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

Acme Posting wrote:
> "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)

<snipping some points of agreement>

> 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.

Yes, this is my sentiment, too. As to your point about the antropomorphic
creations and imagenings that the human mind is so very prone to producing
(and remembering), this in itself makes out a whole psycho-social argument
about the origin and nature of "god", the idea, and about the
self-projecting (self-mirroring) functioning of the collective and
individual human mind. These psychologically self-mirroring
(self-replicating) images are so pervasive to human culture that they amount
to a whole World library of (more or less) standardized iconography, witness
the drawings of children from every society around the World, or the way the
same (geometric, association rich) imagery is repeated in endless variations
throughout the history of art, crafts, construction, and architecture, a
tradition which is still very rich today.

 <snip further agreements>

>> 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.

This is always the difficulty when trying to make an informed comment about
a global trend or development. Naturally, there will be exceptions and cases
where the opposite may prove to be an enduring trend. I didn't mean to imply
that the US was any better or worse than anybody else - instead this was an
attempt at describing the global political climate which is always a
(chaotic) mix that is bound to be a mess of contradictory developments
making such conclusions pretty uncertain. Yet, despite these serious
uncertainties, I do stick to my estimation that the World is going through a
period of lowering general tolerance (a weakening of moderate political
centrist forces) which means that extremisms and fundamentalisms of every
imaginable kind (a strengthening of political, social contradictions and of
radicalism in politics) will grow and prosper. It is a safe bet, IMHO, that
the very unstable international political situation and the present unstable
global economic environment will shortly (in 1-10 years) lead to a very
serious World crisis (dwarfing 1929) and possible World War. But that is
another discussion, altogether.

What all this talk of present politics has to do with "god" is obvious, I
think. Those voices of society which call for rational and considered and
socially balanced action to head off threatening crises, environmental
disasters, wars etc. will have a much more difficult time of it when society
is politically polarized. Part of this polarization always brings a
strengthening of religious movements (fundamentalists tend to become
radicals in this situation), who by their very nature are incapable of
helping to solve or counter crisis situations (concerning themselves only
with "god" and the virtue of a humble life on Earth and offering their
accolytes nothing but the immaterial comfort the promise of an eternal life
in the blissful hereafter can offer, "Pie in the sky".) but add to the
societal resistence of reactionary forces with either a vested interest in
the status quo or, very contemporary this, with the intend to deconstruct
society for the material rewards this will undoubtedly bring to the few.

> 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.

The media don't really need to propagate hate in order to strengthen public
obsessions  or radicalize opinions (though that has happened a lot
throughout history). All the media, the church, the institutions of a
society have to do is to impress on people how wunrable they are or how much
they are threatened by the (infidel heretics, the subversives, the commies,
the nazis, imperialists etc.) enemies of the day. If this is done
convincingly, in a manner ordinary people will accept as true, then
obsessive radicalization of society will begin to happen, sure as money in
the bank. Then the road is open for the next step towards regimenting
society - propagating hatred, beginning wars e.g. Of course, I'm not
describing anything new. This was EXACTLY the method used by the Nazi party
(NSDAP) in Germany, when Hitler putsched his way to assuming dictatorical
powers on the general public outrage produced by the Reichstag fire in 1933
(the fire was set by the Nazis, themselves, naturally).

> Certainly it happens a lot in some specific outlets, and
> there are gross examples of it.

There is a market for it. And that is the point. In peaceful societies this
particular market is reduced to the insignificant (at least in economic
terms) and its costumor base is usually scorned as primitives and rif-raf.
The market is not very big as yet, but it is growing steadily, now a going
economic concern, I believe. If this development is not halted or reversed,
the consequences will potentially become very dangerous, not to say
catastrophic.

> 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.
>
<snip>

> 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?

That's a good question. "Fear" is simply not just "fear". But in this case,
I meant the basic human psychological reaction to ALL existential fear,
meaning fears which have a permanent, enduring influence on human character
formation and the human psyche. An existential fear might be the fear of
death, or pain, or injury, of the unknown, of decease, or of the future etc.
Existential fears may come from (suppressed) memories of traumatic events or
from (untreated) neurosis or from (extreme) social conditions (of want or
deprivation) in general. Such fears (ordinarily) transcent the moment and
are with most people in one form or another throughout life, abating at bit
or becoming more accute according to the vagaries of life.

> I could just use a
> sentence or two about that. I interpret "aggression" as militant or
> supporting militancy.

No, aggression does not have to become militant or even have physical
consequences in order for psychologists to name it "aggression". Naturally,
it's hard to define accurately in professional terms what aggression is, but
ordinarily all self-defensive and hostile emotions are termed aggressive.
Most aggression has no real consequences either in psychological or in
"real" terms. A grown person will furrow his brow at a child who does
something wrong, and that's mostly it, symbolic and physical aggression in
one go. Sometimes, at a cocktail party one guest will think that another is
a dimwit and ridicule or gossip behind his back or whatever. But only rarely
does aggression lead to actual physical violence.

The main circumstance which makes agression become a self-destructive
emotion occurs when the individual has no voluntary control over his
defensive-aggressive emotions and thus begins to feel aggressive or
threatened all the time. Another is when the threat that makes the
individual aggressive is beyond the control or influence of  the individual.
This then has the possiblity of registering with the individual as an
existential threat (fear) which has the potential to make the individual
obsessive about the perceived threat. Such developments are EXTREMELY common
in history. When the Roman Catholic Church under Urban II called for the
first crusade in Europe, this had the effect of making millions of people
irrational. Many simply left their farms and homes and families determined
to walk to Jerusalem as pilgrims before the End of Time was nigh.
Contemporary political examples abound. Which nation hasn't experienced at
least one major outbreak of socio-psychological madness in the last century?

> I have a problem with "obsession."

Yes, I know it's used a lot, perhaps too much. I probably use it too much,
myself. But it is such a handy word, because it means exactly what it is
supposed to, being synonemous with but stronger than "preoccupation". The
difference is that when psychologists talk about obsession, they infer that
the particular obsession that an individual (patient) suffers from is
(mostly) beyond his own emotional control. Obsessions in psychology are thus
mostly compulsive obsessions (or preoccupations).

> 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.

A good example of a realtivily harmless religious obsession would be a
person who can't fall asleep at nights without having said his prayers.
Another would be a person who cries involuntarily when he sees a crucifix.
Another would be a person who bugs or pressurizes his/her family (or
friends) to go through the EXACT same Christmas ritual year upon year - and
who would fall into severe depression if the slightest deviation from the
"norm" is suggested. On and on, you could probably think up a lot of these,
yourself.

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

Oh, yes, people respond to fear in a great variety of ways. But the basic
emotion of fear stays pretty much the same whatever the source of the fear
or threat might be, EXCEPT for intensity. The more intense the sensation of
fear, the more painful it becomes. Relly intense, prolonged fear is enough
to make many people irrational, mad, or suffer mental breakdown.

> 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.

No, this is not the ordinary way for (decent) governments to behave. There
are indeed other motivators. But if a ruling clique, elite, clergy,
authority, government wants to radicalize society, this is an (popular and
historic) easy way to hurry things along. Radicalization of society can also
take place through the utilization of purely economic means, but that
ordinarily takes a lot of time.

> 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?

Another good question. Greed is a form of obsession, in that I define greed
as the involuntary need (= compulsion) to overeat, amass material wealth,
collect art etc. The object is not really acquisition of wealth but (through
displacement) the eradication of an existential fear of (hunger, cold,
material want etc.) some human need (though greedy persons are mostly
ignorant of this underlying, unconcious motivation). Thus greedy people are
both obsessive-compulsive, aggressive (through classic displacement of
object), unscociable, and (narcissistically) self-absorbed (= "evil").

Patriotism is a bit harder to get to the psychological buttom of, since the
form patriotism may take can wary enormously according to historical,
cultural, social conditions, traditions, circumstances. Patriotic sentiment
may spring from any part of the political spectrum and it may be motivated
by a potentially huge number of causes or motivators. But I'll try as best I
can to define it in purely psychological (and NOT in historic, political)
terms. Patriotism is a socio-psychological mass movement which (ordinarily)
occurs in aggressive (-obsessive) response to some internal/external
societal threat. It affects the individual primarily through a fearful
reaction to an event or threat, and the individual seeks to overcome the
fear by joining with others who are likewise affected in a common attempt to
counter the fear (= social solidarity is very effective at that). Patriotic
sentiment (aggression) may become obsessive-compulsive (but isn't always) if
the fear or threat to which the patriotic sentiment is a response becomes
existential or enduring.

> 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.

That is true. I think the international (not just the domestic US) media
have lost a lot of their traditional independance during the last two
decades. Organized religions are experiencing a bonanza. So, it is safe to
conclude, generally, that society is being radicalized, IMHO.

> 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.

"...you are saying that there is a pervasive human psychological (emotional)
condition that invites exploitation". Yes, you have hit the nail on the
head, that's exactly the point I've been trying to make. It's just that your
description of this basic human susceptibility to being exploited makes it
out to be a "bad thing" while I actually believe that it is the central
(hard to define) characteristic that makes the potential human being into
homo sapiens. Our very languages, cultures, civilizations could not have
come into existence without this "vulnerability" which might just as well be
viewed as a mental force for creativity, sociability, adaptability,
inventiveness, memory etc. - ALL of which are completely necessary to build
human lives and human existence (and for survival). The main point to
realize when debating this ancient point is this, IMHO. The psychological
abilities and characteristica that Man has can be used as
socio-psychological forces for the qualitative enrichment of life and the
hightening of human existence. Or they can be abused to keep humans in
bondage to their "gods" or "social betters". The first road is narrow, hard,
and enobling -  the potential rewards are enormous (survival being one of
them). The second one is broad, easy, and self-degrading - there are no
rewards except the rewards of greed and other obsessiveness (along with
possible self-extinction). Can there be any doubt as to the correct choice?

> 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.

Yes, I heard about that now famous Iraq poll, even here in Europe on my far
removed observer's perch. No, I believe you are wrong when you say that the
habitually uncritical acceptance by many (most) ordinary citizens of
incorrect or untruthful authoritative information has nothing to do with
religion. Isn't it true that those who implicitly believe (any) authority
are like blindly trusting parishernes who (totally) believe and accept the
mumbo-jumbo their preast or preacher vocalizes before the alleged alter of
sacrifice every week? They have long since (at some early stage in
childhood, probably) stopped asking what the ritual means for the authority
has explaned its meaning (a thousand times) and they (now) accept that,
implicitly. Weren't most of those 50% from the convervative, church-going,
Christian right? Those of the public who had long since grasped the fact
about the non-existence of Iraqi WMD were from the non-religious (godless)
left?  I rest my case.

<snip>

>> 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.

Those are good definitions of the words "magic" and "supernatural". But I
was using the word "magical" in its ancient meaning, as in Merlin, the
Magician. Magician come from the ancient Median word "Magi", a priest of the
Wise Good Ahruman, somebody who worships the sacred Fire. I does
traditionally, in the European tradition, mean a person that has
supernatural powers (of divination) as well as command of (secret)
technology and knowledge.

>> 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.

Well, it's impossible to give an example, unless some of the many ghost or
other stories about supernatural events I have heard in my life can be used.
The question is, how does the all-powerful creator interact with his human
creation, according to most believers? By planting messages (or other bits
of information) directly into their brains, the ordinary answer goes. This
belief naturally opens the door to other (hypothetical) ideas. When "god"
can do it to a living person, a living person can (presumably) do it to
another living person ("god" is a superman, after all). Thus the enormous
amount of stories that circulate about massages from the dead to the living,
the visitations of ghosts, the belief in "good" and "evil" spirits, the
belief in the heavenly light in near death experiences, the belief in the
ability to accurately predict the future (because a deterministic "god" has
ordered it so) etc. Don't you have an aunt who has received a message from
some dead family member? I have two, and they're dotty old people, very god
compagny and bright as whips, both of them, yet they both have a staunch
belief in a universe lorded over by an all-powerful beneficial "god" who
intervenes on behalf of individual human beings. They are avid church goers
and NEVER want to debate anything to do with "god".

Naturally, once the belief in the ability of "god" to plant messages
directly in the brain of individuals is accepted by a person, serious qualms
have to arise. "God", the superman, is like Freud's "superego", the
concience, and once the individual accepts that his own ideas or thoughts
may actually originate with "god" they take on the power and importance of
messages from the "super-ego". This ís a very dangerous psychological
development which can lead to all sorts of obsessions and mania, where
people  actually believe they become "instruments of god", beyond human
judgement and human understanding, "a law unto themselves". But it also can
lead to serious anxiety. If the "god" can plant messages in somebody's
brain, "he" can naturally also "read" minds. That means "god" knows the
individual is sinful, "he" knows about the least transgression against "his"
laws and every private doubt. Self-abasement, self-humiliation, self-doubt,
extreme kinds of self-eradicating behaviour can follow, once this has become
a compulsive obsession. Then "god" has become "Big Brother".

>> 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?

No, see above.

> Many true believers never have doubts. It never even enters their
> minds to doubt. I'm suspect you will agree.

Yes, they don't (sub-)vocalize their doubts or ever admit to themselves they
exist. But since (as we presume) "god" doesn't exist, "he" can't prevent
reasonable doubt from being felt by the individual. This is an easy thing to
test for. Just pick any testable belief you have and try out whether your
(secret) doubts surface or not during the test. Let's pick a bridge you have
crossed hundreds of times on your way to work. I bet the first time you
crossed a slight doubt crept into your mind that it might not support you,
even though you KNEW that thousands had crossed safely before you did. This
doubt actually persists to exist in your mind. It is there every time you
cross that bridge, but most of the time you probably don't even notice. It
doesn't make you fearful or ruin your day, it's just there (very slightly,
as one emotional colour among many during waking hours, changing according
to events). And this doubt is also present in the minds of belivers in "god"
however much they want to deny it (or they wouldn't be human beings or "god"
would actually exist). And that particular doubt can only grow or stay
suppressed (which takes a lot of mental energy). Often it does both,
requiring more and more suppressive mental energy to master thereby making
the individual more and more obsessive. Once the active mind has become
desentizied to its drugs, the dosis must be increased to obtain the same
result. Nurses in psychiatric wards know that.

<snip>

> 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.

This is all very well reasoned. Did you notice how easy it was to find
psychological rationales for the attractiveness of religion to people? How
some of the many contradictions and paradoxes that have to come up when
debating "god" suddenly resolve themselves into questions of
socio-psychological utility? Well, I say that represents a situation Occam
would instantly recognize. Suddenly, it seems possible to use his "Razor".

<snip>

> 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.

That's another one of those difficult calls to make. There has been general
social progress in most of the Occident. But it seems to be more than
balanced out by the social misery and environmental degradation which is the
reality in most of the Third World. Less than one third of the entire global
population live in the Occident. The remainder of humanity live short lives
of misery. One third of the World's population haven't even got enought
money or food for one square meal a day, despite the fact that Third World
nations grow and produce around 70% all global foodstuffs. All this makes me
look on the continued Industrial Revolution (which is a "child" of the
Renaissance and the Enlightenment (Age of Reason), as you say) as more of a
social disaster and historic for humanity than anything else.

>> 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.

Haven't you also noticed the de-emphasis on REAL news in the media? The near
death of investigative journalism? The slow withering away of the old
tradition of participatory democracy in the entire Occident? The tendency of
media, art, theatre etc. to take refuge in fluff and fairytale and fantasy?
The death of the social-realitic traditions of writing, reporting, filming?
I could go on naming such symptoms for quite some time.

What do people, media, artists etc. do instead? Well, in times of crisis
people smoke more cigarettes and watch more movies. Artists and scientists
and other cultural "elites" seek refuge in "ivory towers". Fairy tale time!
Let's turn on that telly, and stay at home. Who wants to know about reality?
It's so depressing.

Old religions are being reborn. In the Scandinavian countries, the old
Nordic religion of Odin and Thor is on the rise, believe it or not. In the
UK Viccam (the belief in Earth magic, I suppose) is a hit. The organized
religions in the US build mega-churches. Anything to hide from reality and
find a safe clubbing "hobby" - "god" willing!

<snip>

> 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.

Of course, that's right. Economic troubles are what people face,
fundamentally. But will religion help people with that in practical terms,
or will it make them less capable of dealing with harsh reality? You already
know what I think. Religion will make them less resistent and less able to
work their way out of trouble. It will impair their ability to manage their
own affairs. Religion and the belief in "god" is a "brain vampire". :-)

<snip>

> 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.

No, I'm not talking about Aristotele's views on physics or logic, but about
the way he regarded human beings. Aristotle's most consequential
psychological idea (IMHO) was that he regarded the concious, logical part of
the human mind as the "master of the individual and his lowly, animalistic
passions". This "executive ego" has been worshipped (in true narcissistic
fashion) by Occidental scientists and opinion formers, leading to a cultural
tradition which is arrogant, intolerant, overly logical, and anti-intuitive.
Only when Freud and other modern psychologists began their systematic
investigations of the human psyche did the narrow and distorted emphasis on
"logic" and "reasoning" begin to receive some of the criticism which it
richly deserved and a more balanced view became possible in science. But,
unfortunately, it is appearant that many scientists, leaders, opinion
formers carry on in the bad old Aristotelian tradition. They ought to know
better, by now.

[Partly copied from something I wrote in a massage to tooly in this thread]

>> (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.

No, just in this question about "god". It's not from a principal preference
that I turn to psychology but from the practical need to find a scientific
basis from which to understand this complex matter. I firmly believe, that
only through the study of Man and his psyche (his society and behaviour)
will a true understanding of the "nature of god" (which really is a study of
Man) become possible. This I base on the axiomatic hypothesis that "god" is
a socio-psychological creation of the human mind.

> 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).

Agreed to all that. One should always choose once tools carefully and
deliberately.

> 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>

Yes, intelligence testing is humbug. But the commercial (and other
interests) are just too great. They'll not leave off till they're able to
make clones of Einstein's brain.

> 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.

Yes, I agree completely. Denigrating putdowns happen too often on Usenet.

> 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).

This last point about scientific hostility goes way back. There's no hint,
yet, that the people in the hard sciences have heard about Freud and the
following scientific revolution in understanding the nature of Man.


<snip>

> 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.

Quite right, that is a contradiction. But in those ancient times the idea of
there being no "god" was so revolutionary, nobody noticed. Gnostics of the
time were simply horrified by such heresy. What, you can't detect "god"?
That was much, much worse than claiming reality is unknowable. If "god"
exists, reality exists, too - that was the near universal consensus. So,
agnostics thought if "god" didn't exist, then reality didn't either. Ah,
philosophy! :-)

 <snip>

> 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.

Well, thanks to you, too. Incredible how much ground this is covering. I'm
very favourably impressed with your insights and comments.

It is late Saterday afternoon, here, so I'll hurry up and wish you a nice
week-end.

Nes