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]>...
> >
Hi Nes. I observe that I have assumed the role of critic to your
thesis in large part. Thus my criticisms may not completely reflect my
personal view, but in some sense may reflect what criticism I imagine
you might receive in general. I think being a critic is a worthy role,
and appreciate the practice. Note that I'm not well informed in some
areas of the discussion. Apologize for naivity here and there.
>
><snip leading up to deification of Mother Theresa>
>
>> I'd say she is now a ritual object for brain programming purposes.
>> <snip> ... Even a lot of ritual words, pictures, etc., now on TV.
>
>Yes, it's everywhere. This is a vitally important observation, how
much
>social constructs are basically alike and how they all originate with
>organized religions (at some point in history).

Yes! The original social engineering scientists and behaviorists.
Thousands of years of experimentation, observation, prediction, and
accumulation of wisdom regarding human behavior.  I often make this
point to deaf ears who assert that "psychology" started in the 19th
century. Again, just putting a name to something known by informed
wisdom. I also liked that you said " ... Freud and before" below.

>It affirms that mankind is
>still, fundamentally, in religious bondage and subject to existential
fears
>which compel him to seek refuge in calming psychoterapeutic
mumbo-jumbo and
>ritual and in a wishful illusion that some higher power looks out for
him
>and his wellbeing.

I see the validity of this. Religion itself is pervasive, but it's
extension into other areas makes it all-pervasive. The way I would
think of this: people noticed how successful religion was, studied its
methods, and adopted them in other areas. E.g. the salesperson
ceremony. I like to analyze wedding ceremonies too (when I can't get
out of attending them!). Great psychology and social engineering
there, IMO.

>Thus humans tend to invent closed social structures
>(warlike, defensive, obsessive, other-directed) which somehow exist
in
>contravention of nature and natural forces which are supposed to be
>"subjected" and "mastered" and "improved" and "made safe" by human
>technology

Agree.

>thereby attempting to cut humans off from nature, a quite insane
>undertaking bound to fail.

>This fallacy cannot remain hidden from the
>concious mind forever, thus humans also strongly want to compensate
for
>their isolation from nature (which is a form of alienation that in
its turn
>promotes very detrimental and dangerous effects, too)

Need your definition of nature as used here. Agrarian v.
technological, rural v. urban, subjective v. objective reality, or ?
The next paragraph seems to indicate objective reality, and that's how
I've been using it. E.g. "Nature is cruel." But to say "cut off from
nature" usually implies one of the other contexts to me.

>by inventing
>supernatural forces which "order" nature in such a way that human
endeavours
>remain harmless and inconsequential. Another insanity and a very bad
spiral
>to be caought up in.

Ok, I see how that would work.
>
>I do not know what the "cure" is. But getting rid of the belief in
"god"
>seems like a good place to start. It will be a really difficult
undertaking,
>but I actually believe that humanity cannot carry on in this
(ancient)
>manner much longer without disastrous global consequences.

Well back in the 80's I remember that some astute analysts here in the
U.S. we predicting that the greatest future danger would come from
religious fundamentalism v. the West. (I didn't think they meant here!
<g>). Others warn of environmental catastrophes. I worry about the
ozone layer and global warming.

More generally, religion gets in the way of technological advance.
That advance is required to solve some of these global consequences
you speak of. I don't think one can move back the clock, go back to an
agricultural society (though I know most of the world is still that).
For instance I'd like to prevent the next
asteroid from destroying most life on the planet. I'd like the science
of medicine to continue improving at the same rate. I'd also like to
get AIDS treatments distributed to the third world (etc.)

> It's either get
>well or die out, simple as that, for mankind is presently painting
himself
>into a corner. Man needs PROPER psychotherapy and education in order
to free
>himself.

Agree with that. Regarding "psychotherapy" we may have different
contexts, but no question about education. Education (providing
objective information) is the ultimate solution, IMO. At least
political information, other types of information, but I would exclude
certain types of objective information from general consumption. The
only real reason why the "ignorant masses" remain ignorant so that
democracy can't work, in my view, is that they are purposely being
kept ignorant. It is a central theme of my political philosophy, and
one
possible solution resides in the application of artificial
intelligence, IMO.
Very hypothetical at this stage. But just looking at google - so much
information readily available! I could carry on a political dialog
with you on a much higher level just due to that. Anytime you refer to
a concept I don't know, I just google it while writing my reply. I've
googled more than once in my replies to you.

>> Is this additional attention and acknowledgement of Mother Theresa
a
>> bad thing on balance? Won't that many more people have her for an
>
>Well, those are some of the usual ways in which religious movements
and
>institutions defend themselves against accusations like mine. What is
really
>behind the defense is the notion or idea that if religions didn't
exists
>society would become ungovernable and social chaos (even madness)
would
>become the norm.

And we'd have to pay people to visit the sick instead of getting it
for free, and other stuff like that... Like we now have to pay for day
care when we used to get it for free, and much better quality.

>This IS a valid argument in the short run, for it is well
>known in psychology that an attempt to cure a patient of a certain
>pathological obsession or madness often leads to the patient
"escaping" into
>another obsession. It's the old joke about the shrink and the patient
who
>thought he was a tortoise. The shrink cured him, but now he thinks
he's a
>mole.

Agree.

>Yet, the defense of religions that they help make society governable
(which
>is certainly true, religion is a tool of statecraft) is NOT valid in
the
>long run, because it offers the patient no cure, no future.

You seek a new Enlightenment. There's a title for your book. <g>

Being American I do not hear that defense. I sometimes hear that they
make socialization possible, etc. in that vein, but never that they
make society governable. Just reminding you about my ethnocentric
ignorance (as if you needed reminding <g>).

Religion is generally the antithesis to technological advance. Some
scientists are also deeply religious. They seem to resolve that
paradox by leaving their "religion" on the lab doorstep, and picking
it up on the way out. It's curious.

>Instead, the
>patient remains stuck in his obsession while the religious
socialization
>that he continually undergoes keeps him calm and disassociated.

Now having read ahead to your next post and receiving your def. of
"obsession" I can agree. Absolutely. True belief, obsession, delusion
all seem to be different sides of the same coin. (There are three
types of people in this world - those who can count and those who
can't!)

We all know what "continually undergoes" means in terms of a religious
service. I.e. the chapters in my brain programming manual.
"continually" sounds a lot like "repetition." Sorry, don't mean to
beat you over the head with it. If I use it too often, it becomes my
own ritual word, which I don't want.

>This is the
>same way closed psychiatric wards treat their patients, handing them
>disassociative, emotion repressing, calming psychopharmaca in order
to keep
>them quiet and malleable.

I have to agree. I would say brain programming and drugs are on a par.

>This could go on forever, of course. But isn't it
>the duty of doctors (of everybody) get the patients well and off
their
>medication?

Yes. But I think reality is a terrible place. Can't get too close. You
have to come up with an alternative that insulates to an acceptable
degree, has to work over a wide range of population, and has to solve
a host of problems that religion now solves, including some
pathological or at least serious personality issues of some
individuals and of course some moral issues. Tooly has a good point
here - some of those might wind up jumping off of his cliff.

>> 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!).
>
>By noting down this fine inherent contradiction - between the good
>intentions of reformers and the psychological barriers to success
that have
>so far always dogged them (throughout known human history) - you have
>defined what the main obstacle to human progress is, IMHO. This is
really
>the central reason why I want to promote the idea that the belief in
"god"
>or "gods" is bad (psychologically unhealthy) and that the only option
>humanity has for the future is to liberate himself from these ancient
forms
>of self-imposed mind control.

I still don't see how religion is psychologically unhealthier than
alternatives in context of many people I know. They would need some
form of delusion to replace it, or a lot of successful psychiatric
therapy, and you know how successful that usually is and how expensive
it is. How do we prevent the "Brave New World" scenario? What is the
economic cost of alternatives? Lot's of great ideas have bitten the
dust for not incorporating that. I can go to church for $10/week or I
can visit a psychiatrist for $200/week.

(I am beginning to think of some answers to this criticism myself, but
prefer hearing yours.)

>If that does not happen, then the future will
>become what past history has mainly always been, repetitions of a few
basic
>themes which have kept humanity in self-imposed bondage. It'll be
just like
>it always has been,

I'm having trouble keeping the context straight between individuals v.
cultures. Regarding cultures, we can say religion stands in the way of
progress. But with individuals, a different set of circumstances
prevail. You've made the distinction between "religion" and "faith"
saying "faith" (the individual) is more problematic.

>" Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."

Translation to American "redneck:" Add something different from
California, then add a French desert topping, then chose to eat it.

>> 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.
>
>Religion is probably a "noble tool" in the minds of many (if not all)
>religious people. But even though I do accept that religion has some
short
>term, momentary benefits, one should never forget that religions are
>basically always reactionary in their social outlook.

Conservative, absolutist?

I could place you in Christ's world, and ask you how you would
accomplish as much in that world. But that wouldn't really be very
pertinent to your thesis in our time and your more general view of
religion, so no answer expected.

>They tend to promote
>the ideology of the dominant social outlook or ruling class (of any
society
>in history) to the detriment of reformers and in contravention of the
REAL
>interests of their followers.

I understand and agree. The reformer has this great vision, then some
opportunist implements it to his/her own advantage or according to
his/her misinterpretation or less-noble vision or meager
implementation ability. I think a perfect example would be Chist the
reformer, and the biblical Paul as
implementor of most of what's wrong with Christianity IMO.

>Thus religion is primarily a tool of
>statecraft, serving purposes of social regimentation and lending a
seeming
>legitimacy to the prevailing social order.

Plenty of obvious examples of this.

> In the few historical cases where
>religious movents have served as a basis for mass movents for social
reform
>(or revolution), like early Christianity did in the ancient Roman
Empire,
>this is to be viewed more as an abberation or an exception that
proves the
>norm than anything else.

Ok, I'll take that at face value. I only know about Christianity.

>Only peoples living under extreme social conditions
>of oppression or exploitation really regard religion as their
"saviour".

I can think of an example of that among major religions. And in that
case I think religion is an economic tool, in your words,
"statecraft."

>They shouldn't but they do - and who can reasonably blame people in
fear of
>drowning for grasping anything that might keep them afloat? Again, I
can't
>really find it in myself to do that.

I think there is also a leadership problem. Ghandis, Manellas, Kings,
seem to be in short supply. How many social movements to you know that
are ready to go and to succeed, just waiting for the leader, but who
never arrives?
>
><snip>
>
>> ... 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?
>
>Of course, you're right that the cultural background and history of a
people
>strongly influence the formation of new religions. They always build
on the
>old an familiar tradition however much they try to break with certain
>specific practices or beliefs. This is also true of Buddhism and
>Confucianism. The historic successes of those two belief systems are
>striking both in their similarities and in their differences.
Confucious
>believed that if only governments would act ethically - which in his
mind
>basically meant performing certain ancient rituals and ceremonies -
then
>beneficial government could become a reality (by "magic", I suppose).
This
>Confucianism was a reaction against the (as Confucious perceived it)
>unethical government of the times (which had led to the fracture of
China
>into competing kingdoms, all fighting for supremacy) and an attempt
to
>return to a "god"-inspired reality, which he believed had existed at
some
>mythical prehistoric epoch in the Middle Kingdom. Confucianism became
the
>official  Chinese state-legitimizing philosophy (applying only to the
state
>employed aristocracy) of every successive Chinese government (until
Sun Yat
>Sen), yet nobody ever really tried to put Confucious' reforms into
practise.
>The most they ever did was influence Chinese governments, kings,
emperors to
>keep China isolationistic - but there are whole priods of Chinese
history
>where China's foreign policy was as imperial and expansionist as that
of any
>other great power in history.

Impressive history. You've really done your homework on this issue.
Thanks for the free education.
>
>Buddhism was also originally a reaction against the behaviour of
elite
>rulers and aristocracy that Buddha grew up with intimate knowledge
of, he
>being a son of a local Indian king. He deplored the elites'
self-indulgent
>lifestyles and their abuses of power and came to the conclusion that
only
>through a self-imposed regimentation to master his vile human desires
could
>Man ever hope to escape the Wheel of Creation or ruses of Maya. In
this view
>he radically broke with Hinduism and, oh, irony of history, his
religious
>philosophy quickly became the state-carrying religion for much of
nothern
>India. How did that happen? Well, the Buddha had preached abstinence
and
>disinterst in the physical aspects of human life. He had strongly
impressed
>on his followers the idiocy of imagining that a better life on Earth
might
>ever come about as a result of human striving. What better religion
for
>rulers to promote than one which tells its followers that their lives
are
>not to be "wasted" striving for temporal happiness?

Good example of the "reformer" v. the "implementor" again. Thanks for
the example and the update (I've read some of this before).
>
>(All this [above] is ultra-short, naturally, only inclusive of the
basic
>point I want to make. The true complexity of both religions is at
least a
>magnitude of ten greater. Much too involved to do justice here.)

I appreciate the excellent editing you've provided. I have a dogma
about editing too. <g>
>
>> 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.)
>
>That is the burning question, of course, "what is the alternative"?

Some perspectives are beginning to form in my mind. I am a pretty slow
analyzer. I try to interpret things in light of experience as much as
possible. In the U.S., we have locations devoid of religion and places
full of religion. I've lived in both (and a lot of in-betweens), and
have purposely observed the differences as much as possible re: my
interest in brain programming which is similar to your interest. Thus
our discussion is causing me to think about the differences, i.e. what
worked and didn't work in each location. But it will be some time
before any insights occur of relevance to your context, if ever. This
would only apply in U.S. context, which I understand has small
relevance to your world view.

> I can't
>claim I have any easy solutions. But surely, the mind which can
program
>itself to believe in a "god" can also de-program itself and in the
process
>explore what this means in terms of individual and collective
>socio-psychological consequences. Human beings don't REALLY need to
regiment
>themselves with imagined "gods" and immaterial "religion" in order to
manage
>life, IMHO,

Well you and I and a lot of others don't, for example.

>and the idea that they do seems a bit insane to me.

Well, delusion could be thought of as a form of insanity. But religion
is usually exempt from that diagnosis. A religious person could say
that the "empiricism religion" is just as delusional, and I couldn't
"win" that argument. I've tried the argument here and there. As I've
said before, in the end, it all has to be faith because we are like
your "child" or my "amoeba" in our understanding of reality. But which
brings me back to "things that apparently work." That still stands as
the operative test for me. I least I have won that argument so far.

But for the purposes of our discussion, I'll accept "insane" as
qualified above.

>As you know
>by now, my main thesis is that this is exactly what keeps humanity in
>bondage and forces it to go through the same detrimental experiences
again
>and again, like war, social upheaval, environmental destruction etc.
in an
>obsessive-compulsive manner.

That keeps pushing me into economics with religion as the tool
sometimes, sometimes not. But focusing on religion, and how you
demonstrated many institutions have mimmicked it, now I can view it
more as you do, as an all-pervasive tool. In economics we see lots of
the same brain programming, perhaps better described as constant
repetition of this or that "true believer" dogma. So, yes, I'm still
with you.

>This self-punishing way of acting keeps Man
>from correcting his own mistakes and makes him hurt himself, over and
over,
>like a poor dog in Pavlov's famous laboratory biting his own paw
because of
>the "paradoxical" programming it has received.

You take religion, and when I bring up non-religious examples, you
generalize religion to cover them (which is ok, I agree). I take brain
programming, which is already generalized into the areas I've listed.
So far, I think our areas more-or-less coincide, so that perhaps we
are talking about the same thing using different terms. Religion (when
you generalize to the largest sense) = what I mean by brain
programming. I see very little distinction between the two. I could
adopt "religion" and I've already said that I usually mean that in the
largest sense. But then any other readers who might miss that
distinction might
misunderstand. Well, they would also misunderstand my use of "brain
programming" since that's a problematic term. Maybe we should come up
with another word altogether that would stand alone without
qualification. "Endless Indoctrination?" <g>
>
<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!
>>
>> As an american parent, what are my choices?
>
>The choices of life. Of course, the reality of human life which
confronts
>the individual in the here and now has to be faced. My vision of a
future
>without "god" is a utopian one, and one which may never come about -
though
>I do have some reasoned hope that it might. One can't practically
base one's
>life on what will (hopefully) happen in the future but, for simple
reasons
>of survival and getting on with life, have to accept the challenges
and
>difficulties of the present. Thus I think it is more than fair to say
that
>those who make considered and reasoned choices based on their own
views are
>doing the best that can be done, and that no-one should ever be
blamed for
>"giving in" to present social realities. The way to do it is to avoid
the
>self-destructive bits of contemporary culture and social constructs
(as much
>as is possible) and seek to maintain individual mental cohesion
(which means
>finding ways of communicating with likeminded or sympathetic people).
This
>is difficult and never more difficult than when as a parent one is
forced to
>make choices on behalf of one's own children.

Great answer. Realistic, pragmatic.
>
>The "...social message of american Christianity to me: Work hard,
stay out
>of trouble, don't  have fun, don't ask for anything." is a nice
summary of
>what religion is really about, in the social sense. This is indeed
the
>message of a state-carrying religion intent on serving the interests
of a
>social elite.

Well in terms of a social contract between me and them, I don't
consider myself an elitist (not that you implied that). I'm simply
choosing intellectual freedom, and they are willingly agreeing to work
hard, not have fun, and not ask for much! But I think this is fair to
both sides as long as I contribute in some way too.

But that's just a little personal excuse for my behavior. What you
mention is much more important. The elite does use religion in just
that way, and I am equally against that practice. Well, I am totally
dedicated to the equality principle. That is mainly implemented thru
the law (i.e. selective enforcement being a perfect defense), but also
thru the Golden Rule and economics. So nobody hates elitism more than
I. I am in favor of any ideas you have to reduce it.

>Looked at in this way, the reason becomes clear why it isn't
>in the interests of ordinary people "...to freely choose that",
neither for
>themselves nor when somebody else does.

In our value system. But what about Tooly's value system? We need to
be careful not to project our values on others without objective
justification. We all agree that exploitation by an elite is bad. But
when adults choose a certain kind of "exploitation" freely, are we
justified in taking that "freedom" away based on our values? Well, if
it hurts the rest of us, yes we are.

If this was a political group proper, then the discussion would
probably be cast in terms of liberal v. conservative. And the
conservative would say, "Your liberal values have hurt us a lot more
than our conservative values have hurt you." Each side could come up
with plenty of examples.

Let's look at implementation. Assume nearly everyone in the world
agreed with you. Job finished? Not nearly. Consider bulk mail,
telemarketing, and spam. Nearly everyone agrees it is a bad thing. It
is easy to solve without taking away the right of the small minority
from receiving such if they want to. Just pass a law that a person
must add their name to one national, general list to receive such.
What could be easier? But crusaders have been trying to accomplish
just that for decades with no success. If we can't beat such a
relatively trivial thing as telemarketing which everyone agrees is
bad, how could we ever
beat religion? When you try to fight the elite, you may have an uphill
battle, one that is impossible to win just due to the problem of
implementation.

>By joining religions people really
>sign away much of their ability to organize themselves and to develop
social
>solidarity based on the realities of life that actually confront them
>(contrary to religion which tries to get people to occupy themselves
with
>some immaterial "god").

Agree with that. When at a town meeting and everyone is trying to come
up with a solution to some community problem, one doesn't want
religious thinking. That doesn't result in "things that work." Though
if it is a drug problem, maybe the church could offer the best or most
cost-effective solution? (That's not religious thinking of course).
>
>><snip sarcasm>
Thanks for not being offended. I had to snip your comments about that
to make the post shorter - google limit again.

>>> 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.

Agreed. Another contradiction.
>>
<snip restatement of your position - got it>
>
<snip distinction of religion v. faith / as society v. individual>
>
>You're welcome. In my humble view, religion is a much more rewarding
object
>for debate since even the most religious people have opinions for and
>against views expressed by religion. "Faith" is very hard to debate
as it is
>mainly something personal and primarily consequential to the
individual, but
>not to much else - as you correctly surmise. Psychologically, faith
is
>uncertain conviction,

In many there is no uncertainty at all. I caution against any theory
that requires this uncertainty. It is hard for people like you and me
to think anyone could really deep-down believe some of this stuff
absolutely without question. But they do. The notion of "doubting"
would truly be preposterous to them. There would be no guilt on that
account at all.

>attacks against which the mind usually responds with
>(unreasoned) fear and anger. This subjective fear and anger marks the
>question of personal faith as a matter of survival to many obsessed
people,
>who wrongly believe their life would empty of meaning were they to be
>deprived of it.

Agree, after reading your subsequent post and noticing that your
"fear" includes the range of things I would include.

>Thus (random) attacks probably serve only to impress on the
>individual believer how vitally important it is to "defend the
faith". This
>self-repairing, self-sustaining socio-psychological barrier is what
will
>confront anyone who tries to "kill god" or "replace him with a graven
>image".

Understand that.

<snip - thanks for your excellent picture of clinical "cures">

>Dealing with people in a learning/teaching environment is in itself
an
>accomplished art form, which you can also invest an entire working
life in
>mastering.

No argument with that. Art is a well-developed technique. If your kind
acceptance and handling of these questions is any indication, you are
an artist.
>
>Debating current events is probably the best way to keep yourself
informed,
>currently, considering the fact that so many news media have
succumbed to
>the economic pressures which make them produce so much sterile,
misleading
>info-tainment.

That's a coincidence. I turned off the TV several months ago, and have
been getting my news mostly via the net and "in the groups." This is
given me quite an updated picture of these various issues over the
last year.

Looking forward to replying to your subsequent post, which I've
perused already.

Larry
>
>Nes