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.)

Again I would like to invite anyone with interest to join in our
discussion.

Hi Nes. I've done some serious editing in this message, mainly for
length. This necessarily includes parts of your immediate comments,
but please trust that I've well-read them. There is another reason.
I'm at the point where I would normally start editing the material for
clarity. The "mind game" I usually use for that is to make it as
persuasive as possible assuming published form to worthy critics
(minus dreary citations, etc.), though some may not get past an
outline form. I'm already thinking ahead to that, and have started an
outline. For me, this device promotes the most trustworthy analysis at
the cheapest price. <g> This will hopefully put some of my snipping in
that context. Maybe then we can switch from these long disjointed
messages to a more organized draft, and some of the snipped material
will reappear there. My main goal remains to help you sharpen your
argument, while learning in the process. I already have!

>> Seriously, why do you focus in on just the God belief? Are you not

<snip agreement that religion breeds secular mind control>

<snip agreement on religion convey permanency, refuge from social
plight>

<snip agreement that religion gives governments moral superiority>

<snip intro to implementation ideas to "take religion out of society">

1.
>This could be achieved in the main
>part by making it illegal for anybody below legal age to join an
>organized religion or attend its services.

Comments on these points at end.

2.
>It would also require a big
>effort on the part of educations, schools, secular institutions to
rid
>themselves of all the mind-bending practises that they have
undoubtedly
>engaged in and instead become wedded to an agenda of proper teaching
<snip requiring teaching based on>
>high ethical standards).

3.
>The other main task, and that's probably the most difficult one, is
to
>undermine the positions of organized religions. That doesn't mean
>banning them or denying people their rights of religious freedom. It
>simply means reducing the public's need for the (immaterial but
>tempting mind-bending) products that religions offer.

a. ongoing cultural debates on the suitability of religious
>practices and beliefs, of holding religions to the same standards of
>behaviour that other social constructs have to adhere to, of offering
>good public information <snip>

b.
>On and on, most people could probably think a lot of other
>similar initiatives. <snip> ... only through a comprehensive and
honest
>campaign of public religious "de-programming" (as exemplified)
combined
>with a concerted effort to deal with (or heal) the basic existential
>fears and the resultant irrational attitudes of the larger religious
>public will it become possible to seriously reduce the pervasive and
>detrimental socio-psychological influence of organized religions on
>society. . <snip result being public becomes desensitized to
agitprop>

<snip agreement that experience is most reliable, then history>
>
><snip request distinction about "back to nature">
>
>No, I don't believe it is possible to "go back to nature" in the ways
>that Rousseau or Thoreau suggested. By "managed primitivity" I
actually
>meant something which does coexist with or remain part of a
>technological society, <snip>

<snip examples, USSR, Germany, France, UK, US citizen gardens, etc. -
thanks>

<snip benefits: recreation, healthier, self-confidence, perspective on
agriculture, self-reliance, environmental corps to replace some
military>

> By the way, this tree-planting scheme has been carried out by
>Algiers since the liberation from French colonial rule. The French
>felled all the forests in the Atlas Range to the south of the coastal
>regions in a act of pure vindictiveness and ecological terrorism.
>Sahara has been steadily spreading north, since then. But now the
>Algerians have nearly managed to reconstitute the forests, through a
>communal and quite superhuman effort.

Nice example.

>> <snip continued naturist, environmentalist perspective, got it.>
>>
>> Are we heading towards communism here? I see two parallels:
>
>Well, those are good and hard to answer questions. I don't believe
that
>the "Unlearn God"-doctrine calls for any specific political agenda,
<snip>
> ... of religious and other mind-bending social constructs, what kind of
>changes will society then undergo as a result of this development?
What
>governments, institutions, social constructs will people then invent
or

I see it as supportive of democracy as long as there is some
replacement for people to choose ethical and moral reinforcement in
numbers commensurate with religion. I wouldn't want the state to be
the enforcer of that. Religion has been especially successful in that
regard here in the the U.S., though I think the average native
american would disagree! But what we have now in a lot of places
wouldn't be hard to beat. In some places anything would beat what we
have now regarding "morality" and "ethics" taught by religion, if the
information I have is reliable.

>> 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.
>
>No, I'd say it goes like this. Man invented all kinds of new
>sophisticated ways of exploiting nature when switching from being
>hunter-gatherers to farmers. At some point (unless deliberately
>countered), this inevitably led to the destruction of the very nature
>that humanity depended upon for its (new) advanced technological
>exploitation of nature. Thus the original, first comprehensive
attempts
>at systematic cultural management of nature led to the first
(original)
>kind of alienation from nature (this probably coincided with the
>appearance of agricultural "gods" and religions to supplant the
>inherited animistic beliefs of the ancestral hunter-gatherers).
>The next level of alienation was reached when nature "avenges" itself
>upon Man and "punishes" Man (by harvest failure, draught, plague,
>starvation etc.) for his vile (cultural) defacement of nature (the
rise
>of "evil" gods and religions propagating primitivism, original sin,
>societal deconstruction, slavery, war, and (possibly) cannibalism).
The
>third level of alienation is achieved or about to be achieved in our
>times with the (soon to be) complete exclusion of nature from
>agriculture and husbandry.
>What this will lead to is anybody's guess, but it's credible that if
>humanity goes on to provoke a global environmental disaster, the old
>"evil" religions will re-surface in some incarnation. If that doesn't
>happen, new kinds of "good" all-powerful "gods" and monotheistic
>religions might emerge to fit (better) with Man's new elevated
>perceptions of his own powers. That this will lead to new more
intense
>feelings of psychological alienation is highly likely, UNLESS
something
>is done to counteract this ancient (and contemporary) and mad
>merry-go-round!

Ok, the Enlightenment might be a contrary example. Prior to that,
maybe religion went hand-in-hand with technology, as you say. But I
don't see religion increasing - I see it as more-or-less a fixed
featured of mankind from earliest records to the Enlightenment. But my
perspective isn't based on a good knowledge of anthropology. You seem
better informed on this.
>
>Indirectly, by stating, "Religion predates technology", you put your
>finger on a very difficult point. Nobody in the World has ever
managed
>to come up with a good hypothesis to account for the origin of
religion
>and the very strange psychological phenomenon of "faith". Nobody!

Well it is obvious to me (maybe ignorance is bliss?). It goes
hand-in-hand with the ability to reason. Why am I here? What does my
existence mean? How did I get here? What happens when I die? Why do
beings have to kill to survive? Better known as resolution of doubt. I
think any self-conscious reasoning "machine" would dwell on these
questions, theorize, and, since there can be no objective test or
resolution of it, belief is the only possibility to resolve the doubt.
In my unusual case, I am willing to live with uncertainty. However, I
would like to adjust the probabilities according to what can be
discovered in the intellectual adventure.

>cultural roots which will never become known or understood. This
>amounts to a great question mark about the validity of some important
>parts of modern psychological theory and it has the same effect with
>regard to the "Unlearn God"-doctrine, which is mainly forced to rely
on
>the understandings of psychologists, social scientists, and
>ethnologists for its central rationale.

I would start off with anthropology, biology, etc., plus any hard
facts these soft sciences can deliver. Then as those are insufficient,
review those theories for context before I start my own dreaming. <g>

<snip about Yin-Yang - got it>

Lots of truth to it, occurs all over the place, even in computer
programming. We're sort of doing it (dialectic). In line with that, I
think exobiology (think Asimov, Clarke, Roddenberry, Sagan, etc.) is
helpful. I (perhaps singularly) also include artificial intelligence
as projected from known computer technology in "exobiology." To me,
thinking about philosophy without at least an introductory knowledge
of exobiology is like thinking about a room as if it were the only
room in the house. How can you get the larger picture of a room
without the opposite or contrast (other rooms). This is self-serving
because I used to read a lot of that stuff and have some background in
AI.

<snip about turning back the clock - already solved!>
>
><snip some environmental concerns>
>
>Yes, so go the daily debates and arguments in the media. But they
never
>touch on the most important REAL and very dangerous consequences that
>an unbalanced exploitation of nature brings (one way or the other).
The
>whole matter is often reduced to being a question of simple economics
>in monetary terms, as if that had anything to do with anything
(except
>for private corporations).

The general wealth is an enabler of great things, good and bad. Even
most art is acknowledged to be the result of commerce. The best
example I know of is the energy crisis in the U.S. 1960's to date.
Assume we had nuclear fusion by now. I think the world outlook for the
future would be very different. Here, we had a steady rise in standard
of living up until the mid-70's and a steady decline since then.
Coincident to that, the rise of extremism and political
brain-programming we've observed. Coincident as well, social
improvement (in terms of individual freedom, democracy) and then a
decrease in same. Coincident as well, a decrease and then increase in
religion. I am able to relate causes and effects to the economics,
which mostly distill to energy. Not saying there are not other common
denominators, some affecting religion having nothing to do with
economics.

Note that much of the above is necessarily based on anecdotal
information. I don't trust government economic figures (I trust
interest rates on the commodities page however). For example, the
definition of "unemployment" keeps changing. A good measure of
inflation is nearly impossible, for instance judging substitutions and
defining "standard of living." These vagaries allow the government to
fudge the figures, IMO. For instance, the introduction of COLAs (cost
of living adjustments based on the Consumer Price Index inflation
measure) means that, for each point of reduction in the CPI, the
government has X billion more dollars to spend. And coincident with
the COLAs, the CPI started going down, and continues to do so! Well,
no doubt it has gone down some, but lots of anecdotal information
tells me not nearly as much as the CPI would indicate. Of course
unemployment and inflation are crucial to measuring
increases/decreases in wealth (as are a few other things).
>
><snip question about what form of government is preferable>
>
>Very hard question to answer. A new attempt at an Enlightenment of
>sorts would have to do its best to adapt itself to local
circumstances.
>Since the aim of the "Unlearn God"-doctrine is basically
>anti-authoritarian that in itself presents a problem when trying to
>influence societies which have strong, centralized, authoritarian
>social constructs. In order to get started it would probably be
>necessecary to thread softly.
>
>My own personal favourite government is one that is primarily
>responsible for its actions under the law, meaning a government which
>feels duty bound to adhere to the best principles of
constitutionality
>and which is always accountable, open, and honest about its
intentions,
>actions, policies. Such a government would have to have strong
>democratic credentials, probably a lot better than the current (low)
>average standard in the Occident.

Agree, and focus on "constitutionality." Equal enforcement of the law
says it all to me. In order to achieve that, you have to get all the
other goodies. If the king et al is just as subject to the law as the
lowliest commoner, suddenly the laws become good. I favor two
sentences in any consitution: "Ignorance of the law is a perfect
defense" and "Unequal enforcement is a perfect defense." Just those
two would go a long ways towards repairing our legal system.

<Snip about voting, elites, etc.>

<snip about religion in U.S. v. Europe as not that germain.>

Didn't know there were many "state-run religions" in Europe. I think I
will cancel my ticket!
>
><snip a bit about how to go about indoctrinating people>

<snip agreements about motivations for accepting indoctrination>

<snip about facing reality head-on, religion not the solution>

<snip about "unlearn God" not describing a utopia - got it>

<snip agree on qualification to slowing down tech advance to be more a
management of the direction>
>
><snip therapeutic options>

>> 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?
>
>That's right, I remember. But that is the exact reason why something
>like the historic Enlightenment or the infant "Unlearn God"-doctrine
>couldn't ever function on their own as political programs. They will
>never be able to become large popular movements. They have to work
>(mainly) out of the spotlight of obsessive daily political goings on.
>They are projects to change public perceptions and social practices,
>and they can only succeed over time through the work of dedicated
>volunteers. The historic Enlightenment NEVER had any sort of popular
>political following, yet its influence on Occidental culture has been
>substantial and enduring!

I like that, and would call it a "trickle-down" project. First into
the intellectual arena, perhaps with some popular reinforcement via
"volunteers" etc., and from there hopefully filtering into various
doctrines and practices. Of course that's how some major and enduring
movements started.

>> <snip> ... By now we might have a collision between my
>> "psychological conditioning" (bad) and your "psychotherapy" (good).
Is
>> this a real collision?
>
>Yes, it might be a collision if psychotherapy turns out to be just
>another attempt at authoritarian indoctrination. After all,
>psychotherapy is supposed to be beneficial and help the person
>suffering for some mental problem regain his health.

The success of psychotherapy v. success of religion to accomplish
happy persons who are credits to themselves and the community should
be compared in some objective way. Note that the term "mental health"
might be more palatable than "psychotherapy."
>
><snip>

>> I disagree with your "faith" distinction. To me, faith is a
>> fundamental opposite to empiricism or science or "belief by
objective <snip>
>> that religion is older and wiser (i.e. more effective and thus
worse)
>> in the numerous 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
>>
>> 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?
>
> <snip agreement> ... That is the central reason why I believe that "Unlearn
>God" shouldn't become a political ideology or been seen as a way to
>achieve utopia. No, I'd much prefer that it became a motivator for
all
>sorts of anti-authoritarian projects, especially those that would
lead
>to an empowerment of individuals, families, local societies to the
>detriment of powerful reactionary and mind-control practicing social
>constructs. <snip>

Good answer.

>The way you describe "faith" above, as an "fundamental opposite to
>empiricism or science etc.", is quite correct, as far as I can tell.

Thanks. An old theory still needs to meet the test.

>One might even go so far as to say (a bit provocatively) that "faith"
>is the irrational belief in the objective existence of "something or
>other" which is neither materially evident based on any sort of

>empirical investigation of objective reality nor on any rational
>interpretation of observed reality.

Agree with that. It seems to cover all the bases. Like faith in
authority figures, celebrities, books, dreams, whatever.

<agreement that religious faith requires more maintenance, has more
severe consequences>

<snip examples on similarity of religious v. non-religious
programming>
>
><snip "Endless Indoctrination?" continued>
>
>"God how I hate sermons of every kind!" Oh, I look forward to the day
>when this has become the refrain of a religious hymn. That'll indeed
>herald in a new enlightened era for humanity.

I agree with that wholeheartedly! Maybe I'll start watching TV news
again.

<snip about avoiding extremism if at all possible>

> <snip> ... A society able to resist radicalism propagated through
>the mass media would much more easily avoid this old trap. They would
>be able to resist and would not let themselves be taken in by
>mendacious agitprop.

Agree, and see the direct connection of your thesis to that.
>
><snip statement about religions having detrimental 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.
>
>Great! This seems like some sort of (modest?) breakthrough. We have
>discussed this very difficult question from a lot of angles, by now.

I will be re-reading what you snipped - it came through quite clear.
>
><snip - explanation of why people always suffer from existential
fears>

>> But my religious friends are apparently some of the happiest, least
>> neurotic people I know. <snip>
>
>The (uncharitable) observer would say, these religiously un-neurotic
>people are on drugs for that's the only explanation for their
apparent
>happiness and contentment. The religious person would accuse such an
>observer of being envious ("sour grapes"), and he would claim that
>"god" takes care of him and makes him happy. What is the truth? Well,
>the religious person doesn't hide his psychological reliance on his
>"faith" to weather the challenges of life.
>This means (since "god" doesn't exist anywhere except in his mind)
that
>he has mentally conditioned himself with the aid of a psychological
>"trick" (aka "faith in god") to feel happy and to (consciously or
>unconsciously) suppress all the psychological troubles, doubts,
>problems that always afflict  humanity, for whatever reasons. <snip>

Another good answer. Religion is like a dependent drug. Dependent
drugs are by definition bad. So religion is bad. Classic syllogism.
The counter arguments could be 1) Some drugs like Valium can be taken
by heart patients for life and be beneficial, or 2) (weaker) As long
as the "drug" will always be available, why not? If ignorance is
bliss, why not remain ignorant? I think I know your answers, and they
are good ones. Just suggesting that this line of "persuasion" might be
problematic.
>
>Willy-Nellie, there's no escaping reality. Religious believers may
feel
>they KNOW they have found a "sanctuary", but they have just found a
way
>to kid themselves about their own feelings and about what it means to
>be a human being in this World.

I would continue that: Assume there is a God. Well, you get one life
as yourself in this universe, nature, planet, and fellow humans. Even
in that case, one should take advantage of these "gifts" and
experience them. Why would a god do all that and then expect you to
stick your head in the sand? Much in the Bible supports this as well,
not that that means anything. Helpful in "deprogramming."
>
><snip - everything is emotionally connected>

>> 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.
>
>Well, that's the point. Human beings are both very alike and very
>different.
>Thus it is to be expected that some people will suffer mental trauma
>from experiences which leave other people quite unimpressed. Why try
to
>regiment individual emotions with religious beliefs?

This "regimentation" is an important point, IMO. It is a major problem
I have with religion. Emotions are too powerful and varied, including
from person-to-person, to be generalized very much or played with
lightly. Most will respond positively (in the religious view), but a
percentage of people will not respond as expected, generating
everything from psychopaths, ruined or torturous lives, or
self-destructive weirdness. And some (most?) of those people don't
even know it because they're in the aforementioned sub-culture "fog."

>Isn't that somehow
>very demeaning to the individual? And since human fears (and other
>emotions) can never be conquered or completely suppressed, why even
>try? If somebody is afraid of something, of some life situation, a
>challenge or whatnot, whether that fear is rational or not, why not
>deal with that directly instead of taking the long way round by
>inventing some "god"?

Agree with that too. It's overkill.

>All that is so counter-indicative of rationality
>in dealing with the basic human condition.
>Probably, if people are to be broken of their submissive affiliation
to
>religions, this break will also make many mentally unstable or ill.
But
>that's just one step towards liberation, which will not come without
at
>least some pain and anguish, for sure! Does the old, retired galley
>slave REALLY long for his oar?

<g>

><snip - explanation of interaction between the conscious and the
>subconscious>

<snip about no known survey of why people join religions>

I argue that, for most, the reasons are obvious. I've listed some, and
it seemed you agreed. In my experience, most people join religions as
children via their parents.
>
>All these reasons can be distilled into one main motive, a
>psychological need (drive, motivation) to counter the (chaotic and
>threatening) realities of human life in some existential way.

I say "resolution of doubt" is equally important (but see next).

><snip> ... ritualistic hierarchy like most organized religions offer
is the
>perfect setting for those who would always prefer a feeling of
personal
>safety and belonging to any admittance of conscious and painful
>emotions of doubt, anxiety, and fear.

This seems to elevate your reason over mine. <g> Yes, I think that
must have more practical importance.

<Snip Genesis metaphor - understood>
>
>I don't know if this parable using religious metaphor helps in
getting
>my point across. But at least it was fun thinking up. Please, let me
>know how this idea looks form your perspective, now.

I think it's a well-stated metaphor with good explanatory power.
>
>I am sorry about the time it has taken to finish this reply.

Let's take any time we need. Otherwise it wouldn't be fun!

<snip>
>
>I look forward to reading your next message.

Same here!

One more issue I've been saving, and which conflicts with your
"implementation" ideas at the top. In my various habitats around the
U.S., in various shades of religion and devoid of religion, I've met a
few people I would describe as "very good people": selfless, willing
to donate their precious time, resourceful, empathic, concerned with
the welfare of those around them (as opposed to the general welfare),
usually (but not always) reinforced by some community setting such as
a church, lodge, hobby, etc. (I'm avoiding the baggage associated with
the word "altruism.")

Among these people I've noticed that those who grew up in a religious
atmosphere are unique in some ways, no better or worse than the
others, but they have a different character. They have a different
moral compass in the way that they can focus on their goals without
being sidetracked. Their inner strength is different. They judge
others differently, independent of religion. They respond differently
to people. Most important as I see it, people respond differently to
them. I see these people as a great resource, though most expect and
receive little acclaim so that their contribution can be overlooked.

In whatever scenario the influence of religion is reduced, I would
like to ensure that these unique people persist. This is in the
interest of variety. In the U.S. within one language, and in spite of
homogeneity in some respects, one has a wide range of
easily-accessible choices of sub-culture. In some circumstances, and
for some unique people or people with various unique problems, needs,
or goals, these religious types are the appropriate solution or cure.
Just as there are varieties of all kinds of people, and will continue
to be no matter what, there should be this variety of unique religious
people.

To preserve this effect would require a surgical removal of religion.
I haven't given this much thought. But I've listened carefully to your
"implementation" ideas with which I generally agree. One thing seems
obvious to both of us. Religion must be removed completely from
government. That's an old idea in the U.S., but has defied
implementation. I've previously mentioned that the "In God We Trust"
on our currency doesn't bother me. Now after hearing your argument and
thinking some more, I am questioning that. Other ideas such as you
list at the top seem straightforward.

Much more problematic, in my view, is the exposure of children to
religion. My unique people would need to be exposed as children - the
profile doesn't happen in adulthood. But how to be so surgical as to
accomplish your noble goals including the personal costs of that
percentage I mentioned, and still provide the religious environment to
some? Do we cap the time children can be exposed? Do we give them
psychological test to see how they are reacting? Do we require a
certain ratio of religious exposure to the kind of responsible secular
education that you advocate? Do we teach parents the personal costs,
and teach them how to counteract or teach their children how to think
critically? How could we interfere with families in such a basic way
without collateral damage? Well, of course we already interfere in
families in important ways re: child abuse, education, welfare,
divorce, etc. It's probably not that different with religion. I have
no firm opinions here, just speculating. But I would want these people
and their uniqueness to be preserved.

Larry
>
>Nes