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

"Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Acme Posting wrote:
> > "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
(Continuing discussion of religion as bad, statecraft, etc.)
>
> > <snip> [religion is...] The original social engineering scientists and 
> > behaviorists.
>
> 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.

Yes, I've noticed this short memory. Soon the WWII generation will be
gone, so we'll have to fight it over again.

> Historical parallels are bandied about in the media as facile clich s 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?)

Yes. Now we just have to think up a subtitle. For maximum sales I'd
suggest something with "brain vampire" in it! But perhaps those
wouldn't be the buyers you seek. <g>

Seriously, why do you focus in on just the God belief? Are you not
against religion in general, god or no god? And aren't you against
"endless indoctrination" (tm) or unfalsifiable dogmas forced by
various means in any form? It seemed so with your arguments against
statecraft, propaganda, etc. (You give what I think is a great partial
answer later below.)

> 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.

Those who correctly interpret history can use it to their advantage.
Experience is "history" and is most reliable of all.

<snip agreement about "pervasiveness of religion">
>
> > Need your definition of nature as used here. Agrarian v. <snip>
>
> 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.

Sounds like standard "back to nature" to me. But I understand you mean
"managed primitivity" (your tm). Hunting rifle or bow? Will there be a
convenience store nearby in case I run out of Doritos? (I mean suppose
someone freely chooses a lifestyle contrary to your vision?)

<snip continued naturist, environmentalist perspective, got it.>

Are we heading towards communism here? I see two parallels:
commune-nature and communism-no god. But above 20 (?) people or so,
communism stops providing incentive. So, negative incentive -> state
-> propoganda -> right back to religion but with the state replacing
god, not to mention it never seems to get past the implementation
stage, and seems to fail by objective tests. Let's try free enterprise
with a fair income redistribution ratio (20-40:1) and require
competition, unlike in the U.S. Don't think that's ever been tried. My
a priori is the equality principle, so democracy, freedom, equality
under the law, etc. is axiomatic. Again, not what we have in the U.S.

<snip more environment. psychological liabilities of technological
advance>
>
> 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!

So, religion is the result of our neurosis caused by technological
advance, and "managed primitivism" solves that neurosis? The first
premise must be false. Religion predates technology, and was stronger
without it. One could argue an inverse relationship.

I grant the liabilities of religion in political/economic/social
terms. However to extend that to a return to primitive lifestyle is
probably too much of a stretch for me. I don't believe one can turn
back the clock, or that one would really want to. The good old days
always seem great until you relive them for a day.
>
> > More generally, religion gets in the way of technological advance.
>
> 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.

Those problems need to be solved, and aren't. It is a crime that the
U.S. has no sufficient energy policy. To me this is a matter of
politics, of people receiving objective information about these
things. There is a counter-argument that there are plenty of oil
reserves. The counter to that is that the oil crisis has caused huge
problems regardless of reserves, and that's a historical fact.

> There's a contradiction here, I'm sure, and I believe
> it calls for rational management, possibly a kind of compromise.

That sounds reasonable. There is the problem of individual choice as
well. I would require that all along, and not suspend it during any
implementation period which can turn out to be forever.

<snip>
>
> > ... 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,

Most Occidental governments are something like democracies sort of.
What known alternative form of government most closely matches your
vision?

> 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,

This is the problem to solve. Or do you seek an alternative to voting?
That would suggest inherent elitism to me.  Previously you described
an implementation of psychoanalysis and education, and seemed fully
aware of the dangers of BNW and 1984. So that psychoanalysis would be
part of the education by free choice, no? If not elitism, then by what
method would the majority express it's choice? I am in favor of voter
tests, given an objective method of devising the tests. Another reason
for my interest in AI. With objective testing, this could be an
"educated majority."

> 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.

Manipulation of the voting public tends to give democracy a bad name,
true. The alternative is elitism of some sort, true. But is religion a
form of elitism? To the elite within the religion, at least.

<snip about google etc. effect on eduction, implication for democracy>
>
> 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.

Didn't mean that at all. I'm mostly here to learn. I do it all the
time.

<snip agreement about "new enlightenment">
>
> 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? <snip>

The activist religion, i.e. religious right, is actually a small
minority. However you are right, the american brand of Christian
values and morality permeate the whole culture, except in certain
locations, mostly in the West. Of course this is well-known
everywhere, even here.

<snip>
>
> > We all know what "continually undergoes" means in terms of a religious
> > service. <snip>
>
> 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. You read the book too!

> 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.

Just about right, IMO. Don't forget shouting, crying, etc., anything
to raise emotions, prevent analytical thinking, and switch people into
programming mode. Bypass the conscious and get directly to the
subconcious.

> It significies NOTHING, except
> the emotional release of anxiously pent up energies.

I've previously listed a large number of motivations, and I think you
agreed.

<snip>
>
> 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.

I like how that sounds.
>
> 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.

I didn't mean to imply an equivalence with religion in this respect,
only a much reduced insulation. I think there are some things that
people cannot be expected to face head-on, and that this is such a
basic survival mechanism that it can't be changed in the general
population.

> 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.

Yes, that's what I meant. Less or a lot less. Not remove completely.

> 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".

This sounds like a utopian society. What is your thesis? 1) unlearn
god, 2) managed primitivism (as in reverse technological advance), and
a utopian society seems #3. It is quite expansive. Or one might ask,
what is your true agenda? The probability of success is usually
inverse to the expansiveness of the enterprise. But there is nothing
wrong with defining a problem or vision - at least it can help to move
in the desired direction. These types of visions are often the theme
of speculative or futurist fiction. Godless and naturist are frequent.
I call that good philosophy (tied to examples from common experience,
though in fiction they are contrived examples). I read a lot of it
when young for this reason, preferring it greatly over philosophy
books, and especially "history of ideas" books.

I'm with you on the thesis to unlearn god in most contexts that you
describe. I'm with you on the utopian society. I'm not with you on the
reverse or slowing down of technological advance. But I could suggest
a great argument in support of your view - Fermi's Paradox, or the
apparent lack of alien civilizations. That could mean that
technological advance is self-limiting for a number of reasons. If so,
it appears to be not long after the ability to send radio signals,
which would mean not very long for us. I think many would be receptive
to that particular idea if cast in this light. Well, maybe it's a
chapter anyway.

<snip>
>
> > I still don't see how religion is psychologically unhealthier than
> > alternatives in context of many people I know. They would need some
>
> 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?

The usually alternative is brainwashing. Like we have now. Perhaps a
well-developed theory that passed objective tests or seems highly
likely, thereby gaining acceptance into mainstream education or
popular media.

> 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

"alfabethezise" doesn't come up in google. Not criticizing spelling,
but the closest I can come is alphabetize, which makes no sense to me.

> 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?

The Brave New World masters and Big Brother made that same argument.
Will a majority of people be persuaded that your way is better? How
will we count that majority?
>
> 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"?

War is one of the terrible realities. But, living in the U.S., I can't
see the connection to seeking god because of it. One reason why your
theory is hard to test in terms of history is because, as you've said,
until recently religion was the only way of thinking. Hard to find
examples where there was no religion, then there was.

<snip about Christ changing dogma>

<snip agreement about scarcity of good leadership>
>
> > 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!

Thanks!

<snip>

> 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.

Doing pretty good so far...

<snip>
>
> > ... [religion is] 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?

Yes, I'd like to find an alternative/addition to raising capital.
Partly by making business smaller and more competitive. Whenever I see
problems in the fair and efficient allocation of goods and services, I
also see an impairment of competition in some way. The elitism you
speak of is one way.

Regarding Enron, etc., this is mostly a legal issue. The judicial
branch of the U.S. government is defunct, and has been for a long
time, IMO. (Assuming it ever wasn't.) From what I hear, Europe is far
ahead on this.

<snip>
>
> > 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,

Hey I like that "psychological conditioning" - thanks for another term
to avoid redundancy. By now we might have a collision between my
"psychological conditioning" (bad) and your "psychotherapy" (good). Is
this a real collision?

> 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 disagree with your "faith" distinction. To me, faith is a
fundamental opposite to empiricism or science or "belief by objective
tests," and that distinction fully meets your definition of "faith in
god" as well as the faith required to believe any non-empirical or
unfalsifiable dogma besides religion proper. Maybe we just want to
define "faith" our own way, so that there is no disagreement in
concepts.

Religion is surely distinct from other belief systems in many ways
including those you mention. The applicable distinctions I see are
that religion is older and wiser (i.e. more effective and thus worse)
in the numerious ways we've listed, but better in the sense that it is
more honest (or at least identifiable) about its activities and the
others which are more insidious and deceptive. With religion so
identifiable it is possible to set up a system of free choice
regarding it (don't read anything about the U.S. into that). With the
others, no free choice in any systematic way.

Regarding the other differences, I see them as superfluous in light of
the problems you address. What good is it to you to eradicate religion
if it is only replaced by some other belief system? The effects of all
can be the same. The Third Reich, The Inquisition, Stalinism,
capitalism, communism, Koreshism, Smithism, Joe Blowism, Ismism <g>
mix and match. When you eradicate religion proper, the people involved
would just switch to something less identifiable. It's not the dogma -
just about any dogma can be devised to accomplish a given purpose.
There are as many dogmas as there are clever opportunists,
power-trippers, mentally disordered, and delusional people in the
world. And more from good people who use these as a vehicle, as we've
agreed. But what tells the difference?
>
> > 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?

Oh yes, that's another thing entirely. Does not a normal person get
bored simply by repetiton? Isn't that the definition of boredom? Well
of course religion has the answer for that - ritual. Reinforcing
ritual. Fun ritual, like singing. But the sermons - god I hate them so
just due to the boredom of it. Same exact thing with political
speeches, no better no worse. God how I hate sermons of every kind.
But I can't escape them. Friends keep getting married! Politicians
keep jumping into news broadcasts! But that doesn't apply to all
religious people. Some, maybe most, can make interesting arguments.
Some don't like the heirarchy of religion and prefer informal
discussion groups.

<snip>

<snip agreement on social contract of religious v. non-religious>
>
> > 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!

Adjusting incentives because most in large societies will act in their
own best interest.

<snip>
>
> 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.

That's nice to hear.
>
> > 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. <snip>

I'm unqualfied to comment. Quite argumentative, as you know.
>
> > Consider bulk mail, telemarketing, and spam. <snip>
> > ... 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."

I prefer "The eventual consequence of unfair allocation of resources."
It measures the past (empirical, pragmatic) rather predicting the
future (famously wrong).

> Even a
> professional revolutionary like he was acknowleged the bad effects that
> revolutions have. But it is also possible for society to reform itself.

One should always try to work within the system to improve the system
for everyone in real-time. Working outside the system to change the
system for some future population requires first tearing down the
existing system. The end always justifies the means, and extremism
requires extreme means. It should always be a last resort and very
empricially justified by the facts. We now have extremism in the U.S.,
and I don't see the justification. Obvious solutions have not even
been tried. Not applicable to your world view perhaps.

> 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.

That's the most powerful way of stating it I've heard yet. This should
be the introduction to your thesis. It also demonstrates why religion
is (probably) by far the greatest obstacle compared to the other
belief systems I mentioned. I am forced to agree with you here.

<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.

But my religious friends are apparently some of the happiest, least
neurotic people I know. How do you demonstrate this point-of-view in
context?

> 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.

Ok. The "non-doubting" religious people are quite neurotic in this
respect. Not that they doubt their belief, but they fear the
consequences of their belief. That's not the same "doubt" I was
talking about. And lots of non-religious people are neurotic for other
reasons. Probably more of them.

> Not that the
> 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.

This analysis seems not to address the point very well. I say that
some religious people don't doubt their beliefs. You say they are
neurotic our of fear of that belief (which they don't doubt), which
fear translates to doubt. They are neurotic for psychological factors.
But a lot of people are neurotic, including due to the disconnect with
nature you observe. The argument seems loose, and not to address
objections. But that could be entirely due to my ignorance of
psychology proper and thus worthy of being ignored. For general
consumption, I have the impressions that this fear-doubt-agression
etc. nexus needs more clear, concise, compelling support with examples
in close context.
>
> Based on all that explanation you can see where I get my idea that
> psychologically "fear is uncertain belief".

No, for the reasons stated.

> 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.

I agree with that. The subconscious is the knowitall.

> 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.

You have a point. But I think it would apply to a million things
more-or-less besides a belief in god, or any belief.

> 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.

I agree with that effect, but not the overriding importance you claim.

<snip>
>
> > 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.

Snip away! You read it. It's in the previous post. I think we're
managing context anyway.

Larry
>
> Nes