
>This made me chuckle. Humour appreciated.

Thanks. I put it in an (unpublished) book one time, took about a page.
Got good reviews. (From my mom.) I could post the whole page.
>
>Well, it's evening again. So a pleasant evening to you, too.
>
Thanks Nes. You know what attracted me to this thread was your
terminology. I noticed it as I was just skimming through posts. It
indicated to me that you had invested quite a bit in these issues,
where most people go through stages of more and more precise
terminology, terminology that will avoid unnecessary argument. Most
people don't come up with "organized religion" as an important
distinction on the first try, or "objective reality" (though of course
I know many do.) Actually notice about 10-15 terms like this, quite
unusual. So thusly impressed, I googled on your nic. It seemed that
you are 1) not a net kook (!!) and 2) You are well-informed on the
subject of terrorism. I have a particular interest in one aspect of
that, which I had planned to ask you about at some point. After we
solve this question of the existence of God (whatever def.) or
good/bad religion to your satisfaction of course!

Larry

>Nes