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]>...
> >> Acme Posting wrote:
> >>> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
(...Continuing a discussion of the "human" god, religion)
>
><snip> ... 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.
>
Yes, religious icons are everywhere. I question how reinforcing they
are in themselves. The "In God We Trust" on american currency doesn't
affect me. I think of it as historical, traditional.

><snip further agreements>
>>
>>> 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. <snip>
>
>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.

True. I take your world view at face value, and that the U.S. is a
counter-example in the narrow respect (perhaps trival) I mentioned
here.

>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.

Of course that is happening here. I see it obviously in news of other
places.

>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.

I agree with the likelihood of that (by no means certain), but
wouldn't predict such a narrow time-frame. As in days of old,
successful prophets learn to word their predictions so that they
always come true! <g>

>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.

Quite sharp and correct analysis in my view. But I still wouldn't
narrow this so much to a belief in god, but to a generalized view of
religion in the largest sense. A lot of that does not involve a belief
in god, but is generally influenced by the "techniques" of religion
and does the same damage.

>> <snip> 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.

Agree.

>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).

Very much agree. Compliments on a consistent progression from the
psychological analyisis into a well-known example.

>> 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.

Yes, that follows.

>The market is not very big as yet, but it is growing steadily, now a
going
>economic concern, I believe.

Ditto.
>
<snip to my restatement of your basic assertions:>
>>
>> 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.

Agree. Your detail is surprisingly inclusive of the motivations I also
see for susceptibility.

<snip lead-in to "aggression.">

>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.

Understand. Thanks for the first Crusade example (snipped).
>
>[obsession] ... 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).

Ok, I think I have your working definitions. Thanks.
>
>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.

I could, but this is clinical obssessive-compulsive behavior, and not
formal religious ritual. Are you saying they are rampant? I've never
encountered such an example, though I've read about it once or twice.
If such behavior describes a substantial portion of followers, you
must be talking about certain places with which I'm unfamiliar.
>
>> Don't people respond to fear in a variety of ways? Hiding? Denying?
<snip>
>
>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.

Agree.

>> 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.

Agree, and a good answer.
>
>> But maybe you are going deep, so that these basic emotions
>> underly greed, sense of community, patriotism, a nice place to get
>
>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").

Yes, at least at the extreme.

><snip> ... 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.

I see this as valid, but not as general an explanation as with "greed"
(as I think you said also). I see patriotism as just another religion
not necessarily including a belief in a god as part of its dogma. Like
a salesperson, economics, philosophy, etc., "religion."
>
<snip my comments about the media as villian>

>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.

Ok.

>> 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.

Well, one could think of "reasoning" evolving as a better way to get
food in response to a fear of hunger, etc.

>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.

Don't know about fear as the motivator for art. But communication
might have evolved as a better way to get food, and art is a way to
express oneself. I'm might be supplying a lot of charity here.

> ALL of which are completely necessary to build
>human lives and human existence (and for survival).

The ability to reason is my favorite distinction from animals. I
posted about 20 definitions of intelligence one time. But two
favorites are "sum of all talents" and "ability to adapt" (not that my
list is support of anything). The latter might fit best here.

>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?

I think I generally agree with that, though you cover a lot of ground,
some of it not that familiar. I reserve the right to revise and extend
my remarks. <g>
>
>> ...  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?

Yes. But someone who carelessly overhears a newsbroadcast while
attending to other matters, not focusing and analyzing, is not so much
a "trusting authority" as a busy person who accepts incomplete
information out of necessity. The programming is almost subliminal in
this respect. You are probably aware of the term "thinking in
metaphors" and I think that is taken advantage of as well. This is a
routine circumstance here, and I believe some media takes advantage of
it. As I said, the assertion was never made, so that it wasn't a
matter of testing validity. It was simply careless jump to a
conclusion for many based solely on repetition.

> ... Weren't most of those 50% from the convervative, church-going,
>Christian right?

Never heard figures on that. But I suspect that is substantially
correct - it's always easier to program a self-serving need, but it is
no requirement. The "right" is actually a coalition of the religious
right and the economic right. So the religious right would not nearly
add up to 50%. Maybe 20% - 30%. Both together are actually still a
minority. I would guess about 40% - 45%. Elections are sometimes not a
true reflection of that. Your analysis of politicians using fear would
apply generally, not just to the Christian right. Some liberals would
be susceptible as well.

>I rest my case.

Yes, I agree that such figures support your point of view. And you are
a pretty good observer from such a far-away perch.
>
<snip my questioning of magic v. supernatural>
>
>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.

D'oh! Ok, magic has it's roots in religion. Agreed.
>
>>> 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.
>
<snip wide range of examples of supernatural claims>
>
><snip> 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".

Do you mean, for instance, that one might suspect they had received a
sign or indication to take some action in a dream or in some
coincidental way, and wonder if it was their own thought or a true
message from god? Of course religious people have these "signs"
continually. Other than that, nothing in your explanation adds up to
"self-doubt" to me. My general understanding is that religious people
are least susceptible to doubt of all about anything, especially their
dogma. I think there is a concensus view that a main requirement and
motivator of religion is resolution of doubt.
>
<snip some more of my confusion on this point>
>
>> 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.

<snip example of "believing' the bridge won't collapse, but thanks - I
always like examples>

>And that particular doubt can only grow or stay
>suppressed (which takes a lot of mental energy).

I agree that it takes continuous mental energy. I also believe the
planting of contradictions increases the energy required. I have been
guilty of planting seeds, as they say. Humans learn logic first (as in
touching the proveribal hot stove - "If touch, then hurts" (The most
fundamental "universal affirmative" proposition). It is basic, more
fundamental than Santa Claus and later religion. Thus reality keeps
trying to assert itself, and that's probably why life-long religious
reinforcement is required. Anyway, that's my theory. I have a maxim,
"One iteration of a fact is worth n iterations of a belief." I use it
often. (ritual maxim? <g>)

>Often it does both,
>requiring more and more suppressive mental energy to master thereby
making
>the individual more and more obsessive.

That's interesting. I need to give it some thought. I think it might
even explain a personal example I've been wondering about.
>>
>> 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 <snip
etc.>
>
>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".

Agree about justification to accept contradictions, etc., don't get
the part about Occam's Razor (sufficient but no more than necessary).
Unless you mean, "This is enough to justify religion, so let's just
ignore all those troublesome contradictions, etc." I'd call that
wishful thinking, denial, or perhaps just "good" salesmanship.
>
><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.

Are you saying, ok, the West had its Enlightenment, now it's time for
the 3rd world to have its Enlightenment? I would certainly agree.
Regarding the West, let's not try to turn the clock back. The good old
days always seem inviting, until you've visited for a day!

>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.

Don't agree with that. The third world is a problem of economics and
population control, maybe fundamentally religion as you say, but not
technological advance in the West. The only problem with that re: the
third world, IMO, is global communication informing the third word of
what they don't have, i.e. relativism. And a lot of that is
misleading. To watch western TV, you'd think every household had
luxury cars, movie stars, swimming pools, a bevy of super-models on
every corner, etc.
>
>>> 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. <snip>
>
>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?

Yes, yes, and yes. It is very troubling.

<snip>
>
>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.

Anyone might say this when things weren't going their political way?
So that it is not support of a POV?
>
>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.

No kidding. That's weird. What English-language news web-site do you
recommend?

>The organized
>religions in the US build mega-churches. Anything to hide from
reality and
>find a safe clubbing "hobby" - "god" willing!

Religion is alive and well in the U.S. "bible belt," that's for sure.
But a lot of it is the liberals' fault. Social problems liberals
caused in the '60s and '70s. Why are schools sex/drug emporiums? Why
do my kids need to watch Madonna crawling around on the floor in her
S&M garb licking up milk? (I like Madonna myself). Why are some women
better off to replace the husband with the live-in boyfriend and have
more welfare kids? Not religion's fault, not conservative's fault.
Religious "social scientists" observed the consequences of this stuff
thousands of years ago. (Lots of counter-examples, i.e. the propensity
for monks to whip each other.)
>
><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?

Somewhat depends on the religion and the specific problems to solve.

>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.

But any social project will involve lots of people, and a heirarchy.
There will be leaders. It's not necessary for every person to think
the same. One can be a true believer in getting one necessary job
done, while a leader might not be a true believer. The goal could
still be noble. I'm really fishing for this criticism. <g>

>Religion and the belief in "god" is a "brain vampire". :-)

Literary-clever, cute. Probably does your cause no good.
>
<snip>
>
>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.

I reject psychology in any analysis of logic as a framework for the
type of reasoning we are doing here (creative analysis) or how the
universe works (real-world logic). Psychology offers attractive
unfalsifiable dogmas about both types which are unfalsifiable belief
systems in themselves. These are self-serving as well - they replace
"god" with "psychology" so that the psychologist now has the ultimate
privileged position - the decider of what is true and false. Under my
definition, this is just as much a religion as any other kind, but
even more insidious because there's no obvious church, etc., as a
warning. I'm not claiming that you have such a dogma - that would be
dispolite to say the least! The devil is in the details.

I am particularly defensive on this subject at this time. Lately I've
had my fill of psychological theory applied to logic and reason. And I
still see it as likely that we have a confusion of terms. One common
confusion is over the term "logic" as I use it, which is the logic
that enables our discussion with neither of us claiming a privileged
position. I'm not saying I have an IQ of 387 so I'm right, or that you
have a Phd in theology so you're right, or I see the special truth in
ancient metaphors so I'm right, or you have found the reall Truth
about how economics works. So let's not say that either of us could be
wrong because our reasoning is flawed because of any special truths
about psychology either. Let's keep our framework for discussion
intact - and
I am quite sure it is not your intention to do otherwise. But to me -
you do not make a clear enough distinction between what we are doing
here (talking in meaningful sentences) and what hard scientists do
when they talk to each other (talking in meaningful sentences), or
dream up the next theory.

Note that, without the logic I speak of, the Pyramids could never have
been built. The world could not have worked then, and it couldn't work
now. A modern ship or plane or any kind of technology would grind to a
halt. In fact, scientists did reject Aristotle et al to the extent of
relying on logic, and replaced that with trial-and-error. They still
use logic in many ways, but trial-and-error is what they rely on, and
of course their rules of science such as those about observation and
that any theory must be falsifiable.

I suggest that we agree to disagree about the psychology of logic,
etc. for now because I really don't see how your thesis requires it.
In fact, I think
it is contradictory to your thesis.

>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.

Agree with all that.
>
<snip me saying some nice things about psychology>
>>
>> 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.

I think they've heard about Freud. I like Freud and he provides some
great insights, and leads me to some judgments that seem realistic.
But let's face it, Freud is not science. Psychology has not "arrived"
into the hard sciences yet. Psychology is not part of the hard
scientist's "job definition," that's all, except in the rare cases
where there can be statistically and scientificallly valid real-time
tests. But it can be good information and good philosophy, as I think
we are trying to do here.
>
<snip agreement about "agnostic.">
>
>It is late Saterday afternoon, here, so I'll hurry up and wish you a
nice
>week-end.

Damn, am I that tardy in my reply? Sorry. Usually I make it in a day
or two. Well, these are long posts with some deep material new to me.

I would like to mention how coincidental it seems that you and I have
arrived at such a comparable view of religion. The word "coincidental"
has a special meaning to me, as in "coincidental probability of
conclusions." I am forever taking "weight-of-evidence" reasoning and
applying this (there is a math formula and dogma about that as well)
to judge the validity of real-world arguments. Your arguments are thus
quite reinforcing to mine.

I am well-acquainted with the pervasive "icons" (etc.) you mention for
religion. In certain locations (read "sub-culture") it permeates
everything from the obvious icons down to everyday conversation,
feelings, and the most subtle basic emotions that cannot even be
described. I have long referred to this as the "religious fog." If you
grow up in this fog, as I did, there is no way to know that you are
inside it. Oh, I knew something was wrong of course. I just didn't
know what. Was it me? Was it my brain? Why didn't important things
make sense? You actually have to move and live in another location,
another sub-culture, where religion is absent. Then the fog slowly
lifts (took
about 6 months for me). But I am a rare exception. Most people can't
move, or don't move to the right place, or when they do move they seek
out the same sub-culture no matter how small an enclave.

There are other types of "fogs," for instance the ethnocentricism of
typical americans, aka "provincial" by most Europeans. I still live in
that fog, and acknowledge it. Europeans have their own fog, and I'm
sure everyplace has theirs to a greater or lesser degree.

My main point here is that I believe in this religious fog, as it
seems you do, and don't let my criticism mislead you. I dislike it
with the same intensity as you. But in my case, I've generalized this
far beyond a "belief in god" to brain programming in general and in
all untestable fields at least in part. I actually consider these
other fields to be worse in one respect - at least a church is "up
front" about what it is doing, more-or-less. Most of these other areas
are insidious, devious about what they are doing. It seems you have
focused more on religion proper, mostly as a tool of economics,
statecraft, or the elite. Which still makes our interests highly
coincidental.

Last, I acknowledge that I lack the world view regarding religion and
geopolitics. My political interest has always been mainly in the U.S.
But of course one reads, watches the History and Discovery channels,
etc., one tries to find decent news outlets or at least varied ones.
As far as I know, your world view of religion, including as
statecraft, is substantially correct.

Nice to note your reply to post 2B!

Larry
>
>Nes