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

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

(...Continuing a discussion of the "human" god, religion)

<snip different defs. of god>

>Of these options I would definitely pick your "psychological needs
that
>[the belief in a] "god" serves in humans" (including social
programming
>and engineering) as the most important AND as the most rewarding
object
>for study and debate. <snip>

Ok let's go with that. I think we beat the "objective creator god"
issue sufficiently to death.

>of a hypothetical creator "god" can't ever succeed. But in
>psychological terms I believe that it is possible to get very close
>(but not all the way). By using your illogic non-reasoning as well as
>proper logic and knowledge of the inner workings of the mind and by
>studying human (and other species) behaviour the presense of an all
>powerful interfering entity would certainly have to reveal itself, in
>some direct or indirect (systematic) way. And since the mind is so
>delicate and sensitive and creative the absense of (somewhat) certain
>indications that human behaviour is mainly (solely) fashioned by an
>overwhelmingly  powerful influence would strongly suggest that "god"
is
>a figment of the inventive human mind and not the other way round.

No convincing required. Among the people I know who are true
believers, it is a figment of their inventive mind, period.  I just
don't want to state that I know what is going on in the minds of other
readers of these posts. It risks being "dispolite." (Stan Laurel).
Also, it's generally true. <g>

>At
>some point in the future, when humans have finally succeeded in
>liberating themselves from their self-imposed beliefs in "gods",

Don't count your hens before they are hatched. <g> 20 years ago I was
thinking religious influence was decreasing. I had these theories
about how TV enforced empirical thinking, mobility, etc. Then look
what happened.

>the
>entire question may to those distant descendants seem like humanity
of
>our times had grave difficulty deciding which came first, the hen or
>the egg? The mind that creates the idea of "god" or "god", the idea?
>This question answers itself, I think.

I'm still with you. Not to bring up the objective god again, but I
remind you that even if there were an objective god, creator of all
existence, I am quite sure he could not care less about us or our
measely planet. In my mind, one proposition has no bearing on the
other. A creator of all existence says nothing about the human god and
the human god says nothing about the creator of all existence. I mean,
existence is a gazillion times larger than the multiverse (if so)
which is a bazillion times larger than the universe, which has 3
gadzillion
bazillion quadrillion stars. What creator of all that would care about
stupid not even a spec of dust, not even resolvable to a point, Sol 3?
Blech! What an anthropomorphic load of, well, I don't want to be
dispolite. OTOH, I acknowledge my anthropomorphic view of what such a
creator God could do or be cognizant of.

<snip contrary cases where programming is beneficial>

>Yes, I agree with that, too. I'm probably just a bit old-fashioned in
>that I still prefer the term learning instead of programming.

The term is problematic, but I can't find anything better. I use it
for the type of learning that wants you to believe something without
opportunity to question analytically, or attempts to deceive in some
way. Chapters in the brain programming manual: access, susceptibility,
deception, emotion, ritual, message, repetition, reinforcement. It
helps a lot to have interest in the subject, so the usual venues are
religion, marketing, occult, psychology, economics, philosophy,
politics.

>> I understand how brain programming (let's say religious or
political)
>> leads to obsession (not clinical but programmed repetition) and
>> fanaticism. But I don't understand the rest.
>
>Well, you know the intolerant attitudes which are a social reality in
>much of the World, today?

I know some of these. I'm no world traveler. I think, to really
understand a culture you need to live there and understand the
language. I value the European perspective for this reason. More
varied culture per kilometer.

>The media, press, governments etc.
>all over the World go on putting fuel on those potential fires,
basically
>propagating hate, intolerance, aggression, and violence. Why does
this
>happen?

That is undoubtedly true to some degree. In the U.S., I don't think it
rises to the significance I think you are suggesting. I haven't
noticed that this as a concensus view here. I think I would need
examples to relate this to experience.

I am only familiar with the U.S. Here, lately, what you describe would
be directed at three countries considered threats to the U.S.
Politically, the purpose is to elect Republicans. But to say that the
media in general spent a whole lot of time propogating hate would be a
stretch, IMO. Certainly it happens a lot in some specific outlets, and
there are gross examples of it. Political correctness regarding
propogating hate is still operative in the U.S., not as much as
previously. We had a highly-promoted book called The Bell Curve
(claiming blacks less intelligent than whites), then a religious
leader blaming hurricanes on homosexuals, well-known political
commentators advocating torture. This is new, wouldn't have happened
20 years ago. In the 60's - 70's, also excesses on the liberal side.
Examples of excess would be some music videos our kids watch and a
form of welfare that caused lots of problems.

>Or, rather, what socio-psychological realities are these that
>allow politicians, clergy, leaders to radicalize their fellow
citizens?
>The answer to that has to do
>with obsession and fear. They ALWAYS go together (giving credence to
the
>idea that "god" is a creation of a fearful and obsessive social
mindset).
>It's the utilization of a basic human characteristic to respond to
(reasoned
>or unreasoned) fears with self-directed obsession and other-directed
>aggression. This is what clever (and not so clever) politicians
utilize, and
>it is ridiculously easy to do for any half way capable government (or
other
>authority).

I sense this is a foundation of your psychological analysis. If so, I
think it needs both clarity and support. Let's reword and condense to
the salient propositions, then add the qualifications later. I parse
out two main propositions:

1. It is a basic human characteristic to respond to fears with
obsession and aggression.

These are emotion (some might say somewhat "mentalistic") terms, and
can resist analysis unless well defined. How deep, psychologically,
are you going with your definition of "fear" here? I could just use a
sentence or two about that. I interpret "aggression" as militant or
supporting militancy. I have a problem with "obsession." It is a
problematic word since it runs all thru psychiatric disorders as well
has having a pop-psych meaning and a common usage meaning, and could
you give examples? I'm really having trouble relating the "obsession"
part to experience.

Don't people respond to fear in a variety of ways? Hiding? Denying?
Circle the wagons? Move? Panic attacks? Why obsession and aggression
specifically?

2. Politicians utilize this to radicalize citizens.

I'm sure that is true. But it sounds like you're saying this is the
main thing they use, whereas off-hand I can think of a lot of
motivators. But maybe you are going deep, so that these basic emotions
underly greed, sense of community, patriotism, a nice place to get
your teeth fixed (join the army), etc. How do your two motivators
underly all?

My answer: Here in the U.S. I say it's the media. Political parties
are always going to do their worst, get away with everything they can.
They are like mad dogs - you can't blame them for what they do when
not controlled. It's the media's job to control them. Organized
religion is much the same in my view, better in some respects, worse
in some respects. But of course there is a lot of mixing of the two
anyway, as lately here.

I see a basic split in our points-of-view. It seems that you are
saying that there is a pervasive human psychological (emotional)
condition that invites exploitation, and this is mainly accomplished
through organized religion. OTOH, I say that there are relatively few
in control of the media, or that the media is commerically motivated,
programming people who are susceptible for a lot of reasons including
philosophy, schedule, distractions, lack of objective information. One
reason, I suppose, that you don't need to make the "brain programming"
distinction in learning, but the psychological terms are sufficient
for your case. For instance, 50% of Americans believed Iraq
responsible for 9/11. That had nothing to do with religion, but
everything to do with constant repetition of the two concepts in
juxtaposition about a billion times, but never actually asserting the
connection.
>
>> Agree that one should not
>> blame the whole religion or political party for the actions of a
few
>> fanatics.
>
>Yes, of course, but it is worth noticing that militancy and
fanaticism are
>the result of the same processes, just a bit more extreme, which
generate
>ordinary obsession in, say, the followers of a (besieged or
persecuted or
>threatened or oppressed) religion or political ideology. It's just a
matter
>of degree.

I will await more on "obsession" as above.

<snip about objective god, etc., now off-topic>
>
>> This theory of mine is falsifiable. Anyone can disprove it easily.
>> Just write a meaningful post that cannot be inferenced into logical
>> propositions. I've never seen that yet, nor in any religious text.
>
>That's also correct. In order to do that human beings would need the
ability
>to communicate exclusively via their subconcious, circumventing and
>bypassing the individual, rational mind, completely. Come to think of
it,
>isn't that exactly what some "magicians" have claimed they can do?

I don't need to remind you that a "magician's claim" isn't much
support of anything. I take it as an interesting aside.

>That
>means your (above) reasoning can be used as an explanation why
"magic" is so
>attractive a concept to many religious people,

I've not encountered that. I make a distinction between magic and
supernatural. Magic is sleight of hand, purposeful misperception,
and/or tricks using known technology, whereas supernatural is
(supposed) advanced technology (maybe so advanced as to be the human
"god"). Maybe you are mixing the two because neither has objective
validity in terms of religion, and I agree they share this and other
attributes.

> and at the same time how the
>belief in the "magical" and the "supernatural" is an indication of
>self-doubt,

How is a belief in supernatural events as described in religion an
indication of self-doubt? How is "self-doubt" defined? I think I would
need an example.

>hoping "god" won't pick up on the "naughty" doubts  that
>concious, reasoning minds have to express, at least occationally.
"God" as
>"Big Brother"?

This is contradictory to the previous statement, no? If God is big
brother, then he catches them doubting? Wouldn't it be better not to
be supernatural so one is not caught?

Many true believers never have doubts. It never even enters their
minds to doubt. I'm suspect you will agree.
>
>> Those propositions may have nothing whatsoever to do with the
literal
>> text, but there is always context to provide such inferencing, and
it
>> is the inferencing that gives meaning to the reader. Perhaps the
>> inferences are incorrect, and they often are. I am not saying that
>> humans can only reason in correct logic. I am saying they can only
>> reason in logic, correct or incorrect. If someone says, "Ok, I read
>> that post, and I made no inferences and saw no logical meaning. Yet
it
>> did have meaning anyway." Then I will answer, ok, explain that
>> meaning. If I can then inference that explanation, the theory
stands.
>
>Cleverly put. And true. But to religious peoples who want their lives
to be
>a "communion with god" this opinion and reasoning has to be pure
poison.

Yes. I've pointed out to some that God seems only to talk in
meaningful sentences. I forget the answers. Some acknowledged
temporarily, but I remember it had no effect on anyone for more than a
day. I call this the "rubber band" effect. <g>

> How
>can they ever express their sincere belief in "god" except in a
reasoned
>way, which by definition is also a way to question or doubt the very
>existence of the "object" of adulation? Perhaps by music? Ceremony?

Another major contradiction.

<snip>

>...logic, of course, but essential nevertheless, since the idea of
"god" as it
>rests in human minds is extremely slippery (and defensive) and can't
ever be
>captured by mere formal logic or reasoning.

Well I think the "idea" of "god" can be explained in terms of brain
programming
to an extent, just looking at input/output (behavior). Deeper into the
"black box" than that, I agree. I don't think that electodes in
temporal lobes inducing
hallucinations is very significant to this "idea" (or much else
outside of
clinical psychology).

Regarding "reasons" for inventing "god," I think these are relatively
easy to analyze. "Resolution of doubt" alone would account for it.
Fear or doubt about death. Grieving. Acceptance of one's meager
existence to be rewarded in the hereafter (work hard, don't have fun,
don't ask for anything). Combat mental illnesses. Rise above our
descendancy from crocodiles. Simple loneliness. Defense against
opportunists or people you don't like. Defense against more
privileged or powerful people. Economic power. A way to handle misery.
But again, brain programming when a child doesn't require motivation.
At the least it only requires repetition.

>But the obsessiveness, the
>repetitiousness, the closed mindset, and the fears which have to
exist
>subjectivily, perhaps subconciously, to support such beliefs are
highly
>susceptible to reasoned understanding and to social interpretation.
It
>reveals the "nature of god" in a much more honest and conclusive
fashion
>than all the writings of the myriad theologists throughout history.

Agree.

>> further than a "child" and describe us more as an amoeba in our
>> knowledge of the universe. <snip>
>
>Indeed, there are levels of existence and understanding. Presently,
human
>society is in desperate  trouble (isn't it always?) and much of it
has to do
>with the way the reasoning capabilities of the mind have been
utilized to
>promote the Industrial Revolution during the last couple of
centuries.

I interpret as the "age of reason" generally including Enlightenment
and science *in place of* logic (i.e. also reasoning sort of) of Dark
Ages and before. Lately logic has made somewhat of a comeback due to
computers.

>The
>environmental degradation and the breakdown of traditional societies
and the
>widespread social misery and political upheaval that has followed in
its
>footsteps serve now to turn people towards religion and comforting,
>ceremonial mumbo-jumbo instead of towards trying to understand what
is wrong
>and right that wrong.

All true to some extent, but I have problems with the degree of
importance I think you are implying. There are balancing things. Most
notably life expectancy.

>Blind reactionism, fear, "Suave qui peut", instead of
>a reasoned response - and this tendency is visible not just in the
Third
>World but in a very pronounced way in the supposedly delevoped World,
as
>well.

Sorry, this analysis is vague to me. Maybe partly because I don't
speak Hungarian. <g> But I know you are trying to cover a lot of
ground and perhaps it is not that important to the discussion. I think
there are other views, some contrary, with good support.

> Indeed, I think it'll be a long time before Man frees himself from his
>self-imposed beliefs in "gods" - yet, ordinary people around the
World
>certainly know that no "god" will intervene and save them from
impending
>disaster. This contradiction is at the heart of much that goes on in
the
>World, today.

I think the problems in the world have more to do with economics than
religion. I think regligion does have great importance, but that it
would be a great expansion to say it is the major problem of mankind.
In some sense religion could be considered a tool in the economic war.

<snip various agreements>

>> Agree again. The "subconcious" is the agent of doom to objective
>> analyisis. I am sure it is grabbing facts and logic to make us
reach
>> conclusions it wants for a host of reasons which I suspect you know
>> better than I. I have some basis for saying that, i.e. the
so-called
>> "combinatorial explosion" that demonstrates that logic is in fact
>
>That's a nice way of putting it. As an addage I can say that the
usual
>assumption of highly formally trained scientists, who always in a
>programmatic way promote and teach this idea to their students, is
that the
>ONLY part of the human mind that it is worthy of training and
development is
>the reasoning, concious mind, the "executive mind".

I'm a little surprised. I thought scientists placed high value on
anything that could produce an insight, inspiration, intuition,
imagination (Hey - let's call it the "four I's") or anything that
might help generate new ideas. But regarding objectivity, my
subconscious "logic/fact snatcher" applies to everyone including
scientists and myself.

>This Aristotelian idea
>is naturally completely wrong, yet most scientists in fields like
physics,
>astronomy, geology, biology etc. still believe it completely.

Don't understand that. When I think of Aristotle I think of 24 valid
syllogisms, All, Some, No, 7 fallacies, etc. We all adopt some of that
in our arguments, but the academic technicalities are not required,
and there is the larger issue of probability missing in classic and
popular academic logic.

> (contrary to the mass of available evidence from psychological and social sciences).
>This despite the fact that they often use non-logical processes in
their own
>work, as you describe - but they are simply not equipped to
understand
>themselves or their own minds, so they go about their work in what
often
>appears to outsiders to be a deluded state of mind.

It seems you are promoting psychology over the hard sciences in a
fundamental way. I don't agree with that, and it seems so basic that
there must be a confusion of terms between us. That wouldn't be
surprising with terms such as "non-logical" and "deluded" and  "mind"
(my dictionary takes a whole column of tiny print to list all the
defs. of "mind.") I often have a problem with a "mass of available
evidence" when it comes from psychology because I've seen that to
translate more as "conjecture" or various experimenters refering to
each other's work as "proof" when none are proof of anything. I am
only being persnickety here because of the complexity of the object of
study (brains) and inability to gain direct access to it. Also "Lies,
damn lies, and statistics" (Mark Twain).

Well, having roasted psychology quite a bit so far, I want to balance
that by
saying some good things about it IMHO:

1. Clinical psychology - great success!

2. Most psychological testing. More or less success, especially in
achievement, employment, aptitude, and educational testing. Note the
glaring ommision of testing for innate intelligence. <g>

3. The best informed wisdom still does generally beat psychology, but
informed wisdom is static, more-or-less constant over time. Psychology
is the only way to methodically increase knowledge about the human
mind so that *some day* it will overcome informed wisdom. Well of
course there are exceptions in some areas where psychology is already
ahead. But the rub is that, as soon as psychology comes up with
something confirmed in scientifically and statistically valid
real-time tests, it is adopted into informed wisdom which is
relatively easy
because it happens very infrequently (IMO). So informed wisdom tends
to keep its lead, and probably will until the rate of success in
psychology increases dramatically. Well it is increasing now with PET
scans, etc.

When I say "best informed wisdom," think General or Admiral, line
officer with a stellar track record in wartime. I try to make this an
obvious distinction in my discussions of psychology v. informed
wisdom.

Whenever the discussion is about the general population, or some of
those people you run into at the "customer service" desk, etc., then I
would adopt the "psychology" point-of-view, and that seems to apply to
your analysis of organized religion very well. I am touchy about
applying it to fellow newsgroup posters because then it seeks a
privileged position and denigrates the discussion. Not that I see you
doing that.

4. Other particular successes here and there, for instance in
marketing.

5. Much criticism of psychology by hard scientists is unfair. The
object of study is (for practical purposes) infinitely complex, yet
psychologists are denied direct access to it (for ethical reasons).

> It is indeed a wonder
>how the practitioners of material science often make the same
mistakes as
>the clergy of (say) the Roman Catholic Church (or perhaps not,
considering
>the history of Western science).

Don't necessarily disagree, but could use an example.
>
<snip agreements about reliability of perception and language>
>>
>>> But never mind. What position has "god" in the
>>> objective-subjective scale? Well, the agnostic has to say that
"god" is a
>>> subjective human phenomenon, created by the human mind, and that
he has no
>>> objective existence exept as an idea expressed by language.
>>
>> I thought "agnostic" was inconclusive about existence of an
objective
>> god. I'm not well informed here. It's really been a long time since
>> I've argued with those terms. If it comes up again, I'll google the
>> definition.
>
>Agnosticim dates back to ancient Greece and was the
counter-philosophical
>movement to Gnoticism. Agnostics said exactly as you or I have
written in
>these messages that the existence of "god" or "gods" could never been
>proven. They also thought that it was well neigh impossible for human
beings
>to understand objective reality. This later developed into
Scepticism.

Well you said above that the agnostic says god has no objective
existence, whereas here you are saying the agnostic believes existence
is indeterminate. That seems a contradiction, but I don't mean to be
persnickety about one sentence in a 600-line post. The latter was my
understanding of the word. Thanks for the update.
>
>I claim to be an agnostic in such discussions as the present one
rather than
>an outright atheist for just two reasons. One, the agnostic doesn't
care
>whether "god" or "gods" exist or not. Thus the agnostic doesn't
parade his
>non-belief in the same religiously obsessive manner as most atheists
do.
>Two, the agnostic is basically a sceptic. This is the only reasonable
>attitude to have to human life and humanity's many projects, IMHO.
Naivity
>is not what the doctor ordered at this stage of human history.

Ok, that was my understanding of your position. (also mine)

<snip>
>
>> Ok, I see that. Thanks for correcting me. An idea takes some form
and
>> then it becomes objective reality. Haven't given any thought at all
to
>> where that line is drawn in terms of objective/subjective, or how
it
>> might be important in this argument.
>
>This is highly consequential to our debate, since the unique human
ability
>to conciously transform and transmute parts of reality is indicative
of
>creative powers. A creative "god" is a superman, of course. "God" is
a
>simply a powerful (creative, beneficial, punishing, vindictive etc.
as the
>case may be) entity with human characteristics.

So the consequence is that "god" is invented to have human
characteristics? No doubt in my mind about that (sometimes our creator
of all existences seems like the guy next door!), but is that the
meaning of the above?
>
Thanks,

Larry

P.S. Just found your reply to the "part #2" post and perused it. Looks
to be especially informative! Some might qualify the above. If so I'll
do it there.