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]>...
>>>> Acme Posting wrote:
>>>>> "Nes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>>
 (...Continuing a discussion of the "human" god, religion)


<snip>

> 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.

Sure, and I believe that many other such historic expressions of the
religiousity of previous ages leave contemporary Man cold. The awe a present
day US or European resident feels when watching the Giza Pyramids is
characterized by a vast historic and cultural distance to their creators.
The pyramids have (mostly) ceased to be objects of religious significanse
and have now become technological benchmarks of secular mystery, leading to
the admiration for the skill of the ancients in the fields of architecture,
conctruction, and art. That is with near certainty NOT how those pyramids
were regarded by those who build them!

By the way, this continual (sometimes slow - other times fast)
transformation of the external creative forms that religiousness take on
from culture to culture, from one historic epoch to another, or from
religion to religion is a sure sign that the religious perceptions (but not
necessarily emotions) of people change according to circumstances. It is one
of the few (similar) proofs I actually believe exist which might serve to
demonstrate that "god" is not simply "god" (as imagined by believers), but a
cultural, socio-psychological creation originating with the prevailing
social conditions of the times - thereby requiring continual redefinition
and new religious dogma by every successive generation.

 <snip - The difficulty of determining global trends>

> 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.

Yes. One economy will bloom while another is in decline. An old cynical
European saying goes like this, "One man's death, another man's bread."
(It's so ancient, no-one who knows its origin).

<snip>

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

Indeed. And I think that is very worrying. It always leads to murderous
trouble.

<snip - Predicting crisis and World War>

> 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>

That's good advice. I really do hope I'm wrong on this count, but fear that
I most probably am not.


<snip>

> 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.

You are right! It's probably opportune to imagine that the position of
organized religions is that of a central balancing hub around which the
entire religion inspired societal "mind programming" occurs. Thus, when
forced socialization through the application of the tools of propaganda,
conditioning etc. occur in a society, it tends to shift the "mass"
surrounding the hub, upsetting the whole delicate "structure". The hub -
religious mind programming - is then forced to move in such a way that it
remains centered in the balancing point. If this is a true hypothesis, then
the reactions of organized religions to the changing mental conditioning of
their adherents (probably) has the effect of reinforcing, amplifying, and
solidifying the "teachings" of the "external" society, thereby making a
further step in "social programming" possible (or perhaps even necessary).
This, to me, presents a new dynamic aspect of the thesis that the belief in
"god" enslaves Man to his social betters, where I previously tended to
regard this relation as more or less stable or static. Without your input I
would probably not have thought of it.

<snipping various agreements and the Reichstag fire>

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

Thanks a lot!

<snipping agreements again and some debate about existential fear>

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

Yes, I have wondered about the ways our personal views seem to reinforce
each other (despite some disagreements and uncertainties). That can't just
be happenstance. It has to originate with similarities or parallels of life
experience, despite the fact that you are somewhere on the other "side" of
the Globe in a very different (but also similar) society (from mine).

 <snip exchange about aggression and examples of obsessive-compulsive
behaviour>

> 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.

Well, I believe that religious rituals are examples of obsessive
(-compulsive) behaviour (not all obsession is indicative of compulsion, but
ordinarily the two go together) and that they carry on into and have
influence on ordinary life situations. Principally, it shouldn't matter if a
religious ritual is ("officially") performed before the alter of sacrifice
or in the privacy of one's own home. How many children in Christian cultures
aren't taught by their parents to say their prayers before going to bed? How
many children aren't taught to say, "Grace", before starting a family meal
(or other communal event)? In Catholic (and many other) nations it is
certainly quite ordinary to encounter believers who give vent to
uncontrollable emotions (in private or public) whenever they are in the
presense of some religious idol or icon. All World religions have their
extatic sides to them. Even extreme Puritan ones of millennial observations.

<snip agreements about fear, the radicalization of society, and greed>

<snip an attempted definition of the nature of patriotism>

> 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."

That's a very good point. Some kinds of (cult-like) patriotism are actually
difficult to distuingish from other forms of organized religion. There is
probably no destinction, since many have believed and believe (throughout
history and today) that powerful social constructs, like national
governments, imperial governments etc. are divinely inspired and can do no
wrong (thereby attributing them godlike powers). In the European Middle Ages
such people would have been burned at the stake as heretics, but later they
have risen to fame and fortune, from the apologists of abolutist monarchy to
the persent day proponents of "god"-inspired constitutional government.
Progress is not always REALLY progress, right?

<snip dialogue about the media and stuff about human susceptibility to
mental and social regimentation>
>
> Well, one could think of "reasoning" evolving as a better way to get
> food in response to a fear of hunger, etc.

Yes, it's a good way to imagine how intelligence could begin to develop. But
I think that the first instant of self-conciousness in (already intelligent)
human beings marks the REAL quantitative jump in the development of Man's
mental capabilities. Intelligence (in predators e.g.) does not call for
self-conciousness, or lions would converse with each-other before hunting
while painting their bellies blue as a mental preparation. Lions can't do
that, yet they are successful and intelligent hunters by any standard.
Conciousness is the key, in my view. The self-concious mind is the one
capable of creating mental abstracts, images, and fantasies, words, active
memory, phrases and language, logic and reasoned argument, which might lead
to the ability to plan the future, exploit nature in a dialectical way (e.g.
agriculture, husbandry etc.), and build a culture utilizing many different
types of languages and common technologies.

<snip>

> 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.

Art is motivated by all kinds of emotions, not just fear, I agree. But I'd
claim that art is a creative way for the self-concious human mind to react
to and mull over the complexities of life and existence. Add to that the
function of most art to convey messages of every imaginable kind from artist
to social group (and the other way round). The language of art is unique
(yet all art has strong traditional roots) to every culture and society.
Thus it is safe to say that human beings always feel a great need for the
new creative products that working artists produce. It's a way to explore
reality, life, and its meanings, both for the individual artist and for the
public. That is also why organized religions always like certain kinds of
art (products) while they strongly condemn and censor others. Good art can
function as either a (powerful) reinforcement or the opposite of all kinds
of social and religious socio-psychological programming.

<snip>

> 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.

As I tried to argue above, I don't want to put down or diminish the
importance of the human ability to work with the brilliant mental tools of
logic and reasoning. They are indeed crucial to human existence, survival,
the creation of language, culture etc. But these capabilities are not what
make human beings unique in the animal world, IMHO, except perhaps for their
degree of refinement. Neither can their evolvement explain  why human beings
have developed self-conciousness - because what is the survival value of
that, taken in isolation? Only when one looks at the human capability to
organize itself in extremely complex social relationships, much more complex
than anything (so far) observed in nature, does a clear quantitative and
qualitative difference appear. And as functions of a self-concious mind the
mental abilities to perform abstract logic reasoning (impossible without a
proper language, and a properly shared social language will only develop in
a society of self-concious, socialized individuals) are much more
understandable as natural developments than to imagine it happened the other
way round. Why would an animal which has no individual self-conciousness
develop logic reasoning faculties? There is nobody at "home" to understand
the logic or the resultant conclusion.

<snip stuff about the existential choises humanity faces>

> 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>

Of couse. I can't claim to have understood the entirety of what the "Unlearn
God"-doctrine means or would mean, either. All this is a bit theoretical, I
know, but at least there are some practical aspects of this debate. It is
very educational and challenging. To my mind that is sufficient rationale in
itself. And there is the opportunity of progressing old and new arguments, a
very inviting prospect, IMHO.

<snip bits about the famous Iraq poll>

> 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.

Sorry, I don't want to be an annoyance. But isn't this EXACTLY what they get
in church (mosque, synagogue) too?  "...not focussing, not analyzing",
blindly accepting "incomplete information out of necessity"? Yes, I know
about the time pressures that young families with children suffer from. They
are a rich source of general stress for young parents. Hurry up and vacuum
the floor, do the dishes, change the diapers, go shopping etc. Never a
moment's rest. Stress induces (at first) a hightening of emotion and
attention, but if it becomes permanent and enduring it dulls people and
makes them less sensitive and inquisitive. In other words, such stressed out
people are the PERFECT receptible for specific kinds of (media)
indoctrination, especially if they are habitual church (mosque,
synagogue)-goers.

> The programming is almost subliminal in
> this respect.

That's right! Subliminal programming depends on repetition, repetition,
repetition and on simplicity, simplicity, simplicity. It also depends on the
ability to somehow make people emotional, to make them "bare their emotions"
to themselves, in order to really succeed. That in turn requires subliminal
contitioning to be enbedded in an association rich, entertaining, attention
grabbing package of some kind. Religious ceremony fits that description to a
"T". As does a lot (if not most) of what goes on in the media.

>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.

Well, though nobody really stated the claim exactly (as you say), I do
believe it was the intention of the media and the US government to make the
public in the US believe there was a connection (between 911 and Iraq). One
can view the result in two different lights. The first is that the US media
have to be very skilled and professional when it comes to planting
"metaphors" or "subliminal messages". That is either a good or bad thing
according to one's personal point of view. I certainly think that the (main)
US media reveal themselves as a moral and ethical liability through this
kind of activity. The other is that the public is "stupid" and "gullible"
and "naive" and "uneducated" etc. - which I don't believe for a second is
true, in a general sense. People were simply duped, and that can happen to
even the best educated and most intelligent. But I do suspect, based on what
I can perceive from my distant observation post, that some parts of the US
public were willing (conciously or unconciously) to be deceived.

<snip>

> 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.

Indeed, this seems reasoned. And of course, you're right, many Liberals were
duped, too.

<snip>

> Yes, I agree that such figures support your point of view. And you are
> a pretty good observer from such a far-away perch.

Thanks. One should never forget that time, distance, and national, cultural
differences are (still) serious enemies of international understanding.

<snipping a lot about how religious self-doubt is an existential problem for
believers>

> 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.

By the by, I begin to understand the trouble this point gives. Of course,
you are correct when you claim that "...religious people are least
susceptible to doubt of all about anything", if only one word is added,
"concious". Thus the correct statement (IMO) ought to sound like this,
"Religious people are least susceptible to CONCIOUS doubt of all about
anything." Why? Because their mental apparatus of suppression of e.g.
(self-)doubt is so much in use and is being habitually reinforced by
religious ritual and practises.

Doubt and self-doubt are exactly alike, emotionally. The reaction of the
subconcious is always fearful. In a universe which is ruled by an invisible
all powerful entity who can send messages directly into people's minds and
thereby understand the totality of a person's life and history, including
the inevitably "sinful" and "undeserving" aspects of that individual's
character, is NATURALLY bound to be a source of serious self-doubt. There
are whole libriaries of theology, autobiography (much of that extremely
self-obsessed), and fiction dealing with the myriad sinful aspects of human
existence in a universe ruled by "god". That's why "sin", "confession", and
"punishment" ("Heaven" or "Hell") is such a big deal in religion. Yet, the
faithful believer KNOWS that he should always remain free of "sin" (=
self-doubt, which is the same as doubting "god", whom the believer KNOWS
exists, at least conciously). The believer knows he shouldn't REALLY concern
himself with this aspect of the "faith", yet he cannot help himself, for he
also knows in his heart of hearts that he'll never become completely purged
of "sin". The more powerful the hypothetical "god", the more sinful and
abject (and emotionally uncertain) the individual believer becomes - and the
more prone to repressing and denying any kind of concious doubt, especially
when dealing with outsiders and other "heretics".

<snip something about the mental energies required to suppress doubt>

> 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>)

Very nice, "Thus reality keeps trying to assert itself, and that's probably
why life-long religious reinforcement is required." Couldn't agree more.
Thus it seems that the more assertive people become in their postulations
that they KNOW "god" exists, the more they have to emotionally suffer the
consequences of repressing (self-)doubt. To those who watch for symptoms,
the main behaviour of affected people often becomes one of dismissal,
over-assertion, aggression, and a closely associated reduction of emotional
and social sensibility.

<snip Occam's 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.

Yes, you're correct. I'd not care to ignore the contradictions that this
topic has so deeply embedded in itself, but for reasons of expediency
(purely to do with trying to figure out what religion means, in practical
terms) suggest that the questions which can be answered should be answered
(in any rational way). In this case, that entails utilizing Occam's Razor to
strip away paradox and contradiction which have no real answer and
concentrate on "God in Man", which is the only place "he" exists, anyway, we
axiomatically assume. Yes, I know, a religious person would NEVER agree to
attempt anything like that.

 <snip>

> 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!

Yes, something like that. But I do believe it is impossible for the Third
World to achieve a new Enlightenment unless the First World is changed, too.
So the "Unlearn God"-doctrine is really, so I now understand, a call for
some kind of global action, requiring a collective effort by the entirety of
humanity. No, I wouldn't like to "turn the clock back", either. I would much
prefer something new and truly intended to have beneficial results. That is
so rare in politics.

<snip description of the Industrial Revolution>

> 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.

That the West is a Heaven (or Hell, according political and religious
convictions) of materialistic oppulence is a widespread and popular view in
much of the Third World. And when the poor in those nations watch TV
programs, this view is confirmed and reinforced over and over, mostly by
cheap Occidental TV products which have a near monopoly in those parts of
the World where nobody can afford to compete with the Western media mass
markets to produce their own cultural products.

In the Occident the public is indeed used to regarding the Third World
through the lenses of economics and population control. But that is not how
it appears to ordinary people of those nations. Individual personal or
family economy is often in deep trouble because the family hasn't had enough
children. Having many children means having more disposable incomes.
Children are supposed to work and support their families. Wealthy rural
families have many children and this fact is not lost on rural society. What
is often needed in terms of economy is proper access to cheap credit and
good (equitable) land laws. Again, problems outside the control of ordinary
people. Cities in Third World nations are a totally different matter. They
are indeed overcrowded. But that is more often a result of political
mismanagement and/or laissez faire economics than anything else.

The majority of people in the Third World ordinarily have only contact with
one culture preserving, educating, and society carrying institution and that
is the organized religion to which they belong. When they are confronted
head on by an assertive Occidental influence which seeks to undermine this
dependance of theirs on religion (without offering anything in exhange), it
naturally calls forth the most determined resistance and opposition. And I'm
one of those who believe that people in the Third World should be able to
choose their own destiny without interference from the West (or anybody),
even when this means accepting the fact that they want religion.
Enlightenment, even the one Europe had during the Age of Reason, cannot come
at the end of a bayonet or be imposed by decree. To attempt it is a simple
human rights violation, IMO.

<snip>

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

No, it's not a support of any specific point of view but an attempt to
generalize, claiming that this is now a common reaction not only by the
electorate but also by many former politically active, be they right, left,
or centre. Becoming "disinterested", "disillutioned", "sick" of politics and
participatory democracy and turning to private occupations, hobbies,
interests - forming up in small or large groups for reasons of comfort (=
becoming religious).

<snip Wiccan>

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

http://paganwiccan.about.com/mbody.htm

Well, I know next to nothing about Viccan (sorry about the spelling error)
except it's becoming more and more of a popular alternative to the Anglican
Church in the UK (and perhaps Canada). This seems like a good place to
start.

<snip>

> 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.)

This is hard for me to comment on in a reasoned and proper manner. I feel I
don't have the required knowledge. Each one of your questions probably
deserve a whole debate and an independent examination to get to the bottom
of it. But I can say where I believe the moral ills of a civilization or
society generally originate. Here goes.

The question of public (and individual) morals is always one of striking a
balance. In order to have such a balance, people (of a society) have to
generally agree on what constitutes basic acceptable behaviour. This
agreement then has to form the basis for (a social process which somehow
leads to) deciding what requires intervention from society in order to
avoid, ban, stop, forbid, punish etc. In this context, I'm eager to express
that oppressive ways of going about this essential task, like utilizing
excessive or secret or priviliged violence, will have a strongly contrary
effect to the one desired and that enlightened societies invest in
prevention rather than punishment. But the basic requirement of imposing
self-regulating rules and institutions on society is broad social acceptance
of those same rules and institutions. Without that agreement nothing will
work properly. Thus I can (timidly) venture the idea that the problems you
mention, the preponderance of illegal drugs and the "not for
children"-programming in the media, are a consequence of a lack of basic
societal agreement about the moral significance of these social phenomena.

<snip>

> 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>

Quite right, that social hierarchy will become involved is uncontestable.
And any kind of hierarchy potentially poses as much of a problem as a
solution in a situation where voluntary participation and self-motivation is
a requirement. If people at the basis of the project lose their motivation,
the entire project might as well be called off on the spot. Thus two major
problems of such a project would lie in the selection of proper leadership
and coming up with a reasonable, practical plan of action. None of these are
easy.

<snip stuff about Aristotle and the "executive mind">

> 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.

Oh yes, you are correct, again! Psychology is (still) a soft science. It's
academic ranks are full of self-serving people out to make names for
themselves with no real interest in advancing the science. Oh, there's no
doubt that many of them in their deluded self-importance would take over the
role of mystic king-philosophers of modern society, if only they had the
opportunity and gall. They don't, which is just as well, but fortunately
there are also the other kind of psychologists who do try as honestly and
well as they know how.

> I am particularly defensive on this subject at this time.

I see. And I understand. Myself, I wouldn't ever try to elevate psychology
(or any of the other soft sciences) to the status of Lord of all Science. My
main argument to do with the capabilities of Man regarding formal logic and
the reasoning mind goes like this. The ability of the mind to use the tools
of logic and reason is a function of the self-concious mind. It is primarily
an abstract ability, akin to the ability of the mind to know and talk
language, indicative of creative abilities of (pure) symbol manipulation. To
this picture has to be added that without formal training in logic (through
social influences) the logic capabilities of the mind cannot develop fully
(or only with difficulty). That is again akin to the language capabilities
of the mind, where the individual cannot acquire proper language skills
except through a process of socialization.

Another way to put this would be to say. The mind is a marvelous instrument.
It can examine itself logically, because it has self-awareness. Thus the
mind can be abstract about its own existence. What it can do to itself, it
can do to the entirity of "objective reality".

> 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.

Naturally, I agree with all of the above. Somehow you have acquired the idea
that I believe logic and reason are "bad" or unimportant. Well, my opinion
is the exact opposite. Where I belive all that stuff about Aristotle and the
"executive mind" made you balk is when I  implied that this had led the
scientists of the Scolastic and Renaissance traditions into a false view of
human nature and to an inflated sense of  the importance (and validity) of
their own work. Is that a correct guess?

An agreement to disagree about this point is quite all right as it doesn't
really (as you have remarked, yourself) have a big influence on the "Unlearn
God"-doctrine. All it really does is pinpoint the main reason (as I see it)
why scientists have traditionally tended to become a specialized elite
(mainly) out of touch with the concerns of temporary societies and their
social agendas. It has pushed scientists into taking up residence in
unaccessible "ivory towers". Of course, there are many fine examples of the
exact opposite, yet I do really believe that arrogance and elitism and
pervasive dogmatism have been (and still are) the main charecteristics of
the practitioners of Occidental science since the early Middle Ages.

<snip>

> 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.

Freud's (and other psychologists') hypotheses are not "hard" science,
absolutely correct, and they probably won't become that for a long time yet
(if ever, as understanding of the human psyche evolves and "old" knowledge
becomes more elaborated or even superceeded all the time). That is not
really my main concern. What I would try to tell all those scientists in the
"hard" sciences, so deligently working away each in their own little chosen
specialist field, goes as follows. You, scientists, have to make your work
relevant to the lives and concerns of the present time. That is your real
job. No, it's not primarily an invitation to invent new gadgets or medicines
or whatever but to make your work understandable and consequential to the
existential problems, concerns, issues, realities that confront Man,
collectivily. Only then will your scientific discoveries take on REAL
importance (instead of remaining what they are now, (mainly) exercises in
ever more refined abstractions).

<snip>

> 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.

No, you certainly don't need to excuse. I've taken nearly two days to answer
this message, so I might just as well apologize. I've not forgotten your
remarks about the time pressures that families have to endure. Our time is
not our own, and I guess that goes for both of us.

> 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.

Yes, true, I have wondered about that coincidence, too. Earlier, I
hypothesized that this unlikely correlation has to originate in shared and
parallel experiences, even though our lives have been lived on opposite
hemispheres and in very different societies (though of a common cultural,
historical heritage). That is what has made our exchange so interesting and
consequential, as it has actually become, IMO. You see that some aspects of
the "Unlearn God"-doctrine reinforce your "real-world arguments". I, on the
other hand, feel that my own views are (partly) reinforced (and even
elaborated upon) by your validation of them. That something so gratifying
but highly unlikely (your "coincidental probability of conclusions") has
happened is bound to be more than just a freaky accident. There has to be
(at least some) substantial merit to our basic ideas.

> 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.

This is a beautiful description of how religion helps the individual
believer calm, suppress, and dismiss individual (sinful) concious doubts and
the the SAME time provokes (subconcious) feelings of unease, alienation,
repultion which in their turn become concious doubts and self-doubts which
then have to be either suppressed or conciously acknowledged. A truly awful
merry-go-round are what such mind games amount to. Parents shouldn't do this
kind of thing to their children, but I know how hard it is for most
grown-ups to avoid socializing their children in the exact same way they
were, themselves, by their parents. This is a generational issue as much as
anything else.

Yes, I think you are a lucky person to have had the strength to follow the
warnings of your own mind and to have remained true to your own insights. I
suspect it didn't just happen as a stroke of luck but that you have had to
work hard and long to get there, and that it has not all been fun and games.
This would accord with my own personal experience. One can never be sure of
having "arrived", of course. There's always a next step (or steps), as our
debate has shown on several occations.

When residing in an endless, featureless "fog" actions like setting a
course, believing you can go somewhere, become somebody, that human
endeavours can lead to any useful understandings or consequences etc. seems
like a fairy tales or utopian fantasies hardly worth bothering about. But
when the "fog" has cleared away, objective reality, nature and culture, will
present the astonished mind with experiences and challenges of enormous
variety and complexity which will strain the mind in new ways that the "fog"
naturally didn't do. This, I believe, is one reason why people about whom
one would imagine that they had long since left the "fog" still take refuge
in it (or in something equally protective). It's probably the main motivator
for people becoming religious at all, the existential fear felt by
individuals when facing the scary challenges of life and reality on this
Earth. A "safe" harbour may be an illusion, but at least it's an illusion
the individual will share with (possibly) millions. Religions make people
feel they BELONG. Then they are not alone, but part of something "larger"
than themselves.

> 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.

We all live in "our" own fogs. It's inevitable. Here in Europe that main fog
is religion, as it has always been, despite the fact that most believers
today have a very relaxed and informal relationship with organized
religions. There's a clear tendency in European society, which has persisted
since the Renaissance (and perhaps from even further back), to become more
and more secular. People, generally, don't realize that this is happening
and happily go around imagening that what they believe now (in religious
terms) is what their ancestors have always believed.  Strange that most
people don't seem to reflect on the quick radical changes that modern
technological societies undergo (about once a generation, at least) or
register how often they have to change their own opinions to follow the many
sudden movements of their reference.

> 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.

That's a good point. I certainly think your idea is valid that the
pervasiveness of "brain programming" is a (perhaps the most) serious scurge
of present Occidental society. In many ways modern Western societies have
already become oppressive in the ways described in Orwell's "1984" when he
predicted how all of society could be managed utilizing such tools of mass
mind control. But how come that those specific tools are what they are?
Imagine a mentally healthy society free of such practises. Would a modern
government or media have the least chance of achieving anything by utilizing
their mind control skills? No, I believe that government or those media
compagnies would go out of business the day after they attempted something
like what they habitually do now, because a furious population would find
their practices intolerable and demeaning. If that is acceptable, the next
question automatically has to be, how come our present day governments and
media can exercise their oppressive mind control over whole peoples and
nations? How has that become possible? Well, if one looks at the beginning
of the previous century, especially during WWI when the first pervasive mass
media agitprop campaigns in history were attempted (some with great success,
it was a time of intense experimentation by new-fangled propagandists), it
becomes clear that great masses of  people back then "inherently" possessed
learned and cultivated patterns of reaction and mentation to certain
messages and methods of argument, presented in certain specific ways. The
propagandists didn't have to teach people how they were supposed to react to
propaganda, no, the "buttons" in the minds of the public were there for the
propagandists to press. Where did they originate? How had the public learned
them? Where had they been cultivated? In churches (mosques, synagogues
etc.) - that is the only answer I can come up with.

The above is the reason why I have arrived at the idea that the socializing
influence of organized religions is the central structural "element" in the
the enormous and amorpheus building that today makes up all of the
socio-psychological programming  and conditioning that is a pervasive
feature of much of contemporary cultural activity. This "central element" is
apperantly a vital support structure without which the entire building might
possibly lose its static integrity and begin to fall apart. Of course, that
is just a theory. But it is supported by history that religious practices
facilitated and actually led to a wider secular social conditioning taking
place. Can a reversal of this historic process be carried out by taking
religion out of society? Well, it just might, IMHO. What the mind can learn,
it can unlearn. Pavlov's dogs can be "de-programmed"!

> 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.

You sound knowledgable and well informed to me. Of course, you would mainly
have to concentrate on what goes on in the US. I have to do the same with
regard to Europe. We're all captives of our time and place, to a certain
degree. But I don't think that matters too much as long as we're able to
stay metally awake. The "fog" is the enemy. Voltaire would have said, "Crush
the Infamous!"

Nes