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]>...
>>>
> Hi Nes. I observe that I have assumed the role of critic to your
> thesis in large part.

Well, I hadn't realized that, myself. But now that you mention it, I
understand you are right. It was not my intention that you were to assume
the role of critic. However did that situation come about? But I'm grateful
that you are willing to go along, despite this imposition, and will, in my
turn, try to apply myself to absorbing your valued opinions and criticisms.

> 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.

No advance (or any other kind) of apologies are needed. Instead, I'm the one
who ought to apologize for the way this debate has turned into an exposition
of a personal thesis of mine. But the idea isn't really mine. It's both
ancient and new, and it has attracted a lot of attention lately among some
contemporary ethnologists, psychologists etc. As usual in Occidental
science, the main bits of the comprehensive thesis is presently securely
"incarcerated" in various "pure" scientific ivory towers, somewhat fractured
by specialists persuing their own angles, and because of that it doesn't
recieve the wider public or scientific attention it merits, IMHO. And it's
not as if the basic proposition requires the expertise of rocket scientists
to grasp, no it's much more a question of overcoming habitual thinking and
traditional mindsets and methods. Potentially, this old/new approach has its
greatest promise in the effects it might have on human society. Especially,
the fields of education, social organization, governance, and (all) human
(and some hard) sciences themselves might benefit at lot.

<snip>

> 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.

That is a good point. I really believe that it is possible to learn from
history and the experiences of our anscestors, no matter how long ago they
lived. The difficult bit is to understand exactly what (confising and
contradictory) history teaches. It takes a lot of hard work to find out and
I think that, generally, present Occidental society has forgotten that fact
and has basically "un-learned" even its most recent history lessons.
Historical parallels are bandied about in the media as facile clichés to
impress certain topical points on the gullible (or naive) public. That is
NOT the responsible or proper way to behave, IMHO. This fits in with the
"Unlearn God"-thesis (call it that?) in that history or historic knowledge
becomes alienated from its original REAL meaning (to contemporaries) and
simply degenerates into bits of religiously repeated non-information in
order to press certain "buttons" in collective public mindset, a the process
of public mental programming (or manipulation of opinion, propaganda,
agitprop). Your comment about the pervasiveness of social engeenering is
very relevant to this process, the uses and abuses of history.

<snip>

> 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.

Yes, exactly, the religiosity of the endless repititions of the same basic
themes across the entire spectrum of social organization is so easy to spot
and recognize, once the idea has entered your head, so that it soon becomes
strange to recall that this was "hidden" from you previously, because the
general public perception is/was that only in churces (mosques, synagogues)
do you do what you do for religious reasons. Everything else is supposed to
be secular and non-religious, but it most certainly isn't! Thus it is safe
to postulate that public perceptions on this point are wrong, very wrong,
indeed.

<snip>

> Need your definition of nature as used here. Agrarian v.
> technological, rural v. urban, subjective v. objective reality, or ?

In this context I'd use the (false) opposites culture-nature on which to
base the definition of nature (sorry, I didn't explain this before). I'll
try to exemplify. Take a field, say a rice field. Is that nature or culture?
Well, I'd say it's a bit of both. The rice plant grows in a "natural state"
without human intervention. But then it's drafted into human culture in
order to become part of a human cultural system of food production, where
the rice farmer takes over the management of (nearly) every aspect of the
rice plant's existence. In this way, it's very esay to see that nature is
what is "unmanaged by man", while culture indicates human management and
control.

The pervasive (to all human civilizations in history, but ESPECIALLY to
contemporary First World nations) attempts to cut human culture off from its
dependancy on nature can be exemplified by the way modern farming methods
try to genetically alter domesticated rice, making it resistant to human
herbicides, making it grow on artificial substrates (requiring no soil),
under glass, etc. The more humanity proceeds in this way, the more Man
attempts to minimize his actual dependance on nature and to improve his
dominance over (specific) natural processes. To my mind that is a very
dangerous course to persue for several reasons. The most obvious one is that
human society becomes alienated from the natural environment which has
sustained Man throughout history (and natural development). That inevitably
leads to Man becoming a despoiler of nature, which is perceived to be just a
big larder from which Man can take whatever he wants, in whatever way he
pleases. The second reason is that those specialist cultural ways of growing
foodstuffs are completely dependant on the preseverance of a technological
culture. Thus Man faces a much harder survival task were contemporary
societies to suffer general collapse (not as unthinkable as many believe).
In this situation, his prized "highly" developed technological ways will
have made lots of people unable to cope for themselves. Finally, this highly
vundrable state cannot but register with contemporary Man, at least in some
(uncouncious) way. Thus scientists' warnings about human created climate
change, depletion of natural ressources etc. always strike a cord of (acute)
public fear. The more human culture tries to "isolate" itself from the
vagaries of nature, the more neurotic and obsessive the ordinary public
becomes. A managed "primitivity" seems like the only solution.

> 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.

<snip>

> 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.

Yes, I remember a lot of warnings like that, too. They do make the public
anxious for at time, but then they are "forgotten" (not really, out of
sight, out of mind - but that's never true, it's just the "suppression of
uncomfortable facts"-mechanisms in peoples' minds at work. The subconcoius
is NOT cheated, though, since all those fears find a permanent place there
(in the subconcious) from which to broadcast messages of general
insecurity), seemingly. The reason why it's so easy for the public to
"forget" the reality of the dangers which face humanity, general
environmental collapse and global thermonuclear war being the two most scary
and likely, has to do with the fact that "advanced" civilizations are
basically always irrational, that's the historic record. The more "advanced"
and "alienated from nature" a culture becomes, the more convinced of its
power and might and ability to weather challenges people are, in their
concious minds (in clear conflict with what their subconcious tries to tell
them). This is an irrational attitude, for the most obvious threats that
human cultures face ALWAYS originate with themselves, through their own
scientific, organisatorial, industrial, agricultural etc.activities. If,
e.g., global environmental breakdown were to occure in our times, it would
probably be a consequence of human cultural activity.

How does this scenario fit in with the "Unlearn God"-thesis? Well, it seems
obvious to me that the religious conditioning that people undergo help them
suppress concious anxieties and fears. Besides, religions generally posit
that some superhuman, all-powerful entity rules the universe, including all
human creations and activities (determinism - "god" has ordered the
universe, and its is immutable, unless "god" intervenes). Thus the general
psychological effects of human alienation from nature are calmed by the very
common religious dogma which claims that the activities of Man are
insinificant, immaterial, and without consequence. Man is powerless, "god"
is all-powerful. Ow, what a relief!

> 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.)

I, too, wouldn't like the suffer the consequences of a big asteroid impact.
On the other hand, I wouldn't like to suffer from any of the many  human
induced environmental disasters that the World and humanity currently
suffers from, either.There's a contradiction here, I'm sure, and I believe
it calls for rational management, possibly a kind of compromise. Human
cultures shouldn't be allowed to destroy their own natural basis for
survival, a consequence of alienation from nature, and human cultures should
be allowed to defend themselves from catastrophic natural events. These are
conflicting demands, yes! Conflicting demands call for rational solutions
and management but most importantly, they call for the ability to strike a
correct and viable balance - a tough balancing act.

<snip>

> 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.

That's right, and it is another reason why the ordinary public feel anxious
and fearful and take refuge in religions. Those implicitly conflicting
demands that current Occidental forms of governments impose on the public,
playing the democratic game of free choice on one hand, and on the other
being reduced to sanctioning the (often inhuman) policies of an entrenched
social elite through the ballot box, not only make the public "sick" of
politics, it serves as a powerful inducement of paradoxical fear. It's
really no wonder that religions are experiencing a revival, currently, while
political grass roots movements are having such a rough time.

> 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.

Yes, the Web really makes a big difference in what a person can know. It's
such a marvel to somebody like me, who grew up at a time where a single
computers still occupied an entire factory hall, how this revolution in
information retrival and destribution has come about in such a short time.
Back then only specialists ever touched computers and when they talked about
them their voices were hushed. Well, in my line of work computers and
networks represent the most significant technological advance of  the
previous century.

I'm sorry, if I have used phrases or terms or words which have forced you
into a lot of reading or looking stuff up. It's a bad habit to use a lot of
difficult phrases or unfamiliar words when you try to communicate your
ideas. I do try to keep my English as straight forward as possible, but I'm
aware I don't always succeed. Einstein once said, "The physicist who can't
explain the Theory of Relativity to a twelve year old is a charlatan." That
was easy for Einstein to say, IMHO, after all he was an undoubted genious!

<snip>


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

Yes, you're probably right. A continuation of the Enlightenment tradition
according to the best knowledge and practises of our contemporary times. The
goal of which would be the liberation of Man from his self-imposed bonds (of
obssessive-compulsive behaviour), thereby making it possible for Man to
manage his own existence in a balanced and reasoned and ethical manner.
Those are high goals indeed. But I see no practical alternative.

> 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>).

Because the US hasn't got a single, state-carrying religion, as is the case
with many European nations? Well, I don't believe (but may be wrong) that
this makes a lot of difference. Most people in the US belong to some
organized religion, isn't that right? If so, it would mean that this
majority have undergone religious education at some point in their lives
(probably through the influence of their parents or institutions, schools,
youth organizations etc.). And as hypothetized previously, religious forms
of socialisation or indoctrination are the basis for the socialization that
every other social construct requires or propagates. Even a secular
government, whose constitutional restraints require it to exclude religions
form influence, can't ordinarily act in contravention of this psychological
reality. This thought leads me to posing a leading question: Aren't there
many ordinary citizens in the US who regard the Presidency and other
national federal institutions with what resembles naive religious idolatry?
It certainly happens a lot here in Europe.

> 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.

Indeed, curious is the word. I'd say it's a bit indicative of a personality
disorder. This could well be a partial explanation of why so many scientists
feel they need to hide in "ivory towers".

<snip>

> 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!)

Yeah ... :-)

> 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.

Repetition is essential. You're quite correct. Exact repetition while the
patient or subject is in a hightened emotional state, that's how the manual
goes on indoctrination. So, what do religious ceremonies include? Lots of
psychological sofening up by singing along in a big happy bunch, listening
to heart warning messages, music etc. Then some moralizing in order to
induce a bit of self-doubt and anxiety. Now the emotional realease through
the EXACT repition of the central ritual (the prayer by the Magi at the
alter of the eternal flame e.g.) is performed. Every time the grateful
accolytes will feel relief and a sense of belonging. A successful run of
managed crowd emotions has been carried out. It significies NOTHING, except
the emotional release of anxiously pent up energies.

<snip>

> 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.

Yes, Tooley does have a good point. I think the only way to attempt a
realization of the "Unlearn god"-doctrine would be to proceed with great
caution, testing the ground all the time, looking and testing for effects,
and really doing the required homework. Speed and expediencency are enemies
to be kept at bay.

As to the idea of finding an alternative to religion to which people might
flock to seek comfort from terrible reality, I have to express that this in
itself negates the reason to attempt the whole exercise. It would become a
case of the patient changing his delutional state from one of tortoise to
mole. No, the practical benefits of the "Unlearn God"-exercise has to make
people fitter, less anxious, less compulsive, less obsessive etc. It has to
increase their self-confidence and their self-esteem so they REALLY believe
they can manage life without "artificial" prop-ups like "god". It has to
give them knowledge and make them socially responsible and accountable and
free, at the same time (a paradox, I know). It must improve their quality of
life, so it does not appear to them that "reality is a terrible place". All
this and much more will be required, I'm sure. It will be hard to achieve
final success, but the potential benefits are enormous. Failure would not
leave people worse off than they are now.

<snip>

> 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.

These are good questions and a great deal more specific than I have the
ability to answer. How much would it cost to have an entire populace undergo
psychotherapy? Well, it's bound to be expensive. In order to do something
like that, it'll probably not be enough to rely on the money economy. Some
sort of popular social mobilization of society has to take place in order to
carry it out. A possible example of something like that may be found in some
of the extremely popular and successful public campaigns to alfabethezise
entire populations which have been carried out in parts of the Third World.

The possible developments of drug-regulated societies like in Huxley's
"Brave New World" or societies of social oppression like in Orwell's "1984"
or the new possibility, an oppressive society of genetically modified
humans, or any other nightmare scenario that might happen, will ALWAYS
remain real threats, no matter what the future holds. I'd even go so far and
claim that such anti-utopian scenarios are possibly even more of a threat,
today, than they were at Huxley's time, when he wrote "Brave New World". But
as it was in his time, the burning question still is, how can humanity avoid
enslaving itself even more that it has today?

I'd say a new Enlightenment is a clear antidote to such a terrible
possiblilty. It would signal in a new era of social solidarity which would
counter the policies of those who'd want to wage class war and any other
kind of war which, historically, always gives the impetous to new forms of
social oppression. Isn't war the terrible reality which makes people seek
refuge in the arms of "god"?

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

<snip>

> 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.

Yes, correct and agreed.

>> " 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.

If Christ really did what the Apostles claimed he did then that was a
remarkable achievement. Religion was the only pervasive cultural language of
the times. He could use no other. And, contrary to Christian orthodoxy,
there are actually indications in the historic tradition that Christ's
heretical (in the eyes of contemporary Jewish society) preachings were
intended to actually change the very image of "god" as perceived by his
contemporaries. That was surely nearly as ambitious as doing away with
"god", altogether, would have been.

<snip>

> 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.

Yes, a good example. Also know as the "accomodation" of reality.

<snip>

> 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?

Not very many, I'm afraid. Yes, the lack of honest, engaged, and capable
leaders is a problem. That the other kind of "leaders" are present in such
abundance says a lot about the trouble society is in, generally. The
uncomfortable conclusion has to be that the all-pervasive social occupation
with self-regimenting religious ritual facilitates the advancement of crooks
and hustlers to the detriment of REAL leadership. Where will this new
century get its Ghandi, Mandela, or Simon Bolivar? Beats me - unless
something happens to make it possible!

<snip>

> Impressive history. You've really done your homework on this issue.
> Thanks for the free education.

Thanks!

<snip>

> Good example of the "reformer" v. the "implementor" again. Thanks for
> the example and the update (I've read some of this before).

You are welcome!

>> (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>

<snip>

> 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.

Much, much better than just intellectualizing. I'll value (life) experience
over all and every kind of theorizing, any day of the week!

> 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.

Well, I'm not very familiar with conditions in the US, as may have guessed.
The knowledge I have is from second hand sources. But I believe it's true to
say that the US is a very complex nation, of great cultural and religious
variety, and with a tumultuous history. Yet I believe that the "Unlearn
God"-hypothesis is valid for the US, at least  in some ways. One obvious
example would be the way religious voters flock to popular Conservatism.
Another would be the plans of the current government to foster and subsidize
"faith based" initiatives of all kinds, a clear attempt (it seems to me) to
favourably impress a certain part of the electorate. But I wouldn't really
like be much more specific than that. My knowledge of social conditions in
the US is simply not good enough.

<snip>

> 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.

Yes, agreed, in the face of an intractable problem or an impossible paradox
one has to seek out new tools of understanding and argument. "God" will have
to give up "his" secrets, yet!

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

<snip>

> 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.

Especially, the "Casino Economy" - little better than outright hard
gambling - is prone to this repetitiousness. Stock brokers always tell each
other that everything is fine. Stocks go up or down, fuelled by rumours and
speculation. How many times did the Enron management put out their calming
messages that nothing was wrong? Weren't they avidly believed every time,
even when whole nations suffered economic hardship or general economic
failure, like Argentina, because of Enrons criminal business dealings? Then
the collapse and disappointment and the hysteria and the greed. The needless
destruction of lives, nations, fortunes. It's true, Man is not a rational
being - least of all when he makes Mamon his "god".

<snip>

> 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 basically agree with that. But there is the uncomfortable "faith" bit
which prevents the social phenomenon, religion, from becoming completely
synonemous with your "brain programming". I'd say the difference is like
between a predator and a lion. We know that the predator is not
automatically a lion, but the lion is always a predator. Brain programming
or, to use some synonemous terms, socialization, psychological conditioning,
deep orientation, indoctrination etc. have a wider, more general meaning
than religion, which is a more special case that requires a specific element
called "faith" (which does not automatically imply "faith in a god" because
there are religions which don't propagate belief in any "god", but they
propagate other kinds of "faith", then). I admit that the difference between
"brain programming" and "religion" ("self brain programming" would  perhaps
be better) isn't very substantial, yet the difference that makes people
flock to and stay part of religions all their lives is the "lure", the
"trap", the "communality of shared faith", expressed in gratifying (but
non-sensical) psychoteraputic ritual. That makes religion a hard act to
follow for other kinds of brain programming.

> 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>

"Endless indoctrination" is apt. When you think about it for a second,
doesn't it strike you how odd it is that so many believe they (really,
really) WANT that?

 <snip>

> Great answer. Realistic, pragmatic.


Thanks!

<snip>

> 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.

No, when I say elitist in this manner I'm always thinking about the
governing or economic elite. Of course, there's the intellectual elite and
other kinds of elites, too. But they are not nearly as important as the
first kind.

Naturally, you are absolutely right about being fair. Intellectual freedom
is still a kind of rare luxury in our times. Those who have the opportunity
to live lives with this kind of freedom have a lot to contribute. I'd say
it's a kind of duty...

> 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.

Reducing elitism is a matter of making the workings of the elite serve the
greater purposes of human life and society instead of the other way around.
Yes, I know, it's easier said than done!

<snip>

> 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.

No, you are never justified in taking anything away from people that they
believe they need (except possibly drugs and guns). The "Unlearn
God"-project would immediately become a caricature of its true intentions if
that happened. No, "unlearning God" will require the full voluntary and
concious cooperation of every concerned individual. Nothing less will do.

> 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.

Strange that the Conservatives would say that. When I look back at the
history of the last century, I can't remember a single Conservative
government who ever did anything worthwhile. Of course, in looking back I
have to admit there is a certain overall dearth of good governments, whether
left, right, or centre. So perhaps the Conservatives could be right!

> 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.

Fighting the elite outright is possible. It requires a revolution. That is,
as Lenin said, "The catastrophy which prevents a worse catastrophy." Even a
professional revolutionary like he was acknowleged the bad effects that
revolutions have. But it is also possible for society to reform itself.
Naturally, if these reforms appear to the elites to contravene their
interests, they will resist. But they cannot stand against a united people,
as history has shown on many occations. Thus the question of changing
society becomes one of basic social solidarity and agreement. That's why the
detrimental effects of organized religions have such an important (negative)
effect on politics.

<snip>

> 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.

No, I don't agree. There is always a feeling of anxiety, whether concious or
unconcious, over any question, or real life situation, or idea that is
somehow perceived as dangerous, uncertain, doubtful etc. by the individual,
no matter how it is perceived by the rational mind. It is simply a human
(perhaps even an animalistic) trait to feel fear, joy, happiness, bored etc.
(a hotpodge of emotions) no matter what the concious mind regards as
reasoned and has certain knowledge of. All it takes is some association and
then this emotional kind of (blind) reaction will begin. A few examples to
illustrate, spot an aircraft, feel fear it'll crach. Drive a car, feel fear
it'll crash. Cross a bridge, feel fear it'll collapse. Greet a stranger,
feel fear he'll attack you. Think about "god", feel fear that' "he's" left
you (e.g.) - etc. Most of the time, this feeling of fear (many other
emotions are also involved, but let's concentrate on fear) is so fleeting it
doesn't register with the concious. It simply makes up the a sort of
emotional background music, a mixture of all kinds of transitory emotions,
which is always present in the back of the concious mind. The bits of fear
(or other unconfortable) emotions that actually register with the concious
mind are mostly suppressed at once, since the concious perceptions of the
individual makes the determining threat assessment. But if there is a real
danger at hand, the fear will come to mind, post haste. This is the way
ordinary, sane minds work.

Based on all that explanation you can see where I get my idea that
psychologically "fear is uncertain belief". It is impossible for a human
mind to speculate about any abstract without some emotional association
being triggered. Some people feel unreasoned joy when they think of "god".
Others cry. Others feel impressed, in awe etc. All this stems from the
subconcious. And the subconcious can be programmed, to a certain degree, in
order to produce desired emotions. But the unconcious mind will nevertheless
register fear when the concious mind thinks about "god" because nothing that
goes on in the human mind can remain hidden from the subconcious. It
registers everything, and even if the concious mind signals that it KNOWS
"god" exists, the fact that many people believe the exact opposite is known
to the concious mind, and this fact will register with the unconcious as
uncertainty. The next time the concious mind thinks about "god" a slight
(perhaps even unnoticable emotion of uncertainty) will exist and the
concious mind will suppress it, an act which registers fear to the
unconcious. Then the cycle of steadily increasing self-censoring
brain-programming that religion requires has been set in motion, quite
volunterily by the individual, and most probably without him having even
registered it happening.

<snip>

> 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.

Oh no, you are too kind. I don't think I have what it takes to be an artist.
But thanks for the compliment. You do realize that you're kind of nifty with
the pen, too?

<snip>

> 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.

And it has been quite a year, right? Certainly, the political weather here
in Europe has been stormy. Wonder how long that'll last?

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

This time, I've tried to snip as much as possible because you've remarked
that the google limit on the length of postings was close to being reached.
I hope I haven't cut too much for this reply to lose its legibility.

Nes