Sacred Texts: We're Just Talking About Books

All,

I second and third the salutations and appreciations offered here for the buoyant jousting, and add my thanks to all. Were that I be so eloquently endowed as some, or as deep in plumbing the depths as others. Yet, we all have our pieces to contribute! And there is beauty in that, 'believes' one magical 'thinker'!

Pamsm,

"Holy cow. In what fantasy world?"

Well thank you pamsm... A bow to hinduism. Nice. Namaste to you, as well.

Yes, let us forgo the blow-by-blow. It has not so far given me an understanding of how consciousness, or thought, cannot possibly exist separate from brain function. I know that you believe they are the result of brain function, but from what I gather that is the assumption. It is not proven. As it is not proven that consciousness exists purely as a result of organic physical life.

If it does I am eager to understand. As I said I am all ears.

Till then, thought we may be a long way from Jung, we may not be so far from him either.

Unless you can show me how the work of Jung is discredited by proofs.

Thank you for the recommendation of On Intelligence. I will go from there.

As I have said, and to frederic latest, I am not a scientist and there is much that I do not know. I am happy to learn. I do not believe that a logical and rational perspective is necessarily fully inclusive of 'truth'. But it does fascinate me as well.

Persiflage,

To this mostly clueless yet engaged bystander, the recent to-and-fro on this thread has been a heady feast. Thank you for your perspectives, Persiflage, which fed the flow with fascination and good grace.

I would second your acknowledgements to all the other players - Justillthen, Timmy, Frederic, Pam - and thank them for their virtuoso contributions, cantanker and all. You four have woven quite a tapestry.

It's comforting to know the substrate of fact is so well-grasped by some, and the depths and flights of mind so well-plumbed by others. Thus fools (for whom I speak with some authority) can relish both sun and shade.

Timmy - a heartfelt salute to you!

I've said it before - we're not so very different, you and I. The few posters that had some familiarity with Eastern religions and practices have long since come and gone. Anyway, I have to say a kind word about the East now and again.

I've enjoyed your spirited exchanges with Justillthen, and Onofrio always adds a unique perspective and rare texture to the thread!

Pam and Frederic have exercised considerable patience with those of us that momentarily fell under the spell of magic. I think the thread is winding down here, so another time and another place.

And you're right - it's the ideas that count. I've never been a 'rites and rituals' kind of person.

Faith is just another way of waiting for the future to overtake us.

best regards -

Persiflage,

YOU: "Ok Timmy - very well, but this was one person's experience following a stroke - transformative for her indeed......but not your experience. How do you extrapolate your own spirituality from this insult to another person's brain?"

I don't.
And "insult"? What a bizarre term to use.
What it does is give me a glimpse of evidence that the brain is capable of another state of consciousness and awareness, that somewhat correlates with what I have read about eastern philosophies and also quantum theory.

The reason I have an affinity for the eastern philosophies is because, unlike the God posit, I wish that it were true. Christopher Hitchens talks about his term "anti-theist" by saying that an atheist can wish it were true, but an anti-theist does not long for an existence of such servitude and worship of an overlord. But in the case of the eastern philosophies, I would love it if it were true. Are you kidding me? It would be awesome. That's why I say I dig it. I love it. I think about it every day and meditate. I even search for it. But I don't believe things because I want to believe them. I need a reason to believe that it exists. I hope that it does. But that is not a good enough reason for me to believe it to be true.

My skepticism can not stop it from being true. Or stop me from finding out it is true, if it is possible to find out. I do not buy this argument that my skepticism is my ego and arrogance. I see that as a line people use to get you to believe what they believe. Especially coming from someone who has invested their whole life in that belief, and wants company.

YOU: "Geez Timmy, I listened to the one link you've ever provided, and you've never read a single link I've ever posted - where's the parity in that? Fair is fair. Just imagine what you might have missed out on......."

Actually I have read no less than 10 of your links over these weeks, I just didn't read that one, (which came in a clump) because In didn't have time, so I'm up 10 to 1. But it's not your fault, I've only posted one.

YOU: "Timmy, you have no idea what I believe - not a clue"

Well it's sure as hell not for a lack of trying. I was already well versed in the vedantic religions before I met you. I have done much reading on it for decades now and I have been meditating for 10 years. I asked you endless questions about what you believe and listened thoroughly to your answers and visited many of your links. So if I still don't have a clue as to what you believe, then neither you nor any of the books I have read on Buddhism and Vedanta are very good educators.

Do I have to believe it too to have a clue?
Seems like it.
Seems like faith.
I'm interested in the ideas. Not the faith, adherence, and dismissal of my skepticism which I could not survive without.

Timmy excerpted -

ME: "You've not said much at all in support of the idea of nondualism - a core concept equated with Eastern religions (and the very concept that has a good deal in common with current quantum notions about the real nature of things)"

TIMMY - Are you kidding me????
Remember the Jill Bolte Taylor video? Did I not say that that is my scientific spirituality? Is that not non dualism?????? Are you kidding me with this comment????
.............

Ok Timmy - very well, but this was one person's experience following a stroke - transformative for her indeed......but not your experience. How do you extrapolate your own spirituality from this insult to another person's brain? BTW, why all the question marks? Don't get all red in the face - not good for the blood pressure.

and -

ME: "If you read my link on nondualism, you would also note the differences with the idea of 'monism' in that link"

TIMMY - I did not read your link on non dualism. It is not incumbent on me to read all of your links to lengthly articles supporting your position. I try to get to as many as possible but I can barely keep up with the posts here.
.................

Jeez Timmy - I listened to the one link you've ever provided, and you've never read a single link I've ever posted - where's the parity in that? Fair is fair. Just imagine what you might have missed out on.......

and -

TIMMY - I strongly suggest you stop relying on links so much and present your ideas in your own words on this forum for all of us to read. People don't have time to follow all of your links.
................

Well Timmy - I'm all for supportive evidence when I have something to say - and you? Timmy logic and reason doesn't always suffice...although you are probably very close to 100% correct most of the time....at least by some standards.

and -

TIMMY - Again, this idea that I am preaching to the converted here falls flat as I receive no shortage of counters to my arguments. I also get concurring points of view like those of Frederick and Pam and JAC and Colin Nicholas etc. But there's plenty of people here with opposing viewpoints for me to debate my ideas with. And some of them are believers. Like you for example.
.............

Timmy, you have no idea what I believe - not a clue.

Timmy,

The dungball teems with suns-to-be.

Howzat for possibility?

Misanthropic slough may hide

the glimmer of undespond inside,

and even disdivine achieving

is a species of believing:

former hopes at last in man,

as latter feeds on cosmic plan.

Persiflage, continued

YOU: "You've not said much at all in support of the idea of nondualism - a core concept equated with Eastern religions (and the very concept that has a good deal in common with current quantum notions about the real nature of things)"

Are you kidding me????
Remember the Jill Bolte Taylor video? Did I not say that that is my scientific spirituality? Is that not non dualism?????? Are you kidding me with this comment????

YOU: "If you read my link on nondualism, you would also note the differences with the idea of 'monism' in that link"

I did not read your link on non dualism. It is not incumbent on me to read all of your links to lengthly articles supporting your position. I try to get to as many as possible but I can barely keep up with the posts here.

I strongly suggest you stop relying on links so much and present your ideas in your own words on this forum for all of us to read. People don't have time to follow all of your links.

YOU: "In one of our earlier exchanges a good many threads ago, you took vigorous exception to my notion of pure awareness being an essential element of fundamental reality (per the Eastern traditions) and then later on, claimed to be totally down with that whole idea"

You have trouble differentiating between considering possibilities and believing something to be true. I consider possibilities, but do not believe them to be true. I take exception to anyone declaring that they *know* something about pure awareness or essential reality. I do not take exception to people positing and hypothesizing and exploring ideas about these things. can you not see the difference?

YOU: "And here again, you've declared the fundamental ideas contained in the Eastern traditions as completely lacking in 'credibility'. So which is it? Yes, no, or maybe? "

One more time.

To claim to *know* without evidence lacks credibility.
To posit, and imagine, and wonder, and explore, and contemplate, does not lack credibility.

Why don't you understand the difference. Why do you keep getting "belief" confused with "consider"?

YOU: "PS. The religion threads I referred to are right here On Faith - this is the solitary non-religion thread"

Again, this idea that I am preaching to the converted here falls flat as I receive no shortage of counters to my arguments. I also get concurring points of view like those of Frederick and Pam and JAC and Colin Nicholas etc. But there's plenty of people here with opposing viewpoints for me to debate my ideas with. And some of them are believers. Like you for example.

Persiflage,

YOU: ""Looking back at what I might have said (but didn't say), I would possibly use the term 'conflicted', because you seem to go back and forth on the issue"

Back and forth? How so?

YOU: "I think you'll agree that 'lying' is a pretty hostile term in anybody's book"

Sure. I don''t recall ever calling you one. But what does it mean when someone accuses you of "claiming" to believe something? I think the insinuation of lying is pretty clear.

YOU: " you've never in any significant way demonstrated a real sympathy with Eastern religions"

I don't have any sympathy for The Eastern RELIGIONS, and never said that I did. Affinity does not = sympathy, and my affinity is for the philosophies not the religions. I have the very same opinion of their metaphysical claims that I have for all religious metaphysical claims for which there is no evidence.

YOU: "You are seriously doubtful that they could be correct about the underlying nature of reality"

Nonsense. I think that they have the correct broad strokes as confirmed by Einstein and now quantum theory. But I am seriously skeptical that monks meditating in caves are discovering the true nature of reality. I've read a lot of their books. But unfortunately they can not put the big reveal into words for us so there's not really anything to go on but their word.

YOU: "(you wonder how anyone could actually know)"

Of course I wonder that. Guilty as charged.

YOU: "You seem very concerned that someone might actually 'believe' what these 'philosophies' have to say about the nature of reality - 'where's the evidence?', you exclaim"

I'm not concerned about people believing in these things. I'm just curious about the reasoning for belief. There doesn't seem to be one other than want. And no, I do not condone believing something because you want to. I do think that people should have rational reasons for their beliefs.

YOU: "You've spent the better part of a couple of posts here declaring that masters and 'gurus' of meditative traditions are not to be trusted - they apparently have hidden agenda"

I said that they lack credibility. And they do, given their claims of *knowing* and inability to show their work or even describe it in words.

They also tell people to dismiss their skepticism and instruct them to see their skepticism as arrogance and ego. I think this is why you guys use the word "arrogant" so often. It's part of your religion to see nay sayers as arrogant and slaves to their ego. And it sounds all too familiar.

Justilthen,

"You have no response to the 'what theory' justillthen, look to Jung..."

You did not elaborate on it. You just said that Jung had a theory about "collective unconsciousness" and told me you weren't going to do my work for me. What am I supposed to respond with?

YOU: "You are, though, far too rigid and non receptive to debate, and to me as I have said dishonest in it."

Example of dishonesty please.
Non receptive to debate? Every time I read one of your posts, and I read them all, I am being receptive to debate. Disagreeing with your points is not being unreceptive to debate, it IS debate. There is no such thing as a debate between two people in agreement.

I have told you that I consider all of your posits to be rational, and scientific, and perfectly logical. Is that not receptive enough? Do I have to believe what you believe to be receptive?

YOU: "You want to be argumentative and to negate, and that seems to be the purpose for you. Not consideration and evolvement"

I consider. And I evolve. You want me to agree. You want me to stop asking you to give reasons for your beliefs. I just can't. But I assure you, I have considered all of your arguments.

I keep asking you "why you believe" and you keep telling me that we all have such beliefs, but I am telling you that I don't. I do not have any beliefs in anything for which there is not evidence.

YOU: "There was a moment there that ideas seemed to be interchanged but it was a ruse, i am seeing"

What makes it a ruse. You and Persiflage both seem to think that if I say that I consider your posits to be posiblities, but I continue to be skeptical, then I am somehow being disingenuous?

YOU: "Peace, timmy. youre a good man. I don't want to talk with you..."

No problem. But understand, if you comment on my comments, then I will have to comment on your comments about my comments. Also, if you make any comments that I disagree with, I might have to comment on them as well. You are welcome to stop speaking directly with me Justilthen, but this is a free forum of free speech, and I intend to continue to exercise my right to speak freely.

Peace.

Timmy - Spiritual is not the first thing that came to mind when I saw this last post of yours
- disingenuous seemed more accurate.

You asked me if I was accusing you of lying about your regard for Eastern religions. The word 'lying' has only been used by yourself in this conversation Timmy.

Looking back at what I might have said (but didn't say), I would possibly use the term 'conflicted', because you seem to go back and forth on the issue. I think you'll agree that 'lying' is a pretty hostile term in anybody's book.

Now I have the impression that you employed that inappropriately placed word (lying) to deflect attention away from the fact that you've never in any significant way demonstrated a real sympathy with Eastern religions.

You are seriously doubtful that they could be correct about the underlying nature of reality (you wonder how anyone could actually know). I refer you back to my several links on nonduality and your responses.

You seem very concerned that someone might actually 'believe' what these 'philosophies' have to say about the nature of reality - 'where's the evidence?', you exclaim.

You've spent the better part of a couple of posts here declaring that masters and 'gurus' of meditative traditions are not to be trusted - they apparently have hidden agenda.

You've not said much at all in support of the idea of nondualism - a core concept equated with Eastern religions (and the very concept that has a good deal in common with current quantum notions about the real nature of things).

If you read my link on nondualism, you would also note the differences with the idea of 'monism' in that link.

This much you did acknowledge in an exchange with Justillthen. So what exactly do you like about these esoteric traditions that have personal enlightenment and/or self-illumination as their foundation?

D.T. Suzuki, a Zen master and author that was largely responsible for bringing Zen to the West, declared enlighenment to be at the heart of Zen - it's sole reason for being.

In one of our earlier exchanges a good many threads ago, you took vigorous exception to my notion of pure awareness being an essential element of fundamental reality (per the Eastern traditions) and then later on, claimed to be totally down with that whole idea.

And here again, you've declared the fundamental ideas contained in the Eastern traditions as completely lacking in 'credibility'. So which is it? Yes, no, or maybe?

PS. The religion threads I referred to are right here On Faith - this is the solitary non-religion thread.

Justillthen says:

"What I have suggested is neither acrobatics or untenable. It is completely possible, as it is also beyond provability. It is not outside or possibility by any means, and would in fact make good sense."

"Completely possible"?? "Good sense"???

Holy cow. In what fantasy world?

Frederic has said much of what I would have said to you, so I'll forego the blow-by-blow. I agree that you need to seriously learn more about brain function. It is not so mysterious as you imagine. So, while you're buying books, buy this(previously recommended) one: On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins and Sandra Blakeslee.

If you can part with more money, buy this lecture series (it's on sale right now - a real bargain):
http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/CourseDescLong2.aspx?cid=1580

We've come a long way since Jung.

frederic,

Yesterday I picked up the Oliver Sacks book you recommended, Mrs. I am a Hat.

I look forward to the read. Thanks again.

frederic,

"You do not see. So be it."

Yes, I don't, from what I have learned here. Thank you for your time and inputs, frederic. I have enjoyed them.

timmy,

Is this just to be annoying? Yes.

You have no response to the 'what theory' justillthen, look to Jung, timmy, what Jung theory, justillthen, banter? Just swing away at the next thing, avoid the last one, make not comment or acknowledgement of it.

We have been here before and I really think that you just like being argumentative for it's own sake. I have digressed into insults. You are, though, far too rigid and non receptive to debate, and to me as I have said dishonest in it. You want to be argumentative and to negate, and that seems to be the purpose for you. Not consideration and evolvement.

I do not want to digress. I am disinterested in continuing, as I do not do well with your tactics, timmy. Please refrain from continuing to post to me, at least for awhile. There was a moment there that ideas seemed to be interchanged but it was a ruse, i am seeing. I ain't into this road you go on .

Peace, timmy. youre a good man. I don't want to talk with you...

"I do not see what proves thought cannot be inseparable from the body"

You do not see. So be it.

frederic,

My use of the term "merely" was not meant to belittle the immense work that the brain and body do in concert to sustain our lives. But I hold consciousness to be more than the form, as I have said. More than the function of the systemic collaboration.

I appreciate your explaination of brain function and interactions. I did read your example of structure, and appreciate it as well.

"It is the scientifically unquestioned METHOD of the work of the brain, proven and measured in great detail in innumerable experiments. It does not explain or describe the thoughts themselves, the CONTENT of consciousness itself."

I am not questioning the method of brain function that science and scientists have detailed. It is vast and impressive, and I don't know the bit of it I am sure.

"It is strange to me, that simple scientific facts disturb your world view to such an extent that you even refuse to take note of them, simply repeating "we don't know", only because you are not interested."

Here you assume too much, frederic. I am not disturbed by science, but I do not agree with some of the assumptions that science, apparently, makes of reality. Goes contrary to what I believe. But I am here questioning and looking. I indeed AM interested... I DO take note.

You had issue that I misquoted you earlier. I take issue with your assuming my lack of interest, that I am a "believer", that my world view is shaken. That I am another magical thinker to be chuckled at...

"Consciousness IS not these signals, consciousness is REPRESENTED by these signals."

I do not see what proves that consciousness cannot be inseparable from the body. I do not see what proves thought cannot be inseparable from the body. I do not necessarily think of consciousness or collective unconscious as an "entity", certainly not a "thing", and not as matter. But certainly not as "merely" (sorry) a systemic collaboration resultant of brain functions.

Justilthen,

YOU: "I have a reason to believe it, even as science does not have empirical proofs supporting it"

What reason?

YOU: "But this was about you, timmy, not me. My example of your belief in the utter negativity of religiosity. You believe it utterly"

I believe it yes. Not utterly. I do not believe anything utterly. But I do believe it. Because of the evidence.

YOU: "That you believe something does not justify it's validity"

Of course my belief does not justify it's validity. The evidence does.

YOU: "It IS valid, TO YOU. And you would cite your reasons and rationalizations for it"

I would cite evidence for it if it is something that I believe.

YOU: "But it is your belief, my belief, sally's belief. More or less substantiated by scientific assumptions or by theoretic concepts, or by emotional stances"

No, not by assumption. By evidence.

YOU: "Evidence, in your model, that can be contradicted by other evidence. For instance that religious belief can do good, as an idea"

I have seen no evidence that religious belief can do good that outweighs the bad.

YOU: "Until the assumptions that we make, personally and scientifically, are proven incorrect or incomplete, we tend to rely on what we have chosen to believe with our best reason and judgement"

Not me. I rely on evidence, not chosen belief.

Justilthen,

The (chemo-)electrical signals are not CAUSED by the brain: They are the method ("substrate") used through which synapses (ends of the dendrites of the brain cells) are connected. Without the billions of these connections within a split second, there is no thinking, no awareness, no consciousness, not even a movment of finger on your keyboard. It is the scientifically unquestioned METHOD of the work of the brain, proven and measured in great detail in innumerable experiments. It does not explain or describe the thoughts themselves, the CONTENT of consciousness itself. It is strange to me, that simple scientific facts disturb your world view to such an extent that you even refuse to take note of them, simply repeating "we don't know", only because you are not interested. Sorry, this is a general deficiency of most "believers".

Consciousness IS not these signals, consciousness is REPRESENTED by these signals.

The "collective unconscious" is an idea, a metaphor, an attempt at a description, but not an entity or a "thing". I think that even Jung didn't presume that. Didn't you even read my "structure" example?

And again, your word "merely" spoils everything including your own insight.

timmy,

"Carl Jung had many theories. Which specific one are you referring to?"

You were questioning the validity of my post with frederic about the concept of collective unconscious, timmy. You know this.

You are clear that "Carl Jung had many theories", yes? And some of his more influential work was regarding the theory or collective unconsciousness, yes?

This is just to be annoying? Yes.

I do not have the time, timmy.

ciao.

timmy,

Oh for gods sake timmy. Or perhaps more appropriate to you, 'be reasonable, timmy!'

:-)

"Not without evidence FOR.
I do not form beliefs based on lack of contradictory evidence against a posit. There must be evidence FOR it, plus a lack of contradictory evidence against."

I specifically said that you make beliefs with evidence supporting that belief.

"We need a reason TO believe that it exists. No such reason exists for the posit of universal consciousness."

I have a reason to believe it, even as science does not have empirical proofs supporting it. But this was about you, timmy, not me. My example of your belief in the utter negativity of religiosity. You believe it utterly.

As you said, in agreement with me I believe, there is no absolutes. We therefore do make beliefs that are non absolute. Indeed, they are often at odds with others. That you believe something does not justify it's validity. It IS valid, TO YOU. And you would cite your reasons and rationalizations for it. But it is your belief, my belief, sally's belief. More or less substantiated by scientific assumptions or by theoretic concepts, or by emotional stances.

ME: "We live based on assumptions"

YOU: "No, we live based on evidence."

Evidence, in your model, that can be contradicted by other evidence. For instance that religious belief can do good, as an idea.

Until the assumptions that we make, personally and scientifically, are proven incorrect or incomplete, we tend to rely on what we have chosen to believe with our best reason and judgement.

Justilthen,

ME: "A "regarded theory"? "

YOU: "See Carl Jung"

Carl Jung had many theories. Which specific one are you referring to?

PERSIFLAGE,

YOU: "Sorry Timmy - I don't buy your self-identification as someone steeped in spirituality. But that's just me"

No bother..

YOU: "You did say that you were the most spiritual person you knew, I believe. Criteria?"

Like I said, I think constantly about the ideas posited by the eastern religions and philosophies. I meditate and engage in contemplative thought about them every day. I am forever engaged in the ongoing contemplation of the mysteries of nature and origin (if there is one) of life, the universe, and consciousness. I do not close any doors or negate any theories.

Do you think that for someone to be spiritual they need to believe certain things to be true, which have no supporting evidence?

I see the nature and origin of the universe, life and consciousness as a mystery which I am constantly engaged in deep contemplative thought about, imagining all possible ideas, and settling on none. Why settle on one if there is no evidence for it?

Is that not spiritual enough for you? Is it not adherent enough?

YOU: "Since I can't agree with the Timmy definition of theists and spirituality, it appears we're at another impasse"

You can't? You can't allow me to use the secular version of the word "spirituality"? Why not?

YOU: "And please, the next time you claim to have an affinity with Eastern religions, follow your own rules of evidence - and present some"

Claim to have? Are you insinuating that I am lying about my affinity for eastern philosophy?

And my rules of evidence are for *beliefs*, not for affinities. Do you not see the vast difference?

YOU: "I'll be looking for you on those real religion threads...."

"On Faith" is not a real religion thread?

timmy,

"A "regarded theory"? "

See Carl Jung.

You may prefer Freud, as I have said, but Freud didn't go for the idea of a collective unconsciousness. Jung went there.

Hello frederic.

"Of course it is the brain cells."

As I have said repeatedly, I am not a scientist and there is much that I do not know. And as you say, there is much that science does not know. I do not know that memory is stored in brain cells, or how. It may be considered scientific fact, it may also be regarded as 'accepted' because there is yet no other rational explaination, so we fit the knowledge into the best concept and call it evolveable but good. It may be proven.

But again, we are only studying what we can see. An assumption that consciousness is simply as "system" as opposed to matter fits that view. I am aware of the basics of brain function. I do not consider physicality as causal. I do not consider consciousness as an "entity" but neither as a system

"It is nonsensical to posit a "consciousness" as a different entity than "memory"".

It certainly would be if consciousness is a "systemic collaboration" of signals, no more. If true I would agree.

But outside of your postulations of consciousness, I do not believe that "WE" really know the truth of it... Too much is unknown. "Electrical signals" are seen and measured. As with pamsms comment, I do not see that as proof that they are caused by the brain, and I do not see consciousness as merely a system of pulses... Sorry.

I am still glad that you are happy without the problem of deja vu in your youth.

Justilthen,

YOU: "In other words you have beliefs, that you BELIEVE, ( :-) ), that may not be absolutely provable or validatable but you take them as truth, and perceive the world through that lens, in lieu of overly contradictory evidence"

Not without evidence FOR.
I do not form beliefs based on lack of contradictory evidence against a posit. There must be evidence FOR it, plus a lack of contradictory evidence against.

In the example of what you are claiming to *believe* there is zero evidence FOR it. There is no contradictory evidence for the existence of the flying spaghetti monster either. But we don't believe in it because it can not be entirely negated. We need a reason TO believe that it exists. No such reason exists for the posit of universal consciousness.

YOU: "We live based on assumptions"

No, we live based on evidence. Those who live based solely on assumptions usually end up making an ASS out of U and ME

YOU: "My point, again, is that we form 'beliefs' about theories that we do not KNOW in the sense that it is a certainty, but we believe to be true nonetheless"

Not without evidence we don't.
Again, name one thing that you claim that I believe in for which there is no evidence FOR.

YOU: "One of your most obvious beliefs in these forums is that religiosity is altogether negative, (I don't think this is too much of a stretch of your belief here). You have evidence that brings you to this belief.

Exactly. I have evidence that brings me to this belief.

YOU: "You hold the belief to be 'true'. You view the world, and religiosity, spirituality, belief, etc., from this perspective"

Because of the evidence. Tons and tons of it.

YOU: "Contradictory evidence that comes into your sphere is devalued, or in some way is negated or degraded, invalidated, and so does not 'upset the cart' of the preferred belief system"

What contradictory evidence? Be specific. Examples please, of me devaluing or negating or degrading this so called contradictory evidence.

Sorry Timmy - I don't buy your self-identification as someone steeped in spirituality. But that's just me.

You did say that you were the most spiritual person you knew, I believe. Criteria?

Since I can't agree with the Timmy definition of theists and spirituality, it appears we're at another impasse....agreeing to disagree by default.

And please, the next time you claim to have an affinity with Eastern religions, follow your own rules of evidence - and present some.

I'll be looking for you on those real religion threads....

timmy,

ah, timmy,

I did not say that you believe in things for which there is no evidence... I suggested that you form beliefs based on evidence that has the least amount of contraindication.

In other words you have beliefs, that you BELIEVE, ( :-) ), that may not be absolutely provable or validatable but you take them as truth, and perceive the world through that lens, in lieu of overly contradictory evidence.

We live based on assumptions.

This started with you commenting on a post with frederic:

YOU to ME: "So to postulate such a thing I think is open minded, and intriguing, but I do not understand the leap from hypothesis to belief. Nor do I condone it. I don't see it as necessary to exploring the idea further. It's the old "one must believe first before one can know" faith thing that seems all too familiar from the monotheisms. I see the same thing from the Vedantic religions."

"I think what Frederick means when he tells you that he doesn't "believe" that the brain is causal to thought, is that he doesn't "believe" it in the religious sense. It is currently the most logical conclusion to him, but that's not the same a *belief* that it is the *truth*."

"But what evidence or reason is there to form a *belief* about it's truthiness?"

My point, again, is that we form 'beliefs' about theories that we do not KNOW in the sense that it is a certainty, but we believe to be true nonetheless.

One of your most obvious beliefs in these forums is that religiosity is altogether negative, (I don't think this is too much of a stretch of your belief here). You have evidence that brings you to this belief. You hold the belief to be 'true'. You view the world, and religiosity, spirituality, belief, etc., from this perspective. Contradictory evidence that comes into your sphere is devalued, or in some way is negated or degraded, invalidated, and so does not 'upset the cart' of the preferred belief system.

Justilthen,

"Well yes, it is regarded as an concept and idea, even a regarded theory"

A "regarded theory"?
News to me.
What is this theory and by whom is it regarded?

Of course it is the brain cells.

They have an intricate electro-chemical communication system across the synapses, using different substances to quickly connect, and depend on a lot of different chemical AND cybernetic psychological influences. The storing process in the brain into the long term memory, the conversion into protein (your "consciousness"), on the other hand, depends on an "unconscious" vetting process concerning different degrees of importance for a given individual. This is also corroborated in animal research experiments. (We are not THAT different from animals!)

The couple of billions of brain cells in one brain have a mathematical combination potential that exceeds the assumed number of atoms in the whole universe, so there is plenty of combination potential to store something, given that the storage (memory) is done by the immense number of brain cell COMBINATIONS, not only of brain cells.

Honestly, I think you would greatly profit from reading a little more about the brain. If you say WE do not know, in many cases IMO it should read "I" do not know. Today, nobody can "philosophize" at random any more without taking into account what is scientifically proven as simple fact. (There are a lot of things science has NOT discovered yet, of course!)

It is nonsensical to posit a "consciousness" as a different entity than "memory". Your memory is an integral part of your consciousness. The question to "store memory in your consciousness" is logically void of any meaning.

And, of course, consciousness is not a "collection" of molecules or electrical signals, it is not an entity, it is not matter, it is the SYSTEMIC COLLABORATION of these signals and molecules. Don't you understand the difference between matter and system? Consciousness is not an entity, it is a system!

The electrical signals are not a question of "..has to be shown as valid"; they can be measured, as they were in my case by the use of an EEG (Electroencephalogramm), helping me to get rid of the obnoxious deja vue seizures in my youth.

Persiflage,

Timmy says: "Indeed. I just don't see any credibility".

Persiflage says: "I didn't expect that you would, because you haven't in the past.

Should I?

YOU: "Your next challenge will be to take your arguments to the theists. Good luck with that...."

You are, in my opinion, a theist.
Speculating about universal consciousness is spirituality.
Believing it to be true is theism.

As for my challenge, I have already talked several people down from God belief. Many many people believe in God without having given it much deep thought. Many have not studied the historicity of religion and the science that refutes fundamental religious claims. Many have never had the problem of infinite regression put to them before.

I have personally de-converted many casual believers both live and on line, thus helping to diminish the power of the conditioned groupthink, and helping to "change the setting" as Frederick would say.

So thanks for the best wishes, even though you say it in a tone that implies that I am battling in futility. I certainly don't see it that way. And I have the de-converts to prove it.

I say: "It's a matter of credibility rather than belief".

Timmy says: "Indeed. I just don't see any credibility".

Timmy - I didn't expect that you would, because you haven't in the past. And I agree, religion holds no value for you in any significant way.

Your next challenge will be to take your arguments to the theists.

Good luck with that....

frederic,

"Thus, the "collective unconscious" may be regarded as a concept, an idea, an intellectual generalization, but not an existing entity."

Well yes, it is regarded as an concept and idea, even a regarded theory. That it is not empirically provable, to this point, negates it no more than that consciousness itself is an existing entity. Again, we do not know enough about consciousness, no mind the concepts of sub- and un-, collective- and collective-unconscious...

Consciousness to this point does not lend itself to being classified as matter, or at least not physical form, a collection of molecules... but we are conscious, we assert. If consciousness is a collection of electrical signals in the brain that is yet to be shown as valid... It is a curious thing.

Justilthen,

I'm still waiting for an example of something I believe in for which there is no evidence.

Persiflage,

"And those that have achieved the inner goals/experiences inherent in those traditions, might have something to say about the ontological reality of their own inner experiences, as guided by those traditions (the discoveries associated with enlightenment, self-realization, etc.)"

Yes and they might have reason to make stuff up, and to mistake euphoria for something else, and to justify their incredibly faithful devotion to a religion that they have dedicated their lives to by claiming to have achieved something beyond normal human experience that of course can not be described in words.

YOU: "Their consensus on the nature of these experiences might lead us to believe that they know whereof they speak - much like quantum physicists and cosmologists that can do the math"

Nothing at all like the quantum physicists and cosmologists that do the math. Quantum physicists do not dismiss their skepticism as ego and arrogance. Quantum physicists perform experiments with verifiable results and empirical observations. Quantum physicists to not assume the truth they are looking for ahead of time. Quantum physicists do not tell us that their findings can not be described in words, that we'll just have to trust what they have discovered. Quantum physics is not a religion.

YOU: "It's a matter of credibility rather than belief"

Indeed. I just don't see any credibility.

Hello frederic,

First, I was not the source of the links, I am sorry to say, though I understand that I am the current archetype of the 'magically inclined dreamer'.

"It is amazing what intellectual somersaults people make to salvage an untenable idea."

What I have suggested is neither acrobatics or untenable. It is completely possible, as it is also beyond provability. It is not outside or possibility by any means, and would in fact make good sense.

I am not assuming as identical "things and consciousness." How do you hear that? That is more your realm, and pamsm's, it seems to me. BTW, you have not answered my questions to you regarding this...

One of Pamsm's last lines was: ""BTW, both the brain waves and the activity in specific areas pretty well prove that both consciousness and thought are purely products of the brain, and not from “outside.”". Now THAT is prurt'n near making "identical".

The idea of neorealism is interesting and but I am still considering the concept. I neither negate it out of hand or embrace it.

Fact is frederic, we do not know thought and consciousness well. We have physical matter as the meter to read that consciousness or thought are present in a subject, and otherwise it is 'subjective'. WE think, believe in our own consciousness, but cannot study it, dissect it, know what happens to it after the death of a body. Your intellectual somersault is that it "is reintegrated into nature" where it always belonged.

The idea that memory may be stored in the brain makes some sense. I am not a scientist so I do not know how that happens. What is the 'filing cabinet' that pamsm speaks of? Neutrotransmitters are sending the signal. Cellularly?

No mind, ( :-) ) in the moment. Assume that is true, as it is the physical form that is animate, and is the one meter that one might read. How is is then NOT FEASIBLE that memory cannot be stored in consciousness itself? We do not know. How is it NOT FEASIBLE that consciousness is independent of the body. We do not know. You already said that you believe it is, as it leaves the substrate and reintegrates with nature. How am I being a 'magical thinker' to believe that it survives the death of the body and continues?

Frederic - I take your meaning. That's exactly what quantum physicists have to say about the phenomenal universe and sub-atomic particles. All and everything are fundamentally fields, forces and a network of relationships.

Are their thoughts and propositions actually reflective of a true underlying reality? We give them considerable credit because their statisical powers of prediction remain unchallenged.

So then, what is an actual, existential reality or entity? We don't function on quantum presumptions - it doesn't mean that we don't function in the world as though real things didn't exist. It's fair to say that our inner reality largely creates our outer reality - the way we perceive the world.

You know that Jung conceived of a psychic reality (transpersonal in nature - and perhaps without boundaries) that he called the 'collective unconscious' because of the universal archetypal symbols/images that emerged through analysis of patient dreams, as well as a detailed ongoing review of his own inner experiences. The concept of synchronicity was arrived at in much the same way.

Mythologist Joseph Campbell found much common ground with Jung, and they collaborated from time to time. Sometimes these ideas have fit in with my own experience, so I give them a certain amount of weight.

Archetypes and mythology are metaphor, not reality. But they generally points to something else - an underlying truth to be discovered, or a reality that can be experienced.

Timmy - here's what you have to say about my links:

'All of it but the believing it to be "the truth" part All but the parts that requires adherence.

The "dismiss your skepticism, that is your ego and arrogance talking" parts I do not find appealing, in fact I find them quite suspect.

Belief that certain gurus have achieved enlightenment and true knowledge of a reality that is impossible to put into words, but trust us, we have confirmed the truth of monism.

I like all of the hypotheses and find them intriguing. I just don't like, or agree with, the validity of forming a *belief* about their *truthiness*. Why?'
________________

Timmy, far be it from me to push beliefs or truths. Here's what I've made available - the core presumptions and convictions of those that follow mystical and meditative traditions.

And those that have achieved the inner goals/experiences inherent in those traditions, might have something to say about the ontological reality of their own inner experiences, as guided by those traditions (the discoveries associated with enlightenment, self-realization, etc.)

Their consensus on the nature of these experiences might lead us to believe that they know whereof they speak - much like quantum physicists and cosmologists that can do the math.

It's a matter of credibility rather than belief. I think we've covered this issue pretty thoroughly. Make of it what you will......

At least we're having a conversation - try that with a few of the theists on these various threads. That should be your true audience.

Some misunderstandings are derived from the difference between, on one side, the meaning of a concept, a description, or an idea imposed on something, and, on the other side, a really existing thing, object, entity, even if ever so faintly describable. Example. The word "structure" (of a sentence, e.g.) is an idea, but not a "thing". (Don't nail me down on the double meaning of the word "structure", which can also describe a building - in this second meaning it would be a "thing".)

Thus, the "collective unconscious" may be regarded as a concept, an idea, an intellectual generalization, but not an existing entity.

Frederic - I'm in agreement with you in so far as consciousness/unconsciousness being located in conjunction with the individual. The obverse does seem impossible to prove.

The part of unconsciousness that you refer to seems to be the myriad of inter-related physiological and electro-chemical actions/reactions and processes that keep us alive from moment to moment. Again, I would agree. Folks do seem to forget how autonomically driven the fundamentals of fleshly life really are.

But what about the possible existence of that archetypically based Jungian/Platonic unconscious? What about the full extent of the human psyche, and is it all based on the mechanisms of chemistry and biology?

While I have some understanding of the structures and functions of the brain, how it responds to disease and trauma, how it may be affected by drugs, and so forth, I think we are in disagreement as to the complete dependence of the totality of consciousness on body chemistry.

In my view, consciousness/awareness is and must be in synch with our biological constitution, but in the last analysis is itself an autonomous entity, rather than an epiphenomenon of human bio-chemistry.

This is why I find significance in the concept of nondualism, as covered in my recent links. The idea of souls, astral bodies and the like are far more obscure in my view.

Surely a placid tone is one that we should strive for, however strong our convictions. Maybe we're just overly tone sensitive on these threads.

Conversations via the internet might somehow generate inaccurate impressions, in the same way that TV cameras make some people fatter than they are in real life. Something to consider anyway.

Goethe is to be greatly admired......

An Apostle of The Tritely Grating Her-knees offers a sincere poultice for the deus-distempered and wonder-wounded.

Sweet unsense, kleine, climbing to nongods' nostrils

wafts aloft the poppycock: blazoned Horus

against the dayking, plumed with folly,

and making man of tearfalls.

Factual darts fling battle of barbs

at the heaven-sped goosely chook

for its ardent presumption to turn

from corkscrew ramhead to beetle

to dribbling child; the child

Sebastianised, its morning blush

the gush of blood. My God,

we know just what we do

in felling beetle-birdlings,

yet the dungball teems with suns-to-be.

Certainly.

No, Persiflage, you are offering the old Manichean straw man argument: "If you don't believe in the supernatural, in god, in religion, whichever, you are "only" a materialist/anti-spiritualist/evil atheist/soulless skeptic/reason fanatic/wysiwyg-hardliner/primitive brain chemistry "believer" etc. etc. (Check one)."

There is a scientifically quite well-established consensus about the conscious/unconscious question within a person (most is unconscious, otherwise we couldn't exist for even a moment). The question you refer to is the magic approach to a "problem" of some conscious/unconscious floating around as some "spiritual" ether or what you may call it, independent of a living person.

A person who honestly demands some intellectual evidence, albeit principally modifiable, is at least as "spiritual" as the crowd who refuses to think anything else than what they were spoon-fed in their early childhood, when there was no criterion available to even ask a pertinent question. The ensuing growth of a merely "operational" intellect (as opposed to mature judgment) as an adult, then, does nothing but produce the most unbelievable effort (as shown in J.'s link) to stick to that warm feeling you had when you were unable to think a single abstract thought. Feeling almost always trumps intellect.

May I make a suggestion as to our discussions? We should avoid the term "arrogant" altogether in all these debates: Everybody implicitly thinks or explicitly says that everybody else is arrogant who doesn't share one's world view.

Goethe even defended arrogance: "Nur die Lumpen sind bescheiden; Brave freuen sich der Tat" ("Only rascals are modest; the valiant look with pride on their achievement".)

Pam and Frederic - I don't mind provoking skepticism, but the nausea part is purely unintentional! I leave that issue to Sartre.

The so-called 'hard problem' of consciousness is clearly not so easily solved to everyone's satisfaction, although many rationalists imagine the solution to be obvious. Why then the lingering doubts? Magical thinking?

The nature of consciousness/unconsciousness thus far has evaded attempts to wrap it up nicely in a widely accepted and empirically based theory because it's...well, complicated.

Whether or not I believe consciousness actually exists outside the head was not the issue - it was more a demonstration that some folks really do think outside the box.

If you're the kind of person that believes in the 'what you see is what you get' view of the world, then for all practical purposes I suppose 'brain chemistry' is a reasonable final solution.

Anything or any process in the material world can apparently be reduced to the equivilant of zero or nothingness, at least according to physics. It all depends on where one wants to stop along the way.

regards -

Hello Justilthen,

YOU: "You have formed many beliefs based on what you have accepted, in lieu of contradiction evidence, as rational and valid and reasonable beliefs to hold"

Can you give me an example?

YOU: "But there is little that is known as absolute and without any doubt"

Nothing in fact.

But some things are known as close to certain as can be because of very credible and convincing evidence.

Pamsm,

I had the same feeling as you when reading the first paragraphs of the first link Justilthen offered us.

It is amazing what intellectual somersaults people make to salvage an untenable idea.

Things and consciousness of things are two entirely different categories, which, of course, magically inclined minds tend to regard as identical. The things are there, alright, but the perception ("thought, consciousness") of them are either in my (or other people's) brain (present awareness, or memory) or does not exist at all.

These "games" remind me of some little stupid brain games we played as adolescents when reading Schopenhauer: "The sun, or anything else, ceases to exist as soon as I don't look at it anymore" and other nonsense. That's where you get with "absolutizing" collective consciousness, lol...!

The fact that I can imagine some feats of my grandmother doesn't point to anything else than to the trivial fact that humans are able to remember (store in the brain) individual or collective features (collective: what does "a table" look like? We have learned to make generalizations.).

Pamsm,

"Don’t you know that the burden of proof is on the one(s) making the claim?"

I am not claiming that because they cannot be disproved that they must therefore be true, pamsy. Don't be silly! But you steer toward negation because it hasn't been validated, even as we have not real tools TO read and record thought, much less thought transmission. Yet... you spoof it.

"Nope. Not “recognized” because it has never been shown to exist, and everyone who has claimed it has been found, on examination, to be a charlatan. That would be why I “negate” it."

"BTW, both the brain waves and the activity in specific areas pretty well prove that both consciousness and thought are purely products of the brain, and not from “outside.”"

This is a full on assumption... Jump to a conclusion. Perhaps it fits your prejudgement, but the activity of brain function does not prove that consciousness is a product of the grey matter, pamsy. And does not limit it's 'space' for rent... You make me smile. :-) It does show a relationship. It does not assign preeminence or causality. You have not way of determining or measuring presence of consciousness OR thought outside of measuring a brains function. How do you assign hierarchy of matter over thought? Pamsm? I am all ears. (Of course that would make me a non-viable life form, alien or otherwise. Based on our assumptions.... :-) )

"Primitive people are highly superstitious. You’re holding them up above people who actually have science?"

No. Not above. But not necessarily so far below, either. You say "highly superstitious" as if you were saying "highly liberal" in the Bush years. IF a human were living in awareness that was less logically focused and more intuitively based, which could well have been the reality for earlier humankind, then there may easily have been very good reasons for what we now dismiss as useless "superstition".

pamsm,

continued:

"Why invent something for which there is no evidence?"

I did not invent the concept of telepathy or precognition, subjects that we have discussed. They have been around for a long time. And I have had more than enough experiences to be convinced of the veracity of extra sensory awarenesses. You say that it is subjective? OK. But I have also had enough substantiation with others to be convinced that thought can be shared intimately and specifically.
Subjectively speaking of course.

"No, no, NO. Again, what I wrote is not what you read. It has nothing to do with “a love” for anything. It’s not a voluntary process, and we cannot control it."

I agree that there is much tied to how the brain learns and how it functions. But I disagree that we cannot control it. We can. Practice and discipline. That is not to detract from the value of subconscious functioning. But there is so much that we put on autopilot that, it seems to me, we could put ourselves in danger of disengagement from life, not freeing ourselves up to live it better. It seems there is a trend toward disengagement.
You may disagree.

Persiflage,
I read part of the article that was your first link. As much as I could before starting to feel quite nauseous.

I can't believe that you actually find this compelling - or that any reasonable, rational human could.

The outside world is perceived by the senses (sight, touch, smell, et al.) which relay their information to the brain. The brain analyzes, throws out the stuff that isn't important, links things that should be linked, and stores the results as memory. Repeated experiences become more heavily wired.

Recalling the face of your grandmother in Seattle is just the calling up of the memories from the file cabinets of the brain.

If this isn't true, why can't I call up the face of someone living in Albuquerque, whom I've never met, just as easily as grandma? After all, they're out there in the environment - shouldn't they be part of the "collective consciousness"??

What I'd really like to see schools do, is teach the difference between critical thinking and irrational (magical, mystical) thinking. The amount of the latter that still exists in the 21st century, is frightening and discouraging.

Justillthen says (about telepathy):

“Has not been disproven. It is a reasonable theory that we do not yet possess the tools to prove out. Also as my argument goes we are ‘less developed’ in these expressions of consciousness. ‘Don't use is as much’.”

Hasn’t been proven, either. Nor even indicated. There is no actual evidence in its favor at all. Nothing but hearsay and anecdote – just like religious experience and alien abduction.

Don’t you know that the burden of proof is on the one(s) making the claim? I can’t “prove” that there aren’t unicorns, or that T. Rex doesn’t still live in some remote jungle; but it doesn’t logically follow that because they can’t be disproved, they must be real and true.

And again, I have to ask less developed than what? Don’t use as much as what? I guess it really doesn’t matter, though – not at all is less than pretty much anything.

JUSTILLTHEN: “If we practice logical deduction, we become more adept at it. And we have as a culture. But we leave behind functions of consciousness, it could be argued, that may be very valuable. There are countless stories in early cultures that purport telepathy as real, yet it is discounted by western scientific rational minds as they see none that they can measure or validate. But as you say, they can measure next to nothing per consciousness, and have less understanding of it.”

No, that’s not what I said. I think I write pretty clearly, but you seem to be missing half of it – selective reading?

Consciousness is absolutely measurable. You have conscious brain waves, or you don’t. What I said was that *thought* can’t be measured, or quantified in any way. Only the activity of a brain that is thinking. BTW, both the brain waves and the activity in specific areas pretty well prove that both consciousness and thought are purely products of the brain, and not from “outside.” Both also go away at death.

As for early cultures, they believe an awful lot of pure fiction. Primitive people are highly superstitious. You’re holding them up above people who actually have science?

JUSTILLTHEN: “Why negate 'out of hand' what is neither known or understood?”

Why invent something for which there is no evidence?

JUSTILLTHEN: “We do have a love for unconsciousness, as you eloquently explain. Children may be more 'alive', and conscious, for the very reason that their lives require ‘full attention’. They also awake in the moment. As we get older we get bored. Same old same old. Shove it under the radar. Go unconscious. Exactly my point.”

No, no, NO. Again, what I wrote is not what you read. It has nothing to do with “a love” for anything. It’s not a voluntary process, and we cannot control it. It also has nothing whatever to do with ennui. It has entirely to do with the way the brain learns, and the efficiency that it develops in the process.

Hello timmy,

Thank you for your last post. I appreciate it.

You touched on an aspect of this concept of consciousness surviving the death of the physical form in one conversation we had by bringing up the recycling nature of matter, and that you believed that everything was at it's core energy. Matter transformed to a different form of matter, but it was the inherent energy that it was that was 'immortality'. Ongoingness.

Your concept of "infinite regression" as 'eternal' speaks to it as well. I may be using a term "consciousness" here, which I believe is ongoing, (perhaps evolving and devolving, as does all in this dualistic universe), to define it for myself. It makes sense to me. What is animated, has life, that does not have some form of consciousness? If you play "life" out on a universal scale, and further add an idea like your infinite regression, how would you apply consciousness to it? Would not the 'Universe' be alive somehow, as what is contained in it is. Certainly is, if your 'energy' is fundamental to all form. Leastwise, it seems reasonable to me that it is possible. Neigh on rational. Almost logical...

"I do not consider it a supernatural though."

I take the concept of supernatural as what is, (assumed to be), beyond the normal natural laws of the physical and third dimension. I do not think this physical world that we perceive is our limitation. It does not bother me, that. Excites me. We are, after all, separated and individuated. Non-unified. Non union, which is opposite what I seek with what and who I love. I want union. And can touch that experience, when I stop being focused on "touch", (though this is getting very esoteric now...)

"But what evidence or reason is there to form a *belief* about it's truthiness? That is the question."

We all do. You have formed many beliefs based on what you have accepted, in lieu of contradiction evidence, as rational and valid and reasonable beliefs to hold. You may adjust them, perhaps reluctantly or not, when you find a theory that is better. But there is little that is known as absolute and without any doubt. All is subject to change, everything evolves. This is not a realm of absolutisms, but for change. (this being another of our dialogues from some while ago.)

(Thanks to Steven Colbert for inventing the word "truthiness")

thank you persiflage for the links. I will go there in just a bit. Been preoccupied dialoguing disproven theories and high ideals. While under the weather this evening. Too much to do for a dreamer. I look forward to seeing what you sent.

Allahu akbar.

pamsm,

We do have a love for unconsciousness, as you eloquently explain. Children may be more 'alive', and conscious, for the very reason that their lives require "full attention". They also awake in the moment. As we get older we get bored. Same old same old. Shove it under the radar. Go unconscious. Exactly my point.

I do not negate the evolutionary value of "autopilot" mode. But we need keep the conscious level awake to present developement, or there is a tendency to go more and more asleep. We no longer are on edge "watching for predators or looking for its next meal." These days, western culture in particular is looking for entertainment or some form of dulling consciousness nicely with an after work cocktail.

Of course one can find enough tigers and sharks at some cocktail parties to be on guard against! The world is full of predators still, as well as plenty enough loonies. :-)

I was not trying to insult with the "non-believer" line. I assumed that you would appreciate it too.

Pamsm,

JUSTY: “How so? All these aspects are interrelated. Your assumption is that consciousness is defined by the state of the brain, neurotransmitters, chemical balances and interactions... and that is it. You make the physical causal. I do not.”

"What I meant by that was that those words, strung together as they were, had no meaning whatsoever in English."

I take it that you are continuing to comment on my paragraph that you blessed with "Gobble. De. Gook." as a way if saying that it "had no meaning whatsoever in English." I feel pretty clear that it works in the english language. I'm also clear that you disagree with it.

"No one can measure thought to *any* degree. At best, one can see which areas of the brain show the most electrical activity when the owner is thinking about certain things, but this measures brain activity – not thought."

And so a reason for me saying "to these degrees", pamsm. Assumptions are made that brain activity is certain areas do point to thought, particularly areas dedicated to reasoning and deduction for instance. Activity up in some areas suggest thinking. Other areas, while sleeping, point to active dreaming. Not very sensitive, no way of 'plugging in the lan line and downloading what thoughts are going on in that brain. But thought is presumed be active with some brain activity. You I believe know that. We should argue this point?

"*Humans* don’t use it *as much*?"

Not a comparative. A belief, judgement really, that we do not focus on developing consciousness as a tool.

JUSTY: “That is another of the reasons that the telepathy that you negate is not recognized.”

"Not “recognized” because it has never been shown to exist, ..."

Has not been disproven. It is a reasonable theory that we do not yet possess the tools to prove out. Also as my argument goes we are "less developed” in these expressions of consciousness. "Don't use is as much".

If we practice logical deduction, we become more adept at it. And we have as a culture. But we leave behind functions of consciousness, it could be argued, that may be very valuable. There are countless stories in early cultures that purport telepathy as real, yet it is discounted by western scientific rational minds as they see none that they can measure or validate. But as you say, they can measure next to nothing per consciousness, and have less understanding of it.

Why negate 'out of hand' what is neither known or understood?

Persiflage,

YOU ASK: " but if so, then which part of Eastern religions is it that you find appealing?"

All of it but the believing it to be "the truth" part

All but the parts that requires adherence.

The "dismiss your skepticism, that is your ego and arrogance talking" parts I do not find appealing, in fact I find them quite suspect.

Belief that certain gurus have achieved enlightenment and true knowledge of a reality that is impossible to put into words, but trust us, we have confirmed the truth of monism.

I like all of the hypotheses and find them intriguing. I just don't like, or agree with, the validity of forming a *belief* about their *truthiness*. Why?

JUSTILTHEN - I also have considerable interest in lucid dreaming and allied experiences. Here are a couple of links (my habit I'm afraid).

The Wren-Lewis link is one that I've posted before, and that contains a number of articles of possible interest - see for example his experience entitled 'The Dazzling Dark'.

I've also posted research articles on near-death experiences - but will refrain, as that didn't seem to float anybody's boat.

The top link just below leads to a lengthy article that posits consciousness as existing 'outside the head'. A compelling and fascinating argument!

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3814/is_200401/ai_n9383860

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucid_dreams

http://www.capacitie.org/wren/archive.htm

Justilthen,

YOU WROTE: "I believe thought transcends physical animation. I AM. LIFE. It does not follow for me that animation = consciousness or awareness. I think that animated form is the result of consciousness, and THAT is life..."

It does not necessarily follow that thought and consciousness are constricted to the brain and body just because we have no evidence that it can continue on after death. I'm with you to this point. And I think that your description of how it could possibly be that when our brain dies, only the receptor of the thought or consciousness dies, not the consciousness itself, is a scientific and logical hypothesis, rather than a supernatural thought. And I am fascinated by such an open minded hypothesis. I dig it. I think about it a lot if you want to know the truth. I meditate almost every day and often find myself contemplative of such a thing.

My open mindedness allows me to consider your posit as entirely possible and even an uplifting thought. As I have said many times to Persiflage. Vedantists have much to cheer about since Einstein and quantum theory. I am always seeking out new information and ideas of experimentation into this realm.

But as of yet there is no real reason to believe it to be true. Though I consider it to be a scientific and not illogical hypothesis, and not a supernatural one, it remains an entirely unsubstantiated hypothesis, and entirely void of evidence.

So to postulate such a thing I think is open minded, and intriguing, but I do not understand the leap from hypothesis to belief. Nor do I condone it. I don't see it as necessary to exploring the idea further. It's the old "one must believe first before one can know" faith thing that seems all too familiar from the monotheisms. I see the same thing from the Vedantic religions.

Skepticism is not a barrier to finding knowledge. IMO.

I think what Frederick means when he tells you that he doesn't "believe" that the brain is causal to thought, is that he doesn't "believe" it in the religious sense. It is currently the most logical conclusion to him, but that's not the same a *belief* that it is the *truth*.

I have no issues with your posit. I do not consider it a supernatural though. I do not consider it illogical or unreasoned in fact I would call it quite reasoned as a hypothesis.

But what evidence or reason is there to form a *belief* about it's truthiness? That is the question.

(Thanks to Steven Colbert for inventing the word "truthiness")

PART 2

JUSTY: “ No good tools to measure and substantiate thought, and humankind that has a love of unconscious behaviour. We just like it all to go on autopilot, pamsm. We practice physical acts, like driving a car, and get good enough at that so that we can go unconscious while doing it.”

Oh, for Pete’s sake. We have a “love” of unconscious behavior? Do you honestly not know what this “autopilot” is about?

When the brain is learning something new – building synaptic connections – it has to pay attention – every part of the process requires conscious concentration. Remember learning to drive? Thinking about what your hands and feet were doing while watching the speedometer, the road ahead, and checking side and rearview mirrors seemed impossibly overwhelming. But once these connections are made, and repetition has strongly reinforced them, they can work in the background without requiring the conscious part to be bothered with them – it can now give its attention to other things.

This has great evolutionary value. The more that the routines of life can be done on a sub-conscious level, the more the conscious brain can spend its energy watching for predators or looking for its next meal.

This is also why time seems to go faster as you age. When children are young, everything requires full attention because it’s all new. Summer vacation seems endless – Christmas seems eons away. When you’re older, more and more is taking place below the radar, as it were, so time seems to go much more quickly.

JUSTY: “I have no interest in giving you the details of lucid dreaming or deja vu experiences that I have. I am not being studied but by myself, my utter rationalist, and I am disinterested in hearing negation of my experiences by an uninformed, prejudiced and professionally skeptical 'non-believer'. :-)
I love using the non-believer metaphor...”

Fine, I really have no interest in hearing it, nor would I try to “negate” any of it to you. I’m just pointing out that none of these stories will ever carry any scientific weight because they’re entirely subjective. Unless people like you start writing down your dreams and passing them to a disinterested party who can then assess the “coming true” part, no rational person will ever give your claims the time of day. The world is full of loonies.

If you think that I find the “non-believer” tag insulting, you’re wrong. It’s quite the reverse.

PART 1

ME: Gobble. De. Gook.

JUSTY: “How so? All these aspects are interrelated. Your assumption is that consciousness is defined by the state of the brain, neurotransmitters, chemical balances and interactions... and that is it. You make the physical causal. I do not.”

What I meant by that was that those words, strung together as they were, had no meaning whatsoever in English.

I don’t make *assumptions* about consciousness – that would be your bailiwick. My knowledge is based on what is currently scientifically known about the brain and how it works, seasoned with a bit of actual observation and dab of common sense.

JUSTY: “I believe that thought is more causal than physicality. You just do not have the tools to measure thought to these degrees..”

OoooKaaay, and your real name is Uri Geller, correct?

I don’t have the “tools” to measure thought *to these degrees*?? No one can measure thought to *any* degree. At best, one can see which areas of the brain show the most electrical activity when the owner is thinking about certain things, but this measures brain activity – not thought.

JUSTY: “And humans do not tend to use thought or consciousness as a tool or power as much. Less developed”

Excuse me? *Humans* don’t use it *as much*? As much as whom? Or what? “Less developed” than who? Or what?

What kind of drugs are you doing?

JUSTY: “That is another of the reasons that the telepathy that you negate is not recognized.”

Nope. Not “recognized” because it has never been shown to exist, and everyone who has claimed it has been found, on examination, to be a charlatan. That would be why I “negate” it.

Hello frederic,

OK, I apologize if my remark overshot your position. You said that thought was DEPENDENT on a functional brain, and I took that beyond there to assume that you were saying that thought was a RESULT of brain function. It seemed that was the direction of your belief, as you said it as:

"there cannot be any thought anymore, since thought is dependent on a functional brain."

As well: "It may be caused by anything around or inside you. But it has no existence without the neurotransmitters et alii."

And "When I die, my “consciousness”, build on the “substrate” (the sand in your example) is reintegrated into nature, where it has belonged through all my life anyway (that is my version of “eternal life”)."

I took these to mean that you believed that thought 'died', and as I am wrong, please help me to understand. Do you then believe that thought continues after the physical form dies? "Reintegrated" means what here? I understand that you are tying thought to the substrate of brain functionality, yes?, but if thought is dependent on a functioning brain, then without it what happens to thought?

Justilthen,

"You are arrogant, as proven by this post and just about any of the others that you put up. I have given examples repeatedly"

How about one example of your repeated examples. Just one. Can you do it?
And can you put quotes on the exact words that "prove" my arrogance as you say in my most recent post?

Remember, an example must include my actual words in quotations, not an erroneous paraphrasing of my sentiments by you. Are you capable? I say not.

YOU: "Look at every one of your posts. Your examples are abundant, timmy"

Excellent. Then you should have no problem putting quotation marks around some of these so called abundant examples and matching my exact words to one of your baseless accusations.

YOU: "I am not the only one, here timmy, saying the SAME THINGS to you"

And I am not the only one here Justilthen, saying the SAME THINGS to you. Are you so thick?

YOU: "Nuff said. I digress into the insulting"

Digress?
lmao
Your style with anyone who disagrees with you is insulting and ad hominem.

Justilthen:

you said: "You believe that thought is the result of brain function."

I have never said that, and I do not believe it, as I have stated several times expressis verbis, using the concept of "substrate". Please, don't put words into my mouth or keyboard!

I use my legs to walk out the door, to make it a little cheaper. From there you put the words into my mouth: The legs are the reason for you to walk out the door. Please!

Hello frederic,

"If the "substrate", my body (brain, the system of molecules, or whatever you might call it) has ceased to function, there cannot be any thought anymore, since thought is dependent on a functional brain."

We do not know this as fact. We can say that without a functioning brain, but a living body, normal thought is not present in that body. Best as we can assume. We do not know that no thought exists in someone in a coma, for instance, but can say that normal thought is not present.

Scientific evaluation of brain function related to thought give us this deduction. But is thought just conscious? What of unconsciousness, subconsciousness, collective unconscious...?

Next, then, is that it is an assumption that you make that consciousness ends at death of the physical vehicle. The brain dies is that the meter dies. The organ that we were monitoring to watch brain function/thought/consciousness... is no longer 'available' for a read. Does that mean WHAT we were reading has died, too? If you say the running of the functions of the body I would fully agree. But you say thought ends. I do not think you can know that.

You believe that thought is the result of brain function. I believe thought transcends physical animation. I AM. LIFE. It does not follow for me that animation = consciousness or awareness. I think that animated form is the result of consciousness, and THAT is life...

"And also, If someone "stubbornly" maintains that gods are an artifact of uninformed humans, you cannot call him a fanatical, aggressive and dishonest crusader for forwarding such a plausible ideas."

I assume you are addressing here my interactions with the entity known as timmy2. I am fine if he or anyone is an atheist, or a polygamist, or a bloody evangelical. These are all plausible ideas, (welllll, to different minds ......), and if nothing else they are choices that everyone has the right to make. My issue with timmy in particular was not his atheism, but the way he communicated. Not the message, per se, but the attitude in forwarding it. I had many good debates with him, and others, but they were soured for me by egotistical harshness that became unenjoyable. Repeatedly. I am sorry if it was upsetting to you or any insult.

Your pregnant woman can state the fact of her pregnancy, or shove it down your throat, or guilt you into service, or ... fill the blank... She is still just as pregnant. It is how she communicates this truth that affects the world she is interacting with.

I am sure that I am receiving the message with my own prejudices, frederic. No doubt.

timmy2,

"Yes it was probably just silly of me to take being called an arrogant crusader, with absolutely no examples to back it up, personally."

You are arrogant, as proven by this post and just about any of the others that you put up. I have given examples repeatedly. You can't see them for the mirror you are standing in front of, it seems.

I am not the only one, here timmy, saying the SAME THINGS to you. Are you so thick? You have been going around defending yourself blindly from the same reflections from a number of different posters here. You use the same defenses as if it is believable. Apparently you believe that if you keep on being given the same reflection from multiple sources that it has Less meaning. It just means to you, it seems, that there are more delusional people out there and they have no value.

You are floating down denial.

"But of course you can not provide any examples of this so called "experience" you have that shows me to be "doctrinally immovable and on a crusade"."

Of course I have. Again, repeatedly. You are floating down denial.

Was it not persiflage on the more recent Jacoby string that said essentially the same thing within the last day or two? Not the crusade part, that is my addition, ( I like it, it fits!), but being doctrinally rigid. Or was in onofrio? No, maybe arminius? Jezz, so many examples, so many threads, same story...

"Since you can not, I suggest once again that you keep such labeling to yourself."

Again, floater de nial, I have and do repeatedly. Read the posts.
Is that it? That as soon as you hear what you consider criticism you jump to defense without introspection? Fits. Introspection is a handmaiden of intuition... Non-logical... Bad.

ME: :"You go about countering every point, and deflecting others.

YOU: "Again no examples, just an empty accusation."

Look at every one of your posts. Your examples are abundant, timmy. It is only you that does not see this all. And I do not consider you dense at all. I hope that does not beat review.

"It was taken, put through the BS filter, and spit out the other side, emptier than your head.

Hey now, don't take that empty head comment personally. I mean no disrespect or sarcasm here. It's just my honest perception of you that your head is empty..."

If you are going to fabricate a slander of me, please make it more believable. I may be insulting at times, arrogant myself, sarcastic or passive aggressive for the purpose of insulting. These are things that I know I am capable of and have at times been conditioned toward. Could be believable to others...But I do not believe that empty headed would catch air, Sir Timmy of DeNial.

Nuff said. I digress into the insulting. It is only because I have been insulted. The pains of the past inform the present.

Ciao!

If the "substrate", my body (brain, the system of molecules, or whatever you might call it) has ceased to function, there cannot be any thought anymore, since thought is dependent on a functional brain.

It is also dependent on social interaction. I never said that thought is CAUSED by the "substrate", but it sure needs it! It may be caused by anything around or inside you. But it has no existence without the neurotransmitters et alii.

Again, the statement that "everything is connected to everything" maybe a philosophical generalization, since the "connection" is its sheer existence in the world. This, of course is a trite platitude and doesn't yield the slightest information in a given case. You and I are not connected except for the exact conversation we are leading through the electronic media. I wouldn't recognize you if you stepped on my foot!

And also, If someone "stubbornly" maintains that gods are an artifact of uninformed humans, you cannot call him a fanatical, aggressive and dishonest crusader for forwarding such a plausible ideas.

A women who tells you she is pregnant (if she is) is not a fanatical, intolerant crusader for her particular, randomly chosen truth. She just states a fact, pleasant or unpleasant as the case may be. And, aside from having an abortion, she cannot be "a tolerant little bit" pregnant.

The "experiences" you refer to are, as you yourself so fervently maintain, created by yourself (again using your neurotransmitters etc.).

Pamsm,

PART 1

JUSTILLTHEN: "Everything from physical matter through the emotional and mental realities and into the (assumed) spiritual ones are interconnected, as is all of life in the manifest plane. As matter does inevitably transcend it's current form to morph into a new organization of molecules, so can thought and emotion and 'spirit'. My body is a physical organization of molecules, but I do not consider it as "me". If anything, I consider it to be the physiological substrate that you speak of. The form of MY substance, which is not solid but substantive."

"Gobble. De. Gook."

How so? All these aspects are interrelated. Your assumption is that consciousness is defined by the state of the brain, neurotransmitters, chemical balances and interactions... and that is it. You make the physical causal. I do not.

Physical matter does transform. So does emotion, as you can cause it to. You will say that is because one has altered the chemical state of the body... I would say that the application of thought, and the focus of emotional and mental energy, causes change that is reflected, in part, in a chemical balancing in the body.

I believe that thought is more causal than physicality. You just do not have the tools to measure thought to these degrees. And humans do not tend to use thought or consciousness as a tool or power as much. Less developed. That is another of the reasons that the telepathy that you negate is not recognized. No good tools to measure and substantiate thought, and humankind that has a love of unconscious behaviour. We just like it all to go on autopilot, pamsm. We practice physical acts, like driving a car, and get good enough at that so that we can go unconscious while doing it. We practice intellectual skills to get an MBA or pass the bars and get $'s, and then go unconscious with that endevour. We entertain the brain... going unconscious with that.

I do not mean unconscious as in coma. But effectively shut off. Autopilot.

I have no interest in giving you the details of lucid dreaming or deja vu experiences that I have. I am not being studied but by myself, my utter rationalist, and I am disinterested in hearing negation of my experiences by an uninformed, prejudiced and professionally skeptical 'non-believer'. :-)

I love using the non-believer metaphor...

Justilthen,

YOU: "Sorry that you took it so personally"

Yes it was probably just silly of me to take being called an arrogant crusader, with absolutely no examples to back it up, personally.

YOU: "As I have said before, I often have been challenged in debate with you, and at times find you dishonest in debate and closed to an 'open interchange of ideas'. Take it or leave it."

Since you provide no examples, and the truth is that I am entirely honest in debate, and completely open to interchange of ideas, I'll have to leave it. Should you choose to bring up this matter again however, please provide examples. If you can not, please keep your unfounded untrue accusations to yourself.

YOU: "I have not experienced you open to it all as you have said but rather being doctrinally immovable and on a crusade"

But of course you can not provide any examples of this so called "experience" you have that shows me to be "doctrinally immovable and on a crusade". Since you can not, I suggest once again that you keep such labeling to yourself. You may share it with the public when you can back it up with some sort of examples. Otherwise, it's going to cause me to retaliate with a little unsubstantiated name calling of my own. And this will surely degrade the post.

YOU: :"You go about countering every point, and deflecting others.

Again no examples, just an empty accusation.
I counter every point that I naturally disagree with as I should.
And you'll need to provide examples of this so called deflecting. Good luck.

YOU: "A shame, as I have enjoyed many of our exchanges. But that and what I have perceived through many posts as an arrogant and dismissive attitude have added up to disinterest in the end to continuing specific arguments"

I have no problem with you walking away. But keep the labels and accusations to yourself unless you have some examples and back up for them.

YOU: "It is what it is. This is not an "ad hominem" attack. It is an offering of my perception, for whatever that may be worth"

Wrong. Using words like Arrogant and crusader, rude, and dishonest, in a debate are ad hominem attack unless substantiated by examples and quotes.

"For whatever they may be worth"? without back-up, they are worth nothing.

YOU: "As I ended my last post I do so here. I mean not disrespect or sarcasm by this, but as my insight, take it or leave it"

It was taken, put through the BS filter, and spit out the other side, emptier than your head.

Hey now, don't take that empty head comment personally. I mean no disrespect or sarcasm here. It's just my honest perception of you that your head is empty. It is evident in all of your posts. What posts specifically? Don't ask me that. It's just my general perception and insight from your posts in general is all. Don't take it personally though. No disrespect meant. It's just what I perceive from your posts. Take it or leave it.

I hope you didn't take that personally.

timmy,

I have been forthcoming with my spiritual and religious affiliations and leanings here, often to you in conversing but to others as well. So there is no confusion:

Born and raised catholic, whose essential message I still have affection for. Love, peace, and compassion as fundamental tenets of a spiritually rewarding and fulfilling life. Non violence, against killing and war, against death penalties in all cases, forgiveness as a crucial and central spiritual practice.

Rejected catholicism and christianity in general by individually and by family vote preteen. Pursued martial arts and some basic Zen practices from 9 yrs old to 18 almost as a 'religion', (to use your reviled word), and continued in that way more lazily through my 20's.

Went back to christianity for awile in through some of high school as a born again. Never quite took, I did not fit it, it was really as a form of socializing within the context of spirituality, which has always been one of my great loves.

Went deeply into native american shamanism for twenty years, following a ceremonial path with a shaman. More than fascinating...

Blended kahuna studies and practices as I 'morphed' back to eastern practices. I lived at an ashram for five years as a resident, and continue my affiliation with them for what I imagine will be the rest of my life. Love it, and found that my experiences there were extensions of the native american shamanic work, though quite different.

I am happy to call myself christian, as I have already told you, with my definition of what it means to follow the teachings of Christ. Not as defined by most denominations, and not by your equally rigid and fundamentalist definition. You are a fundie!

But I am more accurately a buddhist, if a name needs to be applied. It does not, though.

Pax, peace, shalom, sa'alam, santihom... timmy.

PART 2

JUSTILLTHEN: “ If we assume that all aspects, or elements, (though consciousness is not defined as an element per se, it is an aspect), of life live under influence of the same laws, then consciousness must be interconnected as well. No? Why not?

That’s one hell of a big assumption.

If consciousness was “interconnected” then brains would have to be interconnected, and they clearly aren’t. We would also know what any other person (or animal?) was thinking without them telling us, and this isn’t the case. Where is your evidence? It seems to me that everything you’re saying is based on sheer speculation (whether yours or Jung’s) without one shred of corroboration.

JUSTILLTHEN: “How does it transfer? You clearly laugh at the idea, but I do not. ether? What is that?”

No, Justy, it’s obvious that you’re not skeptical about much of anything. Careful – this level of disingenuousness can get you into trouble. Don’t agree to buy any bridges.

Ether (skipping the definitions that refer to the anesthetic gas):
• The regions of space beyond the earth's atmosphere; the heavens.
• The element believed in ancient and medieval civilizations to fill all space above the sphere of the moon and to compose the stars and planets.
• Physics. An all-pervading, infinitely elastic, massless medium formerly postulated as the medium of propagation of electromagnetic waves.
[Note: “formerly”]

JUSTILLTHEN: “Oh, merde du cheval, Pamsmy. [Pamsmy??] You are an utter rationalist.”

Thank you. Indeed I am.

PART 1

JUSTILLTHEN: "Everything from physical matter through the emotional and mental realities and into the (assumed) spiritual ones are interconnected, as is all of life in the manifest plane. As matter does inevitably transcend it's current form to morph into a new organization of molecules, so can thought and emotion and 'spirit'. My body is a physical organization of molecules, but I do not consider it as "me". If anything, I consider it to be the physiological substrate that you speak of. The form of MY substance, which is not solid but substantive."

Gobble. De. Gook.

JUSTILLTHEN: "If the body morphs after the ceasation of animation into other forms of materiality, what of the consciousness that identified itself to that body? If the same laws apply, yet consciousness is non physical but is, say, energy, then by deduction could we not make similar assumptions that it also morphs?"

No.

Consciousness isn’t energy. It is just what it feels like to have a cerebral cortex. Try the experiments that I suggested before (baseball bat, destruction or removal of said cortex) and see for yourself (no need, really, since all have been done).

JUSTILLTHEN: "Magic is what we are doing now, in virtual time."

??? How do you figure that? I thought we were using computers – nothing magical about them. And I’m using mine in real time – dunno about you.

And you say "yes" to transferring thoughts, but I don't hear yours, and I'm willing to bet you can't tell me mine before I type them.

JUSTILLTHEN: "Magic is that I lived, in physical life, what I dreamed ten months ago, and it was to the t."

But, of course, we have only your word for that, and you don't give any details about how specific the dream was and how unlikely to be coincidence the following experience. Nor how repeatable. It's like the Jeane Dixon Effect. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Jeane+Dixon&btnG=Google+Search

frederic,

"I don’t believe in the independence of consciousness from the substrate of the body. When I die, my “consciousness”, build on the “substrate” (the sand in your example) is reintegrated into nature, where it has belonged through all my life anyway (that is my version of “eternal life”)."

I understand the recycling of elements, and this fits that model, assuming that thought 'dies' as physical elements are subject to. I am not certain of that. I am certain that conscious thought as we usually experience it is subject to the physical realm... If I am in pain I am in stress and that is reflected in thought...

But there are clearly different levels of thought, or conscious-ness. I do not believe that thought is CAUSED by the animated body. Effected by it, yes. Caused, no. I subscribe to the belief that consciousness is extra-physical, neither limited to the form or encased in it, or functional because the form is functional.

Hello timmy,

Thank you for the reply. Sorry that you took it so personally, though I understand. I thought I was being kinder while still saying what was I believe. I believe what I wrote. It was not intended as an attack, but more to tie up some of the less compassionate recent exchanges.

As I have said before, I often have been challenged in debate with you, and at times find you dishonest in debate and closed to an 'open interchange of ideas'. Take it or leave it. I have not experienced you open to it all as you have said but rather being doctrinally immovable and on a crusade. You go about countering every point, and deflecting others. This has led me to walk away more than once. A shame, as I have enjoyed many of our exchanges. But that and what I have perceived through many posts as an arrogant and dismissive attitude have added up to disinterest in the end to continuing specific arguments.

It is what it is. This is not an "ad hominem" attack. It is an offering of my perception, for whatever that may be worth.

As for your call for quotes, I believe that I have adopted your format in posting more often, particularly in exchanges with you. I quote YOU: " .... " and make my reply. That format has worked well in many cases, though it has a downside of veering toward analytical more than intuitive... :-) Which I understand is just logic and rationality being played out on the subconscious level of 'thought'... :-)

As I ended my last post I do so here. I mean not disrespect or sarcasm by this, but as my insight, take it or leave it.

Might this be the spirituality that Timmy refers to? The Carl Sagan kind......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_spirituality

Timmy - here again are the links, for your edification. Now you can choose to disregard and/or disbelieve any or all of this - but if so, then which part of Eastern religions is it that you find appealing?

Just below is the heart of all Eastern religions.....other parts of the 'philosophy' are non-essential to the core concept.

While I'm acquainted with science myself, I find value in various of the ideas and discoveries espoused by 'religious man' as well.

BTW, I'm with Frederic. I also would recommend the Oliver Sacks books regarding the world of neurology. He's as good a writer as he is a neurologist - we all remember 'Awakenings'.

It's all about perception Timmy - at times, I do perceive a certain high-handedness in your tone....the 'I'm right and you're wrong' approach. However, I'm in agreement that one should resist the impulse to be provocative e.g. ad hominum comments.

In fact, what we render here are opinions, some of which are supported by evidence and links, but oftentimes not. It's a 'take it or leave it' proposition, like I said.

For example, a person won't actually 'know' the validity of quantum mechanics (or cosmology) unless they happen to be a qualified quantum physicist doing the equations - even then, there are varying interpretations. Believe what you will. This too will change.....

The same is true of nondualism, which also proclaims the non-substantial nature of our apparent material reality. You can't actually know this to any degree of truth, unless you've had the experience of enlightenment or self-realization, typically guided by a master of the practice or meditative tradition.

It does say something about the nature of consciousness at a foundational level that western science typically disagrees with. Take it or leave it.......

PS. I also appreciated your tale of religious investigation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondualism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

Justilthen,

YOU: "Whatever brought you to it, you clearly have huge issue with religion"

It's no secret. My issue is that 3/4 of the planet is still under the spell of ancient superstition and it is causing much harm to the world I live in. I am well aware of your insistence that it really doesn't cause all that much harm and that it actually brings a lot of good, and that it is necessary. I respectfully disagree with all of these arguments. I have listened to your arguments, but I can not agree.

YOU: "I am not at peace altogether, ( I can hear you saying that you are and I say now that I do not believe it. At all"

So be it.

YOU: "Yet regarding religion I still find you blinded by anger, hated, and judgement of it.

Gee thanks doc.
I am in judgement of it. (as you are of me right now)
Anger? A little. Not at it. About it. But it's more frustration at the senselessness suffering.
Hatred? Of religion? Definitely not. It's not emotional for me. It's clinical diagnosis.
Blinded? To What? Be specific.

YOU: "It is there, as is your arrogant disdain for any and all 'believers' in 'religions'.

Poppycock! I have no disdain for the believers. It is you who blames the flock and I who criticize the religion as a victimizer of their minds.
And arrogance doesn't factor in at all. That is just more of your unsubstantiated ad hominem hyperbole.

YOU: "When you start slapping others for their own beliefs you insult. And that is what you do, though you would disagree"

Quotes please! I'm sick of this crap. Put up or shut up. You better start quoting me to back up these endless ad hominem accusations or keep them to yourself.

YOU: "You , on the other hand, really DO believe that you know better!"

Know what better? about who? or what? What the hell are you talking about? You give no specifics. Just vague empty accusations. Match this accusation to a quote in context so we can discuss it's merits.

YOU: "Be an athiest, I am really fine with that. But you are a Crusader, Sir Timmy, and your arrogance does your crusade no favors, friend"

Blah blah blah. Yawn. More of the same empty ad hominem unsubstantiated insults and psychoanalysis.

YOU: "You would serve your stated aim of helping to shepard the brainwashed flock into awareness by hiding better your contempt of them"

It's too bad being flat wrong didn't pay well, Justilthen, you'd be a millionaire. Once more, I do not have contempt for the flock, I have sympathy for them. They are the victims of the thing I rail against. The THING is my target. Get this one wrong again and I'm going to have to comment on the thickness of your skull.

Seriously Justilthen, save the psychoanalysis. And end the ad hominem attacks and slander. Quotes quotes quotes. Argue with my words all you want, but stop the labeling with no back-up..

We can have pleasant exchanges or not pleasant exchanges Justilthen. You decide.

Oliver Sacks, Neurologist, Columbia University NY.
Book: "The man who mistook his wife for a hat". Hugely entertaining, hugely enlightening, and centrally pertaining to the question of consciousness and "substrate". A "must read" for competence on the subject.

Hey frederic,

I have not read Oliver Sacks, but guess that I should.

More clearly, I agree that there is an interdependence between form and consciousness. Certainly the functionality of the form, (which is by constraints of a physical and sensual world more easily measured), makes a clear impression on the functionality of the consciousness IN THAT PHYSICAL REALM. But again, we are only measuring inside the physical realm, for that is the only place most of us are conscious in...

It is a thought...

If we were to be able to measure in a realm other than sensual and physical, can you be sure that your perception would remain the same?

Again, is consciousness limited to expression physically, or does it transcend physicallity? I believe that it does.

I mean no harm per 'remote psychoanalytic diagnosis'. I do not know others here. But I do know my experience of them, and my take on them. I do not swear by my take as if it were Truth. I have been wrong more than right I am sure, for the very reason that you say... We are outside, perceiving in.

But then again, others often have a less biased view of us than we do, in part because they are not invested in the story of us, while we are. It is easier to see without self induced blinders on.

Hello pamsm,

Nice story to timmy. I understand, and agree with the resistance to the Religious Right in America.

OK. To a couple of nuts. And bolts.

What was it that you said? Oh, yes...

"Oh, merde du cheval, Justy. You are a magical thinker.

All life is indeed interconnected in that we all, from mushroom to marsh hen, jellyfish to jennet, and hummingbird to human, go back to a common ancestor, but as for interconnected consciousness – why do we bother typing into this forum, then? Why not just transfer thoughts through…what? The ether?"

Yes. To the first as to the last. I would not say "magical" thinker, but if that floats you it does not trouble me. Magic is what we are doing now, in virtual time. Magic is that I lived, in physical life, what I dreamed ten months ago, and it was to the t. Regardless of what naysayers and scientific apologists have to say as explaination for something that they have yet to understand.

If we assume that all aspects, or elements, (though consciousness is not defined as an element per se, it is an aspect), of life live under influence of the same laws, then consciousness must be interconnected as well. No? Why not?

How does it transfer? You clearly laugh at the idea, but I do not. ether? What is that?

Oh, merde du cheval, Pamsmy. You are an utter rationalist.

Justilthen,

Thanks for your answer. My consciousness depends on the function of the “substrate”, see Oliver Sacks. ME is the PARTICULAR systemic organization of the molecules of my body (setting aside the energy/matter question for a while). The dunes are the particular forms created by the wind. ME are the dunes. The sand is the substrate.

Back to the strife, though: Justilthen, be careful with your hobby remote psychoanalytical diagnoses. You cannot tell me or Timmy or anybody WHY we feel or say something, to educate us about ourselves (in good religious tradition, sin, redemption and all..!). You cannot pretend to know more about me than I do myself.

Because with these remote diagnoses you rather disingenuously put me at a disadvantage, because I cannot disprove your stance beyond simply negating it, since there is no real substance to it other than a wild unfounded supposition. You don’t have to prove your diagnoses either, especially if they are adorned with some crushing authorities (C.G.Jung in your case). But they make for a high-yield straw man.

You know the story: Husband: “What is this green here in the soup”? Wife: “There you go again criticizing my cooking!” Why not simply say: “It is parsley”.

I have had this experience a couple of times in my life, people diagnosing me by saying “in reality” you “only” say or do this etc. etc. (The “remote” version adds a new variant, lol!) It is the end of any serious discussion. It also was the end of my marriage to a psychologist years ago.

I don’t believe in the independence of consciousness from the substrate of the body. When I die, my “consciousness”, build on the “substrate” (the sand in your example) is reintegrated into nature, where it has belonged through all my life anyway (that is my version of “eternal life”). People who demand a “supernatural” always appear to me as being infantile, greedy, condescending, even scornful, but always ignorant of nature. Nature, eventually unexplorable, but inviting the human spirit to explore it step by step, is all there is, it is everything, and I think it is plain silly to demand “more than everything”.

I don't hate them. I feel sorry for them. (Arrogant? Maybe.)

Hello timmy,

thank you for your religious background... I appreciate the story. We all have one.

Whatever brought you to it, you clearly have huge issue with religion. I am sorry for that, but I understand it too. For my own reason I am here putting words to the emotions that are at the root of it for me, now. I am not at peace altogether, ( I can hear you saying that you are and I say now that I do not believe it. At all.)

I remain with what I started with, though. However you word your story is great. Really, as I find greater compassion hearing you tell it than withhold it. Yet regarding religion I still find you blinded by anger, hated, and judgement of it. Whatever it was that brought that about, and the passion that you fell about it, is whatever it is. It is there, as is your arrogant disdain for any and all 'believers' in 'religions'.

That is fine to do and be. When you start slapping others for their own beliefs you insult. And that is what you do, though you would disagree.

If I insult, (I believe that I do! often enough), I wave the flag about it. I recognize my own arrogance and sarcasm, but I also try to be real about it. You , on the other hand, really DO believe that you know better!

"You sound like the deluded religionists who accuse atheists of being atheists because we are angry at God for causing floods and disease. lol."

Be an athiest, I am really fine with that. But you are a Crusader, Sir Timmy, and your arrogance does your crusade no favors, friend.

I mean that respectfully and without sarcasm. You would serve your stated aim of helping to shepard the brainwashed flock into awareness by hiding better your contempt of them.

Hello frederic2

Thanks for the welcome.

And for the rah-rahhing of Jung! Yin could not be, but for the yanging it gets.

I am not as versed as some in here, but will answer your question how I do. I am in essential agreement with you, and I see it in this way...
Everything from physical matter through the emotional and mental realities and into the (assumed) spiritual ones are interconnected, as is all of life in the manifest plane. As matter does inevitably transcend it's current form to morph into a new organization of molecules, so can thought and emotion and 'spirit'. My body is a physical organization of molecules, but I do not consider it as "me". If anything, I consider it to be the physiological substrate that you speak of. The form of MY substance, which is not solid but substantive.

What is consciousness, frederic? what is emotional? Is it really a neurons directive, or an effect of a chemical interaction? These are the substrates, and the reflections of air upon earth. The way that wind plays upon sand dunes at the sea...

I can hear the clamoring of the vocal and busy brained seagulls mocking the wind, just as they feed off of it.

What other time might one equate seagulls with the rationally bent of human consciousness, anyway...?

Everything interacts... WHAT IS consciousness? Is it in my brain? Is that the domain of consciousness, or is that the organ, physically manifest, that serves as the vehicle for consciousness, and because we are sensually focused it is all that we see to ascribe it to?

The substrate, as you put it.

And if matter is just energy, then what of the substrate? What is causal, what is real, what is transient?

If the body morphs after the ceasation of animation into other forms of materiality, what of the consciousness that identified itself to that body? If the same laws apply, yet consciousness is non physical but is, say, energy, then by deduction could we not make similar assumptions that it also morphs?

Did I answer your one question, or did I just ask a lot of my own questions, frederic?

Hi Timmy,
I get this stuff from believers all the time, too - how I must have been "hurt" by religion, or some of its representatives, or I must be "angry" with God because he didn't answer my prayers, or some such utter rot.

The truth of it is, that when I was somewhere between 6 and 7 years old, a classmate told me that there was no Santa Claus - that the parents put the presents under the tree.

I was, of course, horrified and indignant. I probably called the other child a liar. But I've always had an analytical bent, and I began thinking about it - hard.

After a few days, I went to my mother and told her that I knew that Santa Claus wasn't real, because there was no way that reindeer could fly - they just weren't built for it. After a brief attempt to convince me that magic allowed it, she had to reluctantly admit that I was right.

Now I suppose that I had accepted the reality of God and Jesus for the same reason - because my mother told me so (my father didn't talk about religion and rarely went to church, but if pressed, would say he believed), but I never had the same investment in them that I did in Santa - after all, Santa had proven benefits. Religion pretty much went in one ear and out the other at this point. Ho hum.

Now that I knew that parents didn't always tell the truth, I was free to question anything - and I did. Everything after that had to pass the plausibility test, and religion just never did.

I continued to be dragged to church and Sunday school for years after that, but at the same time, I was developing an abiding interest in natural sciences - biology, geology, paleontology, embryology, genetics, evolution, theriogenology, astronomy, meteorology - and my mind was always elsewhere when I sat in the pews.

I used to argue with one of my father's friends about religion when I was still a pre-teen. In high school I began to debate classmates. But on the whole, I was content to live and let live for most of my life. I considered believers sadly misguided, if not completely irrational, but I didn't really care.

That all began to change with the rise of the Religious Right in America and their obvious agenda to make this country a theocracy.

I may not quite qualify as a militant, but I am much more inclined to speak out.

Timmy's religious background

Part two

Some years later, I had a friend who dragged me to his church, and I liked the pastor so I continued to go for a short while. At some point I was talking with the pastor and told him of my earlier experience and he agreed to help me give it another shot. He guided me on what to do, I did it, and guess what? Crickets.

Again I reported back to the pastor and again, I do not remember his explanation, but I remember that whatever he said, convinced me that I was an atheist. God was like Santa Clause for adults, was my conclusion.

I certainly would not call myself angry about it, even back then. Annoyed would be more accurate.

So there you have it. This is what Justilthen was talking about when he said that I
"had been deeply involved in religion, christian, and turned away disgusted".

When he said: "Timmy is also a refugee of christianity"

And: "As you were an indoctrinated christian when you were younger and eventually turned away in disgust, this is of great impact on your current spiritual perspectives and intentions"

I was not "indoctrinated" I am no "refugee" and I was never "deeply involved" in the Christian religion. And this experience in no way is reflected in my current scientific spirituality.

No God ever hurt me. I explored the God hypothesis honestly like the open minded child of an open minded mother, and discovered that I did not believe in what most people believed in.

Later in life, I studied history and religion and put it all together what religion was all about. Nothing could be more obvious once you look at the history of it and the science we now have. It's quite the no brainer. Does it upset me that I live in a world where 3/4 of the population can not see this no brainer? You bet.

I do loathe religion. I can live with that. It's far less depressing than loathing humanity.

Alright so here it is. Timmy's religious background.

Part 1.

I imagine that Justilthen is talking about the story I tell of my youth when I get challenged by a Thomas Baum type, who tells me that God has not acknowledged himself to me because I have never honestly searched for him. But the truth is that I have.

My first recollection of anything religious was asking my mom about sunday school, having heard about it from my neighborhood friends. My parents were not religious and they were also divorced when I was five, so I lived with my mother and brother and sister. I remember asking my mom what religion were we? And she said "I don't know, protestant?"

I've since found out that she used this opportunity of interest on my part to get a little free baby sitting out of the sunday school by sending me and my siblings there every Sunday one summer with the neighborhood kids. She was also an open minded person who thought that we should be exposed to church even though she did not go herself. I do remember her telling me that I could decide for myself what I thought about what they would teach me. I'm pretty sure that for me, God was assumed at this point (due to general societal acceptance of this reality that I had perceived) but very mysterious as I had no education about him.

I was intrigued by what they taught me in Sunday school, and I don't remember being skeptical right off the bat, in fact I remember being quite fearful all of a sudden about my fate. And I do remember wanting to be good in the eyes of God. I wanted to do what was right.

At some point I remember them talking about this notion that if you prayed to Jesus and asked him to come into your heart, then you would feel him enter you and you would feel the revelation of God. I Asked the minister to tell me exactly how to do this. He told me and I did what he said, at home alone in my room. With all sincerity and earnest faith I asked Jesus to come into my heart. Crickets. Nothing. I tried several more times over several days. Crickets. Nothing.

I went back to the minister and told him about my attempts and how I had not felt Jesus. I don't remember his explanation, but I remember very clearly that his explanation set off my early developing BS meter. I remember that this was the day I began to suspect that there was some lying going on.

I eventually stopped going to Sunday school, as everything they said after that was setting off my BS meter. But I don't think that I was quite an atheist yet.

Justilthen,

Continued.
I SAID: "Any religion that does not involve deity belief or supernatural belief is not a religion it is a philosophy."

YOU SAID: "Convenient to label and compartmentalize for your psyche perhaps, but religions by definition are belief systems involving the 'supernatural"

That's what I just said. If it does not involve the supernatural then it is not defined as a religion. You just said the equivalent of "ditto" to my statement.

YOU: "My my but you have a tough relationship with the 'supernatural"

There's no such thing as the supernatural.

YOU: Which God did you ugly, timmy? My bet, it was no god but church, man, clergy, yourself"

Swing and a miss.

YOU: All I have seen and read from you has the one commonality in it, which is loathing of religion. You are blinded by your hatred of "the extreme harm caused to human civilization by deity belief"

I am witness to these things. And I speak out against them.
But they do not cause blind hatred. I am calm cool and collected. You are the one who uses all the exclamation points all the time!!!!!

YOU: "Again, what god did you so ugly?"

I do not believe in God or gods. So they can't hurt me.

You sound like the deluded religionists who accuse atheists of being atheists because we are angry at God for causing floods and disease. lol.

Justilthen,

YOU: "No, I do not have you confused with someone else. I am clear by your denial that you are invested in anonymity regarding your religious background, and that is something that I also find not only dishonest in debate but also dishonest personally"

Horse poop. You are trying to make the point that I am hiding something by telling us that you know this because I told you about it once? Well then how could I be hiding it if I told you about it? I have no problem revealing my background. And I will, after I watch you squirm a little more first, and slander me with your inaccurate recollection of what I told you once before, and your assumption that I am hiding something about myself. It's really entertaining me right now. But I will reveal in good time, or maybe you will find it and post it and we can all look at how inaccurate your recollection is, and what an absurd notion it is that I would have to hide it from people for any reason.

YOU: "I agree with persiflage that, in a better world, there should be some form of establishment of personal background for 'context', but also as a honorable thing"

But what about you Justilthen? I have asked you on several occasions and you have ignored the question. Are you religious? I have asked you why you do not call yourself a Christian? Got something against Jesus? Remember? You didn't answer. Are you hiding Justilthen? Are you being dishonest?

YOU: "Yet, again, there is no evidence disproving that 'supernatural consciousness' does not exist"

There is no evidence proving that Charles Manson is not Jesus.
There is no evidence proving that the tooth fairy does not exist.

Do you see what a ridiculously moot point this is?

Hello timmy,

No, I do not have you confused with someone else. I am clear by your denial that you are invested in anonymity regarding your religious background, and that is something that I also find not only dishonest in debate but also dishonest personally.

I agree with persiflage that, in a better world, there should be some form of establishment of personal background for 'context', but also as a honorable thing. The internet may be 'virtual', but allows virtual camoflage as well. Who is someone else, really? What is the truth of a poster? It is hard to establish and trust, but that trust goes a long way toward honest debate, and so therefore conscious growth.

As we know, you deride deity worship and belief in the supernatural, and loath religions whose foundational tenets are rooted in these things. OK. Yet, again, there is no evidence disproving that 'supernatural consciousness' does not exist.

"Any religion that does not involve deity belief or supernatural belief is not a religion it is a philosophy."

Convenient to label and compartmentalize for your psyche perhaps, but religions by definition are belief systems involving the 'supernatural'.

"And any religion that does involve deity belief or supernatural belief, may have value in it, but that value is poisoned by the deity belief or supernatural belief part."

My my but you have a tough relationship with the 'supernatural'. That is assuming, as I do, that it exists. If it does not, to play that point, then it is still OK in my view as it is self induced... :-)
Which God did you ugly, timmy? My bet, it was no god but church, man, clergy, yourself.

"I am not blinded by hatred and judgement."

Yes, you are, timmy. All I have seen and read from you has the one commonality in it, which is loathing of religion. You are blinded by your hatred of "the extreme harm caused to human civilization by deity belief".

Again, what god did you so ugly?

Justilthen,

"Justilthen,

YOU: "When one is violently against a thing you can just about bet it all there is a deep pain in there that is blamed on that same thing"

lol. I am violently against religion am I? You are truly delusional now. And hyperbolic. And slanderous.

YOU: "In one he said that he had been deeply involved in religion, christian, and turned away disgusted"

Capital B capital S.
You really need to stop talking out your ass on this one. I know the thing you are referring to and you have it completely wrong. I'm going to let you keep on psychoanalyzing me though based on your erroneous assessment from your vague recollection. This is fun.

YOU: "Timmy doesn't seem to dialogue honestly all the time.."

Example please! Lies lies and more lies. None of your accusations have been backed up by quotes. You are a walking talking ad hominem spewing machine.

YOU: "He doesn't appear to have the function of contemplating the possibility that his own belief system may not be altogether true"

I don't have a belief "SYSTEM".
My beliefs are ever evolving with new information and insight.

Boy I can't wait for the next round of ad hominem attacks with no quotes or substance to back them up.

Persiflage,

YOU: "Timmy, I stand by my assessment of you - you're a rude dude with an attitude, and have no respect for differing points of view"

Funny. I could give you multiple examples of you making ad hominem personal attacks on me and calling me names as above, and yet you will not find examples of me calling you any names or making any personal attacks whatsoever.

Can you quote me being rude please? Or stop referring to me as such.

YOU: "And good luck separating the 'essential' person from their beliefs and values, religious or otherwise"

Uh, that's not my goal. Can you quote me saying that is what I am trying to do?
I should wish you luck on that goal because as I read it, that sounds to me like the vedantic goal.

YOU: "Could I have your personal definition of spirituality again, please?"

It is the secular one. The scientific one. The Carl Sagan one. The non supernatural one. It's not just mine. It's quite common.

YOU: "I vaguely remember your current mindset from it's last major iteration in the USA - about 1969..."

And then you go on to thrash this straw man to bits. Nice work. Put upon me a position of your own invention and description and then argue with that. Nice work. Now try doing what I do. I quote your actual words, instead of telling you what your opinion is in my own words. And then I argue with YOUR words and your actual points.

YOU: "Timmy, sometimes you makes good sense and then at other times, it's pure Timmy sense - and that's another thing altogether"

You mean sometimes you agree with me and sometimes you don't?
Same goes for you. Sometimes you make sense, and other times it's pure Persiflage sense - and that's another thing altogether.

YOU: "I'm not doing all your work for you - if you don't understand an idea or a concept, look it up rather than mock it with your now-famously imperious Timmy-tone"

There is no such thing as "essential reality". It is an invented concept. It's not me that needs to do the work. You are the one making the claim that this thing called "essential reality" exists beyond the realm of science and philosophy and religion. That's quite a claim. I was just wondering if you had any evidence for it, or reason to believe it exists? If you don't, that's fine. I'll just have to assume that this thing for which you have no evidence or credible hypothesis for, does not exist.

Hello persiflage,

Yes, it is almost a certainty that when one is passionately invested in a subject they have had some experience(s) that cause that passion. You rarely find a crusader for any cause where they have no 'inspiration' for their passion about that cause. When one is violently against a thing you can just about bet it all there is a deep pain in there that is blamed on that same thing.

As I can see reading these next posts, Sir Timmy is swinging the Sword of Righteousness looking to take the head off my Blasphemy...

I have gone after looking in past topic threads where I was engaged with timmy in debating the inherent good and evil of religion. In one he said that he had been deeply involved in religion, christian, and turned away disgusted. I probably will continue looking, but there is so much to do in life and hunting a quote is not as high a priority as spending the time chatting, or working.

Timmy doesn't seem to dialogue honestly all the time... That may be when he is confronted with a counterpoint with some credibility. He doesn't appear to have the function of contemplating the possibility that his own belief system may not be altogether true. Even as he says that he is open to all possibilities. And his greatest (apparent) blind spot is his very Cause, Battling the Evil God-zilla Reptillia. :-))) I kinda like how that turned out!

I agree with you re the Eastern Religions/(Philosophies) = Good comment. Non deistic. Not all are, as we know, but the concept of a personal path to self realization has the effect of placing the power, and responsibility, in the hands of the practitioner more than religious heirarchy or a deity. So... philosophy sounds nicer...

santihom

From me to you Timmy - no thanks necessary.
Remember, it's all Zen......

http://guitarplayerzen.com/2009/01/28/guitar-player-zen-embrace-the-subtle-within/

Timmy, I stand by my assessment of you - you're a rude dude with an attitude, and have no respect for differing points of view. Points of view proferred by fellow humans that you have such considerable respect for.....but in an abstract way, it would seem.

And good luck separating the 'essential' person from their beliefs and values, religious or otherwise.

Misanthrope? Another Timmy term with a Timmy meaning, I suppose - kind of like spirituality.
You did say you were the most spiritual person you knew, did you not? Could I have your personal definition of spirituality again, please?

I vaguely remember your current mindset from it's last major iteration in the USA - about 1969....we were all listening to CCNY and Leonard Cohen, Joni Mitchell, the Beatles, and reading 'Zen Mind-No Mind', 'The Master Game', 'On The Road', 'Been Down So Long It Looks Like Up To Me', 'The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test', 'Trout Fishing in America', 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', books by Tom Robbins, and so many other dead and now-forgotten authors.

There may have been smoke in the air, but it's hard to recall. I know we were going to save the world. Do I hear the ghost of John Lennon? And now it's books by Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett, et al - and saving the world from religion. Much more serious stuff....

Your message is salvific - meaning you intend to save people from themselves and uncover their goodness, by enlightening them as to the falsity of their religious beliefs. If you deny that observation, then you're denying everything you stand far.

Timmy, sometimes you makes good sense and then at other times, it's pure Timmy sense - and that's another thing altogether.

And BTW, it is misanthropic to imagine that you're right 100% of the time - but you seem to believe this to be the case as regards your own take on religion.

Yup - we're agreeing to disagree. And no Timmy, I'm not doing all your work for you - if you don't understand an idea or a concept, look it up rather than mock it with your now-famously imperious Timmy-tone ...

'This ought to be good', smirks Timmy. Why yes, Timmy it was good - check it out for yourself.

Thanks Frederick.

Your posts are too few and far between for me. You are a master elucidator.

I agree with you. Reductionism takes nothing away from wonder, emotion, intuition, love, compassion, and spirituality. (secular definition) Why would any of those things be illogical?

I've never understood why certain people see reductionism as counter to, adverse to, or hostile to spirituality. I know of no atheist who relies on reductionism alone to give them their answers. That notion is absurd and a cop-out accusation, this "you guys think that reason and logic are the be all end all" blah blah blah.

Why would science miss God? Where are they not looking?
I've never heard of a scientist who did not use passion and intuition in their work alongside logic and reason and the scientific method.

Scientists have feelings too. And they do not ignore them, like the religious ignore logic and reason and evidence in favor of faith.

Faith in what is the question? People think that they have faith in God, but what they really have is faith in the people who told them about God. Except for people like Thomas Baum who claim to have had direct communication with God. But the rest have faith in the people who told them about God, not in God himself. That would be impossible.

Part two:
And back to the religious “truth” systems: It certainly is a question of temperament, how fiercely one defends one’s point of view. But if the ”codifications and structures” (actually of tribal origin) or the “format” you refer to as the reason for religions are based on ancient made-up stories lacking the slightest bit of credibility that terrorize or bribe humans into a certain behavior, I understand that there is no “tolerant” middle ground anymore. Here, nobody can be “a little bit pregnant“. You cannot talk about reality as “faith-based” or “evidence based” (my word) on the same intellectual level. Evidence can be falsified, faith can never be falsified – the basis is missing.

If the “search for meaning” is quenched by the most incredible atrocities in the "holy" books of the Abrahamic religions and then forced down the throat of a society, there is no reason to be tolerant against such intolerance. I don’t think you can use the concept of tolerance if parents threaten their children with hell or with Santa’s punishment if they don’t behave according to the wishes of their parents. And, as history shows, this cannot be shrugged away as one of many possible innocent ways to cope with children: It is a grave danger in itself. These children grow up!

Other, non-personal religions certainly fulfill an innate desire for “meaning”, for understanding of our existence. Philosophy does, too. But even as a “spiritual atheist” (we had long fruitless discussions about the word “spiritual”, which for instance in German does not have a religious connotation). I think I get a lot of "meaning" (more than if I blindly follow some funny ritual) by merely beholding the miracles of nature (without the crutch or place holder of a personal creator or super-policeman) to explain for the incredible variations and beauty of everything. And even as an atheist I have tears in my eyes when I simply imagine the final choir of Bach’s St. Matthew passion.

The fact that I can understand the function of neurons doesn’t take the slightest bit of this wonder away – on the contrary, it squares them.

Justilthen,

Glad you are back.

The fact that Jung did not have access to the brain neurological scientific findings of the last fifty years does not subtract any bit of his greatness as a thinker and founder of one of the most prominent psychological schools (there are others, of course). It certainly is not “pooh-poohing” him, as you choose to describe it.

Justilthen, there is one single idea I would like your thought-out opinion, maybe we could even agree on: Don’t you think that EVERY emotional, psychological phenomenon we perceive and experience in our life needs a physiological substrate, mostly in our brain, just as our sheer personal existence and profile is based on the “material” genes we inherited? The genes are the chemical scripts consisting of four code substances each. Does that mean it denigrates our feelings? Psychology for me works on the overarching “systemic” level, while neurology furnishes the necessary “material” or phenomenological substrate. (BTW, the concept of “material” has also changed tremendously; does matter really exist as we perceive it? Or is it all energy? Matter seems to be a form of energy, since the two can be morphed one into the other. So there is lots of leeway to continue open, non-religion-based thinking and intuiting…)

Persiflage,

YOU: "I was unaware of Timmy's past history with religion, and I think it does go a long way toward explaining Timmy's complete and rather extreme aversion to all elements of faith-based or 'revealed' religion - and particularly Christianity"

You are still unaware and so is Justilthen. None of you have any clue as to what you are talking about. I have never been a Christian.

YOU: "I believe this deep association has to be acknowledged - calling certain appealing elements 'philosophy' does not mean it exists apart from a parent tradition"

Yes it does. Name one "appealing element" of any religion that does not exists apart from it's parent tradition.

YOU: "According to these traditions, essential reality is said to be beyond the domain of religion, philosophy, psychology, or science - and I see no reason to disagree with this point of view"

Define "essential reality" please.
This ought to be good.

Justilthen,

Part three.

YOU: "They all serve as formats, if you will, to put to use and give direction to our spiritual natures"

To put to whose use and give who's direction to our spiritual natures? You think there are experts on spirituality? I sure don't. What a ridiculous notion. And what an opportunity for exploitation.

YOU: "You disagree with the morality and value of the religions and the direction that they point humanity in"

No I disagree with their truth claims and the moral authority derived there from.

YOU: "But they are a format, as academic learning is. Many have issue with what public schools teach, or private ones for that matter. But it is a structure for learning"

Spirituality can not be taught. Should not be taught. Can not be learned. Because there are no experts. No one has any answers in this realm. There could not possibly be any "requirements for adherents".

YOU: "You cannot prove that an originating God does not exist, or that a pantheon of them does, or that all that is real is scientific and logical and the intuitive is indeed a form of the logical and so completely rational"

What on earth makes you think I need to prove any of that?
Nobody can prove any negative. You can't prove that Charles Manson is not Jesus. This is a ridiculous argument.
All I need is the mountain of evidence and the simple reason and logic that points clearly and obviously to the obvious obvious fact that Bible God is a myth. An invention of man. And that belief in this particular Bible God, who was obviously invented by men seeking to gain power over people, has caused and continues to cause unacceptable harm to humanity. This evidence is embarrassingly clear.

YOU: "Spirituality is inherent in humans, and established religions are the pc and socially accepted ways to give definition to spirituality"

No they are attempts by certain groups to codify and control spirituality and the spiritual.

YOU: "But I also recognize the necessity for religions, and the inevitability of them"

I recognize neither. I've never heard a case for the necessity of religion. And while they WERE inevitable to have arisen in the first place, their continued spell is not necessary, or inevitable.

Justilthen,

Part two.

YOU: "Some religions do not present concrete answers, per se, but offer cosmological assumptions and directions for pursuing that version of spirituality. One of the clearest examples of that is some versions of Buddhism, for instance. Taoism. Zen. There is form and structure, disciplines and philosopies, dieties in some cases as examples of realized beings..."

I consider these more philosophies than religions. I do not rail against these. I do however criticize the need to hold onto the supernatural claims. In my opinion they can only poison a true exploration of the cosmological assumption. They provide no benefit.

YOU: "They give comfort to many, and a sense of place socially and culturally, nurturing and belonging, as they also have given pain and discomfort and disillusionment. As is also the nature of humans..."

Here we disagree. Comfort and community can come from other places. Religion is far from the only source for these things. In fact the deity belief part is not true comfort. Heaven doesn't help us deal with death, it helps us not deal with death. And given that the good can come without the pain, and given the mountainous volume of the pain caused by deity belief, there is just no reason to endorse it, or placate it, or defend it.

As for the nature of humans. You have no evidence of modern human nature in the absence of the spell of deity belief. The closest examples are societies like Denmark and Scandinavia. And they don't support your misanthropic view of humans.

Justilthen,

YOU: "If I may offer a bit of balance. Timmy is also a refugee of christianity... He has history. Has he not shared it?"

Nonsense. You have me confused with someone else.

YOU: "Timmy!!! You rail against the evil of religion, yet do not yourself speak openly and honestly??? What a surprise"

Nonsense. Care to back up this claim you are making with some actual evidence instead of exclamation points!!!!!

YOU: "When it comes to 'religion' you appear to be blinded by hatred and judgement, disallowing you to perceive anything of value or worth"

No I don't. Again, can you tie this ad hominem personal attack to any actual quotes for vetting? I doubt it.
I perceive the value and worth just as you do, it's just that anything that is of value is not religion. It is just philosophy that is available to the secular world and it comes from our common human ancestry and amalgamation of wisdom. Any religion that does not involve deity belief or supernatural belief is not a religion it is a philosophy. And any religion that does involve deity belief or supernatural belief, may have value in it, but that value is poisoned by the deity belief or supernatural belief part.

I am not blinded by hatred and judgement. The evidence for the extreme harm caused to human civilization by deity belief and belief in the supernatural is mountainous, clear, and omnipresent. From my perspective it is you who is blinded. By what? I don't know. Because the evidence is clear.

YOU: "As you were an indoctrinated christian when you were younger and eventually turned away in disgust, this is of great impact on your current spiritual perspectives and intentions"

You haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about. You don't know me pal. My history that you describe is in your head. I assure you, not one ounce of my spirituality owes anything to any religion. My spirituality involves no spirits.

YOU: 'Some religions believe that they have the answers, and some of those ones continue to evolve their answers and requirements of their adherents"

Whoa! Stop right there. "requirements of adherents"?????
What on earth would make you think that spirituality should be poisoned by "requirements of adherents". You just pinpointed the problem that is religion. Using people's spirituality to create "requirements for adherents". Please please please tell me why you think that spirituality can be aided by a group administering "requirements for adherents"?

Persiflage,

Continued.

"YOU: "But then, why should you care so strongly about how religion is contaminating what could be an otherwise largely trouble-free world? You'll be long dead before much change occurs as regards the status of the world's religions - by your own admission this will take generations. What's the rush?"

I just do not relate to this attitude. I do not know why you do not feel a responsibility to future generations of humanity but I sure do. It is innate. I am always thinking big picture. Do you think that Socrates believed that his endeavors would change the world in his lifetime? I think that he was thinking big big picture. Why do you not think big picture? Why do you admonish me for caring about the plight of humanity beyond my own demise?
Why did people speak out against slavery? Why not just let it work itself out slowly? What was the rush?

YOU: "But I'm pleased that you've elected yourself as our savior in the meantime - well, a secular savior of course, but a redeemer all the same. Brother, what an inflated ego!"

I have not elected myself savior any more than you have. We all speak out against what we see as harmful to our society. We are not electing ourselves savior. We are expressing our care for humanity. Where do you get "ego" from? I have no more an inflated ego than those who speak out with conviction against racism. We just disagree on the level of harm that ancient deity belief religions have on our world. I think that it is massive and you think that it is more humans that are the problem than religion.

YOU: "BTW, write a book...that will get your message out that much faster"

Nonsense. The internet is the fastest way! I've written at least 5 books worth of text on this issue on all sorts of internet blogs and forums.

YOU: "And that will make 6 books that more or less support the Timmy point of view"

There are a lot more than 6. I was just talking about the best sellers list in the last five years alone. It's been slowly gaining ground ever since people stopped getting burned to death for it.

YOU: "I've read the first five.....and you?"

yup.

Persiflage,

YOU: "Timmy - you're full of it up to your eye brows. Where in the world did you get that arrogant streak that is evident in so many of your posts? You love humanity, but humans, maybe not so much"

Above is what we call ad hominem attack. No argument of substance on points made, no quotes or evidnce, just personal emotional lashing out.

I see it quite the opposite, Persiflage. It is I who are high on humans and down on religions and religious texts. I am against institutions (religious or otherwise) that brainwash people . None of my ire is aimed at the flocks, it is all aimed at the scriptures filled with lies, and the institutions that push them.

You on the other hand want to put full responsibility on the flock members themselves for believing what they believe, in spite of their childhood indoctrination into believing that the truthiest truth is that the Christian Bible is the sacred word our maker, and only the devil says otherwise. And the punishment for listening to the devil is damnation to eternal Hellfire.

You are the one arguing that modern humans would be war-like and tribal with or without religion. You argue the misanthropic view that such behavior is innate in humans, and will always be with us. I argue that it is not innate and that we can overcome it. You point to evidence of warring and conflict that is supposedly not related to religion, seemingly blind to the fact that all of the warring nations you refer to were religious nations. All of this supposed "natural human nature to war" evidence that you point to has all been displayed by people under the spell of religion. (deity belief). It can not be pointed to as an example of human nature in the absence of religion, just because the actual conflict between the two nations was not specifically about doctrine.

You are the misanthrope. Onofrio has already admitted that he is one. I am the non misanthrope. I am the human optimist. I am with Dennet. 70% of our world is just under an ancient spell that needs to be broken.

Your argument that I am the one who is down on humans is more backwards than your view that religious texts are the victims of fundamentalists.

JUSTILLTHEN -

Reading back through the last number of posts I see mentioned Timmy's escape from his own kind of religious indoctrination. I also found Onofrio's shared religious history, which I hadn't seen before now.

It seems commendable to establish one's personal background at some point, because it provides context to the conversation.

I was unaware of Timmy's past history with religion, and I think it does go a long way toward explaining Timmy's complete and rather extreme aversion to all elements of faith-based or 'revealed' religion - and particularly Christianity. Frederic reports having had the same negative experience.

As to Eastern religions, I'm sure we both understand that the philosophy that Timmy finds compelling here, is completely integrated within the matrix of a larger religious tradition (to use Onofrio's term) whether it be Vedanta, Buddhism or Taoism.

I believe this deep association has to be acknowledged - calling certain appealing elements 'philosophy' does not mean it exists apart from a parent tradition - and that is in fact religious by definition.

It is true that both Zen and the Tibetan Dzogchen both claim to be existential in nature, and beyond the formality of religion - but this refers to the nature of reality itself rather than religious rites, rituals, and practice.

According to these traditions, essential reality is said to be beyond the domain of religion, philosophy, psychology, or science - and I see no reason to disagree with this point of view.

In the end, it's a 'take it or leave it' proposition. I personally have no desire to convert anyone to my own particular point of view.

For the most part, we're all equally earthbound - although our respective points of view may not be.

Timmy,

While I agree with you that generally speaking “Religion is close minded” and “set in stone”, you are missing a big wide window open for religious leaders: an illiterate prophet may claim to be son of God and totally change the direction of a religion. Or a sleazy person can say that an angel sent by God told him the REAL truth, and voila, a new religion is created.

But yes, once a religious enterprise is prosperous, they become conservative, closed minded and carved in stone. To sustain the growth they brainwash or condition the parents to ensure they bring little new adherents to the organization.

Peace to all,

JAC

timmy,

One point I wanted to make on all the various religions is this: They all serve as formats, if you will, to put to use and give direction to our spiritual natures. You disagree with the morality and value of the religions and the direction that they point humanity in, I am clear, and take great issue with the dogma and teaching they offer, as lies and brainwashing and, I gather, the fundamental evil that you see 'religions' to be... OK.

But they are a format, as academic learning is. Many have issue with what public schools teach, or private ones for that matter. But it is a structure for learning.

In this case what is taught is not science based but faith based. Right or wrong.

You cannot prove that an originating God does not exist, or that a pantheon of them does, or that all that is real is scientific and logical and the intuitive is indeed a form of the logical and so completely rational. You spear anything that does not line up to your logical mind as you go about instructing the pitifully brainwashed around here how to see more clearly.

Spirituality is inherent in humans, and established religions are the pc and socially accepted ways to give definition to spirituality. I disagree with much of the conditioning of religions as well, and have great distaste for what has been done by them, and what is being done by them. But I also recognize the necessity for religions, and the inevitability of them. Humans "establish" agreements about everything, and form philosophy and science into convention.

Hello timmy,

First I checked out of this debate a few days ago out or frustration, and I clearly needed some distance, regain perspective, and do some actual work. Not in this order. So I appologize for not responding to your last posts, (I did not to frederic or pam either, for similar reasons). When deja vu is called misfiring neurons because some science does not yet have an adequate neurological/psychological explaination for it, and Jung is poo-pooed, I realize that I am speaking with people that have a very different intention in their perception of life than I do.

I have some imputs to the current conversation. First, as you may guess, I am in general or full agreement with onofrio and persiflage on the positions they take in many of these topics.

When it comes to 'religion' you appear to be blinded by hatred and judgement, disallowing you to perceive anything of value or worth. I am sure that you will disagree with that, but I have found that you disagree with most things that I've said, almost knee-jerk, so I will accept that you will continue to. You disagreed that your spirituality owes a debt to religion, but I am certain that it does. As you were an indoctrinated christian when you were younger and eventually turned away in disgust, this is of great impact on your current spiritual perspectives and intentions. You are indeed colored by religion, overmuch perhaps, but that is your story to live...

You said to persiflage: "Religion is a hijacking of spirituality. An unnecessary and even damaging codification of spirituality. Spirituality is searching for answers, religion is having found the answers."

Some religions believe that they have the answers, and some of those ones continue to evolve their answers and requirements of their adherents. Some religions do not present concrete answers, per se, but offer cosmological assumptions and directions for pursuing that version of spirituality. One of the clearest examples of that is some versions of Buddhism, for instance. Taoism. Zen. There is form and structure, disciplines and philosopies, dieties in some cases as examples of realized beings...

These are also religions, along with those Abrahamic ones and many others. They do good, as well as 'evil'. As do people. They give comfort to many, and a sense of place socially and culturally, nurturing and belonging, as they also have given pain and discomfort and disillusionment. As is also the nature of humans...

timmy,

continued.

Religion is another extension of humanity, in this case humankinds search for meaning to life and such deeper and unanswered questions, and this search creates theories and beliefs and philosopies and experiences and ... gets organized, formed and codified into structures that are religions. We do this with everything. One of the main difference with religions is that it's subject is about that which there are as yet no provable answers... It is not based on the physical universe but the belief in an 'ethereal' one.

Of course you know this.

You are here to instruct the brainwashed away from their destructive drug of religious belief.

"That's what I'm here for. To educate any of the brainwashed who might be listening because they're sure not going to get this education in schools."

Arrogance and egoism are psychological drugs, to. We could ask Freud about that, as you seem to be unwilling to give adequate recognition to Jung. Freud was more the kind of scientist that your world view finds affirming, along with having the added plus of hating religions in general while Jung was far less critical of them as causal of psychological disease.

I believe in conditioning, and the term brainwashing is overly dramatic. It can be applied in some cases for sure, but conditioning applies to all aspects of our lives. I disagree that 80% of americans are bible believers by early childhood, as you assert, (I believe for dramatic effect and to make the religion monster bigger in your eyes). 50% are not evangelicals believing in a literal rapture. Evangelicals do not amount to near 50%.

We are conditioned to believe what we are programmed toward by family, friends and society. 80% of americans may believe in their 'rights' to material abundance and the American Dream, and that belief system is currently going through some painful adjustments now. It is another conditioning, the ideal of the American Dream, that brings both pain and fulfillment.

You are a Crusader, as well as a fundamentalist, timmy. Find some peace with your religious demons and you will be an even happier person than you already are.

Timmy - you're full of it up to your eye brows. Where in the world did you get that arrogant streak that is evident in so many of your posts? You love humanity, but humans, maybe not so much.

But then, why should you care so strongly about how religion is contaminating what could be an otherwise largely trouble-free world? You'll be long dead before much change occurs as regards the status of the world's religions - by your own admission this will take generations. What's the rush?

But I'm pleased that you've elected yourself as our savior in the meantime - well, a secular savior of course, but a redeemer all the same. Brother, what an inflated ego!

BTW, write a book...that will get your message out that much faster. And that will make 6 books that more or less support the Timmy point of view.

I've read the first five.....and you?

Persiflage,

"If one is going to use the term 'spirituality' there should be a commonly understood meaning applied"

I have my own meaning for it that does not involve any supernatural belief. Most dictionary definitions of it do involve supernatural belief so I do not relate to these definitions.

To me it is simply the personal search for answers about the mystery and origin of life and the universe. It should go hand in hand with science, not religion. Because science is open minded, as is spirituality. Religion is close minded. A codification of the answers that have been settled upon.

Spirituality is ever evolving with new science and information.
Religion is set in stone. Sacred. Holly. Untouchable. Traditional. Ritualistic.

Spirituality is personal think.
Religion is group think.

If you don't like my definition of it, and you want to hold me to the current dictionary definitions with it's belief in ghosts, then I'm afraid you'll have to count me out of spirituality too. I would then put it into the same category as religion. Supernatural nonsense.

Persiflage,

YOU: "On the other hand, there is a dire need for real education in this country - and it is equally true that far too many are persuaded by a delusional biblical literalism vs scientifically based realities"

That's what I'm here for. To educate any of the brainwashed who might be listening because they're sure not going to get this education in schools.

YOU: "And thanks, but I don't need a primer on the US Constitution compliments of Canada"

You didn't get one compliments of Canada. You got one compliments of me. I do not represent Canada. This is an old world nationalistic view you have here. Timmy = human, not Timmy = Canadian.

And what you needed was for someone to point out to you that you are every bit as much a fundamentalist as any Bible thumper. You are just fundamentalist about things we should all be fundamentalist about, as opposed to being fundamentalist about a book of lies. I point out that there is nothing wrong with fundamentalism. It is the actual thing that one is fundamentalist about that is up for review on it's validity and dangers.

YOU: "If these countries have 'lost their religion' is has to do with complex internal and external dynamics peculiar to and effecting each country, rather than the inherently 'non-religous' nature of it's citizens"

And I am advocating the application of both external and internal dynamics to help America wake up from it's problem. One way is to STOP DEFENDING AND SUPPORTING CHRISTIANITY OF ANY KIND. All CHRISTianity is supportive of the notion that Jesus was a deity and lends it's support to the damaging groupthink. The name CHRISTianity defines it as such.

Moderate religion is a support mechanism for the original. It backs up the notion that the Bible is sacred and Holy. Moderate religion, Christianity in particular, needs to be as criticized as any other deity based religion. There is no such thing in my view as moderate deity belief.

Persiflage,

YOU: "And as you claim to be a 'spiritual' person, you owe a considerable debt to religion and religious mysticism for providing a spiritual hatrack to hang your 'spirituality' on. Oh, I know you'll deny it - but it's just a fact"

What? This is ridiculous. I consider myself to more spiritual than anyone I know, and I assure you, I owe no debt to any religion for my spirituality. My spirituality owes a debt to cosmologists not religionists.

YOU: "Spirituality is the open and individual pursuit of real knowledge about the mysteries of life....and while it can take us anywhere, it frequently relies on the discoveries of religion, psychology and science as foundational"

2 out of 3 aint bad. Spirituality does not rely on religion one bit. Religion is a hijacking of spirituality. An unnecessary and even damaging codification of spirituality. Spirituality is searching for answers, religion is having found the answers.

YOU: "My preferred religious philosophies are openly Eastern and non-theistic, as you well know"

Mine too. I like them because they are more philosophy than religion. I like the philosophy parts, and find the religion parts to be rather innocuous. I still advocate the tossing of the religious elements of those religions making them just philosophies.

YOU: "What you don't like is my unwillingness to admit that Americans are typically 'brainwashed' into religious belief"

It's not a question of dislike. It's a question of disagree.
You are the one who dislikes my argument that they are typically brainwashed into believing in God. That is why you countered my assertion of it. You are perfectly welcome to disagree. But if you counter me when I say it is so, you're going to get an argument from me because it is so. And it is not just a little harmful but extremely harmful. You have been unable to convince me otherwise. I stand by my observation.

YOU: "Further, religion and religious belief provides a huge comfort zone to believers...this is not a small consideration"

Further, smoking and heroin provide a huge comfort zone to addicts....This is not a small consideration.

YOU: "There is always strength (and reinforcement of behavior) in numbers. What we're witnessing is human nature in action, rather than the evils of organized religion per se"

No it is organized religion taking advantage of this human need, to form an army of zombies. Have the people in Denmark shed themselves of this human nature? Or is it not really human nature as you say. One of these two statements must be true.

YOU: "And I'm still not quite certain of the remedy that you're advocating, other than 'preaching against religious theology'"

Not preaching. Speaking out. "Change the setting" as Frederick says.
The current setting is one where non believers hold their tung. And the brainwashed never hear the true volume of the dissenting view. I'm changing the setting and advocating that others do the same. That is all.

Interesting article on Quebec and religion - the power of the Catholic Church may be fading in this formerly religious French province of Canada - and we may find the same thing to be true in France.

Certainly Catholics in the USA are equally divided on the issue of abortion, and other hyper-conservative Vatican policies. In the USA, many Catholics observe religious rules and rituals that make sense to them, while ignoring others.

There are an equally moderate number of Protestants in the USA, but the religious right is a highly organzied enclave that manages to find sympathetic candidates in high places - they will attempt to do this again in 2012....because politicians will do or say most anything to get elected. What they won't admit to, is being an atheist (other than Pete Stark of Florida).

I suspect this will change within the next decade. I stand by my observation that a country of 300 million can't be fairly compared to countries with populations of 5 million and 25 million, respectively. Onofrio has made similar observations as regards the fading religiosity of Australia (we can include New Zealand) with a population comparable to that of Canada - these countries also have much in common with regard to parlimentary styles of government.

If these countries have 'lost their religion' is has to do with complex internal and external dynamics peculiar to and effecting each country, rather than the inherently 'non-religous' nature of it's citizens.

http://ask.metafilter.com/55178/But-Im-an-atheist

Timmy - If one is going to use the term 'spirituality' there should be a commonly understood meaning applied. Here's one just below that would do nicely. Notice the part referring to 'spirit' and 'transcendence' in particular.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

continued......

What you don't like is my unwillingness to admit that Americans are typically 'brainwashed' into religious belief.

I'll say it again, and I'm with George Gurdjeiff on this - people in general are far too mechanical and habituated in their thinking and their behavior. We see evidence of it every day.

This applies to every facet of their lives, not just religion. Further, religion and religious belief provides a huge comfort zone to believers...this is not a small consideration.

There is always strength (and reinforcement of behavior) in numbers. What we're witnessing is human nature in action, rather than the evils of organized religion per se.

And I'm still not quite certain of the remedy that you're advocating, other than 'preaching against religious theology'.

On the other hand, there is a dire need for real education in this country - and it is equally true that far too many are persuaded by a delusional biblical literalism vs scientifically based realities.

Living in the Deep South, I know this on a first-hand basis. This is indeed a groupthink situation - supported by the entire southern culture and beyond.

And we aren't trying to convince anybody of anything here, we're merely expressing opinions that are often in opposition - based on our own experience and informational background on the subject matter at hand.

And thanks, but I don't need a primer on the US Constitution compliments of Canada.

Timmy - if you can get past your combative tone, and if you've ever actually read anything I've said along the way, you'd know that I differentiate between mythology and religious literalism at every opportunity - and have studied a fairly considerable selection of mythologies.

And the fundamentalisms in question (as you're well aware) are either religious or political/ideological, neither of which I have any use for - including an obvoius reistence to literal interpretations of sacred literature.

Here you're resorting to obfuscation, by claiming that I don't apparently know what kind of fundamentalism and absolutism has been under discussion all along - why haul out the US Constitution?

By definition, sacred literature fits the description of mythos - the academic and comparative view (which I've supported in various ways with frequency on these threads) is the approach that I favor when it comes to religion.

And as you claim to be a 'spiritual' person, you owe a considerable debt to religion and religious mysticism for providing a spiritual hatrack to hang your 'spirituality' on. Oh, I know you'll deny it - but it's just a fact.

And again, I've differentiated between the exoteric religion of the masses (your groupthink) and the esoteric pursuits and inner realization obtained by individuals - that is by definition the spirituality that you refer to.

Spirituality is the open and individual pursuit of real knowledge about the mysteries of life....and while it can take us anywhere, it frequently relies on the discoveries of religion, psychology and science as foundational.

My preferred religious philosophies are openly Eastern and non-theistic, as you well know. I'm not even particularly interested in Chrisianity or Islam, although they both have mystical traditions - which are of more interest.

Onofrio,

On religion and spirituality you wrote.

"You feel it is fairly straightforward to separate them."

It is.

Deity belief and institutionalization is the divider.

Spirituality is personal-think
Religion is Group-think

Spirituality is found.
Religion is taught.

Onofrio,

YOU: To suggest that by arguing for a balanced view of religion, Persiflage and myself are somehow approving of things like "Jesus Camp" is really unfair. I call *strawman* on that one"

We were talking about child abuse and brainwashing. I didn't say that you "approved" of "Jesus Camp" I suggested you might not have seen it. While it is an extreme example, the less extreme examples of indoctrination are more prevalent, and much more harmful in my mind, than in yours, obviously. I don't think that you endorse Jesus Camp. But I think that you are seeing a great harm as only a minor harm, and not a widespread harm. From my perspective I can only see that as blind or irresponsible. What I see, I see plainly, clearly and obviously. Your arguments have not swayed me one bit. I see massive child abuse perpetuating a curse on our society. And you airbrushing it while we drown in it.

YOU: "I agree that it occurs and that it's rotten, but not in all religions at all times."

I didn't say it occurred in all religions at all times. I was talking about a particular problem in the United States. Have you ever been there by the way? Have you ever driven across the heartland and seen the God billboards. That number (80% believe that a personal God watches over them) is real. It is the result of mass child abuse and a delusional groupthink that indoctrinates a new generation every year. There is no excuse for defending anything about worshiping the Christian Bible as sacred and untouchable. And like I said, even the most moderate Christian churches won't edit one word of it. Why won't they?

YOU: "They're not all about gay-hating and a 6000 year old Earth and unquestioning obedience to slivers of "OT" and triumphalist ecstasies"

Then why won't they edit the OT? Why leave in lies?

YOU: "It's not as simple as your rhetoric makes out. I have been making that case respectfully."

At times, respectfully. At times, not so respectfully. But I digress.
I have listened to your case and i respectfully disagree.
It IS that simple. Deities don't exist and believing that they do is not good. Period. Anything that is not "believing in deities" is not religion, it is spirituality and philosophy which I love and endorse. But any system of belief in a monotheistic deity is extremely harmful to humanity in my opinion, and I've not heard anything here to dissuade me from speaking out against it across the board

YOU: "Why is seeing people as responsible moral agents somehow defending the likes of "Jesus Camp"? You can disagree, but why tar and feather?"

lol
Why tar and feather? Don't ask me? I make common cause with a Nazi. What would I know about being tarred and feathered?

Again, I didn't accuse you of endorsing Jesus Camp. I can't accuse you of endorsing something if I didn't think that you had seen it.

Persiflage,

Continued.

YOU: "There is more than one valid point of view when it comes to the vast topic of religion...and that's the main point that I would make here"

Of course there is.
But there is not more than one valid point of view on whether or not Bible God is a myth. There is only one valid point of view on that. All others are uneducated or delusional. This is my opinion. And I'm sticking to it. Evidence, reason, logic, and more than a healthy dose of intuition tells me that this is a position worth standing behind.

And there is not more than one valid position on whether or not it is a good thing to believe in Bible God if he doesn't exist. There is only one valid position on that in my opinion.

Do I want to force my opinion on anyone else?
Of course not.
Nor do I.
People can stop reading my posts any time they want.

Persiflage,

YOU: "Timmy says, 'Puke'.....your edgy enthusiasm for your own position and disdain for others (unless they're in agreement) is revealed in that remark"

No. I honestly get disgusted when I see denial of obvious mass child abuse.
We really have to agree to disagree here. I've heard your arguments. But I see mass child abuse and I'm far from alone. So I will continue to speak out against it. I have listened to your fine arguments in favor of it not really being all that bad. And I am honestly nauseous at that stance. I am far from "enthusiastic" about my position. And I can not help but be bothered by yours.

YOU SAID: Why don't more people just walk away? I have no idea......"

I do, But you're not buying it.
But you should really get one of your own before you knock mine.

YOU: "What to do?"

"Change the setting", as Frederick says. That is what I intend to do. You're going to have to live with it. I speak out against what I think is harming our world the most. We disagree with the amount of harm that it is causing. I have heard your arguments that it is not as harmful as I make it out to be. I disagree. And so do five best selling authors in the last five years. My position is hardly extreme.

YOU: "And comparing the religious traditions to be found in the USA, a polyglot nation of 300 million, to Denmark or even Canada is really rolling the dice - and coming up snake eyes"

??????????

YOU "I've said over and over that I have no use for fundamentalism of any kind"

Well the American constitution is about as fundamentalist as a document can get, and I like the constitution. "All men are created equal" it's good to be fundamentalist about that. "Humans should not own other humans" it's good to be fundamentalist about that. Freedom of speech. Are you not fundamentalist about that? I sure am glad American is. How about freedom of the press? You make use of fundamentalism every day in your life Persiflage. I guarantee you are a fundamentalist about many things. You'd hate your life were you not living in a country that was fundamentalist about free speech.

Fundamentalism is not the problem.
Societal endorsement of that book as sacred is the problem.

onofrio et alii, (or ali'i. depending on perspective and perception),

I like what you last said onofrio. Nice. Truth is a beautiful thing.

I must first admit that I have jumped to responding to this post of yours, onofrio, without reading up on the last days offerings, and having only a overview of the last couple of days. Some good roads traveled.

Twelve years is a good length of time, onofrio, and I understand what you are seeking to communicate here. I believe...

I am not a believer in or supporter of the term brainwashed here, necessarily. But I have a preference for the term "conditioned". It works for me, and fits what I see as true. "Brainwashed" can easily fit into the definition.... The term "conditioned" is less dramatic but at least as truthful, if not more so.

If I may offer a bit of balance. Timmy is also a refugee of christianity... He has history. Has he not shared it?

Timmy!!! You rail against the evil of religion, yet do not yourself speak openly and honestly??? What a surprise.

What is new about this? Not a thing.

Timmy,

(and Persiflage, Pam, Frederic, et alii still reading this thread)

I chose to be involved in an evangelical strain of Christianity in my late teens, just as I started university. Looking back, I guess it was my form of youthful idealism. Others handed out New Left Weekly or joined the Young Liberals or Resistance. Or they just got wasted.

I was not brainwashed. Kids I knew whose parents and churches had tended that way ended up far from brainwashed; indeed they were innoculated against it all. A big yawn; a load of tripe.

I was a sincere believer for about twelve years, but ultimately turned *apostate*, on grounds partly rational, partly emotional, and even partly *spiritual*. I have been an insider, Timmy. I know what it's like to *believe*. And I've got personal reasons to hate *that book*. But *that book* and the idolatry of it, and the misuse of it, and my bad experience of it, is not the be-all and end-all of *religion*, or even of Christianity (much as I'd like to say otherwise of the latter).

I do not speak from a position of lofty elitism. I have a mediocre education, and neither money nor status. I bear soul-scars from of the very beast you rail at. I know it only too well. So it's unfair of you to suggest I support "Jesus Camp" or blinkered home-schooling, or Young Earth Creationism, or exploitation of young minds, or oath-swearing on Bibles, or theocratic machinations, et cetera, just because I won't cast all religion in terms of America's Religious Right.

But let's just define terms here - under *religion* I include a lot of what you might call *spirituality*. For you, spirituality = good: open-ended speculation, strictly no gods allowed; religion = bad: brainwashing, deity belief. You feel it is fairly straightforward to separate them. For me, religion and spirituality are overlapping and interdependent modalities, value neutral. A simile from building: I'd say religion is like structure, spirituality is like material. You might see a sound or even a beautiful structure made of inferior materials, hollowed out by termites. Or you might see an ugly, poorly finished structure made of the best, strongest materials. And all sorts of other combinations.

Is this so unreasonable that I deserve to be painted as an apologist for "Jesus Camp" madness, or a booster for fundamentalism in general?

Timmy,

Yeah, I've seen "Jesus Camp"; it's revolting. Mate, I've seen that sort of thing up close. So don't be so quick to tar me ignorant on that score. But "Jesus Camp" is not the acme of all religion. That you choose to make it so shows you are simply polemicising. To suggest that by arguing for a balanced view of religion, Persiflage and myself are somehow approving of things like "Jesus Camp" is really unfair.

I call *strawman* on that one.

"But you guys stick with Stalin and Pol Pot as your ignorant examples of society without religion."

I'll think you'll find that I've never used this canard in my posts, Timmy. Stalin and Pol Pot, in their way, were religious zealots whose god had become themselves. I don't buy into the *atheism = route to tyranny* shtick. You know that.

Another *strawman*.

"The lengths that religious apologists will go to to defend their position on this is irresponsible. I am disgusted that neither of you" (Onofrio and Persiflage) "will acknowledge the reality of the mass childhood indoctrination that breeds the perpetuation of this delusional and damaging groupthink."

I do not "defend" this sort of thing. Never have. I agree that it occurs and that it's rotten, but not in all religions at all times. Even amongst North American Protestants, from whom your example is drawn, the intensity of such indoctrination varies, as do the *truths* transmitted. They're not all about gay-hating and a 6000 year old Earth and unquestioning obedience to slivers of "OT" and triumphalist ecstasies.

What I do defend is a nuanced view of what religion is and does, and I refuse to see it only through your polemical lenses, which construe particularly US and Christian obsessions as somehow emblematic of all circumstances. It's not as simple as your rhetoric makes out. I have been making that case respectfully.

"But you guys keep on defending the parents, and not the children, who have a right to not be lied to about something so fundamentally damaging during their earliest and most vulnerable development years.

Keep it up. You're doing a great Job! You are defending a very good cause."

Whoa! Defending what parents? What cause? Adults are morally responsible for their beliefs (I did not bring the law into it). Persiflage simply affirmed that responsibility is the basis of our legal system. Why is making these assertions tantamount to aiding and abetting fundamentalist indoctrination? Why is seeing people as responsible moral agents somehow defending the likes of "Jesus Camp"? You can disagree, but why tar and feather?

sorry about the posting glitch - the multiple posts were strictly a blog site error, not mine.

continued.....

If you feel that you've been brainwashed, it's probably because you've managed to escape a particular form of indoctrination and have occasion to look back in retrospect, as in Frederic's case. If you haven't escaped, how would you ever know it?

I was raised as a Catholic in full ritual regalia until the age of 17, at which point I realized there were no answers and no gratifications to be obtained by continuing on - so that was the end of it for me....no big deal.

I didn't buy into Catholic doctrine even as a teenager, and have had any number of discussions picking said doctrines apart on the Stevens-Arroyo thread. Why don't more people just walk away? I have no idea......

It is a fact that most parents are going to try and pass on their own beliefs and values to their children - this list will probably include religion.

What to do? Can people undergo re-education programs to be saved from religion? Should societies sponsor such programs? Will saturating school-age children with science stop religion cold? Can people be saved from totalitarian regimes, whether based on religious or anti-religious principles? Compare Saudi Arabia with China here.....

And comparing the religious traditions to be found in the USA, a polyglot nation of 300 million, to Denmark or even Canada is really rolling the dice - and coming up snake eyes.

I've said over and over that I have no use for fundamentalism of any kind, and would like to see a well enforced separation of church and state in the USA. And activism for or against religion is a well-established freedom in the free world.

Beyond the sturm and drang of On Faith, I suspect few if any of us take our various objections to religious delusion beyond the internet - despite claims to the contrary. If I wanted to battle religion in the Deep South for example, I'd have to quit my day job.

There is more than one valid point of view when it comes to the vast topic of religion...and that's the main point that I would make here.

continued.....

If you feel that you've been brainwashed, it's probably because you've managed to escape a particular form of indoctrination and have occasion to look back in retrospect, as in Frederic's case. If you haven't escaped, how would you ever know it?

I was raised as a Catholic in full ritual regalia until the age of 17, at which point I realized there were no answers and no gratifications to be obtained by continuing on - so that was the end of it for me....no big deal.

I didn't buy into Catholic doctrine even as a teenager, and have had any number of discussions picking said doctrines apart on the Stevens-Arroyo thread. Why don't more people just walk away? I have no idea......

It is a fact that most parents are going to try and pass on their own beliefs and values to their children - this list will probably include religion.

What to do? Can people undergo re-education programs to be saved from religion? Should societies sponsor such programs? Will saturating school-age children with science stop religion cold? Can people be saved from totalitarian regimes, whether based on religious or anti-religious principles? Compare Saudi Arabia with China here.....

And comparing the religious traditions to be found in the USA, a polyglot nation of 300 million, to Denmark or even Canada is really rolling the dice - and coming up snake eyes.

I've said over and over that I have no use for fundamentalism of any kind, and would like to see a well enforced separation of church and state in the USA. And activism for or against religion is a well-established freedom in the free world.

Beyond the sturm and drang of On Faith, I suspect few if any of us take our various objections to religious delusion beyond the internet - despite claims to the contrary. If I wanted to battle religion in the Deep South for example, I'd have to quit my day job.

There is more than one valid point of view when it comes to the vast topic of religion...and that's the main point that I would make here.

continued.....

If you feel that you've been brainwashed, it's probably because you've managed to escape a particular form of indoctrination and have occasion to look back in retrospect, as in Frederic's case. If you haven't escaped, how would you ever know it?

I was raised as a Catholic in full ritual regalia until the age of 17, at which point I realized there were no answers and no gratifications to be obtained by continuing on - so that was the end of it for me....no big deal.

I didn't buy into Catholic doctrine even as a teenager, and have had any number of discussions picking said doctrines apart on the Stevens-Arroyo thread. Why don't more people just walk away? I have no idea......

It is a fact that most parents are going to try and pass on their own beliefs and values to their children - this list will probably include religion.

What to do? Can people undergo re-education programs to be saved from religion? Should societies sponsor such programs? Will saturating school-age children with science stop religion cold? Can people be saved from totalitarian regimes, whether based on religious or anti-religious principles? Compare Saudi Arabia with China here.....

And comparing the religious traditions to be found in the USA, a polyglot nation of 300 million, to Denmark or even Canada is really rolling the dice - and coming up snake eyes.

I've said over and over that I have no use for fundamentalism of any kind, and would like to see a well enforced separation of church and state in the USA. And activism for or against religion is a well-established freedom in the free world.

Beyond the sturm and drang of On Faith, I suspect few if any of us take our various objections to religious delusion beyond the internet - despite claims to the contrary. If I wanted to battle religion in the Deep South for example, I'd have to quit my day job.

There is more than one valid point of view when it comes to the vast topic of religion...and that's the main point that I would make here.

Timmy says, 'Puke'.....your edgy enthusiasm for your own position and disdain for others (unless they're in agreement) is revealed in that remark. You're in the grips of an obsession Timmy - of the anti-religious kind.

Of course people are indoctrinated to believe all kinds of crap - including cults that typically are focused on a central personality figure afflicted with plenty of human pathology.....e.g. malignant narcissism with anti-social features.

History is full of examples and such people - even serial killers have plenty of admirers and devoted followers.

Psychopathology is rampant whereever you care to look - it doesn't need religion to fuel it by any means.

The dynamics of Stockholm Syndrome amply demonstrates that humans can learn to identify with anyone, even their own captors, despite (or because of) conditions comprised of extreme pain, punishment, and stress. This says something about human psychology.

There are plenty of examples of pathologcial personalities that both do and do not use religion to captivate and capture followers emotionally, and bolster their positions. Cults of personality range from small groups to entire societies - both god-filled and godless alike.

Frederic, I'm familiar with the Milgram experiments and other similar research efforts that demonstrate how easily most people are coerced into certain behaviors, either out of a sense of self-preservation or because everyone else is doing it, or because rather surprisingly they find that inflicting pain on their fellow humans is kind of fun...a wee bit of sadism in the DNA, lurking just beneath the surface.

Humans are easily tricked, and easily manipulated - that's the conclusion that one reaches by reviewing these results.

The key brainwashing elements in the troublesome monotheisms of mainstream Christianity and Islam, are the notions of heresy, apostates, and Hell.

Before children are old enough to hear dissenting points of view on their parent's religion, they are taught in great detail the dangers and evils of the heretics, and the unbelievers that they will encounter. They are taught that this is satan talking and trying to steal their souls and drag them to HELL!

Such diabolically crafted preemptions of dissent, along with such diabolically crafted notions like God has a special place for those willing to dismiss logic and reason and believe without evidence. Worship without evidence.

I call that brainwashing with intent.
And one generation feeds the next.
Breaking this cycle will take far too long if we do not get vocal about this tragedy and "change the setting".

Pam,

"I never really was - just an expression"

I know. I was just having a little fun.

cheers. :)

The other thing that kills me is misanthropic notion that humans are just plain violent and bad, religion or no religion, and the pointing to all of the supposedly non-religious wars and conflicts.

Blind to the reality that they do not know anything about what modern humans would be like in the absense of religion because 3/4 of the world's population is under the spell of such delusional beliefs and that percentage gets higher and higher as we go back in time through all of the recorded history of human society. The only glimpse of what modern human societies void of super natural deity belief would look like are countries like Denmark, and Scandinavian countries. Socialist/free market democracies with high happiness and low crime. Not far behind in the absence of religiosity are countries like Great Britain, Canada, and Australia.

All of the countries I mention above would find themselves in the top ten most desirable places to live in this world.

They would also find themselves in the top ten least religious countries in the world.

But you guys stick with Stalin and Pol Pot as your ignorant examples of society without religion.

Good grief.
Or as I always say.
God grief.

Timmy says:
"Thanks Pam.
But you don't need to be 'afraid' of agreeing with me anymore."

I never really was - just an expression.

When you're right, you're right. :)

Pam,

"'Fraid I have to side with Timmy"

Thanks Pam.
But you don't need to be "afraid" of agreeing with me anymore.
Farnaz isn't around to label you an antisemite for doing so.

Although I guess you are still in danger of being told by Onofrio that you are making common cause with someone who makes common cause with a Nazi. ;)

He's got the quotes to prove it! :)

Thanks Frederick,

Here we are, just trying to change the setting.
And they don't get it. They somehow hear us calling for a pogrom.

I am ever baffled by the non-believing religious apologist/protector/defender. All I can think of is Dan Dennet's description of "belief in belief" as a rather elitest form of thought.

"Oh yes I myself am far to intelligent and enlightened to believe in such primitive superstition, but there are those among us who are not so advanced or intelligent as I, who perhaps need to believe such things to get by."

"Yes I myself am far too civilized and intelligent to need to believe in such things to be a good and moral and non violent person, but the savages among us are best kept from acting upon their innate savagery by believing in deities who forbid it"

Amazing to me how they can read that book, and see presidents sworn in on it, and then blame the poor person, who had the notion that God is real and watching them, implanted in their brain before they were old enough to watch Sesame Street, for believing that homosexuality is an abomination and a sin in God's eyes.

Truly amazing.

'Fraid I have to side with Timmy on this one. If you don't like the term "brainwashing", you at least have to cop to "indoctrination."

The child hears it at mother's knee - all family members speak of it as truth; he goes to Sunday School and is actively taught about it; if his parents are Catholic or Seventh Day Adventist or some other denomination that has its own schools, he hears about it daily - is taught its truth. He may even be home-schooled to lessen the chance that he will hear a dissenting word until he's beyond a malleable age.

In his country most people believe, so he's used to hearing people speak of prayer, God's mercy, thanking God, God's gifts, etc. There is almost no exposure to any competing philosophy.

He may, if in religious schools, never even learn anything about evolution. Even in public schools, it will barely be taught, because those who write textbooks want to sell them widely, and those who teach biology or other sciences are cowed by parental pressure, and school boards worry about being reelected.

To the extent that he knows anything about evolution, he probably knows it from like-minded people, or church "educators" - "Only a theory - full of gaps" - so he discounts it out of hand, and never learns anything.

Read the testimony of one such person who finally was exposed to some actual information:
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/mar04.html

Addition: I got out of the brainwashing results with the help of others, with a complete change of setting.

Persiflage,

to use an analogy: Can you be made "responsible" for NOT speaking, say, Mongolian, since it is "your choice" to speak English instead, and everybody who taught you this language simply used a "positive reenforcement" for your "choice" a la Skinner?

I am sure you know the Milgram experiment? Everyone of the 60% torturers "responsible" for torturing? It is the brain washers who are responsible! But they almost always get away with it, are even praised for their brain washing performance.

I was brainwashed as a child, I know how it works and what it means, and I fortunately got out of it! The crucial point: Nobody being brainwashed EVER (talk about legal responsibility, ha!) has the slightest chance to know that he is being or has been brainwashed! It takes your freedom away, enslaves you. Therefore it obviously is criminal child abuse.

A child has no ability to discern reality from magic or fairy tales.

I know a couple a fellas named Persiflage and Onofrio who need to watch the documentary "Jesus Camp".

BRAINWASHED! CHILD ABUSE!

Watch any documentary on children in madrases.

BRAINWASHED! CHILD ABUSE!

It is irresponsibly naive to call it anything less than child abuse.

Parents Telling a three year old that God is the master of all, sees all, and sends non believers to Hell, is just positive reinforcement?

lol.

The lengths that religious apologists will go to to defend their position on this is irresponsible. I am disgusted that neither of you will acknowledge the reality of the mass childhood indoctrination that breeds the perpetuation of this delusional and damaging groupthink.

And there is no such thing as being "legally" responsible for your beliefs.
Only the actions you take because of those beliefs.
The beliefs themselves are not punishable. So legal responsibility for them is a non issue.

So I'm afraid your argument about who is responsible comes down to a common sense one not a legal one. And from what I see, you two have no common sense. Watch "Jesus camp" and tell me those children are responsible for "their" beliefs. What a joke.

We all know that society holding sacred, a book of obvious lies, and childhood indoctrination, is responsible for those beliefs.

But you guys keep on defending the parents, and not the children, who have a right to not be lied to about something so fundamentally damaging during their earliest and most vulnerable development years.

Keep it up. You're doing a great Job! You are defending a very good cause.

Puke.

Timmy - you overuse/mis-use the term 'brainwashing' with great frequency.

It is more likely that convinced Christians, Muslims, et al get that way through a schedule of positive/negative reinforcement - see B.F. Skinner. People are responsible for their beliefs and their actions - legal systems and democracies are built on this presumption. It applies to religious behavior as well.
_______________

Onofrio - the weight of the blade doth give me a headache, but overuse has dulled the razored edge
to the acuity of a butter knife.....the whetstone of diverse discourse will surely restore keenness
where it is needed most. The executioner requires good tools......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

Onofrio,

Continued.

"YOU: "Those poor book-duped masses you plead for can tune-in anytime, unless they've been locked in a cupboard"

And they will hear and see 80% of the American population believing in God literally. Almost 50% believing that the rapture may occur in their lifetime. And they will see the Bible in every courtroom and hotel room, and under the hand of every president as they are sworn into an office that can only be held by a Christian in this Christian nation with it's "In God we trust" on it's money. They will see and hear presidents like GB senior say that he could not consider an atheist to be a patriotic American.

All this after being brainwashed as a child to believe all of this themselves.

YOU: "Your monolithically negative views of *religion* are also colored by the extremes of modern Islamism, and a sans-Talmud, decontextualised reading of the Tanakh in "OT" form"

80% of Americans read that OT I quote from. My whole point about religions like Christianity, even the most moderate, is that they will not remove one word of the OT from the book they worship. Why not? Because the whole thing is sacred and you can not mess with the word of God. That is the difference between religion and spirituality. Spirituality could throw away those abhorrent verses. Religion can not touch them. Even moderate religion just can't touch or delete one single word from the OT. Why not???????????????

Onofrio,

YOU: "If someone believes what *that book* says (or what they think it says), they are accountable for their belief"

When a child is told unequivocally that God literally exists as 80% of American children are told from early development age, and is then brought up in a society that holds that book so sacred they swear on it in every court of law, and anyone who does not pray on it is unwelcome to apply for the job of president, where you say "so help me God" with your hand on that book as you are sworn into office. And then that child grows into adolescence, reading that book in all of it's demented dogma, No I do not hold such a person responsible for holding the belief that God literally exists, and that homosexuality is an abomination in the eyes of God, as the Bible clearly states.

I do not characterize these beliefs as "his beliefs", this poor man, indoctrinated into a crafty religion at the age of three by his parents, sent to church every sunday, never to hear his pastor come clean about God being metaphorical, or mythical. Those are not "his beliefs" they are the beliefs of his parents, his minister, and the society that he was born in. I'm sorry I do not find accountable this indoctrinated child, now a man, still under the spell of a literal minister or priest, and finding literal confirmation of these beliefs in the scriptures that his entire country prays over.

YOU: "Pious gay-haters and Young Earth Creationists do not get off that lightly, *in my book*"

They do in mine. They are all victims of child abuse and societal brainwashing to believe that God literally exists. I blame the religion itself not the people victimized by it's barbaric deluded texts, endorsed as the word of God by the society they live in.

Persiflage,

"Onofrio - I guess the equanimity was short-lived after all."

Mon semblable! I hear the tumbrels on the cobblestones, and Madame's dire and none-too-distant snicker snack.

SHICK

flump

"Raaaaay!"

Timmy,

You:
"It is not "their own beliefs"! They are written verbatim in the book. We as society perpetuate the myth that the book is true and or sacred. Mentally ill people in such a society who were told before they were old enough to talk that God is real, get their hands on this book filled with explicit commands to kill, and you now want to tell me that those beliefs are their own? These people were brainwashed by society, that book, and their parents. If they are even slightly mentally ill or weak minded, they never had a chance."

With regard to the problematisation of religious belief, I don't subscribe to the mental-illness-and-brainwashing model you favour, with its wicked priests and diabolical redactors and poor duped masses. It reeks of mythmongering, of a rather hackneyed sort.

If someone believes what *that book* says (or what they think it says), they are accountable for their belief. Being convinced that the world was created 6,000 years ago and that God condemns gays is not a sign (per se) of even mild mental illness. It is a sign of being ill-informed, mistaken, ignorant, stubborn, homophobic, and/or spiteful. *Mental illness* denotes diminished responsibility. Pious gay-haters and Young Earth Creationists do not get off that lightly, *in my book*.

But not all religious belief is about what *that book* says, anyway. The idolatry of *The Bible* is a distinctive of American evangelicalism, transmitted via Puritanism, revivalism, and the nation's early history as a refuge for proscribed biblicist sects. It's not a prevailing characteristic of all *religion*. And while *The Bible* retains a lingering talismanic aura, this does not inhibit vocal, robust scepticism about its sacrality, even in the US ;) Those poor book-duped masses you plead for can tune-in anytime, unless they've been locked in a cupboard.

Your monolithically negative views of *religion* are also coloured by the extremes of modern Islamism, and a sans-Talmud, decontextualised reading of the Tanakh in "OT" form. Again, you're assuming a narrow notion of Abrahamically derived *book religion* is the epitome of all religion, and of all religious possibility. In this you are actually complying with the universalistic claims that are made by branches of these very *book religions*. As I said before, why play by their rules?

Try a little nuance. It don't mean you've sold out.

'I'm pretty sure you once told me that you *knew* the ultimate truth of monism, but maybe I'm confusing you with someone else?'

Timmy - 'knowing the ultimate truth of monism' is by definition an oxymoron - not guilty. That would be like saying there's nothing out there but energy - true or false? And who knows this?

Onofrio - I guess the equanimity was short-lived after all.

Onofrio,

YOU: "For their work to be *diabolical* suggests an element of deliberate calculation on the part of these shadowy textual manipulators"

Yup.
There is no question that built into these texts are manipulative inventions such as heresy, Hell, apostates, and most notably, the insertion of the writer's moral commands into the words of God. The person who wrote the words "your lord god has commanded you" followed by a command to kill, knew damn well that he was lying to the pre-brainwashed in order to assert his own moral beliefs. Diabolical.

YOU: "Fundamentalists are not the victims of diabolical redactors, Timmy. They are casualties of their own need for control-at-all-costs"

We'll have to agree to disagree here. I have met fundamentalists. They are not mean control freaks. They are mentally ill people (even if slightly so) who were brainwashed by a diabolical book, and a society that endorses this book to the extent that it is the book we have people swear to tell the truth on, in a court of law. An irony that only a society in need of a serious awareness raising could miss.

YOU: "While I'm not valorising the texts, nor am I letting fundamentalists off the hook as victims. That diminishes their responsibility for their own beliefs"

It is not "their own beliefs"! They are written verbatim in the book. We as society perpetuate the myth that the book is true and or sacred. Mentally ill people in such a society who were told before they were old enough to talk that God is real, get their hands on this book filled with explicit commands to kill, and you now want to tell me that those beliefs are their own? These people were brainwashed by society, that book, and their parents. If they are even slightly mentally ill or weak minded, they never had a chance.

Isaiah 13:13-16
13
Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth will be shaken out of its place, at the wrath of the Lord of hosts on the day of his fierce anger. Like a hunted gazelle, or like sheep with no one to gather them all will turn to their own people, and all will flee to their own lands. Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes: their houses will be plundered, and their wives ravished.

Religious fundamentalists are victims of religious texts, not the other way around.

Persiflage,

You to Timmy:
"until next time, Timmy - I think we're on the same side, more or less."

Betimes it be dangerous on the same side.

Girondin or Jacobin?

Menshevik or Bolshevik?

Dunny-can or salle de bain?

In the clique or party chic?

Timmy,

You:
"Religious texts are not victims of religious fundamentalists.
Religious fundamentalists are the victims of diabolically crafted religious texts.
Get it straight!"

Whence comes this devil-less diabolism, I wonder?

For their work to be *diabolical* suggests an element of deliberate calculation on the part of these shadowy textual manipulators. That's nigh on myth-making, Timmy.

I have no problem with robust critique of scripture. I've done a lot of it myself, and in detail. Assuming diabolical intent on the part of the editors and authors does not help the enterprise of dissecting and *defusing* their work. It simply, well, demonises them, which is kinda like what happens in the fundamentalist theisms you highlight for criticism. The al-Quaedas and the hysterical preachermen of this world also diabolise their perceived enemies, and impute to them conspiratorial intent. You become each other's demons. Why play by their rules?

Fundamentalists are not the victims of diabolical redactors, Timmy. They are casualties of their own need for control-at-all-costs. They are people who are uncomfortable with ambiguity, suspicious of subtlety, and afraid of paradox - all of which abound in the very texts they revere as *God's Word*. They demand *answers* and clear directions. They need to see the world as a series of stark dualistic contrasts. Many of them have no idea how to handle their own sacred texts except as a sort of Maker's Instruction Manual.

While I'm not valorising the texts, nor am I letting fundamentalists off the hook as victims. That diminishes their responsibility for their own beliefs. They are not benighted souls; they are to be held to account.

Your insistence that "the fundamentalists have got it right" about theism and those wickedly concocted diabolical texts is a strawman of truly Onofrian proportions ;)

A little nuance doesn't mean you've surrendered to the dark side, Timmy.

Persiflage,

"You say religion, slavery, and racism all apparently amount to the same thing - and here we definitely disagree"

No I don't. I made analogous comparisons is all. They are not the same things.

YOU: "I don't subscribe to it, although I have made reference to the concept of nondualism from time to time..."

I'm pretty sure you once told me that you *knew* the ultimate truth of monism, but maybe I'm confusing you with someone else?

Timmy - what's a nirvanist? Or would that be nirvanian? In any event, I don't subscribe to it, although I have made reference to the concept of nondualism from time to time....but then, so have any number of quantum physicists.

I'm not personally religious and do not follow a religious faith, but do admire certain facets of religion. I could refer you to a host of non-religious folk that share my views in a general sort of way.

And a Utopian view is all about 'better days' that never come...not a particularly 'reasonable' view of things - check out the definition.

You say religion, slavery, and racism all apparently amount to the same thing - and here we definitely disagree.

While slavery and racism can and have been institutionalized and otherwise incorporated into the beliefs and values of societies, the cultural enterprise of religion itself meets the criteria of an embedded social institution, much like forms of government, economic systems, marital arrangements, civil laws and legal systems, and so forth.

The good and bad of every society is reflected in it's social institutions. When the most undesirable traits and characteristics of a society are expunged e.g. slavery and racism, you will still have the basic structure of those institutions - including religion (Denmark excepted, of course).

Why? Because humans rely on social structure to shore up mental and emotional well-being....not the least of which is a function of religion. Living without illusion is an admirable goal, but one seldom achieved.

A life lived is chaotic, unpredictable and often unreasonable - the underlying order is generally difficult to see, and is always changing anyway. Religion and anti-religion are two sides of the same coin - the Yin and Yang of things.

Why not take the road less travelled? Apologies to Onofrio who says, 'no more Frost'..... :^))

until next time, Timmy - I think we're on the same side, more or less.

Persiflage,

One more comment on the "Utopian" accusation.

Even if I were a utopianist, is a nirvanist casting stones at a utopianist not doing so from a glass house?

Persiflage,

Continued,

PERSIFLAGE: "The 'strength in numbers' part of the religious right is a wee bit daunting"

Massive understatement. Non Christians need not apply for president. That's a fact jack. I blame religious apologists for this more than the brainwashed victims of religion. The apologists have abandoned the victims. They condone the daily brainwashing of most of our children as they are indoctrinated (child abuse) into primitive belief systems that have been diabolically institutionalized.

YOU: "I continue to advocate for the separation of church and state here in the USA, and I know you do the same in Canada"

Don't need to. We have no such problems in Canada. We've been electing atheists for decades. Our current prime minister is a Christian, but you'll never hear him mention it in his political speeches. It is political suicide in Canada for a politician to wear his religion on his sleeve. It could cost you the election if people here get even a whiff of you thinking about bringing your religious views into office.

YOU: "And Denmark? - I suppose 5 million folks are a start, but there is a way to go yet"

Now you're thinking straight. We do have a ways to go. We better get crackin.

Persiflage,

YOU: "Timmy - far be it from me to point out the similarities here with the thinking of Karl Marx -not that he wasn't an astute sociologist for his time. He did get a few things wrong however"

Not the "opiate of the masses" line. He didn't get that one wrong. Bang on! I stand with marx on this one. But I didn't learn it from him. I called religious delusion for being the equivalent of pain killer addiction years before I ever heard of Marx.

YOU: "Your anti-religion view verges on the Utopian"

I disagree. No more than those who fought against slavery and racism were fighting for utopia. Did getting rid of slavery solve all of the world's problems? No. Did it vastly improve our society? Yes. Would the elimination of racism solve all of our problems? No. Would it vastly improve our society? Yes.

And yes, I am making religion analogous to slavery (of the mind) and racism (tribalism).

Persiflage: "The challenge of religious fundamentalism requires considerable subtlety, rather than 'in your face' combat, in my view"

1) All religion is fundamentalist in nature.
2) I find it so curious how people think that fundamentalism is the problem and not the fundamentals of the religious texts themselves. READ THE BOOKS! The texts says, gay people are to be put to death. That is the problem. I have no problem with anti racism fundamentalists. I am one. I am also an anti slavery fundamentalist. I am also a "do unto others" fundamentalist. There is nothing wrong with being fundamentalist. There is something fundamentally wrong with a text that says that God wants you to stone your disobedient children to death, or that not believing that Jesus is God will condemn you to eternal hellfire. Or that killing apostates will earn you a special place in heaven complete with 42 virginal concubines.

Religious texts are not victims of religious fundamentalists.
Religious fundamentalists are the victims of diabolically crafted religious texts.
Get it straight!
This is the point that so many religious apologists have completely backwards. So I'll say it again.
RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISTS ARE THE VICTIMS OF RELIGIOUS TEXTS, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. READ THE BOOKS!

'It fills a "vast need" like heroin fills a vast need for the heroin addict. This "vast need" you speak of only exists because of the brainwashing of religion in the first place. The world needs rehab, not more fixes of the drug in perpetuity.'

Timmy - far be it from me to point out the similarities here with the thinking of Karl Marx -not that he wasn't an astute sociologist for his time. He did get a few things wrong however.

Your anti-religion view verges on the Utopian - and besides, everyone is defensive of their deeply held beliefs - no matter how absurd they may seem to someone else. The more you push, the more they push back. The challenge of religious fundamentalism requires considerable subtlety, rather than 'in your face' combat, in my view.

The 'strength in numbers' part of the religious right is a wee bit daunting. Our next election cycle is already being co-opted by of some of the crazies from the last time out. I continue to advocate for the separation of church and state here in the USA, and I know you do the same in Canada.

If you followed the election here, you heard the mantra of the dreaded 'socialism' employed over and over by the right - without considering that the civil religion of capitalism had imperiled the very social fabric - running amuck in a fever of greed and recklessness.

I'm glad to note that neither Texas, Alaska, nor Quebec have thus far managed to secede from our respective unions because of their strongly held beliefs - probably heavily influenced by religious and other sub-cultural considerations!

Have these people been 'brainwashed'? We can only speak for the secessionists in Texas and Alaska down here in the lower 48.....

And Denmark? - I suppose 5 million folks are a start, but there is a way to go yet.

It's curious and perhaps significant that the great Norse myth Beowulf speaks of the tragedy of religion, when the warrior Vikings in hopes of gaining Valhalla mindlessly slaughter that childlike force of nature, Grendel....and pay a very large price for tampering with Mother Nature, heedless of the consequences. Truly a myth for the ages!

Religion sometimes does this when in the grips of religious mania - this is certainly the dark side that you speak of (and that we know of directly).

Persiflage,

Continued.

"PERSIFLAGE: "This is pie-in-the-sky, grandeoise thinking Timmy. A personal discovery regarding the undesirability of religion (yours) taken to the level of a mission statement - e.g. expunging all religion and religiosity from the world"

1) Far from a personal discovery. No less than 5 books on the subject on the best sellers list over the last five years.
2) Nothing wrong with a mission statement against racism. Nothing wrong with a mission statement against primitive deity belief.
3) I never said anything about expunging religion and certainly not overnight. I'm talking about a society using the power of free speech, and expelling the taboo of criticism of delusional beliefs. I'm talking about educating children on the history of all religions and religiosity in our world so their parents can not keep this information from them via child abuse. I am talking about a movement that will take generations and generations to bring about real change. But you guys seem to think that if it can not be achieved in your lifetime, then what's the point in trying? We owe it to future generations, to start the generations long breaking of the spell process now.

PERSIFLAGE: "if religion did not fill a vast need in the human psyche and contribute to the overall stability of societies and human culture in general, it would have already ceased to exist"

It fills a "vast need" like heroin fills a vast need for the heroin addict. This "vast need" you speak of only exists because of the brainwashing of religion in the first place. The world needs rehab, not more fixes of the drug in perpetuity.

I'm not looking to eliminate religion. I'm looking to do my part in eliminating the taboo on criticism of it for political correctness considerations.

Cigarette smoking is on the rapid decline in our society right now. It's not because of any law against smoking. It's because certain campaigns have turned smoking from being something that cool people do, to something that disgusting drug addicts do. People are quitting on mass, one of the most difficult things to quit there is. And they are doing so, because it is no longer socially acceptable behavior, and in fact, can make you a social outcast in many circles.

All I'm talking about with religion is that we do the equivalent of putting pictures of diseased lungs and cancerous mouth sores on the cigarette pack. Speak out. Talk about the horrors caused by delusional deity belief. Criticize the ignorance and primitive nature of deity belief. Make it embarrassing (as it should be) to belong to one of these ancient bronze age religions. Promote free and individual personal spirituality over doctrinal dogmatic religious institutions created by diabolical schemes to prey on people's ignorance and altruistic instincts.

Persiflage,

PERSIFLAGE: "Onofrio is perfectly correct - eliminate religion tomorrow and that leaves billions of uneducated or semi-educated folks without a religious tradition to hang their hat on"

Who on earth ever advocated or suggested eliminating religion tomorrow????
First of all this is magic talk. Such a thing could never and will never happen, so there is no reason to even ponder the result of a sudden gaping void in religious societies if religion were eliminated over night. This is not how it would go down. It would go down like it has in Denmark, gradually over time. Is Denmark suffering from some sudden void of religion. No. Because they evolved out of their religious belief naturally and now have a happy healthy, low crime rate society. (except for the problematic muslim population of course)

PERSIFLAGE: "Order,stability, and group cohesion (despite the superstition)are contributing features that religion typically provides societies - like it or not"

Denmark has order, stability, and group cohesion. They are not suffering.

PERSIFLAGE: "If the process of evolution expunges the (culturally implanted) religion gene as undesirable, it will evaporate naturally in the fullnes of time, and not before"

BS. 80% of all children born in the united states are indoctrinated into God belief before they can talk and think for themselves. They do not get religion from genes! They get it via brainwashing. So do Muslims. So do all religious people.

Also, the religious (because of their primitive doctrines) are out breeding the rest of the world by a country mile. If you think that waiting for it to evolve out of us through natural selection (which doesn't even occur anymore) you might as well just stick your head in the sand.

If Dawkins is correct then I carry this meme too. But lo and behold I am religion free. If religion is an acquired characteristic then I should be afflicted with it too. Clearly it is taught and brainwashed onto our children, and clearly it can be overcome with education, meme or no meme.

PERSIFLAGE: "How ever will we educated (and much smarter) atheist folks ever hope to modulate all the irrational behavior that is sure to follow the elimination of religion, when only human nature is left to blame for all that nasty behavior!"

Denmark!

PERSIFLAGE: "Humans will be human, with or without religion"

How do you know what real human nature truly is when 3/4 of the humans in our world are under the religious superstitious spell. This natural humanistic behavior of tribalism and nastiness that you seem to think is all too human and normal for our species is an idea you got by observing human societies that are hopelessly infected by religion for millennia.

Denmark! Scandinavia! Aside from their muslim populations, ever heard of this warring nasty "human nature" coming from these places?

Persiflage,

agreed! After all the fruitless "truth" discussions, descending sometimes to low levels of a spiderman's hell and his ilk, it seems we are finally arriving at the social and cultural core of the problem, as you have defined it.

We are therefore not talking about "truth" of the religious contents anymore but about religions' tribal or in a broader sense social-tribal-national usefulness or lack thereof. I regard this as a step in the right direction!

Frederic - you're right of course...but in some ways, Western and Northern European cultures are more advanced in other ways as well, including socialized medical care and public education standards.

One wonders if religion has been even a modestly powerful societal force in Scandanavian countries in the last century or more!

I would bet that the observation of religious traditions in Japan is far more prevalant by comparison. Societies that openly prevent or impede religious expression are also sorely lacking in the support for human rights in general.

Contemporary China comes to mind, as well as the former USSR. And aside from the Mid-East, Africa, South America, and various parts of Asia are quite steeped in religion.

It's not that I'm taking a pro-religion position, so much as viewing it as a culturally embedded fact of life globally.

Persiflage,

in Scandinavia and other parts of Europe there is a lot of "Order,stability, and group cohesion" and nobody really cares about religion(s) anymore. Difficult to generalize, It obviously depends...

Onofrio is perfectly correct - eliminate religion tomorrow and that leaves billions of uneducated or semi-educated folks without a religious tradition to hang their hat on. A huge gaping hole in all those lives that needs filling.

Order,stability, and group cohesion (despite the superstition)are contributing features that religion typically provides societies - like it or not.

Here's how to apply the scientific method to the problem of religion - if the process of evolution expunges the (culturally implanted) religion gene as undesirable, it will evaporate naturally in the fullnes of time, and not before.

Here's where both Lamark and Dawkins are correct -religion is an acquired characteristic that is handed down through generational succession via numerous and subtle mechanisms (memes).

How ever will we educated (and much smarter) atheist folks ever hope to modulate all the irrational behavior that is sure to follow the elimination of religion, when only human nature is left to blame for all that nasty behavior! Humans will be human, with or without religion.

This is pie-in-the-sky, grandeoise thinking Timmy. A personal discovery regarding the undesirability of religion (yours) taken to the level of a mission statement - e.g. expunging all religion and religiosity from the world.

While I agree that fundamentalism and absolutism of all kinds leads to illogical and even dangerous beliefs/behavior, with Islam in particular needing rescue from the Middle Ages, I must again make a point - if religion did not fill a vast need in the human psyche and contribute to the overall stability of societies and human culture in general, it would have already ceased to exist.

A little semantic contribution: Please, please don't use the word "intuition" as a source for religion! I think this is simply wrong. Superstition is not the result of intuition. Superstition functions as a place holder for causal ignorance - something the word "intuition" certainly does not cover!

Intuition is not just vague place holder fantasy, and above all it has nothing to do with brain washing. It is the opposite: Intuition arrives at reasonable, factual solutions employing "crystallized experience", the chain of logical intermediate steps remaining unconscious (at least for the moment). But real solutions, not superstition!

And let us not forget that there also are intellectual deductions where the concept of intuition simply is not applicable.

Onofrio,

"Also, not all theists - biblical or otherwise - counsel abandonment of reason and logic as necessary for faith"

Example?

Onofrio,

"911" - what's needed to prevent a recurrence of that event is smarter, more alert *intelligence*."

Short term band aid. At some point we have to begin to treat the root of the problem. That point is yesterday. The placation has gone on far too long, much to our detriment. It's time to stop being polite. It's time for our species to grow up. Does your intuition not tell you that? Mine does.

"immanent nuclear Islamic states" - man, what about the present non-Islamic nuclear states?"

Not scaring me at all. And what a deflection. US nukes protect the free world. Islamic theocracy nukes have the opposite effect.

""global warming" - I do everything I can with my own place. But, realistically, it's all symbolic"

Religious institutions fight to discredit scientific institutions because science discredits religion. For this reason alone, religious groups disbelieve global warming science as a matter of doctrine almost. Besides, God is in control of such things. And the end of days is coming soon anyway. It's just a sign.

""the looming overpopulation problem" - nothing climate change and a series of famines, wars, and pandemics won't cut down to size"

End religion, end the population problem. Dream dream, I know, never in our lifetime, but we've got to start the process of our species growing up. That's what my intuition tells me.

""civil rights for gay people" - this is one where religious lobbies do exercise undue influence. Attack. I think it might change in my lifetime" "stem cell research" - ditto"

This is the difference between you and I. You seem to think that if it can't be fixed in your lifetime, then it's not worth the bother. I am always thinking big picture. I feel a responsibility to aid future generations with my little contribution.

""religious wars new and old" - how about any wars?"

Irresponsible deflection.

"What can one do? I marched against Iraq, waved my placard around, yelled, wrote. Still happened. War ain't over"

Defeatist misanthrope.

I personally think that humanity is great and full of potential. It is so sad and unfortunate that so many of us are brainwashed. Sadder still how easy it is to break the spell. But to do so is still taboo.

Timmy,

You:
"Of course the theist positions is that you must not trust logic and reason, their bronze age posit can not stand up to even the slightest hint of reason and logic."

This presupposes that "the theist position" is necessarily *biblical* in origin. The various *biblical* theisms do not have to be the definitive word on god or gods, though they are dominant at the moment.

Also, not all theists - biblical or otherwise - counsel abandonment of reason and logic as necessary for faith. That's too broad a brush. Some of the subtlest and most erudite thinkers I've known have been sincere theists. And I've seen some pretty mediocre reasoning from anti-theists as well.

I don't think theistic belief per se is responsible for all the evils you attribute to it. Too broad a broadside. Certain types of theistic belief may be very problematic indeed - I think dispensational premillennialism has a lot to answer for, as does Salafism, as does Christian Dominionism, as does hyper-Calvinism, as does Lefebvrism, as does al-Qaeda,as does Opus Dei. But it's harder to fault - on simply anti-theist grounds - Desmond Tutu, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Dom Helder Camara, St Francis, M L King, William Wilberforce, Maximilian Kolbe, J S Bach, Teilhard de Chardin, Hildegard of Bingen, Mary McKillop... all of whom were motivated by (Christian) theistic convictions. The world would be poorer without them, regardless of what we think of their "bronze age posit".

Methinks your passion to *save the world* sometimes makes you view things in starkest contrast.

Magically eliminate all theism from the world by Friday, and war, pedophiles, nukes, climate change, and over-population will still be with us.

PART 2

JUSTILLTHEN TO TIMMY2: “How is it that you know that is all that the heart does or exists for? How do you think that "everything" exists in the brain? Is that where consciousness exists? How do you know where consciousness resides?

The heart is a muscle – nothing more. It pumps blood. One can have his heart removed and have his blood pumped by machines – he still loves and feels.

There is a simple way to prove that consciousness resides in the brain – have someone hit you in the head with a baseball bat (not hard enough to kill you – just a love tap) and see how conscious you are. Better still, have your pre-frontal cortex removed, or destroyed by lack of oxygen (a la Teri Schaivo), or be born without one, and see how conscious you are.

JUSTILLTHEN: “ I remain saddened by the need of rationally focused brains, (that be people!), to degrade the interconnectedness of all life, and all consciousness”

Oh, merde du cheval, Justy. You are a magical thinker.

All life is indeed interconnected in that we all, from mushroom to marsh hen, jellyfish to jennet, and hummingbird to human, go back to a common ancestor, but as for interconnected consciousness – why do we bother typing into this forum, then? Why not just transfer thoughts through…what? The ether?

PART 1

JUSTILLTHEN: “Of course nature is concerned with efficiency, while maximizing possibility… When food is scarce, watch animal behaviour. What food is wasted? What energy is wasted on frivolity, especially when there is any shortage? If there is a glut of births it is due to abundance, and all species take advantage of good fortune. When there is shortage, economy.”

No, when there is shortage, death. Many animal populations are not in balance, but go through “boom and bust” cycles. In India, bamboo blooms and fruits once every 48 years, causing a huge explosion in the rat population. When the bamboo fruits are gone, they ravage the crops and stored grain, and then they die en masse.

The bamboo, like the 17-year cicadas, is using a reproduction strategy that works thusly: if you produce in huge numbers, even though predators may eat enormous amounts, they will eventually be glutted, and some of the offspring will survive. Reproducing on long-interval cycles makes it difficult for predators to match their cycles to yours.

Animals that have uncertain food supplies or abundant predators breed early and often, and usually produce litters.

All of this works, but it can hardly be termed “efficient.”

ME: Waking deja vu is pretty well understood - just misfiring neurons that give you the impression of new information being an old memory.

JUSTILLTHEN: “Poppycock. Utter nonsense.”

My, what a cogent and convincing rebuttal argument. I’m so impressed that I’m going to change my mind. NOT.

ME: Precognition doesn't exist. It can't possibly since the future can't be known - it's only a concept, not a reality. To the extent that people dream something that later occurs, at least in some general way, they are experiencing coincidence.

JUSTILLTHEN: “In other words, you have no way of rationally explaining what is a known phenomenon but to discount it somehow.”

A known phenomenon?? Not known to me. Not known to anyone I’ve ever known. Known only anecdotally by *anyone* – unless you have some documented proof that people have related their dreams - *in detail* - to unbiased witnesses (note plural) and afterwards had them come true - *in the same detail*. If you have this evidence, by all means, trot it out.

Timmy,

You:
"Let us know when you are not so tentative (re atheism) anymore. We could really use your talents on the "save the world from horror and destruction" side."

Timmy, ain't no saving the world. That's for Messiahs. Much as I'd like to, I can't rearrange all those apocalyptic deckchairs you mention. Nor do I associate these dire predicaments with theism per se, although dogmatic extremists are definitely part of the mix.

"911" - what's needed to prevent a recurrence of that event is smarter, more alert *intelligence*. Mohammed Atta and Co could have been nipped in the bud, but the watchdogs had eyes wide shut.

"immanent nuclear Islamic states" - man, what about the present non-Islamic nuclear states? Any nuke's an abomination in my book. And those who have them aren't too keen to give them up. I think we'll see some more Hiroshimas before the century's out. History shows humanity learns the hard way, if at all.

"global warming" - I do everything I can with my own place. But, realistically, it's all symbolic. There goes another jet plane. *Man's own resinous heart* would burn off the sky itself, certes. On the upside, perhaps massive climate change will scare the great and the good out of waving nukes around. Then again...

"the looming overpopulation problem" - nothing climate change and a series of famines, wars, and pandemics won't cut down to size. All on the cards. Don't fret, there'll be some population left, maybe even half!

"civil rights for gay people" - this is one where religious lobbies do exercise undue influence. Attack. I think it might change in my lifetime.

"stem cell research" - ditto.

"pedophile priests" - there are also pedophile social workers, scout-masters, swimming coaches, teachers, police, shopkeepers, fathers, step-fathers, Santa Clauses, bon vivants, and garbage collectors, many of whom are not at all religious. Why stop at just the priests? They can all go to hell, but we'll just have to settle for jail in the meantime.

"religious wars new and old" - how about any wars? Since the Treaty of Westphalia 360 odd years ago, specifically religious wars have been pretty scarce in *European* countries. And there's been some biggies, yea even the biggest! Current and recent major wars - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Bosnia - cannot be construed as primarily religious in motivation. It's all about geopolitics, control of resources, and tribal vendetta. Religion is waved around as a rallying banner. Often principled opposition to the wars will come from religiously motivated people, among others. Go figure.

What can one do? I marched against Iraq, waved my placard around, yelled, wrote. Still happened. War ain't over.

"and the sadistic way in which theistic beliefs are used to prey on the weak and ignorant." - You'd be surprised if you saw me in full flight on this one, Timmy. I know you might find it hard to believe, but in non-blog world, that is my accustomed field of battle.

Timmy,

You:
"Does your intuition tell you that the scientific method will emerge in time as limited, and even misleading under certain conditions?"

You know, I'm biased toward the scientific method as the way to establish public facts. That's my conditioning. My intuition tells me to suspect my bias, is all.

In time, none of this will matter.

Onofrio,

One more thought.

YOU: "YOU: "My intuition suggests that what seems most solid and certain (eg. Newtonian physics) may emerge, in time, as limited, and even misleading under certain conditions"

It will be science that discovers this. I don't believe in Newtonian physics. I believe in the scientific method. Does your intuition tell you that the scientific method will emerge in time as limited, and even misleading under certain conditions?

Persiflage,

It was a weather balloon. ;)

Onofrio,

YOU: "My intuition suggests that what seems most solid and certain (eg. Newtonian physics) may emerge, in time, as limited, and even misleading under certain conditions"

It already is. Quantum theory is shaking it to the core. But none of that is pointing in any way to the notion that the theists might be right. Science is still the best way to discover these things.

YOU: "When reasons clash, as they may do, it may be intuition that scouts a way through"

And visa versa. Both should always be employed. Logic and reason does not throw away or disregard intuition. And intuition should never throw away or disregard logic and reason.

YOU: "Perhaps the difference could be characterised as tentative (Onofrio) and convinced (Timmy) atheism"

You'll get there.
911, immanent nuclear Islamic states, global warming, the looming overpopulation problem, civil rights for gay people, stem cell research, pedophile priests, religious wars new and old, and the sadistic way in which theistic beliefs are used to prey on the weak and ignorant.

Let us know when you are not so tentative anymore. We could really use your talents on the "save the world from horror and destruction" side.

Onofrio,

YOU: "I see theism not so much as a total mistake, but possibly a misinterpretation of intuition, a leap to conclusions"

Me too.

And given that it is common knowledge that intuition can easily be misinterpreted, the idea of leaping to conclusions based on intuition alone, especially theistic conclusions involving the creator of the universe, is a bad idea, and in the case of the two most prominent and influential religions in the world, it can cause great conflict, and the most inhuman behavior. Moreover, societal endorsement of this kind of theistic behavior and the brainwashing of children with it, is holding a good portion of our world in the dark ages. And they are an anchor around our necks. An anchor with bombs and guns and immanently, nuclear weapons.

Is criticism of theism not being patriotic to humanity?

YOU: "I've encountered enough reasonable, logical arguments for aspects of theistic (particularly Christian) belief to mistrust excessive reliance on reason and logic alone to establish the fullness of truth"

1) What truth?
2) Who ever endorsed excessive reliance on reason and logic alone to establish the fullness of truth? Does science have excessive reliance on reason and logic alone? This is not my view of science. I have no doubt that scientists use their intuition and every faculty that theists employ in their work, they just don't willfully ignore reason and logic. Of course the theist positions is that you must not trust logic and reason, their bronze age posit can not stand up to even the slightest hint of reason and logic.
3) Can you elaborate on these "reasonable, logical arguments for aspects of theistic (particularly Christian) belief" that you have encountered? And did you notice the irony that these reasonable logical arguments are what lead to you to mistrust reason and logic? Can one use reason and logic to discover a mistrust of reason and logic?

UFO's - fact or fiction? Jungian projections or objective reality? Find an interesting article below. My hypothesis? Not inter-galactic but extra-dimensional - and which can hypothetically be done at less than the speed of light.

My parents saw a saucer-shaped UFO at tree-top height about 300 feet from their house back in the 1950's. This was in the middle of the day, and at the time they lived in the country without other neighbors close by.

About 20 years later, my father saw a similar craft hovering at night for several minutes, within a few hundred feet of that initial sighting.

What was the nature of this experience? My parents were previously not in the least given to such 'imaginative' interests or odd experiences.

Rather than departing abruptly at high speed, in both cases the mysterious objects simply faded from view. I've never had a similar experience myself, so apparently it doesn't run in the family.

http://www.stardrive.org/ufos.shtml

Timmy,

YOU: "Who on earth would condone being theistic based on intuition alone?"

ME: "Perhaps the *intuition* which you say points to reason and logic does not confine her favours to these two alone"

YOU: Perhaps is correct. So how would anyone know well enough to be a theist?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intuition is sufficient to establish theistic conviction, just as it's sufficient for you to know your intuition is your own ;)

Perhaps.

Intuition is:

- educated instinct,

- an unconscious concentration of experience and knowledge,

- a synthesising function that allows us to steer roughly in the right direction in any given situation.

Like any human capability, intuition can be improved by exercise or atrophied by neglect. Because it has roots in instinct and the unconscious, intuition is more tricky to develop than a bicep, or memory, or calculation. But it can be done - by disciplines of meditation, mindfulness, awareness, et cetera.

As I see it, the theist sharpens intuition's hints of something-or-someone-out-there (in the same sphere as your own speculations about consciousness etc.) into a relatively defined image/entity, most often under the influence of religious traditions/texts/practices. I see theism not so much as a total mistake, but possibly a misinterpretation of intuition, a leap to conclusions. That being said, leaping to a conclusion doesn't necessarily result in the wrong conclusion. It's an act of faith and hope, and only the crucible of experience will sort out whether it's ultimately justifiable.

I've encountered enough reasonable, logical arguments for aspects of theistic (particularly Christian) belief to mistrust excessive reliance on reason and logic alone to establish the fullness of truth. My intuition does not provide detailed refutations, but it does lead me to suspect any absolute claims. And it allows me to do so on emotional and even instinctual grounds that are difficult to rationalise. Reason, like intuition, is not infallible. My intuition suggests that what seems most solid and certain (eg. Newtonian physics) may emerge, in time, as limited, and even misleading under certain conditions.

When reasons clash, as they may do, it may be intuition that scouts a way through.

Theism, although I harbour doubts about it on logical, rational, and intuitive grounds, is not as unjustifiable to me as it is to you. Perhaps the difference could be characterised as tentative (Onofrio) and convinced (Timmy) atheism.

Persiflage asks: "Physics or psychics?

Actually you were correct both times because the first one started a sentence. ;)

But "physics" is correct, because proving any physics theory false garners a scientist the field's highest honor. All scientific theories are seen as current theories. Always open to change based on new evidence. And contradicting evidence is always sought out to the point of exhaustion.

Persiflage: "Either way, it just ain't logical ...."

It doesn't need to be to be considered real. There is evidence for it. Proof.

Science can not explain how dolphins swim as fast as they do? It does not compute with our physics. But we still believe that dolphins swim that fast because there is evidence. We see it physically happen. So we know it is so. We can not explain it yet. But there is no reason to think that there isn't a perfectly logical explanation for it. We just haven't figured it our yet. What kind of illogical explanation would you expect there to be for it. God's magic will?

But this "universal consciousness" idea has no evidence for it like the swimming dolphins or the fire coal walkers. It's just an imagination. If it is true, I expect that scientists will find it before religious monks chanting in caves find it. And there will be a perfectly logical explanation for it. Why wouldn't there be?

Physics or psychics? Either way, it just ain't logical ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firewalking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fakir

grrrrrrrrrl

SHICK

flump

"Raaaaaaay"

et encore...

Justilthen,

Continued,

YOU: "That said, one of the preeminent psycologists of all time, Carl Jung, has some theories on consciousness and the human mind that is held in high regard by virtually the entire scientific community"

"You will leave it open, though, pending further evidence"

As does science.

YOU: "You cannot recognize accepted scientific theory here, timmy?

What specific accepted scientific theory are you referring to? I know of no scientific theory that says that Jung was right about everything. Can you give me a specific?

YOU: "Being the rationalist that you are, it would be more "intellectually honest" to recognize accepted scientific theory here, as you do in many other cases in your arguments"

I recognize all accepted scientific THEORIES.
Which specific one are you referring to. Again, I don't know of any "Jung was right" theory. Can you elucidate?

Also, theory is not belief. And most certainly not faith. These are the only two things I am arguing against holding without evidence or reason or logic.

YOU: "This is another example of how I find you at time dis-honest in debate. You argue for your preconcieved position, to justify IT. Not as an "open question"

This is not true. My arguments are all about people accepting myth as myth, theory as theory, hypothesis as hypothesis, and imagination as imagination.

I criticize the practice of turning imagination into hypothesis into theory and into belief and into faith with no rational reason for doing so.

Can you tell me one thing that you believe that is not logical, Justilthen?

Justilthen,

YOU: "You repeated that you will await further scientific evidence, even as you regularly use scientific theories that fit your world view"

That is what science does. We go with what we have evidence for thus far, whilst always seeking to improve upon or discredit our latest theories. What we don't do is form theories, and especially not beliefs, and especially not faith, without backing up our hypotheses with empirical evidence. If we have no empirical evidence for something, but find good reason for a logical induction of it, the we call it a hypothesis until we can support it with evidence. But if there is no evidence, and no reason for logical induction, than it really doesn't even deserve a proper "hypothesis" label. And I find no evidence for consciousness existing outside of the brain, and I find no reason to consider it likely. I also find no reason to negate it entirely. It is an interesting imagination. But to be a theist in this regard, is as delusional as believing in the virgin birth of Jesus.

YOU: "Leave it here for instance that there is no proofs that consciousness, (whatever that is), resides in the brain"

Correct. And no reason to believe that it exists anywhere else. Reason to ponder? sure. Reason to believe? Absurd.

YOU: "You assume it does"

I do not, any more than I assume there is no God. People posit these things like God, or consciousness existing without a brain, and I find no reason to believe these posits. I don't assume there is no flying spaghetti monster. There is just no reason to posit such a thing.

YOU: "But we do not yet have "consciousness" bottled and under a microscope, timmy!"

Correct. So no reason for anyone to believe that it exists outside of the brain.

Justilthen,

I am happy that you are in possession of all necessary information to make such a poignant and definite distant diagnosis oft the seizure of my youth.

I don't really think it is so arrogant to doubt just that...BTW: How well do you know me?

The neuronal firings are the substrate, maybe even the cause of the seizures (I am aware that you know better, referring to C.G.Jung, who died in 1961, long before crucial discoveries on neurobiology were available to him!), and by treating them, the seizures were healed. There even may be a genetic element to it. A lot of unknowns. However, nothing illogical whatsoever.

I agree to an "intercausality" but not to an inverted causality as you so firmly suggest. Our systems all work in cybernetic cycles.

And I certainly don't agree with you as to intuition being outside or even independent of these cybernetic cycles, as you seem to infer in all your recent comments. You sure know the books of Oliver Sacks? "The man who took his wife for a hat" after a brain injury?

Timmy,

Just quickly a couple of things and I have to go. Being bad already.

Me: "Again, I will go with Carl Jung on this"

You: "Ok.
Myself I will be more intellectually honest and leave it an open question pending further evidence."

You repeated that you will await further scientific evidence, even as you regularly use scientific theories that fit your world view. I am sure you will ask for examples, and I will later. Leave it here for instance that there is no proofs that consciousness, (whatever that is), resides in the brain. You assume it does, as you assume, (I assume!), that it exists INSIDE the confines of the body. But we do not yet have "consciousness" bottled and under a microscope, timmy!

That said, one of the preeminent psycologists of all time, Carl Jung, has some theories on consciousness and the human mind that is held in high regard by virtually the entire scientific community.

You will leave it open, though, pending further evidence...

You cannot recognize accepted scientific theory here, timmy? What a surprise. And the added touch of saying: "Myself I will be more intellectually honest..."

Being the rationalist that you are, it would be more "intellectually honest" to recognize accepted scientific theory here, as you do in many other cases in your arguments.

This is another example of how I find you at time dis-honest in debate. You argue for your preconcieved position, to justify IT. Not as an "open question".

Justilthen,

YOU TO FREDERICK: "Ever thought of starting a religion? Plenty of egos there!"

Oh my word, is this Justilthen making a a blanketed negative statement about religion?

Atta boy. Now you're getting sensible.

Justilthen,

YOU: "This one admittedly is not a smoking gun. :-) Does not matter.

I'm afraid it does matter. The quote you gave clearly backs up my assertion that I was most definitely NOT defining intuition and makes your assertion that I was, a lie.

YOU: "The statement I made was not a lie about you"

Yes it was.

YOU: "You in all things seek a logical answer, intuition included"

As does everyone, including you you.

YOU: "I find over dependence on linear perception and rational justifications lacking.

Good thing I am not guilty of any of that.

YOU: "It is fine that you need the world to be rational and logically based, but I find vitality in other ways"

Such as?

YOU: "You need to make it be "all in the brain", but that is too limited for me"

But no, Justilthen. Now you are lying again. I do not "NEED" to make it be "all in the brain". It's just that that seems to be the most likely answer to where our consciousness comes from. I am happy to entertain other ideas, but I will apply critical thinking to them as I am instinctually inclined to do. The idea of consciousness existing outside of the brain simply has no evidence for, no logical deduction for, and no real reason to believe it to be true.

YOU: "For all I know the causality of the universe could well be us, as the superconscious entity that religions have sought to define and worship, having forgotten where we left our superentity costume. :-)"

And for all I know the flying spaghetti monster rules the universe. The possible fantastical theories for which there isn't a scrap of evidence are endless.

frederic2,

"Don't you think it is a little fresh to "dismiss my doctors' theory" without ANY additional information?"

I do have additional information. Don't you think it presumptive of you, arrogant even, to say that I have no information other than what you blessed me with? A bit aggressive, no? I should accept and believe, bcause you have said it is so? Ever thought of starting a religion? Plenty of egos there!

"Every phenomenon, emotion, love, music, perception of the senses NEEDS a physical substrate..."

Never negated this idea, frederic. All aspects of life interconnect. The physical body itself is a substrate for life and consciousness to exist in this dimension and time.

"The necessity of a physical substrate ENHANCES the miracles of life for me, while it DISGRACES life for you."

You continue arrogant assumptions. You do not know me or my experience of life. I find your insults distasteful at best. Rather vile, more to it. HOW your mind divines that physicality and sensuality "disgrace" life for me I am not even interested in hearing about. Keep it to yourself, please.

"Funny that you don't even take notice of my musical frequency arguments, or my erroneous "only" arguments. You are afraid of them, C.G.Jung added or not. (He believed in flying saucers, btw.)"

I did notice them. Did not comment on them. The musical frequency arguments may make great sense. I do not know, as I have not enough real information on this work to consider it.
I do not see myself as the one here pushing an "only" way argument, frederic...
I am not "afraid of them".

(btw, have interplanetary travelers been disproven, frederic? Just a question, I am not looking for a reply. Really.)

Justilthen,

Continued,

YOU: "How is it that you know that is all that the heart does or exists for?"

Can you give me another plausible purpose for it?
Are you questioning this? Do you think that the heart has another function that is related to love?

YOU: "How do you know where consciousness resides?"

I don't "know" that, but there just isn't any reason to believe otherwise. We have no evidence of anything ever being conscious without a brain. So why assume that consciousness exists outside of brain? Flight of fancy?

YOU: "You make up answers all the time, timmy. Follow your advice. You make place holders for intuition, (as logic and reason on a subconscious level)

No I don't. As I pointed out, I said that it "could be" that. I leave it an open question for science to study. It is you who says that it is sad that people deny the interconnected consciousness of everything. It is you who has a place holder theory of consciousness for which there isn't a scrap of evidence or logical induction.

YOU: "and real love, (it does exist, don't know why but it will be logical)"

I didn't say real love doesn't exist. I said that there was perfectly logical explanation for it. Can you give me an example of an illogical explanation for it that would satisfy you?

YOU: "and that everything is found in the brain"

Can you give me another source for emotions and thoughts that works for you?

I do not make up answers to unknown mysteries. I hypothesize about them like anyone would, but I do so scientifically based on observation and evidence, and scientific studies, not fantastical supernatural imaginations for which there is no evidence or even logical induction.

And I certainly do not form theistic beliefs about these unanswered questions. I leave them open for more study and new information. I most certainly do contemplate a universal consciousness. But this is something that I imagine only. There is not a scrap of evidence pointing to it. I don't entirely negate it, but there's just no reason, other than fantasy, to think that it's true.

Justilthen,

"You suggest that intuition is really logic, (perhaps in a different languaging?), and working on a "subconscious level"."

I suggested that it "could be" as such, indicating that I do not know and I am leaving it an open question.

YOU: "You are looking for rationalizations for what intuition is and how it works, but you do not know this"

No I do not know this. Nor did I say or indicate that I "know" this. Only that it is one plausible answer.

YOU: "Again, I will go with Carl Jung on this"

Ok.
Myself I will be more intellectually honest and leave it an open question pending further evidence.

YOU: "I do not negate the use of logic or reason. It is essential, I agree, and 'instinctual'. :-) I disagree with an addiction to it"

I don't imagine there is any such thing as addiction to it. But then again my imagination isn't as wild as yours.

YOU: "The intuitive is not in my view logic and reason on a subconcious level"

Nor is it in my view. It is an open question. I only brought up the plausibility of it being a form of logic and reason on a subconscious level, to counter your definitive statement that it definitely was something entirely different from logic and reason. You don't know that. That was my point.

I SAID: "Real love exists. But like intuition, there is a perfectly logical and scientific explanation for it."

YOU REPLIED: "OK. How do you know this? Because you feel it and believe the feeling?

What other type of explanation for it could there be? An illogical one? Can you give an example of an illogical explanation for love that you would be willing to believe?

timmy,

"My issue really became symbolized by timmy, though not limited to him, and his insistence of defining and rationalizing intuition, among other things, that are yet beyond reason"

Could you please stop lying about me. I'd appreciate it.

I have looked for several quotes, but do not have the time to spend. Your latest is here:

"Intuition could be logic and reason acting on a subconscious level. I'm not suggesting that it is, only that you don't know that it isn't. Either way there's little doubt in my mind that whatever intuition is, there is a perfectly rational and logical explanation for it. Why wouldn't there be?"

This one admittedly is not a smoking gun. :-) Does not matter. The statement I made was not a lie about you. You in all things seek a logical answer, intuition included. I find over dependence on linear perception and rational justifications lacking. It is fine that you need the world to be rational and logically based, but I find vitality in other ways. You need to make it be "all in the brain", but that is too limited for me. Intuition is not logic on a subconscious level to me, though in the end I am sure that all things come back to source. I do not believe that whatever that 'coin' is, that it's essential component is logic primarily.

I offer no reason to you for this perception. You have offered no reason why it will be purely logic and reason. For all I know the causality of the universe could well be us, as the superconscious entity that religions have sought to define and worship, having forgotten where we left our superentity costume. :-)

"I'm not suggesting that it is, only that you don't know that it isn't."

peace to you, timmy.

Don't you think it is a little fresh to "dismiss my doctors' theory" without ANY additional information? You splendidly corroborate my point: Stay the course against all evidence, exclude any further information. It "saddens" you: Saddening has led many people to new insight.

Google deja vue (if only to "dismiss it"):

"Deja vue is a perfect example of Pseudo-Psi, which refers to 'what's not psychic but looks like it', that is, phenomena and experiences that individuals attribute to paranormal processes, but which actually have normal explanations."

Every phenomenon, emotion, love, music, perception of the senses NEEDS a physical substrate, possibly on a level as low as the atom. The necessity of a physical substrate ENHANCES the miracles of life for me, while it DISGRACES life for you. One molecule of a substance (nice dinner fragrance) produces a smell in our nose. Make yourself familiar with the concept of substrate.

Funny that you don't even take notice of my musical frequency arguments, or my erroneous "only" arguments. You are afraid of them, C.G.Jung added or not. (He believed in flying saucers, btw.)

timmy2,

"Well you wouldn't be the only one on this thread with delusional beliefs. ;)
"Enamored of rationalization? Do you not understand the irony of such a ridiculous accusation?"

:-) Hadn't thought of it that way, if you mean 'emotional of being logical'. But you do, as you continue to describe in your post, believe in rationality and logic as the 'superior or overarching' function or manifestation of what is true and valid. You suggest that intuition is really logic, (perhaps in a different languaging?), and working on a "subconscious level".

So says you... You do not know, timmy. You are looking for rationalizations for what intuition is and how it works, but you do not know this.

Again, I will go with Carl Jung on this. With all respect to your reverence for the linear and the logical, of course.

I do not negate the use of logic or reason. It is essential, I agree, and 'instinctual'. :-) I disagree with an addiction to it. The intuitive is not in my view logic and reason on a subconcious level. Indeed, consciousness is not inately logical. Logic is conditioned into the growing mind. We are trained to "think logically". That is not bad at all. But thinking logically is not thinking intuitively I would have to say. You believe otherwise. Just train that intuition to speak in a rational way, timmy, and you won't have to translate!

"Real love exists. But like intuition, there is a perfectly logical and scientific explanation for it."

OK. How do you know this? Because you feel it and believe the feeling? Obviously you are saying that it is more than hormonal.

"The heart pumps blood and that is all that it does. It has nothing to do with love. Love is in your brain like everything else. And there is a scientific explanation for it."

How is it that you know that is all that the heart does or exists for? How do you think that "everything" exists in the brain? Is that where consciousness exists? How do you know where consciousness resides?

"Why can't people leave unanswered questions unanswered until we have an answer. Why make up an answer as a place holder? Why is leaving it an open question (the scientific approach) a problem for you?"

You make up answers all the time, timmy. Follow your advice. You make place holders for intuition, (as logic and reason on a subconscious level), and real love, (it does exist, don't know why but it will be logical), and that everything is found in the brain. In this post alone.

Hello frederic,

"You are an example of those people who simply refuse to accept a piece of evidence if it disturbs their "world view"."

You jump to a number of conclusions. This is one of them. I take what you said on face value, but it is not the only piece of evidence that I am consulting when I dismiss your theory, (perhaps your doctors' theory), as invalid. I do not negate that the chemistry of the body and it's 'state' of homeostasis is not an effect, or affect for that matter, in psychological experience. But I do not see it as causal.
Causality of consciousness, of life itself, is not clearly known. Evolution of physical form does not itself explain the origin of "life", or of consciousness. Your explaination of awareness mimicking dreams does not allow for what you have acknowledged, that life is "somehow" interconnected.

I will go with Carl Jung on this one...

"...while for you such knowledge represents a lethal DANGER to your bias, therefore you simply deny it against all evidence."

Another assumption that you make of me. I am neither afraid of knowledge nor deny it "against all evidence". This is funny. What evidence do you cite but your belief, gifted you by the doctors of your youth, that your deja vu experiences were an abberation of the mind, (your mind was playing tricks on you). I am not afraid of this information, but I do not take it as an cause of deja vu. For all I know your seizures were a manifestation OF the unconscious self as it floated to the surface of your conscious mind and body, and the deja vu experiences unconcious knowledge from that level. I am glad that this challenge was passed by you with the help of your doctors but I, (admittedly without the pain or fear of seizures accompanying them), do not have a challenged relationship with deja vu experiences.

Or with any of the other experiences and awarenesses that I have that are 'extraordinary', (being outside the realm of normal consciousness).

Justilthen,

my experiences with deja vue in my youth always happened right before some sort of seizure, pointing to some misfiring in the brain. And my doctors explained it to me, contrary to your romantic belief, that "present awareness plays memory". They healed me from it, btw. Take it or leave it.

You are an example of those people who simply refuse to accept a piece of evidence if it disturbs their "world view".

Contrary to you, knowing something important about the connection between two levels (e.g., frequency proportions and deep emotional effects in music) ENHANCES my admiration for our nature, for the beauty of the world, for the "miracles" of our existence, while for you such knowledge represents a lethal DANGER to your bias, therefore you simply deny it against all evidence. And I know what I am talking about as a musician and life-long music teacher who has helped shape numerous careers of young musicians, this knowledge being one of the important parts of this education.

How does such knowledge damage the "interconnectedness of all life"? I don't get it. I think the main error you and others commit is the word "only": It is "only" the neurons, it is "only" the frequency, it is "only" the chemo-electrical nerve connections. NO! These things are necessary substrates for feeling, love, touch, taste, communication etc.

Of course everything is somehow connected, but it is intellectually honest to choose the levels of these connections instead of simply enthusiastically revel in the single level of experience. Experience does need a substrate.

Btw, Einstein seems to have spent years of thinking before the "intuition" of his theory struck him!

Justilthen,

YOU TO FREDERIC2: "My issue really became symbolized by timmy, though not limited to him, and his insistence of defining and rationalizing intuition, among other things, that are yet beyond reason"

Could you please stop lying about me. I'd appreciate it.
I have never insisted on defining, nor have I defined "intuition". If you are going to accuse me of that again, please use a direct quote from me, so I can show you how you are mistaken.

YOU: "I remain saddened by the need of rationally focused brains, (that be people!), to degrade the interconnectedness of all life, and all consciousness, and it's ability to intercommunicate, into misfiring neurons and misplaced awareness in dream states"

Here you speak as though you have knowledge of "the interconnectedness of all life, and all consciousness, and it's ability to intercommunicate". Do you have such knowledge? Can you tell me where this knowledge that you have came from?

YOU: "Life, though, is not so simply physical, or electrical for that matter"

Whoever said that it was?

YOU: "Btw, though Edison is great, Einstein is a better example of a scientist using intuition as a tool for plumbing the depths of truth!

What???? Impossible. Einstein was a western scientist. And we all know that western scientists put too much emphasis on logic and reason. I know this is true because Justilthen told me so.

The Moderate,

YOU: "Sure you did. You started with the Multiverse as an answer to the Penrose probability computation"

Uh, no I didn't. You have me confused with someone else.

YOU: "Your profession of faith in Steady State: "As it was in the beginning is now, and will be forever, world without end. Amen"

I have never professed faith in any of the possible theories on our existence. I simply point out that if one is going to hypothesize, Occam's razor works against the uncaused creator hypothesis and in favor of the eternal energy hypothesis. But I have faith in neither. I leave it an open question. No faith required.

The reason you are confused is that you seem to see the application of Occam's razor as being a method of forming belief or faith. It is not for that purpose. It is for hypothetical purposes only. Your mistake is using it to become a theist, and assuming that others do as well.

YOU: "Your profession of faith in Big Bang: "In the beginning God created the the heavens and the earth."

I have no such faith. The big bang is a hypothesis (educated guess) based on the best currently available evidence . That is all.

Justilthen,

YOU: "I believe that you are enamored of rationalization as validation, and intuition is a slippery and untrustworthy dude"

Well you wouldn't be the only one on this thread with delusional beliefs. ;)
"Enamored of rationalization? Do you not understand the irony of such a ridiculous accusation?

YOU: "I would venture to say that you would apply logic and reason regardless of any imput that intuition would have"

As would you. The application of logic and reason is not very often a conscious decision. It's pretty instinctual. I don't recall ever being in a situation where I consciously decided to apply logic and reason to a given problem. It's an auto response. However, to ignore logic and reason takes a conscious effort. To override them is almost as difficult as jumping out of a plane. Even if you have a parachute on, your brain says "Whoah!, what are you doing? This isn't right".

YOU: "But they are a different "method of gaining knowledge", and do not act or operate in the same way or form as logic and reason do"

So says you. But then again you don't know. Intuition could be logic and reason acting on a subconscious level. I'm not suggesting that it is, only that you don't know that it isn't. Either way there's little doubt in my mind that whatever intuition is, there is a perfectly rational and logical explanation for it. Why wouldn't there be?

YOU: "Yes. And Love, not filial love but real and true love, is a trick that the heart plays on the emotions when our partner says "I do", and I believe it... For real love does not exist, don't you know."

Real love exists. But like intuition, there is a perfectly logical and scientific explanation for it. It's not a magic gift from our magic God. And neither is intuition. The heart pumps blood and that is all that it does. It has nothing to do with love. Love is in your brain like everything else. And there is a scientific explanation for it.

YOU: "It is sad that some rationalize timeless interconnection of consciousness as misfiring neurons and games that 'awareness' plays. I am sorry to hear it"

It is sad that some choose to define deja vu as a "timeless interconnection of consciousness" without any scientific evidence or proof of such a thing. It is sad that such theism still inhabits our modern world. Why can't people leave unanswered questions unanswered until we have an answer. Why make up an answer as a place holder? Why is leaving it an open question (the scientific approach) a problem for you?

frederic2,

I am not making a value judgement, per se, that intuition is somehow better than, or divorced and separate from, logic and reason. I agree with you that they are two sides of the same coin, as I have said. And as you said. As the right and left hemispheres of the brain are interconnected and equally essential, so reason and intuition are intrinsically entwined.

My issue really became symbolized by timmy, though not limited to him, and his insistence of defining and rationalizing intuition, among other things, that are yet beyond reason. It is not that one side of a coin cannot 'define' the other side by it's participation with it, but the attempt to make the 'dark side of the coin' be catagorized by the logic of the "light side' is 'counter-intuitive'. :-)

Hold what you wish for deja vu experiences. I remain saddened by the need of rationally focused brains, (that be people!), to degrade the interconnectedness of all life, and all consciousness, and it's ability to intercommunicate, into misfiring neurons and misplaced awareness in dream states. That is to me an attempt to make the functions of the physical body and senses as the limitation of causality. It is not for me, never has been.

All things relate, as do the right and left hemispheres, logic and intuition, male and female, neurons and consciousness. Reflections of the greater truth of life can be gleaned by observing what we have to observe, the physical universe. I understand the tendency to find cause there. Life, though, is not so simply physical, or electrical for that matter.

Btw, though Edison is great, Einstein is a better example of a scientist using intuition as
a tool for plumbing the depths of truth!

Timmy,

"YOU: "I think that you have used Occham's razor when it serves your arguments. Why not continue to use it?"

I have."

Not just now, though.

:^))

Timmy,

"If one must assume any uncaused cause, which one is lead to do by the problem of infinite regression, it is far more economical to assume that the energy/matter that we know exists, and have no evidence for it ever not existing, is the uncaused cause, as opposed to a magic man in the sky uncaused."

Your profession of faith in Steady State: "As it was in the beginning is now, and will be forever, world without end. Amen"

Your profession of faith in Big Bang: "In the beginning God created the the heavens and the earth."

:^))

Profession of steady

Timmy,

"I do not assume that, and have never said that I did."

Sure you did. You started with the Multiverse as an answer to the Penrose probability computation.

Justilthen,

please think about your last sentence some more:

My knowledge that music consists of frequency proportions does NOT disgrace the profound emotions it can cause in us! Same with your unfortunate love example. The fact that feelings will show on an EEG does not disgrace the feelings!

It is not a question of good or bad, spiritual or materialistic, but a question of the level of consideration you apply to something. Therefore I stick very firmly to my definition (backed by all present day science) of the deja vue experience. To repeat myself: I have had plenty of wake deja vue experience (unfortunately, I might say): It is a short circuit in the brain from present awareness to memory. Awareness "plays" memory, as psychologists explain.

The knowledge that my skin has billions of sensors does not disgrace the feeling I have when stroking somebody I love: it is a different level of consideration, and the physiological level is the condition of the emotional level. If your taste buds don't fire anymore, you cannot taste anything anymore. So why are you so afraid if somebody is interested in simply getting a little closer to the phenomenon, as if it was already a sin to ask! (Oops, I forgot, it IS a sin, even a hereditary one!)

Btw., you forgot "smell" in your enumeration of the deja vue experiences). You: "utter nonsense".

You should inform yourself some more before jumping to all sorts of personal conclusions, and, worse, evaluations, selling them in an affirmative way "as if" they were facts, and discard the stupid others' experiences ("utter nonsense") in your "linear thinking" trash basket if they don't fit into your particular bias system.

Intuition: Edison invented the light bulb in a moment of intuition. (Well, never mind the 3000 futile tries!).

fredric2

"Rationality and logic are no opposites to intuition, emotion, imagination and creativity!!! They are the two sides of our coin."

I am not disagreeing. They are different parts of the same coin, (us). They work differently, are different, interactive, still us.

"I have had plenty of deja vue experience: It is a short circuit in the brain from present awareness to memory. Awareness "plays" memory, as psychologists explain."

Yes. And Love, not filial love but real and true love, is a trick that the heart plays on the emotions when our partner says "I do", and I believe it... For real love does not exist, don't you know.

It is sad that some rationalize timeless interconnection of consciousness as misfiring neurons and games that 'awareness' plays. I am sorry to hear it.

timmy2,

You really do not need to go about listing all the ways that you believe you use your intuition, and how you use it as strongly as your logic and reasoning faculties, and how it is as important to you and all. That is all fine and what do I know, really? Perhaps true, and so you will have fooled me. I do not believe it. I believe that you are enamored of rationalization as validation, and intuition is a slippery and untrustworthy dude.

You said: "It is my intuition that tells me to apply logic and reason to posits lacking evidence."
Application of logic and reason are conditioned responses. We do it as a matter of course. We are trained to. Skepticism aids that endevour, but does not limit it. I would venture to say that you would apply logic and reason regardless of any imput that intuition would have.

No matter. I agree with this statement:

"Like Frederic2 said, logic and reason are not in opposition to intuition or any other method of gaining knowledge."

But they are a different "method of gaining knowledge", and do not act or operate in the same way or form as logic and reason do.

Oh, hey, doesn't every deist believe that David Karesh was the second coming of Jesus, and that by killing him we have doomed ourselves to a thousand years of hardship before the Devil comes to take his due?

Pamsm,

"No, nature isn't concerned with efficiency, she's concerned with maximizing possibility. Sperm is cheap, eggs aren't..."

Of course nature is concerned with efficiency, while maximizing possibility. Watch any predator, or any prey for that matter. When food is scarce, watch animal behaviour. What food is wasted? What energy is wasted on frivolity, especially when there is any shortage? If there is a glut of births it is due to abundance, and all species take advantage of good fortune. When there is shortage, economy.

You say that sperm is cheap, and you may be right. But eggs, as you say, are hard nuts to crack... It is a form of efficiency to throw all the cheap sperm at that egg when the chance comes up...

"Waking deja vu is pretty well understood - just misfiring neurons that give you the impression of new information being an old memory."

Poppycock. Utter nonsense.

"Precognition doesn't exist. It can't possibly since the future can't be known - it's only a concept, not a reality. To the extent that people dream something that later occurs, at least in some general way, they are experiencing coincidence."

In other words, you have no way of rationally explaining what is a known phenomenon but to discount it somehow.

How do you know that the future cannot be known? How?

It is coincidence that a moment is experienced to a t, emotions, dialogue, exact and specific circumstances, relationship interactions, individuals, places.... A case of "misfiring neurons"?

Please find some more creativity, intuition, artistic storytelling...

Outside of linear thinking, which is the state of most human consciousness, the past, present and future are not independent or separate, but one.

The Moderate,

I SAID: "Assuming a creator = even more faith."

YOU ANSWERED: "Wrong. Assuming one uncaused cause (as I do) is more economical than assuming an infinite number of uncaused universes (as you do).

I do not assume that, and have never said that I did.
I don't assume that any of the posited theories are true. And that takes no faith at all. I leave it an open question. And I repeat. That takes no faith at all.

But if I decide that I want to explore this mystery scientifically, then I need some starting hypotheses, and here is where we are supposed to apply Occam's razor. Not to form theistic beliefs, but to give you the best chance of going down the right road in your experimentation. And when I apply Occam's razor, I get the same answer that Pam gave you in her post below. If one must assume any uncaused cause, which one is lead to do by the problem of infinite regression, it is far more economical to assume that the energy/matter that we know exists, and have no evidence for it ever not existing, is the uncaused cause, as opposed to a magic man in the sky uncaused. The problem of infinite regression does not even exist with the energy eternal model. It doesn't start until you propose the first complex creator theory.

YOU: "I think that you have used Occham's razor when it serves your arguments. Why not continue to use it?"

I have.

Onofrio,

Karesh was too easy, I was being generous. How about Joseph Smith. Enough Christians believed him to form a religion significant enough to have almost produced a president this year. So I guess it was a fluke with Karesh after all.

YOU ASK: "You say "my intuition". A question: how do you *know* that the intuition you cite here is actually your own, i.e. inherent?"

Intuition.

ME: "Who on earth would condone being theistic based on intuition alone?"

YOU: "Perhaps the *intuition* which you say points to reason and logic does not confine her favours to these two alone"

Perhaps is correct. So how would anyone know well enough to be a theist?

Mod,

I have a much better uncaused cause: Energy.

How's that for seeing your Occam's Razor and raising you several magnitudes of simplicity?

Moderate,

You to Timmy,

Timmy: "Assuming a creator = even more faith."

You: Wrong. Assuming one uncaused cause (as I do) is more economical than assuming an infinite number of uncaused universes (as you do). I think that you have used Occham's razor when it serves your arguments. Why not continue to use it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems you make the equation

"one uncaused cause" = "creator"

This is semantically slippery, as it enlivens the more impersonal "uncaused cause" with the anthropomorphism - and thus personality - implied by "creator".

To me, this semantic slippage is immensely significant, for by it hangs the whole theistic project, to wit: that the "one uncaused cause" is personal and that human beings are the objects of its special regard.

The question of causeless causes and multiple universes pales in comparison...

Timmy,

You:
"Who on earth would condone being theistic based on intuition alone?"

Perhaps the *intuition* which you say points to reason and logic does not confine her favours to these two alone.

The strumpet!

Timmy,

"Assuming a creator = even more faith."

Wrong. Assuming one uncaused cause (as I do) is more economical than assuming an infinite number of uncaused universes (as you do). I think that you have used Occham's razor when it serves your arguments. Why not continue to use it?

Spiderman:

Lighten up, dude. You were doing alright before you got to the fire and brimstone part. When you went there did you stop to wonder if you were substituting your judgment for God's? Are you so wise as to be able to make that call for the Creator? Or do you think maybe the God who created the Universe might know just a wee bit more than you?

Timmy,

You:
"It is my intuition that tells me to apply logic and reason to posits lacking evidence."

I believe you've identified a relationship between these principles that mirrors that between the three persons of the orthodox Trinity ;)

To wit:
The Holy Spirit (intuition) witnesses to the Father (reason) and the Son (logic) but not to itself.

You say "my intuition". A question: how do you *know* that the intuition you cite here is actually your own, i.e. inherent?

Timmy,

You:
"It is my intuition that tells me to apply logic and reason to posits lacking evidence. Otherwise, we'd all have to believe that David Karesh was the second coming of Jesus."

I agree with your first sentence, but the second is something of a non sequitur.

Plenty of Christians would have deemed Koresh a false Messiah entirely on the basis of their own Scriptures, which is not the "logic and reason" you have in mind, I'm sure.

So what do you call it when they come to the right conclusion (Koresh is a fake) by a faulty process (because he doesn't fit premillennial dispensationalist eschatology)?

Mere luck?

Suppressed reason dressed up in proof texts?

Intuition gone feral?

Justilthen,

ME: "But I do not form beliefs that they are true, without evidence or at the very least, a logical explanation."

That is not giving preferential treatment to logic and reason. You don't think my intuition is involved in my contemplation of all of these things? I listen to my intuition as strongly as I listen to my reason and logic. My intuition happens to agree with my logic and reason and assessment of all of the evidence.

Did you watch that video? My intuition tells me that what that woman experienced was real, I feel it in my bones. It also happens to make perfect logical sense given what we now know of physics and quantum theory. It is essentially vedanta minus the hocus pocus.

Like Frederic2 said, logic and reason are not in opposition to intuition or any other method of gaining knowledge. Why would they be?

It is my intuition that tells me to apply logic and reason to posits lacking evidence. Otherwise, we'd all have to believe that David Karesh was the second coming of Jesus.

And more importantly, it is my logic and reason that tells me to listen to my intuition, and to explore this intuition thing scientifically to find out what it's all about. As I said before, all scientists use their intuition in their work. Bigtime! So where exactly does science leave you guys short on issues of cosmology?

Science is completely open to all of these questions that Persiflage raises. Science continues to explore the issue from all sides. Who on earth would condone being theistic based on intuition alone?

Timmy, Persiflage, Justillthen, et alii:

Meant with affection and respect ;)

Deja Vu

Once upon a tyme,
a socratic threadly hound, having
reasoned awhile in vain,
shatt for sport a Consul
of Reason’s Most Serene Republic:
Robespierre by name, far-famed
for a shot-off jiggling jaw
at the end of a cutting career.

Now here the lama-liking,
bodhi-broadened, mindful worthies,
having thought to talk
with Citizen One, in measured mildness,
of nongods and inklings and mind,
find themselves prodded to deal
in epithetic jest.
For logical Robspey refused to eat
the meal they made of his own cuisine,
yea, spat it out in you-me chunks
and did-not spittle sprays.
Duck! all theo-sagely nous nuancers,
or you’ll be squished into demagogic
slime besmothered strawmen,
fodder for crows,
comtes and Girondins for Madame’s blade.

Another vast image out of Spiritus Mundi:
Those who bellydanced round baalish bull
are smitten by the Lawman’s glare,
Horeb-ignited and more-than-miffed,
as he stomps down from the mountain
with his Reason-carven adamant stela.
Thunder gathers in his brows
as the dancers collapse in semantic silks,
and he breaks his nongod’s work
on the stony slopes...

Spidey,
Hie thee with all haste to your nearest mental institution. Do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

"No, nature isn't concerned with efficiency"

This is a dumb statement. I told you athesim is stupidity.

Nature utilizes all kinds of sciences even those which are not yet known to man. Ever found a fly or a bee crash landing? That is called efficiency.

Do you wonder why fishes can swim deep in the water without oxygen tanks?

The sad part is that your stupidity will cost you much. It will burn you for eternity. That you can discuss if the heat to be produced will be efficient coz it will burn forever.

Frederic2 says:
"Does nature really work according to a principle of maximum efficiency? Two million sperms for one single egg? 99% of all species having lived being extinct?"

No, nature isn't concerned with efficiency, she's concerned with maximizing possibility. Sperm is cheap, eggs aren't. Many, many normal sperm don't find their way to the egg, many more are malformed in some way (there are dozens of possible malformations) and can't get there. Of the ones that do, it takes a large number of them to chemically alter the egg so that one lucky contestant is allowed in.

Justillthen says:

"But what explains precognition, for instance...? I know that precognition is not 'intuition' per se, but I'll put it in the same basket for a moment. Precognitive dreams, for instance. Waking deja vu, for another. The realization that we have had that exact experience before, in a dreaming state perhaps. Not explainable as genetics or body knowing or subconscious observations."

Waking deja vu is pretty well understood - just misfiring neurons that give you the impression of new information being an old memory.

Precognition doesn't exist. It can't possibly since the future can't be known - it's only a concept, not a reality. To the extent that people dream something that later occurs, at least in some general way, they are experiencing coincidence.

Timmy,

Me: "Western civilization does tend to give preferential treatment to logic and reason. You are a great example of that"

Utter nonsense. Especially in my case. What is your evidence for this?

Look at any of your posts, timmy. You have given the evidence. Indeed you specify further in your post:
"But I do not form beliefs that they are true, without evidence or at the very least, a logical explanation."

and: "But I do not form a belief of truth about any of them, without evidence or a logical theory."

and: "Not "rationally acceptable". Just rational."

You consider western civilization as non-rationally based? Because of a (highly questionable) figure of believers in religion? I look at what western civilization has not only given via all the sciences and technologies also how we perceive.

Sometimes a people can seek the unknown as a counterbalance to the known. And perhaps the west, home of your reviled religions, is getting stuck trying TO rationalize the unknown.

Gotta go, sorry. Later, O Crusader of All That Is, Logically!

Justilthen,

YOU: "In your recent dialogue with persiflage you explain intuition as 'genetically based' knowledge, (to use my own words).

Stop right there. I did not explain intuition as anything nor would I.
What I said was that intuition is perfectly logical as a function of the brain given what we know about evolutionary biology. That explanation makes sense to me. It does not leave me thinking that intuition is mysterious and not logical. I do not see any reason to think that intuition is not logical. We used to think that certain altruistic behavior was some sort of magic goodness because it defied logic, until we discovered a perfectly logical explanation for it. It turns out it's actually selfish behavior. We just didn't know that before. It seems to me that the same thing goes for intuition. We should assume that there is a logical explanation for it, now that we can use the hindsight of knowing how altruistic behavior went from having a mysterious source, to having a perfectly logical one.

YOU: "But intuition is in fact defined as knowledge without rationalization or logical deduction"

Actually the word logical appears nowhere in the definition but I digress. The only pertinent point is that "knowing certain things without the need for CONSCIOUS reasoning" is perfectly logical.

YOU: "You refuse to have anything be answered but by a logical rationalization"

Answered?
As in, "here is the truth"?
Of course I insist on evidence, or at the very least a logical hypothesis, from anyone claiming to have an "answer" or a truth about something. But I am open to discussing all possibilities. And of course I will apply logic in that discussion. Why wouldn't I?

YOU: "You are not open to all answers, as you assert"

I did not assert that, Blindy McBlinderson.
I asserted that I was open to all POSIBILITIES. People with suposed "answers" and "truths" need to bring evidence or logic. Do you get it yet?

YOU: "Logic and reason is the end all and be all for you"

Ad homimen BS

YOU: "You do not consider input that is worthy of consideration honestly, but prefer to negate of turn a question back around before acknowledging that there may be validity contrary positions in subjects you hold dear. It gets frustrating"

You still don't seem to understand the difference between people proposing answers verses posing possibilities. If people propose them as possibilities, I am open to discussion. And of course I will use logic in that discussion. Why wouldn't I? But if people tell me they know the answer, then I put upon them the burden of evidence, or at the very least a logical explanation for why they believe what they are proposing to be true.

I negate none of the things that Persiflage proposes. But I do not understand, and I criticize the practice of forming theistic beliefs about such things for which there is no evidence or logic or reason to believe that they are true, other than a warm fuzzy feeling about an imagination.

Sorry, as to nature's economy: It is 200 million, not 2 million sperms!

Pamsm,

I am quite aware of Occam's razor's meaning. I just took it with a bit (but only a bit!) of tongue in cheek: With my "analogy" of a naiveling anthropomorphizing his computer you certainly have fewer "hoops" than with a realization of how it works (I wouldn't know it in detail either, lol!).

The analogy, on the other hand, goes further, without tongue in cheek: It substitutes a "supernatural" element where there is none, as happens in all religions. (My example is an analogy, no proof).

Of course I agree with you as to the "likeliness" of the simpler solution. But "likely" (as you say referring to Occam's razor) does never prove anything beyond a statistical probability, which in a given case is worthless.

Does nature really work according to a principle of maximum efficiency? Two million sperms for one single egg? 99% of all species having lived being extinct?

Justilthen: Rationality and logic are no opposites to intuition, emotion, imagination and creativity!!! They are the two sides of our coin. In my profession, I have to deal with this (plausible) misunderstanding all the time. It prevents students from reaching their full artistic potential!

I have had plenty of deja vue experience: It is a short circuit in the brain from present awareness to memory. Awareness "plays" memory, as psychologists explain.

Justilthen,

YOU: ""Western civilization does tend to give preferential treatment to logic and reason. You are a great example of that"

Utter nonsense. Especially in my case. What is your evidence for this? You state it as a fact and give no examples or statistics to back up your claim. In my case, cite specific examples, or it is just ad hominem bs.

YOU: "For you it works only if it is rationally acceptable. Without logical proofs you negate it"

Not "rationally acceptable". Just rational. Why make irrational posits? Moreover why turn those irrational posits into theism?
And not "logical proofs" just logical explanations. There's no such thing as logical proofs.

YOU: "You do not appear to contemplate the possibility that something may exist without a logical explaination. Very culturally congruent"

Culturally congruent? In a country where 80% believe in the magic man in the sky, literally????? Could you be more off base with this statement?

And you are wrong. I absolutely do contemplate all of the possibilities that Persiflage puts forth. And I negate none of them. But I do not form beliefs that they are true, without evidence or at the very least, a logical explanation.

I negate none of the thing you say I negate. I contemplate all of them as possibilities. But I do not form a belief of truth about any of them, without evidence or a logical theory. In other words, I am not a theist.

If you'd like to know my scientific rational and logical version of the eastern monistic religions, watch this video. You'll be glad you did. It's fascinating. And maybe you'll understand me better.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

timmy,

This quote of yours is a beautifully concise way of stating your position:

"The scientific position keeps the discussion open.

The theistic position closes it."

Pamsm,

Thank you for your last post on Occums Razor. It follows that most of nature tends to seek efficiency. The least amount of energy output to realize the aim.

Would that humans went that way more often!

"As for intuition, I think it's just the brain working below the conscious radar. It's reading old memories and subconsciously perceived observations (like body language) and resulting in a conscious thought that leaves you wondering where it came from."

OK. That is a fine assumption, I am sure. Who is to say. Since it is below the radar it is outside of awareness. But what explains precognition, for instance...? I know that precognition is not 'intuition' per se, but I'll put it in the same basket for a moment. Precognitive dreams, for instance. Waking deja vu, for another. The realization that we have had that exact experience before, in a dreaming state perhaps. Not explainable as genetics or body knowing or subconscious observations.

Unless this reality we call real is the 'dream', and we are 'dreaming' this dream into existence in hightened consciousness. Or maybe time is not actual but irrelevant...

Hello timmy,

I am sorry that I missed getting to you the couple of posts from our last thread. I doubt that I will get back there now. Too much to do, and having to backtrack over the same material while time constrained is frustrating to me.

And look at the fun that I have been missing here!

But our last dialogue was right along these lines, so I may well jump off from a quote on the last post:

Me: " "We do tend to put much greater weight on rationality and logic over intuition and creativity, particularly when trying to mine causality of the cosmos, and of humanity as one part of it"

You: "This is nonsense. Scientists use their creativity and intuition constantly in their work. This is such a common misconception that people who do not believe in the supernatural are void of emotion, intuition and creativity. It is this concept that you seem to share with the religious that logic and reason can be a barrier to truth somehow..."

Western civilization does tend to give preferential treatment to logic and reason. You are a great example of that. For you it works only if it is rationally acceptable. Without logical proofs you negate it. You do not appear to contemplate the possibility that something may exist without a logical explaination. Very culturally congruent.

timmy,

Part two,
In your recent dialogue with persiflage you explain intuition as 'genetically based' knowledge, (to use my own words). But intuition is in fact defined as knowledge without rationalization or logical deduction.

1. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.

5. Philosophy.
a. an immediate cognition of an object not inferred or determined by a previous cognition of the same object.
b. any object or truth so discerned.
c. pure, untaught, noninferential knowledge.

You assume that intuition comes from ancestral knowledge handed down via genetics, (which I am sure has some truth to it!), but limit it to that. You do not know this even as you assert it. Persiflage's input that it is non-logical and spontaneous got you coming out swinging with disagreement. His suggestion that logic and reason get us through the day got you cooing. How telling.

persiflage to you: "logic and reason is not the end all and be all of every discussion"

One last time. WHO EVER SAID THAT IT WAS!!!!!!!!!????????

You do. Every time. You refuse to have anything be answered but by a logical rationalization. You are not open to all answers, as you assert, and have not been since I have known you. Certain things are not acceptable to you and are closed doors, as you look for a more acceptable door, a rational one, through which you can explain it.

Logic and reason is the end all and be all for you.

With respect, of course. I do not mean to insult. But this is ever so clear to me, perhaps to others, and has been one of the reasons I eventually stop debating with you and have said you were dishonest in debate. You do not consider input that is worthy of consideration honestly, but prefer to negate of turn a question back around before acknowledging that there may be validity contrary positions in subjects you hold dear. It gets frustrating.

Respectfully.

Hello persiflage,

I am afraid that your attempts with timmy will prove to be less than realized. He talks as if he is open mind and open to all possibilities, but I have found that to be the story that the ego presents while actively shutting doors on the 'unexplainable' or 'non-logical'. If it concurs with his understanding of rationality and logic then it is acceptable. If it does not then he negates it, or seeks to find some linear 'proof' to give it substantiation in his mind, and forwards that for explaination.

That is why, as one example, he is happy to explain intuition as a function of genetics, "natural selection and heredity", (though the functions of body knowing and hereditarily acquired knowing is still little 'understood'). It gives it a more comfortable, rational explaination.

Or he negates, sometimes offhandedly, as he did with by denying your suggestion of the spontaneous nature of intuition by saying it occurs consistently but only in certain situations... !

I think some of you are misunderstanding Occam's Razor (at least in Frederic2's application of it in understanding how his computer works). It doesn't say that the simplest explanation is always the best, it says that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions and entities is the best. They are not the same.

In other words, the fewer hoops you have to jump through to go from point A to point B in reaching a logical conclusion, the more likely you are to be correct.

As for intuition, I think it's just the brain working below the conscious radar. It's reading old memories and subconsciously perceived observations (like body language) and resulting in a conscious thought that leaves you wondering where it came from.

Actually, the brain isn't quite as mysterious as some think, although there's not much about brain function on the Web. New techniques such as fMRI are allowing researchers to make great strides in this field.

Again I recommend On Intelligence, which is a distillation of much of the current research in layman's terms. Quite fascinating.

The scientific position keeps the discussion open.

The theistic position closes it.

Persiflage,

"Non-logical is not remotely the same as illogical in my view"

And the difference is?

Persiflage,

"I would say my observations are true as to the following: Yes, intuition is largely spontaneous"

What is your evidence for this? And what the heck does "largely" spontaneous mean?

YOU: "and yes, there are and have been historical attempts to control it – mainly via religious and other esoteric modalities"

No one would argue with you that there have been attempts. Any successes?

YOU: "In addition, your generic take on intuition is that it must be part of our evolutionary heritage, and that information arriving via intuitive processes occurs 'in the brain'"

I have not put a "must" condition on any of these hypotheses. They are simply logical hypotheses. It's just that there is is just no evidence or reason to believe otherwise at this point. It is quite logical and sensible that intuition is part of our evolutionary heritage, and that this process occurs in the brain. Occam's razor.

YOU: "but is the human brain all there is to human experience? Is the brain a transmitter, a receiver, or both? Are there other dimensions available to us?"

No one knows. So to be theistic about these things is delusional, absurd, and intellectually dishonest. These are open questions.

YOU: "Timmy, here you have opportunities to be more imaginative and you are squandering my efforts to lead you away from an idée fixe"

I do not have an "idee fixe" to be lead away from. I am open minded about it. You are the one who claimed to know the truth of monism and that it the truth that you are trying to lead me to. I leave it an open question. And my imagination has taken me to more abstract places about this question than you could posit. But I do not form a theistic belief about such things that are unanswered questions.

YOU: "logic and reason is not the end all and be all of every discussion"

One last time. WHO EVER SAID THAT IT WAS!!!!!!!!!????????

Your: "Shake off this echo of the past, and spread the wings of your imagination!"

I make my living with my imagination, it's doing just fine. But we don't form theistic beliefs based on imagination.

YOU: "This is not an argument or a debate, but is merely a discussion. By saying, ‘what the bleep do we know’, you are effectively bringing the discussion to a pre-mature close"

No I am opening it up to all possibilities. I am bringing the theistic discussion to a close. You are the one who claimed to know the truth of monism. It is your position that closes the dialogue, not mine.

Timmy - I previously noted that intuition typically works spontaneously and beyond our usual ability to predict/control the parameters of 'logical' cause and effect relationships - although meditation seeks to harness this X faculty. I even gave you links.

Non-logical is not remotely the same as illogical in my view. Again, it does seem to escape the cause and effect kind of determinism typically found with sequential logical processes.

Further, I would say my observations are true as to the following: Yes, intuition is largely spontaneous, and yes, there are and have been historical attempts to control it – mainly via religious and other esoteric modalities. You can refer back to our exchange a few posts back.

In addition, your generic take on intuition is that it must be part of our evolutionary heritage, and that information arriving via intuitive processes occurs 'in the brain'.

The insight gained at the end of this inscrutable process appears to 'end up in the brain', and that part is hard to deny - but is the human brain all there is to human experience? Is the brain a transmitter, a receiver, or both? Are there other dimensions available to us?

And further, anything that occurs in concurrence with our physiological make-up is probably linked in some fashion to our evolutionary development - again, that would be hard to deny. The body/mind appears to be a single unit, as far as we can empirically ascertain. Whether or not they are separable is another discussion.

Timmy, here you have opportunities to be more imaginative and you are squandering my efforts to lead you away from an idée fixe – logic and reason is not the end all and be all of every discussion. Shake off this echo of the past, and spread the wings of your imagination!

This is not an argument or a debate, but is merely a discussion. By saying, ‘what the bleep do we know’, you are effectively bringing the discussion to a pre-mature close.

PS. My links are full of good stuff....

Persiflage,

"there is certainly more to nature than meets the eye"

Of course there is.
Precisely why we should all be non-theists.
What the bleep do we know?

The Moderate:

You said: "Assuming unobserved universes = Faith.

So don't assume one? I don't.
Assuming a creator = even more faith. So don't assume one.
Assume neither. Leave it an open question. That's intellectually honest position.

YOU: "It also flies the face of Occam's Razor"

Nonsense, Occam's razor leads one consider an eternal universe. But that is still not reason to "assume" an eternal universe to the point of faith or theism. Occam's razor tells me the simplest answer is that the universe has always been, but I still do not consider myself a theist to the eternal universe theory. It's just a theory like other theories. The question remains open.

Occam's razor is for the purpose of creating reasonable hypotheses for experimentation, not for forming theistic beliefs. Forming theistic beliefs using Occam's razor is what really flies in the face of Occam's razor.

Persiflage,

YOU ASK: "please demonstrate how intuition and the intuitive process is under our control

I didn't say that it was under our control. I said that the fact that it is not under our conscious control doe not make it illogical.

YOU CONTINUE: "unless we've learned how to guide that process for specific purposes through contemplative or meditative practice"

So now we can control it? Which is it?

PERSIFLAGE: "the Eureka moment arrives. From somewhere or nowhere, local or non-local...the real origin is unknown."

No, the real origin is in the brain. The how is unknown.

Timmy - here are a couple of fellows that agreed with Jung on the non-logical nature of the unconscious. I know Jung would have much of interest to say on 'sacred' texts!

The idea of the unconscious represents an entire if hidden realm that seems to transcend the limitations of nature that a good many folks are familiar and comfortable with - there is certainly more to nature than meets the eye.

See Pauli's collaboration with Jung on synchronicity, in particular.

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/ideas/jung.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Pauli

And, TheModerate, your equation "assuming unobserved universes = faith", is unsubstantial. You might rethink your logic here...

I can easily be convinced by scientists with reasonable arguments that there might be unobserved, or even unobservable universes, without even touching the slightest hint of a faith.

Actually, faith is exactly the contrary: It is the CONVICTION of something where I and other atheists simply hold unobserved natural phenomena possible and yet undiscovered.

ivri5768 wrote:

"Having duly considered the matter of Paul Krugman's possible shortness, I am compelled to revisit the issue. Need I remind you of the many diminutives who have contributed to human progress? Peewee Herman, Oprah Winfrey . . ."

She's small? She looks big on the small screen.

". . . Alan Lad, not to mention, Cheryl Lad, Tom Cruise and Moses Mendelsohn are only a few of the names on that lengthy list. . ."

Napoleon Bonaparte, Charlie Chaplin!

"And do not think that I am the type of YeaSayer who struts about willy nilly, here and there, hither and yon, back and forth, east and west, defending with kneejerk or otherwise reflexive liberalism every other Other. . . ."

Hear, hear! I wouldn't think of it. I wouldn't want to think of it!

As I've said again and again, atheism is stupidity and that is scientific.

Here's just one of the many reasons why the Bible is sacred:

"It shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel"

Just to give you a clue what that means, that statement is about to happen in the near future.

Stop maligning the Bible coz you guys are amateurs in deciphering texts.

Occam’s razor, applied to my computer, would suggest that this gadget feels the touch of the keys and responds adequately simply, reproducing what it has learned or been ordered.

In reality, it is much, much more complicated and consumed billions of hours of highly intelligent brains to reach the appearance of such a simple miracle. That is the way religion has worked and obviously still works. It alway struck me as macabre how superstitious people use such a highly sophisticated instrument to propagate their „Occam’s razor“- like simplicity.

Occam’s razor doesn’t prove anything at all. It is at best an everyday statistical observation explaining nothing specific.

Timmy,

"What the bleep do we know? So why be a theist?"

We had this discussion. To me, it seems to be the best answer, based upon the observable data. Assuming unobserved universes = Faith. It also flies the face of Occam's Razor.

Moderate - thanks for the Penrose. I think that's probably where I got the quantum brain idea to begin with! And of course he doesn't compare human brains with computers, knowing that to be a false analogy (although others do).

Where the brain remains a fleshly mystery, computers do not - being human creations that employs 0's and X's....not that I know much about computers! Artificial intelligence is a whole other topic better done by someone else for sure.
________________

Timmy - please demonstrate how intuition and the intuitive process is under our control - unless we've learned how to guide that process for specific purposes through contemplative or meditative practice.

Einstein and many others have credited the intuitive and imaginative processes (and dreaming) for solving complex math problems, and much more - the Eureka moment arrives. From somewhere or nowhere, local or non-local...the real origin is unknown.

I suppose we can call it a 'crystallization' of logical processes out of the unconcsious, as Frederic does, but that says nothing about the process itself.

If the unconscious functions in a conventionally logical manner, it would be a surprise to Carl Jung - the normally conscious considerations of time, space and sequential processing of information all seem to be bypassed (transended?) in the realm of the unconscious.

But I promise, I'm not going back to Bell's theorem, non-local reality and pre-cognitive experience - even though this may somehow involve the intuitive process. The paranormal? Spookiness at a distance - better not go there.

Logic and intuition don't oppose one another, but they're not synonymous. When referring to reasoning, logic, of course signifies a conscious sequence of thoughts. Intuition does not.

Logic \Log"ic\, n. [OE. logike, F. logique, L. logica, logice, Gr. logikh` (sc. te`chnh), fr. logiko`s belonging to speaking or reason, fr. lo`gos speech, reason, le`gein to say, speak. See Legend.]

1. The science or art of exact reasoning, or of pure and formal thought, or of the laws according to which the processes of pure thinking should be conducted; the science of the formation and application of general notions; the science of generalization


Rational \Ra"tion*al\, a. [L. rationalis: cf. F. rationnel. See Ratio, Reason, and cf. Rationale.]

1. Relating to reason; not physical; mental.

Moral philosophy was his chiefest end; for the rational, the natural, and mathematics . . . were but simple pastimes in comparison of the other. --Sir T. North.

2. Having reason, or the faculty of reasoning; endowed with reason or understanding; reasoning.

It is our glory and happiness to have a rational nature. --Law.

3. Agreeable to reason; not absurd, preposterous, extravagant, foolish, fanciful, or the like; wise; judicious; as, rational conduct; a rational man.

Intuition certainly does not defy logic. Intuition doesn't arise out of thin air: it is "crystallized" experience. The CONNECTION between experience and the moment of intuition is unconscious, but that doesn't make intuition illogical! Sometimes we can even "reconstruct" those connections. As a musician, I enjoy these moments of intuition immensely, and quite often (but not always) I can trace them back to experience or previous insight.

As to the other topic: Creating gods is the desperate attempt of the human mind to avoid the embarrassment of having to admit ignorance. It substitutes superstition for ignorance, simply to fill the void.

The Moderate,

"So generally I am favorably impressed by Penrose' arguments on the necessity of quantum computing in the brain. The bottom line is that we don't really understand the even the basic physical mechanisms of the brain yet"

Indeed. What the bleep do we know? So why be a theist?

Persiflage,

Persiflage: "Intuition by definition is non-logical"

Sure it is. The definition is :The ability to understand something immediately without the need for conscious reasoning.

Knowing what we know about natural selection and heredity, the concept that we can understand certain things without the need for conscious reasoning is perfectly logical.

Persiflage: It is a faculty that we seem to have little control over, given it's spontaneous nature.

It's not spontaneous at all. That's a mischaracterization. It only works for certain situations but it consistently works for those situations.

And we don't have any control hemorrhoid flare-ups either, it doesn't make them illogical. ;)

Persiflage: "Logic and reason get us through the day and much more besides. They are only a part of the life of the mind"

I can't imagine anyone who would disagree with this.

Persiflage,

Persiflage: "Reality tends to twist logic into pretzels, don't you agree?"

Not in the slightest.

Persiflage: "natural is not always logical"

Disagree

Persiflage: "not until everyone that matters finally declares in unison, 'Oh of course, it was there all the time and we just didn't see it"

It WAS there all the time and they just didn't see it.

While it's tempting to compare brains and computers, they really work quite differently.

An excellent book on the subject is "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins (Palm Pilot inventor) and Sandra Blakeslee.

Persiglage,

The issue of quantum function in the brain was taken up most ably by Roger Penrose. According to Penrose it has been shown that the rods in the eye can sense even a single photon of light. This shows that room temperature liquid based biological systems can have the same sensitivity as electronic SQUIDS that need a liquid helium bath to operate in. Penrose believes that quantum computing is necessary to explain the observed function of the brain.

Moreover, the electrochemical aspects of neuron function seem to suggest that the firing rate is a few hundred times per second. By contrast the clock rate of modern computers is about three billion cycles per second. It is hard to see how any algorithm I know running on lots of computers as slow as neurons could do, say, scene analysis in 3D in the times we see people do it. So generally I am favorably impressed by Penrose' arguments on the necessity of quantum computing in the brain. The bottom line is that we don't really understand the even the basic physical mechanisms of the brain yet.

Persiflage:

The non-logical and nonrational are quite different as you say. But Kant and on occasion Descartes become non, at times, in both categories. Certainly, there are huge problems with Kant's autonomy/heteronymy business, and one could go much further. Is there any apriori synthetic knowledge?

As for Descartes there was the confusion of experience with thought, among other problems. There was the failure to recognize the limitations he himself placed on the "universal" subject in his subject-object divide, etc.

We need to be careful about words such as logical, I agree.

Here are two features of our human cognitive landscape that function very well outside the confines of logic and reason - although the imagination can employ these faculties for different problem-solving tasks as it chooses.

Intuition by definion is non-logical, although not necessarily non-rational. It is a faculty that we seem to have little control over, given it's spontaneous nature.

Logic and reason get us through the day and much more besides. They are only a part of the life of the mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination

Timmy - there's logic and then there's logic.

The kind that we find just below is not the logic of everyman - and is not the logic of Kant, Descartes and that crowd. Reality tends to twist logic into pretzels, don't you agree?

On another note - natural is not always logical, not until everyone that matters finally declares in unison, 'Oh of course, it was there all the time and we just didn't see it'.

Some reality or another eventually becomes commonly familiar, and logic reveals itself - finally prevails......but often at the end, rather than the beginning of a natural process of discovery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic

Persiflage says: "Everything is natural, no matter how unnatural it might seem to be"

Timmy says: And everything is logical, no matter how illogical it might seem to be.

If we ever discover God, or truth of monism, it will be perfectly logical and reasonable. Not only are logic and reason not a blockade to finding such truths (if they exist) but logic and reason will be integral in the process.

Pamsm said :

Persiflage,
I don't have the math skills to assess Bell's theorem or any of the other quantum physics propositions that you mention, but they're immaterial anyway. Quantum theory deals with particle physics - with things at the sub-atomic level. It simply has no relevance to what we're discussing.

As for the brain - a biological, chemically based organ, drawing on information stored externally, well, we do that now. The external sources are called "books," "newspapers," and "Google."

Beyond that...naaah. Doesn't make sense.
______________

PAMSM - dare to imagine. The science of tomorrow may be the science fiction of today. As far as we know, the very insubstantial 'quantum' is the basis of reality at our present level of knowledge
- as Newtonian as the world may appear to be.

Brain chemistry hasn't explained any of the phenomena that I mentioned - at least thus far, although I know you're a big believer in chemistry. Sub-atomic activity is the basis for atoms, molecules, and chemisry, no?

Of course, all of this has no particular practical value in the here and now, and you strike me as a pragmatist.

At least we're in agreement on the limited God idea - personally I'm an 'all or none' kind of guy when it comes to God, gods, and goddesses.

If they can't do it all, who needs them?

PS. Everything is natural, no matter how unnatural it might seem to be - at least in my view. There is nothing outside of 'what is'.

Persiflage,
I don't have the math skills to assess Bell's theorem or any of the other quantum physics propositions that you mention, but they're immaterial anyway. Quantum theory deals with particle physics - with things at the sub-atomic level. It simply has no relevance to what we're discussing.

As for the brain - a biological, chemically based organ, drawing on information stored externally, well, we do that now. The external sources are called "books," "newspapers," and "Google."

Beyond that...naaah. Doesn't make sense.

Now birds and dogs are another thing entirely. Here we're on firmer ground. There's no doubt that what they're doing is perfectly natural. Just because we don't have the same skills, doesn't mean that nothing does.

I would never suggest that it is just "instinct" (I assume that you meant that, rather than "extinct"). The urge to migrate is undoubtedly instinctual in birds, but not the guidance mechanism.

There is evidence that birds use a number of techniques, including spatial memory, olfactory cues, celestial navigation, the Earth's magnetic field (there are tiny iron oxide crystals in the the skin lining of the upper beak), light polarization, and possibly infrasound.

http://geology.about.com/od/infrasonics/a/birdsound.htm

'How do the swallows find their way to Capistrano, and dogs/cats find their way home from thousands of miles away? Fish schools and bird flight and flocking patterns are still open to explanation - 'extinct' just doesn't seem to go far enough as a final answer'.

Sorry about that - I think I'd better quickly insert 'instinct' in place of 'extinct'

JUSTILLTHEN:

"This is linear thinking, and that form of thinking may not apply here."

It's not linear thinking, it's *logical* thinking.

JUSTILLTHEN: "Even if we could show that God exists, the assumption that the same laws that apply to sensate, physical existence may not apply in whatever dimension that God exists in."

In whatever dimension God exists in?? What does that even mean? This is just more hoop-jumping to try to make logic out of what is clearly illogical.

JUSTILLTHEN: "You cannot know that God could be omniescient and also that based on free will future outcome is always in flux and being shaped, and so future knowledge is mutable."

If it's mutable, then it can't be known in advance. Sorry, but you just can't have it both ways.

JUSTILLTHEN: "None of these thoughts address the idea that god may be us. That we ARE the God that we worship, (or don't worship!). We could have free will, shaping our destinies, as unconscious and basic humans, having forgotten our divinity..."

Pity. You were almost making sense for a minute there...and then I got to the last four words. We're not divine, and neither is anyone else. God is entirely a figment of the human imagination.

To take the 'quantum' conundrum of the human brain & consciousness even further, we may wonder about eidetic/photographic memory (the miracle of memory in general), and prodigies and savants of all kinds.

These individuals might range anywhere from having a genius level IQ to well below average intelligence, and may also suffer from other impairments, such as autism. I knew one such mathematical pseudo-savant that was otherwise barely able to speak in complete sentences. He was a human calculator of prodigious capacity.

We previously saw a list of the remarkable folks that are thought to have some form of Asperger's Syndrome (a form of autism that may be associated with very high individual capacities).

I remember reading somewhere that the brain's storage capacity, remarkable as it is, is still remarkably insufficient to warehouse every nano bit of information that is thought up, dreamt up, recorded at the conscious or subliminal levels, gathered together from interior and exterior sources, recollected and/or forgotten, and otherwise amassed as data in the course of an average human life. And what about virtual data that is 'just out there'?

Are there vast regions of information that are just waiting to be tapped into? The mathematical Platonists (and other archetypal afficionados) among us believe so.

This then led to the idea that human cognition may draw on information stored holographically (exterior to the brain itself) - and the human data retrieval system would therefore have access to a potentially limitless amount of information.

How do the swallows find their way to Capistrano, and dogs/cats find their way home from thousands of miles away? Fish schools and bird flight and flocking patterns are still open to explanation - 'extinct' just doesn't seem to go far enough as a final answer.

How all of this might work (or does work) is anybody's guess....so far.

Of course, someone's god(s) could be the power behind quantum logic, probablistic futures, present 'material' realities, probability wave functions, EPR experiments, non-localities,
clairvoyance, pre-cognition, telekinesis, assorted psychic phenomena and consciousness research. The evolution of the human mind is a better choice.

PAMSM - of course I'm not making the case for God with my post to Tote re. my examples of myth just below. However, the issue of free will is not necessarily so simply (or easily) decided.

The limited God proposed by frater Shillebeeckx that CCNL seems enamored of is something we both take issue with, however - particularly if this version of God is external to ourselves (which of course it must be in any dualistic, Cartesian system of thought e.g. the Catholic Church).

However, there is some thinking along the lines of quantum logic that conceive of probablistic futures being necessary for our present 'material' reality - the reality that necessitates the collapse of the probability wave function through observation (measurement). See physicist David Bohm's idea on the wholeness and the implicate reality behind phenomena (as one example).

And then there is Bell's theorem and the EPR experiments, and the idea of non-locality - where, by implication, all events of the past, present, and future are intimately connected.

Of course we've had a previous discussion re. clairvoyance and pre-cognition, telekinesis, and assorted psychic phenomena - I know you remain unconvinced as regards certain related findings that have come by way of consciousness research.

Anyway, I'm not talking God here, just relatively undiscovered possibilities!

Pamsm,

"If God is omniscient, i.e., he knows everything - past, present, and future - then there cannot possibly be such a thing as free will - not for people, and not even for God himself."

This is linear thinking, and that form of thinking may not apply here. Even if we could show that God exists, the assumption that the same laws that apply to sensate, physical existence may not apply in whatever dimension that God exists in. You cannot know that God could be omniescient and also that based on free will future outcome is always in flux and being shaped, and so future knowledge is mutable.

None of these thoughts address the idea that god may be us. That we ARE the God that we worship, (or don't worship!). We could have free will, shaping our destinies, as unconscious and basic humans, having forgotten our divinity...

The Moderate asks:
"Suppose God did not predict or demand one actual solution to the future but constrained it to possibilities that have certain properties in the long term. There could be freedom, and a future known by God to the extent that she is interested in knowing about it."

Naaah. That requires too much hoop jumping. Either the future is known, or it's mutable. To what "extent" could you possibly know a future that could change?

Here's the thing - the future is unknowable because it doesn't exist. Time is not a "thing" that was created, or had a beginning, or will have an end. It is a dimension - a human concept for the measurement of duration. It is, and only can ever be *now*.

Time is a dimension in the same sense that length is a dimension. "Length" is not an actual thing with beginning and end. You may measure the length of something by assigning an arbitrary beginning point and finding the end point of the object being measured, but any point can be a beginning or an end, and the concept of "length" goes on, in the plane you are using, infinitely in both directions.

Therefore, no one, human or divine, could possibly know the future - there is no such thing.

And there go your prophets.

.....and do Catholics have discussion groups these days that examine this Crossanized point of view, perhaps led by the parish priest i.e. a limited God and the crucified Christ of mere flesh and blood?

Of course not but a lot of Christian groups do. Check out Professor Crossan's lecture schedule on his home page. I am not sure he gets into the thinking of the Father Schillebeeckx, the famous Catholic theologian.

http://www.johndominiccrossan.com./Lecture%20Listing.htm

And of course there are some Catholic professors teaching graduate theology classes who are getting fairly close to being considered "Crossanized".

To wit:

Class notes from one university-

Heaven is a Spirit state.

Christ's and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven. For one thing, Paul in 1 Cor 15 speaks of the body of the dead as transformed into a "spiritual body." No one knows exactly what he meant by this term.

Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.

The physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's
corpse) into heaven did not take place.

The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.

Only Luke's Gospel records it. The Assumption ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers The Assumption has
multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would
be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female
bodies."

Amazing how this agrees with Professor Crossan and many other contemporary NT exegetes' conclusions based on attestations and stratums.

Pamsm:

Suppose God did not predict or demand one actual solution to the future but constrained it to possibilities that have certain properties in the long term. There could be freedom, and a future known by God to the extent that she is interested in knowing about it.

For Jedrothwell1:

Ten More Noteworthy Short Persons
1. James Madison, 5′4″ (Also slender. He weighed about 100 pounds.)
2. Charlotte Bronte ' 4′9″
3. Charlie Manson ' 5′2″
4. Danny DeVito ' 5′0″
5. John Keats ' 5′ and ?? an inch
6. Edith Piaf ' 4′8″
7. St. Francis of Assisi ' 5′1″
8. Pablo Picasso ' 5′4″
9. Alexander Pope ' 4′6″ (Pope had tuberculosis which stunted his growth.)
10. Martin Scorsese ' 5′3″ or 5′4″

Dear Jedrothwell:

Having duly considered the matter of Paul Krugman's possible shortness, I am compelled to revisit the issue. Need I remind you of the many diminutives who have contributed to human progress? Peewee Herman, Oprah Winfrey, Alan Lad, not to mention, Cheryl Lad, Tom Cruise and Moses Mendelsohn are only a few of the names on that lengthy list.

As a tall American, I can assure you that although height moral fortitude, and intellectual greatnes happily commingle in me, they do not so joyfully wed in every case. You need only look to Jeffrey Dahmer and Dr. Phil, respectively, to see the wisdom in what I profess.

And do not think that I am the type of YeaSayer who struts about willy nilly, here and there, hither and yon, back and forth, east and west, defending with kneejerk or otherwise reflexive liberalism every other Other. Not so, Jed Rothwell. Further, it is well known that the inch limited daily frustrate me in my efforts to walk down the block, causing me to be late for appointments and clouding over an otherwise sunny disposition.

However, my good fellow, we live in a nation that places ethics, intelligence, and bravery above height, and, therefore, while we may be literally prevented from looking up to Paul Krugman, we may admire him, nonetheless.

Ivri5768

Tote (and possibly Persiflage...?),

You miss the point. If God (and at least to some extent the prophets) know everything that WILL HAPPEN, then the future is set in stone, and the people do not have free will, because the exercise of free will could (and would) change the future.

God himself cannot change it, if he knows it already. It is an enigma on the horns of a dilemma.

Free will or omniscience? Pick your side - there is no way that both can be true.

All is resolved, however, when you realize that the bible is a book of fantasies.

'No one, not even God can prophesy since that would violate the God-given/Mother Nature gifts of Free Will and Future',

- is a corollary to Father Edward Schillebeeckx's take on the non-omniscient god: i.e.

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.
______________

Then exactly what function does God serve in this modernized theological schematic? Sounds like a last ditch effort to preserve the traditions of (academic/scholastic) Catholicism in the 21th century. Have they come full circle to a new and improved Deism??

.....and do Catholics have discussion groups these days that examine this Crossanized point of view, perhaps led by the parish priest i.e. a limited God and the crucified Christ of mere flesh and blood?

I think not.....

'No one, not even God can prophesy since that would violate the God-given/Mother Nature gifts of Free Will and Future',

is a corollary to Father Edward Schillebeeckx's take on the non-omniscient god: i.e.

Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

Tote - see some examples below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth

Tote - have you ever considered the possibility that the concepts of God and the Garden of Eden are part of the same mythology/cosmology that reifies the origins of Man?

At the time of the emergence of the Genesis creation myth, all humans really had in the way of explanations for unfathomable mysteries were contained in such elaborate cosmic tales, handed down over the generations - and originally captured in every detail by 'professional' storytellers with vastly developed memories.

There are dozens upon dozens of creation myths to draw from, and Genesis is not one of the most ancient, by any measure.

It is curious to me that our own home grown creationists are not aware that Genesis could be replaced by other similar traditional legends with almost every familiar character perfectly in place.

>>then there cannot possibly be such a thing as free will - not for people, and not even for God himself.

Not possible for people to have free will? Free will was decided in Eden and practiced by every human being to this very day.

God Himself? He has a purpose despite our decisions and has His own will.

Regards

JedRothwell:

Okay. Do we disagree on anything?

ivri5768 wrote:

"I don't know that you're correct when you say that Nelson Mandela is a 'moral authority.' He heroically demonstrated the courage of his convictions, convictions which many of us share. . . . But for answers to which moral questions would we go to him? For those dealing with choice, end-of-life issues, etc.? No."

I would go to him before I would go to the Pope, or one of these television preachers, or others who have never had to struggle or demonstrate the courage of their convictions. By "choice" I assume you mean abortion. In my opinion, only women can decide the morality of that issue. It is complicated, but until men can get pregnant they can't judge it. There are a few profound differences between the sexes and this is one of them.

"As for Paul Krugman, first you associate him with a soapbox . . ."

I was kidding. I admire him too. But I understand he is rather short, and it would be hard to look up to him in the literal sense.

Yes there are physicists who are good at chess or public policy, but their views on these subjects must be judged on their own merits. To give their opinions extra weight because they happen to be smart or accomplished in a subject that most people find incomprehensible would be an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy (a.k.a. Misuse of Authority, Irrelevant Authority).

JedRothwell:

Mea culpa for the typos in my last posting. Was/am in a rush. Hope it's all readable.

jedrothwell1:

Thank you for your reply to my post. You quote only the first sentence from my post, but upon reflection, I can see where I might have been easy to misinterpret.

"IMO, there are no moral authorities. Any collective sense of right and wrong is historical, i.e., contextual, writ large."

I don't know that you're correct when you say that Nelson Mandela is a "moral authority." He heroically demonstrated the courage of his convictions, convictions which many of us share. Indeed, he is a heroic figure. But for answers to which moral questions would we go to him? For those dealing with choice, end-of-life issues, etc.? No.

As for Paul Krugman, first you associate him with a soapbox and then go on to discuss your MIT acquaintances. I'm aware that talent in physics, math, etc., does not bring with it skill in everyday affairs. Neither does it come with highly developed ethical aparatuses. On the other hand it may. Unlike you, I could name a couple of my own MIT pals, who can make convincing ethical arguments, build their own furniture, read Shakespeare, make cogent ethical arguments, and, yes, quasi-ethereal, advanced mathematics.

I admire Paul Krugman not because he is a brilliant economist, but because he is a principaled one, because bandwagons don't do it for him, because he prefers terms to name-calling, because he has devoted his time to educating a needy general public. (His physical stature doesn't enter into my assessment.)

I agree that there is no Pope, no Bible, no NT with its endless justifications for slavery, opposition to homosexuality, free-pass grace, etc., to which we can look for moral authority, no Kant, et al. We can, however, look around, back, and forward, read, think, listen, etc. That could be a good start.

Persiflage,
CCNL can answer for himself, but I'd like to weigh in on the free will thing, too, as this is a frequent Christian dodge.

If God is omniscient, i.e., he knows everything - past, present, and future - then there cannot possibly be such a thing as free will - not for people, and not even for God himself.

Therefore, one can believe that God knows the future and you are just a clockwork figure going through the motions, or you can believe that you actually have the power to make choices that chart your own destiny, and that God doesn't know what will happen any more than you do.

You just can't have it both ways - although that certainly doesn't stop the Christians from trying! But then logic was never one of their strong points.

CCNL - your tag to many, many posts reads as follows:

'No one, not even God can prophesy since that would violate the God-given/Mother Nature gifts of Free Will and Future'.

You say this with great authority - and how do you know this? Just when you've convinced each and every religionist that their beliefs are pure bull, you identify yourself intimately with this statement.

Imagine the damage to your credibility as a spokesperson for the anti-religion movement!

Remember, we're on your side.....

Speaking of sacred books, I put this on the Otterson thread and thought some readers might find this obscure (and modern) cosmology intriguing.

There actually is a Urantia Foundation in Chicago. Many sacred texts come replete with alleged mythical origins. Studying sacred texts does not have to be a matter of believing or dis-believing. Historical interest is more than sufficient reason.
_________

Here's a book to rival the Book of Mormon and then some - obscure to many, the origins are mysterious but are thought to have come via automatic writing.

I have a couple of copies in the library and can attest to the remarkable nature of this book of some 2000 pages of fine print....a cosmology to rival many more familiar works found in the annals of religious history.

A stylistic analysis found evidence of at least 9 different authors.....the book itself claims to be the work of angels and other celestial beings, delivered through human agency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book

dcwca,

The whole "last days" scenario with Matt 24:21 being a part of it, has been reveiwed by most contemporary historical Jesus exegetes and has been found to be not from the historical simple preacher man but was simply more embellishment by M, M, and L to make Jesus a deity to compete with the Roman and Greek gods.

e.g. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/064_The_Last_Days

With respect to "prophet/fortune teller" John's (no relation to the son of Zebedee nor the writer of John's gospel) Revelations, give us a break!!! Paul was successful in convincing the return of the simple preacher man was imminent. We are still waiting. "Dreamer/hallucinator" John was simply following in line with this apocalyptic mumbo jumbo.

For some Reality with respect to the gift of Future:

As per the famous contemporary theologian, Edward Schillebeeckx, God is not omniscient.

Please read, pause and contemplate the following by Schillebeeckx:
Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (et al) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history."

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the historical future is not known even to God, otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings.

For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

i.e. No one, not even God can prophesy since that would violate the God-given/Mother Nature gifts of Free Will and Future.

How should we imagine the second coming of Jesus? Read Dostoevsky, the Great Inquisitor. Maybe he has already come back, and subsequently was killed again, for heresy (every religion is "heresy" for all the other religions). Would he be Southern Baptist? No way, he can't be geographically fixed, except for Southern Baptists, of course! Would he be Catholic? Mormon (poor Joseph Smith)? Unitarian? Methodist? Any other of the innumerable denominations? He couldn't avoid being a heretic! Would he be Jewish (most probably, since he was a Jew in the first place)? Would he be Black, Latino, Asian, Indian, Caucasian...? Would he be male or female?

Imagine a guy or girl appearing, maintaining: "I am Jesus", wouldn't everybody just laugh and, at best, put him/her in an insane asylum?

Strange how people with a certain degree of literacy (I was inclined to write "literality", lol!) cling to the kindergarten tales of yore, when the child's world was still simple, divided into good and evil, "me" of course always being good, or in case I happened to be not so good, always having Jesus being crucified as a proxy to keep me on the "good" side. And all this only because a girl some couple of thousand years ago mixed up two apples. How can any serious thinking adult be so brainwashed, childhood-projected as not to shed these superstitions.

So 80% US citizens believe this? Truth by superstition statistics? Bad, very bad for the citizens! 100% minus one believed the sun revolves around the earth not so long ago, and the Vatican, only a couple of years ago, finally was forced, teeth gnashing, to accept it!

>>But not EVERYONE knows that Jesus was not real, in fact 80% of the US population believes that he was indeed very real and that he will one day return, literally, for real.

'....that he will one day return, literally, for real.'

All I can say, my friend, is watch and be prepared. Consider how interdependent this world of ours has become and how evident that fact is with the current global economic crises- the crisis will not be remedied very easily and will eventually, possibly in short order, also bring about social unrest, toppling governments...the list goes on. The premise here is that it is on a global scale...something that has never occurred on this earth before (globally affected)...and its just the beginning....

...then read Matt 24:21 - emphasis on its context as compared to the clouds looming over this whole, interlocked , interdependent planet of ours

Doomsayer, you say? On the contrary. Your mention of the 'for real' return of Jesus Christ (after the travail and trial this world goes through) only brings on the 'doom' of mankinds way of doing things and ushers in the reality of what we need, that is the Kingdom of God set up here on earth, (Rev 21:1)that initially includes the millenial reign of Christ (Rev 20:4) and, during that time, a rebuilding of the tattered world He will come back to. After this...no more sorrows, no more tears, no more death. The world will be as it should have been if the right, symbolic tree had been chosen from in Eden from the very beginning. That, my friend, is the context of the full meaning of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. Sadly, the adversary has blinded mankind as a whole to this (Rev 12:9)

No doom whatsoever in the full scope of things. Rather, a time to look forward to with great anticipation and joy.

Regards

Hi Jed,

Why did you try to talk Counterww into considering the likelihood that Jesus was just a man not a God if you think it is so harmless to believe so. Why not just let him believe what he wants to believe?

I WROTE: "People believing that their religious tribe knows the ultimate word, wishes . . .causes harm to me. Such belief has caused and continues to cause the most unspeakable human horror day in and day out."

YOU REPLIED: Such extremists are a minority of believers in first world countries.

Nonsense. 80% of Americans believe that their religious tribe knows the ultimate word, wishes and commands of the one true creator and ruler of all. George Bush would never have been elected president were it not for the archaic delusion of deity belief. It most definitely causes harm to me and my society.

YOU WROTE: I think you should recognize that Christianity has done a lot of good, and spurred progress and concern for human rights.

Good people will do good things. Bad people will do bad things.
But for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.

The civil rights movement was just religion cleaning up it's own mess. Slave owners found their justification in the Bible. So did the KKK. I'm sorry Jed but you and I are miles apart on the good vs bad issue. I see a no contest. The bad so far outweighs the good.

Also, and this is an important point, none of the the good that comes from religion requires the deity belief part. All of the morals and wisdom in the religious texts are available as secular ideals. No primitive deity belief required.

I SAID "You have got to be kidding me with this absolutely deluded notion that deity belief causes no harm to anyone."

YOU REPLIED: No one said that. That is a strawman argument.

No, Freestinker said exactly that and I was responding directly to that.
YOU: Deity belief has caused some harm, and done some good.

Can you name some good that deity belief has done? Specifically deity belief?

YOU: Other belief systems such as racism and militarism have caused greater harm, in my opinion.

I have never read more graphic racism and militarism than when I read the Bible. The Bible is a manual for both of these things.

YOU: The opposition to learning and progress and objectivity cause harm. It is often allied with religion, but it is a separate thing. I know atheists who despise modernity.

Please.

ivri5768:

"I take it back. I'm not going to start looking up to Paul Krugman, although I do respect him. I'd just as soon not look up to anyone."

I gather he is a short fellow, so you might find it awkward in any case. Perhaps he would mount a soapbox to make it easier.

"IMO, there are no moral authorities."

I disagree. People who work hard or sacrifice to accomplish great moral objectives have moral authority, in my opinion. Nelson Mandela, for example.

People who accomplish great objectives in literature, music, diplomacy or physics have authority in those fields. It does not leak over into morality, nor does accomplishment in physics give a person any special ability to judge diplomacy. But oddly enough, political leaders and newspaper reporters often ask renowned physicists what they think of political problems or matters of national policy, as if they did have some special authority. I suppose people imagine they are brainiacs who can solve any problem. I happen to know several world-class physicists at MIT and elsewhere and I wouldn't trust them to take Amtrak from Boston to Washington on their own, let alone solve any problem unrelated to physics. I know for a fact they cannot figure out how to use the Microsoft Word format and index features.

jedrothwell1:

IMO, there are no moral authorities. Any collective sense of right and wrong is historical, i.e., contextual, writ large.

ParkerD1 says:
"The logic in the reference you cited, assumes that historical evidence should be replete--after all, we have history books today for everything that has ever happened in the world, don't we?

Some scholars disagree about the authorship of the works called the works of Shakespeare..,"

No, Parker, history is not complete and unbroken, by any means, but Shakespeare is hardly comparable to Jesus. He was a talented and prolific writer, for certain, but I'm not aware of him performing any miracles.

The things that were written about in the gospels - long after Jesus's supposed death and resurrection - one would have thought to be a little more newsworthy. The Romans, after all, kept meticulous records (yet somehow nothing of Jesus's supposed trial and crucifixion - or anything else about him, or the census that brought Joseph to Bethlehem, or Herod's killing of the innocents), and there were several Jewish historians who should really have noted a few things that were mentioned, but didn't.

All there is, is a small mention by Josephus, which, for reasons of style, among others, appears to be almost certainly a later addition to his writing by a Christian source.

The only real stories are the gospels, which build one upon the other, becoming more fantastic and detailed with each succeeding one - most written well after anyone who was there would have been long dead. Precisely what you expect with a legend.

I take it back. I'm not going to start looking up to Paul Krugman, although I do respect him. I'd just as soon not look up to anyone.

Pooh Bah   /ˈpu ˌbɑ/ [poo bah]

–noun (often lowercase) 1. a person who holds several positions, esp. ones that give him or her bureaucratic importance.

2. a leader, authority, or other important person: one of the pooh bahs of the record industry.

. a pompous, self-important person.

Also, Pooh-Bah, poobah.

Origin:
1880–85; after a character in Gilbert and Sullivan's The Mikado, who holds all of the high offices of state simultaneously and uses them for personal gain

[After Pooh-Bah, Lord-High-Everything-Else, a character in The Mikado by W.S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan.]
-------------------------
Personally, I look neither to "sacred texts" nor to Dawkins, et al, for moral guidance. On the matter of Poohbahs, it is said (by me), they shall always be with us, be us believers, atheists, or agnostics. I believe Darwin so theorized in his later correspondence.

Speaking only for myself, I don't look up to Dawkins. If I were to consider looking for someone to look up to, I might go for Paul Krugman, but then again I might not.

I should clarify that in addition to writing about evolution and religion, Dawkins does sometimes write about morality. His ideas on this subject may well influence people and make them look up to him. However, these ideas are 99% congruent with conventional, modern, liberal Christian morality. The fact that he is an atheist is irrelevant to whatever moral authority he may wield. His assertions about morality must stand on their own merits because -- as I said -- the subject is unrelated to his professional expertise in evolution and his lively interest in atheism.

To put it another way, Dawkins' ideas about morality are just as admirable and well grounded when those same ideas are expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Religion has nothing to do with them.

It would be Misuse of Authority logical fallacy to assume that Dawkins has any special standing or credibility to issue moral judgments. On the other hand, he has as much right to an opinion as anyone else, and if his ideas stand on their own merit they are good. (From my point of view, it is also a Misuse of Authority to assume that the Archbishop or the Pope have any moral authority, but that's another story.)

Arminius wrote:

"Of course Dawkins & Co are not a 'Board of Sacred Poohbahs'. But they could well be an ad hoc 'Board of Atheist Poohbahs'. This is not a put-down, just an observation."

No, it is not an observation. It is a mistake. It is your imagination. People such as Dawkins have little influence over other atheists, and they exert no moral authority, because atheism is devoid of moral content. It tells us nothing about how to live, or how to distinguish right from wrong. Religious and political leaders do claim moral leadership, and many people look up to them and are influenced by them.

To an atheist, Dawkins is skilled writer who expresses ideas well. He teaches useful information. He is admirable for that reason. To a programmer (of a certain age) Donald Knuth and Niklaus Wirth are skilled writers who express valuable ideas well. What they teach is immensely useful to successful programming, and making a living. So programmers admire these people, but they do NOT consider them moral authorities. You don't read their books to find a purpose in life, or to learn right from wrong. You read them to learn how to make programs work. You read Dawkins to figure out how religion works. That's all.

Darwin is also devoid of moral content. You read his books to figure out how living things developed on earth. His answer is manifestly correct, but it tells you nothing about good or evil, or what purpose (if any) we have in life, or should have. You might as well look for such answers in an automobile repair manual as in "The Origin of the Species." Some religious books such as the Bible attempt to answer two questions in one hypothesis: how life on earth appeared, and why (to what purpose) it appeared. God created us in order to set a moral agenda for us. Because these two subjects are inseparably related in the Bible, some religious people imagine that they are also inseparable in the "The Origin of the Species," and that Darwin must be advocating some sort of philosophy of life, or a moral agenda. That is incorrect. He does not, any more than Knuth or Wirth do. It is technical book. It answers no question other than: 'how did the species originate?' Unfortunately for some religious people, it competes with their notions of how species originated. It does not compete with their moral agenda, but it ignores that agenda, which may be worse in the long run.

timmy2 wrote:

"People believing that their religious tribe knows the ultimate word, wishes . . .causes harm to me. Such belief has caused and continues to cause the most unspeakable human horror day in and day out."

Such extremists are a minority of believers in first world countries.

"'... it's the (humanistic) philosophy that is Christianity's most valuable contribution. God's, ghosts, heroes and legends are almost completely irrelevant'

Tell that to 700 million enslaved muslim women."

They are not enslaved by Christian morality! I think you should recognize that Christianity has done a lot of good, and spurred progress and concern for human rights. The heroes and legends and superstition of religion do cause harm, but I think you exaggerate it. In any case, religious people are not alone in having dangerous misconceptions.

All institutions and all philosophies cause some measure of harm. Religion does, and so does its polar opposite: objective, rational science. As I pointed out science and engineering have caused great harm, with weapons and irresponsible technology, and in perverted research such as the Tuskeegee syphilis study and eugenics. Other institutions such as the democratic form of government, the Congress, free market capitalism, public education, academic peer-review, the banking system and many others are beneficial overall and vital to civilization, but sometimes they cause great harm.

"You have got to be kidding me with this absolutely deluded notion that deity belief causes no harm to anyone."

No one said that. That is a strawman argument. Even religious people know that religion has caused harm. In particular, Christians will tell you that Islam causes problems, and vice versa.

"Pull your head out of the sand. It is the most problem causing thing ever to infect human society."

I think this is a gross exaggeration. Deity belief has caused some harm, and done some good. Other belief systems such as racism and militarism have caused greater harm, in my opinion.

The opposition to learning and progress and objectivity cause harm. It is often allied with religion, but it is a separate thing. I know atheists who despise modernity. Extreme laissez-faire capitalism has caused suffering. It is often been endorsed by misguided atheists such as Ayn Rand. It is unfair to say that atheism and the scientific outlook directly cause laissez-faire capitalism or eugenics, but I think it is fair to say that they weaken some people's resistance. A self-styled objective atheist with at weak grasp of logic and no knowledge of history or human nature is more likely to embrace these evils than a religious person. The Christian religion, at least, instills healthy opposition to things like eugenics.

Arminius :
"Of course Dawkins & Co are not a "Board of Sacred Poohbahs". But they could well be an ad hoc "Board of Atheist Poohbahs". This is not a put-down, just an observation."

Well spoke.Btw.,I called them an "unholy trinity." Anyway, why all the put-downs of Poohbahs? Some of my best friends...

Of course Dawkins & Co are not a "Board of Sacred Poohbahs". But they could well be an ad hoc "Board of Atheist Poohbahs". This is not a put-down, just an observation.

Susan Jacoby writes:
"Anyone who thinks that Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, and any number of other people constitute a "Board of Sacred Poohbahs" for atheists simply doesn't understand the difference between atheism and religion."

If this is a response to my 2/20 1:49 post, please know it was meant in jest.Still,as you know, there is a long (2500 yrs. or so) tradition of "free thought" to which Dawkins, especially,does service. Been known to reference the fella from time to time. He knows what he doesn't know--always a plus in my scroll...err...book.

Freestinker,

"it's the (humanistic) philosophy that is Christianity's most valuable contribution"

If you feel this way, why do you not call yourself a Christian?
Or do you?

and about men

not gods

What is a sacred text anyway?

I remember the chaplain where I went to school liked to tell a story about his 1st day at seminary. Seems the instructor of his 1st class walked in holding a bible in the air, and asking who in the class believed it was the word of God. After all the seminary students had answered in the affirmative, the instructor pointedly let the bible drop to the floor (imagine the shock!). He closed with the admonition that it was written by men.

More to Susan's point and to the question at hand,

You would never find an atheist who would recommend that Sam Harris' book should only be read under the guidance of of an elder atheist. And yet look at all of the religious people who think that the guidance of clergy is necessary for a first reading of the Bible.

The difference is quite clear.

Susan Jacoby

Anyone who thinks that Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennett, Sam Harris, and any number of other people constitute a "Board of Sacred Poohbahs" for atheists simply doesn't understand the difference between atheism and religion. They are writers who are atheists, and atheists who are writers. That's all. There is no "pope" of atheism whose ideas about philosophy, science, or anything else are infallible. That I disagree with Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins about the harmfulness of "moderate" religion means nothing to the large and diverse group of atheists in the world, who have a variety of opinions on this issue. No one's words are sacred. Trust me on this: I'm an atheist, and I don't swear on the bible according to anyone else. And other atheists don't swear on the gospel according to Susan Jacoby.

Freestinker,

"Why does believing either make any difference? It does you (or me) no harm. I'm with Jed

People believing that their religious tribe knows the ultimate word, wishes, and laws, of the one true creator of the universe who commands certain moral behavior and punishes with death and floods and plague, and eternal damnation, absolutely 1000000% causes harm to me. Such belief has caused and continues to cause the most unspeakable human horror day in and day out.

YOU: ... it's the (humanistic) philosophy that is Christianity's most valuable contribution. God's, ghosts, heroes and legends are almost completely irrelevant"

Tell that to 700 million enslaved muslim women. Tell that to the families of slain abortion doctors. Tell that to the victims of every religious pogrom that has ever occurred. Tell that to the little boy who isn't allowed to play with his friends from school because of religious differences. Tell that to the little boys who were raped by Christian clergy. Tell that to the people with Parkinson's disease waiting for stem cell research to save them from a slow and ugly demise. Tell that to our planet, suffering from global warming due to denial and mistrust of the science community by the religious. Tell that to the non believer who can never hope to be president of the United States. Tell that to gay people. Tell them all that people's primitive religious delusions do not harm them in any way.

You have got to be kidding me with this absolutely deluded notion that deity belief causes no harm to anyone. Pull your head out of the sand. It is the most problem causing thing ever to infect human society.

Beware of Greeks bearing texts.

Jed,

"The actual date the person lived, the details of his life, and whether he was actually crucified and so on are less important than the philosophy"

Really? Not according to Christianity.
One could live the perfect Jesus philosophy and exemplify everything he stood for in that regard, but if one denies the divinity of Jesus, one goes to Hell. Conversely one can rape murder and steal their entire life, but so long as they confess their sins, and ask Jesus for forgiveness, and accept him as their savior, they go to heaven.

Now back to the person who has lived the perfect Jesus philosophy of ultimate altruism, selflessness, compassion and brotherly love. If this person lives the Jesus philosophy, but can not find themselves able to believe that Jesus was divine, the son of God, the holy spirit, even if they apologize and ask for forgiveness for their non-belief, if they do not recant their denial of Jesus being the holy spirit, they go to Hell.

Denial of the holy spirit is the only unforgivable sin in Christianity. Murder, rape, child molestation, theft, fraud, adultery, all of these are forgivable and not a blockade to getting into heaven. Denial of the holy spirit is not forgivable no matter how much apology goes on, only recanting and accepting that Jesus is the son of God will save you from hell. And even then, just saying it isn't good enough. You must actually convince yourself that it is true and believe it to be true because God will know if you are just faking it.

It matters very much what people believe about Jesus.
If they believe the truth which is that he most likely was an amalgamation of many hero characters and that this revolutionary moral philosophy was a creation of generations of people not one "greater than all of us" man, then this philosophy of the fictional character Jesus is a philosophy that came from us. The human spirit. And this philosophy lives on it's own merits.

If they believe the lie that not only did this philosophy come from one "greater than all of us" man, but that he was God incarnate, and that failure to follow his words as those of the divine will result in eternal damnation in Hell fire, then it creates the most horrendous of problems.

It matters what people believe. It matters very much.

counterww:
"Otherwise you are in a viscous cycle shrugging that the material world is all there is, and it came out of ????"

See how you said it?:
"I choose to believe that the creator always existed. God has no beg, no end"

Two problems.. 1. you 'choose' to believe. That is an odd way of stating something. Do you really believe it or not? Is it in fact believable witout 'choosing' to believe it.. like gravity or magnetism?
2. You state that you believe god has no beginning, no end. Why is it then so difficult to believe that the stuff that makes up the universe has no beginning or no end? Both concepts rely on infinte existance though yours requires that there be an additional layer of supernaturalness required, even though there is nothing but mythology and magic to describe it. It is your theory that requires a leap of imagination.
"You choose to believe complexity in the material world came from nothingness. "
No, I believe that in one form or another, it always existed..

"Deny the creator all you want. "
Which one.. throughout human history there have been thousands of alleged creators that YOU deny. You only 'deny' one less than me.

"Seek and YOU WILL find, if you choose to really look."

I repeat myself. I have sought, I spent a couple of decades seeking, praying, studying... Then I started questioning it.. it all crumbled.

"In the end analysis something has to exist that had no beg or end. That is GOD."
Says who? Your conclusion is not at all logically proven by your statement.
As you said before, that is in fact what you CHOOSE to believe... hardly qualifies as knowledge.
'Choose to believe' has a name, it's called denial.

"Otherwise you are in a viscous cycle shrugging that the material world is all there is,"
I agree, though I'm not so sure what is vicious about it. (I assume you weren't actually referring to 'viscous' ' the resistance of a fluid which is being deformed by either shear stress or extensional stress')

"and it came out of ????"

How the heck would I know, I'm no omniscient physicist, only religious people boast of having complete and infallable knowledge. But other than the selfish, jealous, violent ramblings of one single ancient text, there is no indication whatsoever that the universe above my head and under my feet, regardless how big or wonderful, or beautiful, was created by this mythical and angry god of yours.

"Atheism, at least, has no Board of Sacred Poohbahs dedicated to telling the members of the congregation what they should read, how they should read, and whether they should reach their conclusions by themselves or be guided by their betters."

Well...Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, the unholy trinity,come to mind, among a few dozen others.

Already when I was a youngster of 16, I felt that the whole religious business is nothing but a simple "make-belief", at best a "method" to concentrate, with a partly symbolic value comparable to fairy tales, similar to assuming a certain posture in Yoga or using a breathing technique while fixing your eyes on an object. It was clear to me that the whole narrative was an "as if" from beginning to end. Why?

We had a wonderful math teacher who taught us how to think, he even taught us the beauty, the aesthetics of clear thinking. For instance:

The existence and non-existence of something at the same time is impossible.
The "Universe" means the "Everything existing", or nature, or cosmos.
Now, if something in this universe is possible, it is by definition natural, pertaining to this universe. Nothing can be possible and impossible at the same time. There is no such thing as a miracle. Ludicrous.

It is therefore simply willful human ignorance to "believe" that anything might be "supernatural". If it exists, it belongs to the natural universe, independently of the fact that we understand it (yet) or know its reason of existence. Lightnings were "supernatural" in old times.

Religion (I am not talking of mental concentrations, meditation, "spiritual" techniques to find one's peace and insight) therefore is sheer nonsense. In opposition to the demand of excessive tolerance to all nonsense ("Free speech"), I think it is deadly dangerous because (just think of a guy like Hagee!) it spurs hate and prevents humans from thinking, which in these terrible times is the only hope we have for the survival of our civilization.

The scribes who wrote the OT, embellished many old Jewish tales/legends/myths to fit their concept of Monad and to keep the general tribal communities in line with oral tradition/guilt.

The trails/trials of Noah, Abraham, Job and Moses were concepts for tribal nomads/peasants/ shepherds/ordinary folk living in the age of illiteracy, short life spans, hardships, diseases, and "dirt poor" living conditions. Mankind has advanced and these concepts although wise for the ages, are not historical.

The evolutionary process continues with contributions from the historical Hammurabi, Buddha, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, the NT scribes, Constantine, Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, Schillebeeckx, the Jesus Seminar, Crossan, Mother Theresa, and the Hubble Telescope.

Pam,
The logic in the reference you cited, assumes that historical evidence should be replete--after all, we have history books today for everything that has ever happened in the world, don't we?

Some scholars disagree about the authorship of the works called the works of Shakespeare. That shouldn't be subject to disagreement either, should it? Was he a composite of several writers, James deVere (who had insider knowledge about things Shakespeare included in his plays), or just an amazingly gifted writer, a one-of-a-kind in history? It ought to be find-outable from the historical record of the time! It ought to be irrefutable! Shame on the historians who left him out of their histories for that time and place! Now we have to wonder. It's painful!

"In the end I don't care if people believe that he was a real person. I only have issues with people believing that he was God or the son of God."

Timmy2,

Why does believing either make any difference? It does you (or me) no harm. I'm with Jed ... it's the (humanistic) philosophy that is Christianity's most valuable contribution. God's, ghosts, heroes and legends are almost completely irrelevant.

Pamsm wrote:

"'. . . it is a 100% sure thing that someone preached that sermon, in that country, in Aramaic, at about that time. We might as well call him Jesus Christ.'

I'm not so sure about that. No one mentions this sermon until the Gospel of Matthew, which was written around the turn of the first century."

100 AD is "about that time." Close enough.

"Whoever wrote Matthew probably made it up himself."

Okay, so if that's the case, that person is the one we refer to as Jesus Christ. It is a composite historical person, and partly mythological. There are other ancient people in this category. Some definitely did exist, such as Gautama Buddha. Others are probably composites or may be completely fictional, such as Moses.

My point is that someone wrote it. More to the point, some person or group of people came up with an important new philosophy and a new moral ethic at about that time, which became Christianity. The actual date the person lived, the details of his life, and whether he was actually crucified and so on are less important than the philosophy. If the whole thing was ghostwritten by Matthew that does not make it any less important. The stories about raising people from the dead, turning children into birds and so on is mythology that no modern person should believe, but the philosophy is as valid today as it was 2000 years ago.

Much less mythology surrounds Buddhism, and the details of his life are probably historically accurate, but even if they are not, the philosophy is what matters.

Pamsm wrote:

"'. . . it is a 100% sure thing that someone preached that sermon, in that country, in Aramaic, at about that time. We might as well call him Jesus Christ.'

I'm not so sure about that. No one mentions this sermon until the Gospel of Matthew, which was written around the turn of the first century."

100 AD is "about that time." Close enough.

"Whoever wrote Matthew probably made it up himself."

Okay, so if that's the case, that person is the one we refer to as Jesus Christ. It is a composite historical person, and partly mythological. There are other ancient people in this category. Some definitely did exist, such as Gautama Buddha. Others are probably composites or may be completely fictional, such as Moses.

My point is that someone wrote it. More to the point, some person or group of people came up with an important new philosophy and a new moral ethic at about that time, which became Christianity. The actual date the person lived, the details of his life, and whether he was actually crucified and so on are less important than the philosophy. If the whole thing was ghostwritten by Matthew that does not make it any less important. The stories about raising people from the dead, turning children into birds and so on is mythology that no modern person should believe, but the philosophy is as valid today as it was 2000 years ago.

Much less mythology surrounds Buddhism, and the details of his life are probably historically accurate, but even if they are not, the philosophy is what matters.

JedRothwell says:
"it is a 100% sure thing that someone preached that sermon, in that country, in Aramaic, at about that time. We might as well call him Jesus Christ."

I'm not so sure about that. No one mentions this sermon until the Gospel of Matthew, which was written around the turn of the first century. That's a long time to remember exact words, and I'm pretty sure that no one followed Jesus around with a tape recorder, nor even a steno pad.

Whoever wrote Matthew probably made it up himself.

Are the gospels believable? See the evidence here:

http://www.inu.net/skeptic/gospels.html

For those that do not have a copy of Father Brown's book on the New Testament:
From Father Ray Brown's 878-paged, An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, New York, 1996, p. 172, (with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur (with regard to Matthew's Gospel)

Date: 80-90 AD,give or take a decade

"Author by traditional (2nd century) attribution. Matthew a tax collector among the Twelve, wrote either the Gospel or a collection of the Lord's sayings in Aramaic. Some who reject this picture allow that something written by Matthew may have made its way into the present Gospel.

Author detectable from contents: A Greek-speaker, who knew Aramaic or Hebrew or both and was not an eyewitness of Jesus' ministry, drew on Mark and a collection of sayings of the Lord (Q) as well as on other available traditions oral or written. Probably a Jewish Christian.

Locale Involved: Probably the Antioch region
Unity and Integrity: No major reason to think of more than one author or sizable additions to what he wrote."

As per Crossan and many contemporary biblical scholars:

" THIRD STRATUM [80-120 AD]
22. Gospel of Matthew [Matt]. Written around 90 CE and possibly at Syrian Antioch, it used, apart from other data, the Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Gospel Q for its pre-passion narrative, and the Gospel of Mark and the Cross Gospel for its passion and resurrection account (Crossan, 1988)."

See Crossan's complete list of scriptural references at
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf
For another list of early Christian documents and the date of publication, see: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

From this reference:
"It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience."

I admire Ms. Jacoby's efforts to answer her anonymous critics on this and other strings of posts. Like a firefighter trying to stop the spread of fire in the impact area of a particulary narrow-minded blast.

Hello Daniel,

Why have you demoted yourself from a 12 to a 10? ;)

"But then again it does seem strange that we should just accept an existence which is virtually chance without a creator or intelligent design behind things"

No stranger than just accepting the existence of a complex enough creator which is virtually chance with no creator or intelligent design behind it.

Also, you present a false dichotomy on existence. ID or chance.
There is another more logical option. Always been.

"But if there is no God and natural selection has no goal, why the grudge against people who want to believe in God?"

Daniel, you mischaracterize the situation twice in one sentence here.
1) There's no grudge. You need to look that word up. That is not how atheists feel about people who believe in God. I do not have a grudge against people who are hooked on pain killers, I just think that they should get off of them, because they are bad for them. In the case of religion, it doesn't only cause harm to the user.
2) It is a bizarre way to put it, to say "people who want to believe in God". People don't believe in things because they "want" to. This is like the problem with Pascal's wager, like you can choose to believe. If you're believing just because you want to, that's not real belief, that's delusion. I don't believe the speed of light is what it is because I want to believe that. There is good evidence to believe that. I just don't understand this whole concept of believing something because you "want" to.

"And if there is no God and no direction to existence how can we arrive at some type of secular humanism in which all are equal?"

I have zero belief in any God and I am the strongest believer I know in the idea that we are all equal and that we should give up on recognizing any of our former alegiences to our former tribes be they religious, racist or nationalistic. From my perspective, such a society will only be achievable when we completely give up on any literalism whatsoever in our ancient tribal myths.

"It seems to me that although it might seem as if there is no God and no direction to existence that we should establish a direction anyway--"

Correct. Pretty hard to do when 70% of the world still believes that a magic man in the sky is in charge and has given his instructions to us to bronze age desert wanderers to lay out for us, and we are to take their word for it until he returns.

"But in 150 years we have come from Darwin to genome...It seems silly to expect that we will just accept a directionless natural selection. In fact even without the major advances in biology we have we are engaged in selecting more advanced examples of ourselves--we are engaged in eugenics"

You have me here. We are in synch on this one.

"So...a text written alone and probably read alone--or at least left alone as if never really existed,--or existed in the mind of one man alone and possibly God"

And then you lose me again. ;)

Jed,

Great post to counterww!

"We don't want to go around talking about "the first president of the U.S. whose name shall not be spoken because some people imagine he chopped down a cherry tree" or some other ungainly circumlocution"

Well thinking that he chopped down a cherry tree is a far cry from thinking that he is the son of God creator of the universe and ruler of all things. One of these has proven to be a dangerous idea and the other is entirely harmless.

But Jed when I said that 80% of the population thinks that Jesus is real I didn't mean like you think he is real. You think he is real human, they think he is real God. If I was including people like you who think that he most likely was a real person, the number would be about 98% with 80% believing that he was also a deity.

For the record, not only do I not have a problem with people believing that Jesus was most likely a real person, and not a God, but I encourage it. I also encourage them to look at the strong evidence that he was not even a real person but a hero character invented from many ancient myths, heroes and real self proclaimed prophets of the time. Perhaps there was one particular evangelical preacher from the times named Jesus who was more influential than others in this amalgamation myth character, and so they named it after him. In the end I don't care if people believe that he was a real person. I only have issues with people believing that he was God or the son of God.

That being said, there is really not much reason to believe that he was a real person, and every reason to believe that all of those who said he was were lying.

A person should read sacred texts alone. Furthermore he should arrive at his own viewpoint period from a wide array of texts.

A train of thought...There is no real proof of God or Jesus or,--to speak of. But then again it does seem strange that we should just accept an existence which is virtually chance without a creator or intelligent design behind things.

And it does seem that intelligence in man is not only proof of an intelligent design, but that Darwinian natural selection is working its way up to more complex beings.

But of course many say not only is there no God, but that natural selection has no real goal at all. But if there is no God and natural selection has no goal, why the grudge against people who want to believe in God? What reason is there for forcing them to believe in no God and no goal of existence? Pride in facing "the truth"? So it comes down to something of a type of honor...

And if there is no God and no direction to existence how can we arrive at some type of secular humanism in which all are equal? How a society founded upon not only no God but no direction to existence?

It seems to me that although it might seem as if there is no God and no direction to existence that we should establish a direction anyway--besides, saying there is no direction to existence is a subjective viewpoint,--something close to insisting there is no God.

All viewpoints are shot through with subjectivity. Some say there is a God. Others say not only is there no God, we cannot take the establishing of intelligence in man as a direction to existence,--that we are really directionless.

But in 150 years we have come from Darwin to genome...It seems silly to expect that we will just accept a directionless natural selection. In fact even without the major advances in biology we have we are engaged in selecting more advanced examples of ourselves--we are engaged in eugenics.

A law of society: the more complex a society becomes the more it demands more complex humans to stay abreast of developments, and the selection of these humans is automatically eugenics because so many are not up to advancing developments.

So...a text written alone and probably read alone--or at least left alone as if never really existed,--or existed in the mind of one man alone and possibly God.

Hi Persiflage,
Yes, I've read Temple Grandin's book (her first one - I think she has another out now) - it's wonderful.

Lest anyone get the wrong idea, I am an animal lover - always have been. But I'm also a realist. And vegans always look to me like they need a good hunk of red meat. :)

And Jed, I do think that beef cattle would be gone completely. They don't make great pets and you can't ride them.

Counterww, part 1,

You:
"Let's correct that - most LIBERAL scholars believe them to be no earlier than 40 years old. John was the writer of the book of John and that was a EYE WITNESS."

Setting aside extra-canonical Church *tradition* - of dubious historicity at best - what is the internal scriptural evidence that the Fourth Gospel was actually composed by John the son of Zebedee, Galilean fisherman?

A careful reading of the Fourth Gospel reveals that the identity of the "Beloved Disciple" was to be understood as Lazarus of Bethany, portrayed as a well-off associate of the Temple elite in nearby Jerusalem.

Centuries of church tradition have failed to make this fairly simple inference, probably from a desire to enhance the status of the Fourth Gospel's *high* Christology by association with one of the Apostolic "Twelve". Something similar obtains with the Gospel of Matthew, which, if it was written by one of the "Twelve", raises problems for the resurrection accounts.

continued below...

Counterww, part 2,

continued from above

To wit:
If the Apostle Matthew actually wrote the Gospel of "Matthew", then how do you explain his complete omission of any Jerusalem appearances of the resurrected Jesus, as are found in Luke and John? Indeed, he locates the principle resurrection appearance to apostles on a mountain in Galilee.

As one of the "Twelve", Matthew would have been present at the Upper Room wound-exhibition by the risen Jesus in Jerusalem, as described in Luke and John. Yet this "eyewitness" mentions not a word of it in his own alleged memoir. He chooses instead to present a very sketchy Galilee mountain rendezvous at which some of those present "doubted".

Either Matthew was not present at the Upper Room - which contradicts Luke, who says the sans-Judas Eleven were all present - or his Gospel was composed by someone who knew nothing of Jersualem resurrection appearances (as was Mark's). Either way, your "eyewitness" canard looks quite shaky. Which evangelist is bending the truth? Were there any resurrection appearances in Jerusalem at all?

Another Matthew vs Luke problem. Matthew has an angel at the tomb announcing Jesus' resurrection to the women. This is quickly followed up by an appearance of the risen Jesus himself to the women, before they have told any male disciples. In Luke, there are two gleaming "men" at the tomb, and no clear tomb-proximate appearances from the risen Jesus. He pops up instead en route to Emmaus, and at the aposotlic hidey-hole in Jerusalem. So if Jesus actually appeared to the women near his tomb, as per Matthew, why does Luke omit this? Perhaps he doesn't want female resurrection witness to trump that of the Petrine apostolate. Or alternatively, "Matthew" is just making s--t up. Either way, someone is messing with the *facts*.

No doubt you will put up such standard canards as *different eyewitness views of the same events* or even *different theological purposes*, neither of which deal with the basic discrepancies. If the gospel writers were willing to edit and theologically *spin* their less-than-full-and-frank accounts, then what else aren't they telling us?

A hermeneutic of suspicion? You bet!

You should read your Bible more carefully, Counterww.

Counterww wrote:

"Paul wrote of doing miracles in the church. . . He is also in contact with the original disciples, written in Acts. So he knew of the miracles and was in contact with those that did miracles. He then wrote of miracles.

The truth of the Gospel is there for those that really want to find it.

You just don't want to."

Perhaps you have heard this before . . . But have you considered other possibilities?

Paul might have been mistaken. People often mistakenly believe they have produced a miracle such as curing a sick person, when in fact the patient recovered naturally.

People often exaggerate what they have seen. Stories passed from one person to the next tend to get distorted and exaggerated. Even if Paul heard the story from someone who was there, not exaggerated, you cannot be sure that the text you are reading now really is what Paul wrote down.

Sometimes people lie. Modern preachers sometimes lie because when they claim they can produce a miracle, believers send them money.

Some people are delusional. You may have heard that many people today honestly believe they have been kidnapped by aliens. This seems highly unlikely to me. Do you believe them, just because they say this, or write it in letters? Do you believe everything you read in letters, or in the newspapers?

There are many possibilities. Since no one in modern times has witnessed a miracle, and since our best science and knowledge indicates that miracles are impossible and always were impossible, these alternative explanations for Paul's letters seem more plausible to me than your explanation -- which is that his reports were true. Since he was an honorable fellow it seems likely he thought they were true. But people make honest mistakes.

You should consider what is most likely, in view of what we know from science, and in view of what you know about how people act, and about other people who claim they have performed miracles. I doubt that you believe in the miracles reported in other religions, such as Islam.

Perhaps you just don't want to find the truth?

timmy2 wrote:

"EVERYONE knows that buildings do not talk or raise taxes. EVERYONE!

But not EVERYONE knows that Jesus was not real, in fact 80% of the US population believes that he was indeed very real and that he will one day return, literally, for real."

Well, I think it is likely that he was real. Obviously his biography is overlaid by myths about miracles and stories from other eras, including myths that the church later stripped away, such as one that he impishly turned his childhood friends into birds. (Would "impish" be the right word?)

"If 80% of the population believed that buildings could talk and raise taxes, this would be a problem in our society.

If 80% of the population believe that Jesus was real, and really rose from the dead, and is really the son of God, nay God himself, the creator of the universe and ruler of all mankind, then this is a problem."

No one reading my messages will get this mistaken impression! Believing that there probably was a historical figure who thought up the Sermon on the Mount sometime around the year 30 AD does not compel belief that he really did rise from the dead. Some people may say: "since really did live that means he really was the Son of God" That's illogical. I cannot be held responsible for their mistake, and their mistake does not change my estimate that he likely did exist.

As I said, it is a 100% sure thing that someone preached that sermon, in that country, in Aramaic, at about that time. We might as well call him Jesus Christ. What we say has no effect on believers in any case. It would be confusing to refer to him as "the preacher or preachers partly mythological formerly known as Jesus Christ" (or "POPPMFKAJC").

Some people have peculiar notions about George Washington, Robert E. Lee, Albert Einstein, Mother Theresa and various other people who unquestionably did exist. When you mention their names, it triggers emotions, delusions and sometimes anger in these folks. It can't be helped. We don't want to go around talking about "the first president of the U.S. whose name shall not be spoken because some people imagine he chopped down a cherry tree" or some other ungainly circumlocution. People who have wacky beliefs about Mr. Washington will see through it anyway.

Pamsm:
"No one knows who wrote the gospels, and biblical scholars believe them to be written no earlier than 40 years after his supposed death - some much later than that"

Let's correct that - most LIBERAL scholars believe them to be no earlier than 40 years old. John was the writer of the book of John and that was a EYE WITNESS.

" Paul included no miracles, and no bodily resurrection. Legend, anyone?"

INCORRECT again. Paul wrote of doing miracles in the church . Read the letters he wrote and he speaks of miracles and the physical resurrection of Christ. He is also in contact with the original disciples, written in Acts. So he knew of the miracles and was in contact with those that did miracles. He then wrote of miracles.

The truth of the Gospel is there for those that really want to find it.

You just don't want to.

Sorry Glade runner, I choose to believe that the creator always existed. God has no beg, no end.

You choose to believe complexity in the material world came from nothingness.

Deny the creator all you want. Seek and YOU WILL find, if you choose to really look.

In the end analysis something has to exist that had no beg or end. That is GOD.

Otherwise you are in a viscous cycle shrugging that the material world is all there is, and it came out of ????

Nice one Ender.

God bless you ;)

Jed,

"Everyone knows that the White House is a building, and buildings do not talk or raise taxes"

Right, Jed. This is an important point. EVERYONE knows that buildings do not talk or raise taxes. EVERYONE!

But not EVERYONE knows that Jesus was not real, in fact 80% of the US population believes that he was indeed very real and that he will one day return, literally, for real.

If 80% of the population believed that buildings could talk and raise taxes, this would be a problem in our society.
If 80% of the population believe that Jesus was real, and really rose from the dead, and is really the son of God, nay God himself, the creator of the universe and ruler of all mankind, then this is a problem.

Everyone knows you are talking about a fictional character when you speak of Harry Potter.
When you speak of the fiction character Jesus, 80% of the American population believes you are talking about a real magic deity.

YOU ASK: "What difference does it make?"
Do you see the difference?
It makes a big difference.

YOU: "You claim you are not superstitious. Are you sure about that?"

Yes.

And as for all of your "savage" babble, I'm done with it. Save it for some fellow misanthrope.
My society may be acting in a savage way, but I am one man. I speak out against it at every opportunity, I vote against it, I contribute to charity to try and alleviate it, I speak out against the root cause of it (tribalism) and the root causes of the root cause (religion being one of them). If I were in charge we would be doing none of those things that you listed. And believe me, I'm doing everything in my power to get myself and like minded people in charge so that we can end our tribal separations that cause us to work against one another instead of together.

I am no savage sir. Call me that again and I'll rip your f#%#ing head off and devour your entrails. ;)

Anyone with at least fifth grade reading comprehension skills that reads the bible uniterpreted and litterally immediately realizes that this is a work of fiction composed over a long period of time by a priesthood exhorting their tribe to acts of extreme violence that will let them conquer other tribes...and make the priesthood wealthy.

Just as obviously, the contradictions and different story lines from the new testament show a book religion created by committee to promote a myth that will make a large group of humans subservient subjects to the Roman Govt.

Critical reading of the Bible and the Quran without interpretation should be required of all high school students. I believe the Abrahamic religions would cease to exist in fifty yrs or less.

Regarding the atomic bomb, I wrote to Timmy1:

". . . .it was done for your benefit, by your people . . ."

By my people, anyway, if not yours. I knew several scientists who worked at Los Alamos. They were decent, humane, educated people, as civilized as anyone can be. They are my Ivy League tribe. And yet, by any sane standard what they did was an unspeakable crime. It was the worst savagery in history. There is no escaping it: the best, smartest people, the flower of our intellectual civilization and science, that which is the noblest endeavor of mankind, brought us depravity and suffering on a colossal scale, two hundred thousand times more horrible than you could ever imagine, in your worse nightmare.

If this does not make you doubt whether we are civilized, rational beings, nothing will.

I am sure many ancient Hebrew people felt broken hearted when they saw slaves, but it was still their tribe and it was still savage. They still benefitted from slavery, and ate their bread from the sweat of other men's faces. Try as they might they could not escape the dehumanizing effects of it, such as the feeling that slaves were not fully human. Even today many white people in the U.S. South still deny the humanity of black people. You cannot escape some measure of guilt and responsibility for what your society does. You cannot avoid being tainted by savage acts and attitudes. No century in history was more inhuman and savage than the 20th century. And don't tell me we were the good guys! There were no good guys: only bad and worse. No good choices either, but we picked some of the worst.

Not only did I know the scientists in New Mexico, I also know several people who were underneath the bomb, including in-laws, so it is even more complicated for me. As for the "we were the good guys" line, I feel like the Prince in Romeo and Juliet (bearing in mind that he did not actually exist):

Where be these enemies? Capulet! Montague!
See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,
That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.
And I for winking at your discords too
Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish'd.

timmy2 wrote:

"I am with you on your point that we will appear ignorant and primitive in mindset to our distant future selves, but I'm not going to cop to the word 'savage' or 'superstitious'. It's just not me."

I do not see anyone who reads the newspaper and sees what is done in our name with our tax money can deny being a savage. The attack on Hiroshima, for example, may have been necessary and it may have saved lives, but it was the most savage moment in history. It will taint our civilization for a thousand years into the future. Whether you were alive or not, it was done for your benefit, by your people, and you are still paying for it.

You claim you are not superstitious. Are you sure about that? People are often less objective and rational than they fancy themselves to be.

I know several hundred distinguished scientists who have said outrageous things and made logical fallacies that would have embarrassed a medieval academic logician. An admiral with a PhD said that he was certain that some scientists were wrong because "just by looking at them on television you could tell they were incompetent boobs." A prof. at MIT pounded his desk and thundered: "I have had 50 years of experience in nuclear physics and I know what's possible and what's not. . . . I don't want to see any more evidence!" You would be surprised how often educated people become unglued and spout nonsense when their cherished beliefs are threatened, and more often when their livelihood is at stake. As Tolstoy put it:

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they reached perhaps with great difficulty, conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

See the source of those quotes here: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

And here: http://lenr-canr.org/

timmy2 wrote:

"'Jesus Christ recognized the cruelty of his era . . .'

Uh, there was no such person as "Jesus Christ".
"Jesus Christ" is a fictional hero character based on an amalgamation of hero characters in folk lore going back thousands of years before the writings of the Gospels. . . ."

What difference does that make? If he did not exist, someone else did. Someone came up with the Sermon on the Mount. It did not spring forth by supernatural means. A philosopher or group of philosophers came up with a superior set of humanistic morals -- one that even now the world has not caught up with. Whether that person was actually named Jesus Christ or not is immaterial.

You remind of the person who asserted Shakespeare did not write those plays: it was another man of the same name.

This is a literary convention. We talk about how foolish or smart King Lear or Holden Caulfield are even though we know that these are fictional characters. We refer to actors with their stage names even though we know those are not their real names. Everyone knows that the White House is a building, and buildings do not talk or raise taxes, but you read about buildings doing stuff like that all around Washington, a.k.a. the city of deep background talking buildings.

As Shaw said "The man is a barbarian who believes the customs of his tribe to be the laws of nature."

I've actually found it tremendously helpful to read books like Reading the Old Testament, The Bible Unearthed, Who were the Ancient Israelites and Where did they come From, Jesus for the Non-Religious, and Who Wrote the Bible.

It was actually pretty good for 2-3,000 years ago.
It's just an embarassment that anyone thinks there's been nothing better since.
And that we treat such a view with respect.

Hi Jed,

"Jesus Christ recognized the cruelty of his era, and he was a humanitarian centuries ahead of his contemporaries, and ahead of most people today, with his concern for the poor, sick and imprisoned people"

Uh, there was no such person as "Jesus Christ".
"Jesus Christ" is a fictional hero character based on an amalgamation of hero characters in folk lore going back thousands of years before the writings of the Gospels. Of course he had qualities that seem almost super human or way ahead of his time. He was a culmination of millennia of human compassion and wisdom all rolled into one hero character. But I suppose that is a whole other argument.

YOU: "But in many ways he was also a barbarian stuck in the savage mindset of his time"

You seem stuck on this word "savage". It simply does not apply to me or you no matter how primitive we are to future cultures. I am with you on your point that we will appear ignorant and primitive in mindset to our distant future selves, but I'm not going to cop to the word "savage" or "superstitious". It's just not me.

timmy2 wrote:

"'Future people will look back on the merciless cruelty and idiotic waste of today, and they will say that we were barely more civilized than Elizabethans.'

Indeed. But if they could know you and I, and the many like us, who are aware that all of these things are wrong and preventable . . ."

Many Elizabethans were aware of the cruelty and waste of their civilization. A few such as Francis Bacon understood how things might be in the distant future. I am sure that when the Bible was written, some people understood that slavery and murdering homosexuals was abhorrent, but they were in the minority. Despite their enlightenment these people could not help being savages in many ways. No one can completely transcend his culture.

Jesus Christ recognized the cruelty of his era, and he was a humanitarian centuries ahead of his contemporaries, and ahead of most people today, with his concern for the poor, sick and imprisoned people. But in many ways he was also a barbarian stuck in the savage mindset of his time.

H. G. Wells was far ahead of his time in some ways, and he was a humanitarian scientist. But like many other educated elite people of his day who believed in eugenics, he called for the extermination of black people, Jews and other unclean, sub-human races. I mean he wanted them killed off.

Abraham Lincoln was profoundly racist in some ways, even though he was one of the most open minded and deep thinkers who ever lived, leader of the war to liberate the slaves, and a good friend of Frederick Douglass. People are complicated.

When academics discuss religion and religious behavior, they are bound to use the terms 'sacred and profane' in a nominal and explanatory way, and in order to differentiate the two - rather than as a literal usage.

This in no way admits to anything other than human origins for various artifacts and features found in either realm. In the end, it's a matter of how the two categories influence behavior - and that is a vast topic that benefits from some kind of terminological separation.

Sorry about the spelling glitch for Aspergers - a phonetic fumble.

Pamsm wrote:

"Poultry is 'factory farmed,' but I doubt if the chickens and turkeys are as miserable as you imagine. They aren't the most contemplative of animals."

They are wonderful animals. My mother-in-law used to keep a hundred or so free range on her farm, and my wife had one as a pet when she was in kindergarten. (And yes, it followed her to school one day, but it went home on its own accord.) We kept them when our kids were small. I have seen factory farms, and yes, the poor things are miserable. They are a lot smarter than people in some ways.

"Do you think people would continue to give them fenced pasture land and supplement their feed in the winter? Dream on. They would all be killed, and that would be the end of them."

I am sure that all domesticated species will survive after we transition to cultured meat. We do not use horses for transportation, but they are not in any danger of extinction in the U.S. Of course the numbers of cows, chickens and other meat animals will be greatly reduced.

- Jed

Susan Jacoby

To The Moderate:

I have indeed read both "On the Origin of Species" and "The Descent of Man," and one of the greatest things about them is the lucidity of the English prose. You're quite right, I'm sure, that many people who claim to have read these books probably haven't read them: they have an "idea" about what Darwin actually said based on other people's opinions. But I'm sure that's true of the Bible as well as Darwin. No one who has actually read Darwin could imagine that he would ever countenance the notion of his writings as "sacred."

The Elizabethan era wasn't all bad - if you happen to admire and enjoy Baroque music. This was indeed a great era in history for some splendid music, Reformation or no.

As to the quality of life in the stockyards and chicken and turkey farms of the world - not so pleasant. Here's an interesting website that discusses the inventions of Temple Grandin, a rather brilliant person with Asberger's Syndrome.

She invented a squeezing mechanism for stockyards that comforts large animals on their way to slaughter - she uses it herself, because human touch is fairly intolerable to those with Asbergers (a form of autism). The famous folks with some form of this syndrome will shock and amaze you - see below.

http://www.grandin.com/

http://www.asperger-syndrome.me.uk/people.htm

Hi Pam,

YOU SAID:

"At any rate...if we began growing meat from cells, or we all became vegans - what do you imagine would happen to these animals?"

"I bet, given that choice, they'd take a few months or years"

I live on a mountain side with the mountain right in my back yard. We get lots of wild animals around here. The other night I heard (for the 3rd time) a pack of coyotes kill a deer. It is the most horrendous thing you've ever heard. The poor deer just screaming in agony as the coyotes "yip yip yip yip yip" and gorge while the deer slowly dies. It must be just the most awful way to die. I am sure if that deer knew the options, it would rather be shot by a hunter, or live the life of a beef bull.

Some people forget how cruel and horrific life in the wild can be for animals. It's a dog eat deer world out there, for all of us.

HI Jed,

I think we're on the same page mostly.

"You could learn about it, but you could not actually master the techniques just by learning about them, unless you happen to be an expert in wilderness survival and rescue"

Don't be so sure. Give me a three week training course with some experts and I'd be willing to give it a go. The point is that we have the knowledge that they had. And we also have all of the knowledge gained in the thousand years since then. Advantage us. Through no fault of their own, they were very ignorant compared to us, and we are very ignorant compared to people of the distant future.

"Future people will look back on the merciless cruelty and idiotic waste of today, and they will say that we were barely more civilized than Elizabethans"

Indeed. But if they could know you and I, and the many like us, who are aware that all of these things are wrong and preventable, and do our best to vote the right way and give to the right charities, and to try and bring an end to these terrible things. I feel like I was born in the wrong time. I belong in the future when we are no longer separated into tribes and we are all working together as one human race, stewards of the planet. It is tribalism that is the root cause of all of those things you listed.

"You may also be more superstitious than you realize. Much of what you think you know will no doubt turn out to be unfounded and wrong, and so close to being superstition future people will hardly recognize the distinction"

Nah, it's not the same as superstition. Superstition is believing in things for which there is no evidence. All of my beliefs are based on evidence and I am willing to change my beliefs as new evidence comes in. That is not superstition.

Pamsm

You said,

"Some believers have tried to convince me that I have "faith" that when I step onto an elevator, it won't fall. Or that the Sun will rise tomorrow. But this isn't faith - it's an expectation based on past experience and mathematical probability."

What you call "an expectation based on past experience and mathematical probability" I call secondary knowledge. Secondary knowledge is a model of the world that you infer by varying non-experiential means but that you reasonably believe with a very high degree of certainty.

Secondary knowledge is actual knowledge, it is just not necesarily knowledge that we have gathered and verified ourselves with our own sense organs.

There is a big difference between this kind of knowledge and relgious belief. I think it is too much to expect people to know the difference. I do not think it takes a lot of brains to understand the difference. But you have to care about the difference to ever know the difference.

And most people don't care.

Recommended references for your bible study groups:

1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.htm -- the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the titles of their over 100 books on the subject.

2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
-- a list of early Christian documents to include the year of publication
3. Historical Jesus Studies, faithfutures.org/HJstudies.html,
-- "an extensive and constantly expanding literature on historical research into the person and cultural context of Jesus of Nazareth"

4. Jesus Database, faithfutures.org/JDB/intro.html--"The JESUS DATABASE is an online annotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."

5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

6. The Jesus Seminar, mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

7. Writing the New Testament- mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/testament.html

8. Health and Healing in the Land of Israel By Joe Zias
joezias.com/HealthHealingLandIsrael.htm

9. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.

10. 7. The Gnostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on Ancient and Modern Gnosticism)
by Douglas Groothuis: equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm

11. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM#2

12. The Jesus Database- newer site:
wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php?title=Jesus_Database

13. Jesus Database with the example of Supper and Eucharist:
faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb016.html

14. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

15. The Journal of Higher Criticism with links to articles on the Historical Jesus:
mtio.com/articles/bissar24.htm

16. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/

17. Diseases in the Bible:
etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-08022006-125807/unrestricted/02dissertation.pdf

18. Religion on Line (6000 articles on the history of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, ethics, etc.
religion-online.org/

19. The Jesus Seminarians and their search for NT authenticity:
mystae.com/restricted/reflections/messiah/seminar.html#Criteria

20. The New Testament Gateway - Internet NT ntgateway.com/

21. Writing the New Testament- existing copies, oral tradition etc.
ntgateway.com/

22. The Search for the Historic Jesus by the Jesus Seminarians:
members.aol.com/DrSwiney/seminar.html

23. Jesus Decoded by Msgr. Francis J. Maniscalco (Da Vinci Code review)jesusdecoded.com/introduction.php

24. JD Crossan's scriptural references for his book the Historical Jesus separted into time periods: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan1.rtf

25. JD Crossan's conclusions about the authencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the conclusions of other NT exegetes in the last 200 years:
faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan2.rtf

26. Common Sayings from Thomas's Gospel and the Q Gospel: faithfutures.org/Jesus/Crossan3.rtf

27. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by title with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

28. Luke and Josephus- was there a connection?
infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html

29. NT and beyond time line:
pbs.org/empires/peterandpaul/history/timeline/

30. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
harvardhouse.com/prophetictech/new/pauls_life.htm

31. See www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.

32. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.

33. The books of the following other On Faith panelists: Professors Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.

34. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

35. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus,

DITLD wrote:
"Faith actually does not mean religious belief. Faith actually means trust.

I am not sure why the word faith has come to be a synonym for religion. Even this blog is called Faith Forum."

Here's the dictionary definition:

Dictionary: faith (fāth)
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Definitions 2, 4, and 5 are the ones I was using - especially 2.

JedRothwell1 says:
"...(For example I hope that cultured meat grown from cells will soon replace factory farms.)..."

Ook.

Poultry is "factory farmed," but I doubt if the chickens and turkeys are as miserable as you imagine. They aren't the most contemplative of animals.

Cattle are pastured up until the last few weeks, when some of them are fattened on feed lots - and this is only the steers. Cows and bulls lead pretty good lives. Even the steers have a couple of good years.

Veal calves (which are surplus dairy bulls) are confined to small huts, which can't be the best of lives, but it's not for long. Dairy cows do just fine, as do the bulls that are kept for breeding. Don't believe everything PETA tells you.

At any rate...if we began growing meat from cells, or we all became vegans - what do you imagine would happen to these animals? Do you think they'd be turned loose somewhere to return to the blissful wild life? If hitting a deer can do some damage, imagine hitting an Angus bull. Do you think people would continue to give them fenced pasture land and supplement their feed in the winter? Dream on. They would all be killed, and that would be the end of them.

I bet, given that choice, they'd take a few months or years.

Susan Jacoby

"I must disagree with the person who said that Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" was his idea of a sacred book. (I'm sure you didn't mean this literally.)"

Why are you sure of that? I think that it often meant that way. G.K. Chesterton pointed out that Origin of Species was a book that almost every Englishman thought he understood, but but almost none had read. Have you read it or are you continuing in that Great Old English Tradition?

How queer of God to speak

his world-perturbing gospel words

in roughly cut commercial Greek

as if he hawked wrung birds

and strung-up offal while the sleek

strolled by in fish-eyed herds.

To take a text as sacred
is to mistake a footprint
for the foot that made it.

I always have guidance when reading sacred books. I rely on http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/

I am also disappointed at this week’s question but even more so when I see bloggers that still believe in ancient books and blindly follow those delusional scriptures. So I will answer according to my level of disappointment on both counts.

Hefner’s “Playboy” and Flynt’s “Hustler” were my kind of sacred books until just a few years ago. A difficult read indeed sometimes but man should not be alone.
They did raise a few epistemological concerns. Backed up by a significant amount of exhaustive research I figured the word “masturbation” must derive from the ancient Homo reverberation “mast-urbo”, meaning “mast” and “turbo” (which is not the same as saying I masturbo with ancient Homos).
My younger brothers are now exploring what is revealed in the abovementioned scriptures ...because in them was salvation for many of us ...seek and ye shall find..bla-bla-bla-bla-bla...

timmy2 wrote:

"You and I are saying the same thing here."

Yup. I mistook your first message.

"Just reading the bible without guidance from someone who has reinterpreted it, you would no doubt think that Homosexuals were to be killed."

Well, you might not think that, but you surely would think that's what the Bible tells you to do. A more sophisticated modern interpretation is that it says that but it doesn't mean it. Frankly, I don't buy that.

"Actually I can go on-line right now and learn how to survive in the desert with primitive tools."

You could learn about it, but you could not actually master the techniques just by learning about them, unless you happen to be an expert in wilderness survival and rescue. Primitive and ancient people had incredibly detailed knowledge of how to live in their world. More than modern people have, because they had no textbooks, Internet or experts to depend on. Old fashioned farmers alive today that I have lived and worked with have FAR more practical knowledge and experience than urban people.

"YOU: "They were sane, not delusional"

They believed that God literally existed, that is delusional by definition."

Not back then, it wasn't. That's unreasonable. For example, if you knew nothing about evolution you might reasonably conclude that animals and people were intelligently designed.

"YOU: People a few hundred years from now probably consider you and I to be little better than superstitious savages, and that will be unfair to us!"

"They won't be able to consider me either of those things because I am neither a savage nor superstitious."

All of us are savages. We live in a world in which tens of thousands of children die every week from easily prevented diseases and dirty water. We could save them for a pittance. In America we leave thousands of mentally ill people and helpless children living on the streets, and we send poor children to schools that have no libraries or science class facilities or enough teachers. We have vast factory farms in which we torture animals. In the future I hope that these horrible things all pass away. (For example I hope that cultured meat grown from cells will soon replace factory farms.) Many of our goods are made in third world sweatshops by children and young women who are barely better off than slaves. We are probably causing global warming with technology that could easily be fixed. Future people will look back on the merciless cruelty and idiotic waste of today, and they will say that we were barely more civilized than Elizabethans.

You may also be more superstitious than you realize. Much of what you think you know will no doubt turn out to be unfounded and wrong, and so close to being superstition future people will hardly recognize the distinction. We look back on some European medical practices in the 1700s and see them as being almost the same as superstition or voodoo, even though they were practiced by rational people such as Franklin.

Pamsm

Faith actually does not mean religious belief. Faith actually means trust.

I am not sure why the word faith has come to be a synonym for religion. Even this blog is called Faith Forum.

I think that faith my be a euphemism for reliigon, which has lately gotten a bad name.

Ken16 says:
"Everyone trusts in documentary, forensic, and historical evidence, although they weigh the evidence differently according to prior experience and predispositions. Most things we claim to know are based on this sort of evidence. Our names, dates of birth, diplomas, driver's licenses, and the books we read do not give us first hand empirical data. Yet we accept this sort of evidence willingly and regard the information as factual. We really have no choice."

This is quite different from belief in the bible, and does not require "faith." Scientific experiments and observations are repeatable, and are peer-reviewed.

Historical accounts are independently corroborated.

There are witnesses to our dates of birth, etc.

Some believers have tried to convince me that I have "faith" that when I step onto an elevator, it won't fall. Or that the Sun will rise tomorrow. But this isn't faith - it's an expectation based on past experience and mathematical probability.

Many Christians seem to believe that there is actual eyewitness testimony and contemporary historical and archeological confirmation of the life of Jesus, but it simply isn't so.

No one knows who wrote the gospels, and biblical scholars believe them to be written no earlier than 40 years after his supposed death - some much later than that. There is no reliable mention in any contemporary history. There is no record (and Romans kept meticulous records) of many of the supposed historical events of the NT (Herod's slaying of the males born at the same time as Jesus, the crucifixion [crucifiction?], the census that sent Joseph to Bethlehem). There is no archeological evidence at all.

With each of the testaments (in their correct chronological order: Paul, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) Jesus becomes more magical, and there are more miracles. Paul included no miracles, and no bodily resurrection. Legend, anyone?

Jed,

YOU: "I think you have that backward. That is what the Bible says, and what it means. It is easy to follow: you do not need "guidance" to understand it says to kill homosexuals"

You and I are saying the same thing here. Just reading the bible without guidance from someone who has reinterpreted it, you would no doubt think that Homosexuals were to b killed.

YOU: "That is unfair to ancient people. They were not ignorant; they knew many things you do not know, such as how to survive in the desert with primitive tools.

Actually I can go on-line right now and learn how to survive in the desert with primitive tools. There's probably an instructional video for that on You-Tube. And just o clarify, I didn't call ancient people ignorant I called the writers of the Bible ignorant.

YOU: "They were sane, not delusional"

They believed that God literally existed, that is delusional by definition.

YOU: "They were, of course, superstitious, but you can't blame them for that"

Nor do I.

YOU: "They had the misfortune of being born thousands of years before modern times"

Making them ignorant of what we know today.
Ignorant just means "lacking knowledge" it does not have to be a derogatory word. Plato was ignorant of Newtonian physics. This is not a slight on Plato. It just means that you'd rather take you information on the physical world from Newton rather than from Plato if you have the advantage of living post Newton. We do not need to rely on ancient myths in our day and age. We have modern science and thousands of years of human experience since those times to tell us everything we need to know.

YOU: You should not hold people in other eras and other cultures to your own standards. That's unfair to them.

I don't hold them to to my standards. I take their words with the full knowledge of their primitive limitations. It is people who hold their words as sacred who put them on too high a pedestal and thereby hold them to an impossible standard, that of being able to enlighten people 5000 years in the future about the origin of life and the universe.

YOU: People a few hundred years from now probably consider you and I to be little better than superstitious savages, and that will be unfair to us!"

They won't be able to consider me either of those things because I am neither a savage nor superstitious. They will however be welcome, without insulting me, to consider me to be ignorant of all of the science and human knowledge and experience gained between now and then. I am most certainly ignorant of many profound things that people 200 years from now will be readily aware of. But I am not now, nor will they consider me 200 years from now, to be superstitious or a savage.

In reply to Jedrothwell:

I wrote further down that

"... there is an artful quality of judgment, in deciding what is real and true and what is not. In our unfolding lives, we gather up chunks of knowledge, of what we think and believe is true, and we try to arrange in some organized way to give us a sense of what may be real or true."

What is knowledge? What is knowing? How do we know the things we know?

Knowing how to know is an art.

You do not have to be a scientist to learn how to know. But in order to appreciate knowledge and understand how to know things, you must at least be interested in the subject of knowledge and knowing.

I think this true interest in knowledge and understanding is what separates religious people with valid interests and arguments from religious cranks and crackpost.

I believe that cultivating this art of knowing is the mark of Western, or now, World culture, the sign of a modern and sophisticated person. It is what separates the people of an isolated Islamic village or an Amish family in Pennsylvania, from a modern, wordly and well-educated person of the twenty-first century.

Dear Ms. Jacoby,

I urge you to read Burton L. Mack's "The Christian Myth," which fairly well blows up any illusion that the "New Testament" was handed down to us via some "Higher Authority."

http://books.google.com/books?id=IQaMbMasFMAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+christian+myth

My favorite "Sacred Text.":

http://www.homestar.org/bryannan/duino.html

Probably best read without someone looking over your shoulder.

Timmy2 wrote: "He would see no retraction of this from Jesus who apparently IS God"

Interesting - would a 1st time reader from a non-christian culture actually draw the conclusion that Jesus is God?

I can't remember any passages other than John 1:1-6 that actually say that Jesus is God. It seems the Jesus of the other gospels goes out of his way to avoid saying this.

DanielintheLionsDen wrote:

". . . how some obvious phenomenon, has been explained in a different less obvious way, that makes more sense, ultimately, that the earth goes around the sun, for example, instead of the sun going around the earth."

Actually, strictly speaking, either explanation is workable. A physicist once told me you could work out a set of equations for the sun going around the world (or the entire universe revolving around you when you pirouette) but you would have to invent many arbitrary variables and it would be complicated. Modeling the earth going around the sun is easier. It is more elegant. You might say it is more as a matter of convenience than defining physical reality.

Scientists and especially engineers are often more interested in making it easier to understand things than in finding the "truth." As long as the equations work most of the time, they are okay. They figure it is all an approximation anyway. Religion is more concerned with finding an actual, verifiable, absolute truth. I myself doubt that people are capable of determining the absolute truth, and I don't see what good it would do us even if we could.

Ken16

None of us can "know" anything except what we experience ourselves, with our own senses. All of the body of scientific knowledge and of scientifically documented human history certainly falls outside of this definition of "knowledge."

We are animals, primates, advanced mammals. And we perceive the world much as they do. Our senses are similar. We cannot really "know" anything for sure, except what we experience in the landscape of our unfolding lives, just as all the other animals do.

We, like all animals, live in a niche in the world that our bodies and organs of sensation have evolved into, and that niche is what we experience, and our experiences of that niche form all of our primary knowledge about the world, which is not very great. We are, in fact, tiny, feeble things, in a vast universe, which most of cannot even imagine.

But we have a secondary sense of knowledge, of what others have told us, or of what we have read or somehow, otherwise heard about, or how some obvious phenomenon, has been explained in a different less obvious way, that makes more sense, ultimately, that the earth goes around the sun, for example, instead of the sun going around the earth.

I understand how science works; I try to maintain my own currency with scientific trends, discussions, and controversies. I tend to go along with the consensus of science and scientists on most things, unless I have some reason not to. Yet, of course, my belief in science is not a belief in an immutable truth, but a concurrent agreement with scientific consensus. The consensus of science might change, or my agreement with the consensus might change.

This kind of knowledge is not what we have experienced with our own senses; it is rather more closely related to art or music or poetry. There is an artful quality of judgment, in deciding what is real and true and what is not. In our unfolding lives, we gather up chunks of knowledge, of what we think and believe is true, and we try to arrange in some organized way to give us a sense of what may be real or true.

Sorting through and understanding truth can enrich a person's life, because to kmow is sublime. Yet, secondary knowledge of truth is not necessary.

Timmy2 wrote:

"This person you talk about who might read the bible with no guidance or previous knowledge of it would also come away considering women to be subservient to men, disobedient children as needing to be stoned to death . . ."

I think you have that backward. That is what the Bible says, and what it means. It is easy to follow: you do not need "guidance" to understand it says to kill homosexuals. You need guidance to form a more sophisticated interpretation; i.e., to interpret the Bible to mean something other than what it says. In other words, it tells you to kill disobedient children and people who wear fabric composed of two or more different kinds of fiber (to put it in modern terms), but a sophisticated modern interpretation would be that God does not really want us to do these things, and this is allegory or what-have-you. Or that God set an invisible statute of limitations on these rules, and they no longer apply. Or that some of these rules apply but others do not and we need the Pope or a preacher to tell us which is which.

A few fundamentalists say these modern interpretations are not "sophisticated" but rather incorrect, or sacrilege, and we should do what the Bible says. They favor murdering homosexuals, although I doubt many of them would kill people who wear different fibers.

"Fortunately the most clear message I come away with is that it was obviously written by ignorant superstitious delusionals."

That is unfair to ancient people. They were not ignorant; they knew many things you do not know, such as how to survive in the desert with primitive tools. They were sane, not delusional. If they had been insane they would not have survived. They were, of course, superstitious, but you can't blame them for that. They had the misfortune of being born thousands of years before modern times.

You should not hold people in other eras and other cultures to your own standards. That's unfair to them. People a few hundred years from now probably consider you and I to be little better than superstitious savages, and that will be unfair to us!

Susan Jacoby

I must disagree with the person who said that Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" was his idea of a sacred book. (I'm sure you didn't mean this literally.) A great work of science is something to build on, not an unmodifiable sacred text. That is the difference between science and religion. I'm sure that Darwin would be thrilled to know that subsequent discoveries about genetics have modifed and changed our understanding of the particulars of his theory of evolution by means of natural selection.

I am forever flabergasted at the people who don't see how believing a book to be sacred, that contains the following verses, is not problematic.

Deut 20:10-18
10 When you draw near to a town to fight against it, offer it terms of peace. 11If it accepts your terms of peace and surrenders to you, then all the people in it shall serve you in forced labour. 12 If it does not submit to you peacefully, but makes war against you, then you shall besiege it; 13 and when the Lord your God gives it into your hand, you shall put all its males to the sword. 14 You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, livestock, and everything else in the town, all its spoil. You may enjoy the spoil of your enemies, which the Lord your God has given you. 15 Thus you shall treat all the towns that are very far from you, which are not towns of the nations here. 16 But as for the towns of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you must not let anything that breathes remain alive. 17 You shall annihilate them—the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites—just as the Lord your God has commanded, 18so that they may not teach you to do all the abhorrent things that they do for their gods, and you thus sin against the Lord your God.

Ex 35:2
2 For six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy sabbath of solemn rest to the Lord; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

Lev 20:13
13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

How on earth could it not cause problems for people to be taught to believe that the book containing these verses is the sacred word of God???

Ken16 wrote:

"There is a great deal of historical evidence and personal experience that substantiate my Christian belief."

Different Christians believe various different things. If your beliefs include the notion that a virgin gave birth to a child and dead people came back to life, then you are incorrect. There is no historical evidence for these events. They are physically impossible. (Not all self-described Christians believe in such things.)

If you are talking about spiritual beliefs or historical events such as the crucifixion, you are probably right.

If you are talking about supernatural things such as heaven, hell and the existence of God, they are all carefully defined to omit any possibility of historical or physical evidence. The most authoritative descriptions of them specify that they cannot be detected by physical means, and no historical evidence for them can exist. They are entirely predicated on faith.

Your personal experiences may be thrilling or profound, but personal experience is often deceptive, and it is not a reliable guide to reality. Facts can only be confirmed by objective means. Whether you like it or not, objective methods of determining the truth and belief in the laws of physics, biology and other sciences really are the apex of rational and scientific thought, and the essence of Enlightenment thinking. They preclude belief in virgin birth and other miracles. If you are still dependent upon your personal experiences to establish the truth, you need to set your watch back 400 years.

Daniel,

"I just meant that compared to the vast length of the Bible, these citations would hardly be noticable, unless someone pointed them out to you"

I just don't see it that way. They are extremely noticeable. Extremely specific. And extremely pointed. There's no way to miss it. God considers gays to be an abomination who should be put to death.

And that's just the verses on being gay. This person you talk about who might read the bible with no guidence or previous knowledge of it would also come away considering women to be subservient to men, disobedient children as needing to be stoned to death, and women and children survivors of war against your enemies to be "booty" for your taking and pleasure. It's a disgusting book. Fortunately the most clear message I come away with is that it was obviously written by ignorant superstitious delusionals.

ken16:"There is little beyond a smug and supercilious self regard that entitles the modern secularist to regard him or her self as the apex of rational and scientific thought"

Not at all... I do not consider myself the brightest guyin any particular roo. I simply don't have any reason to believe your bible. Not because I think I am better/smarter/more handsome than your god, simply for the exact same reason I don't believe in unicorns, there is just no reason, other that old stories to believe that they do.
As far as "apex of rational and scientific thought" That award is only seen as rational by the religious community. Those of us outside the realm of superstition simply see ourselves as what we are.. mortal beings on a spinning planet. It's not a competition between who has the biggest brain, us or your god. We don't assume science has presented us with the 'One real truth' or the complete and unswerving knowledge of the universe. Only the religious boast in such ways.

"should clarify my comment on epistemology - knowing versus believing. Faith, the name of this column - is the attempt to substitute unsubstantiated belief [superstition] for knowledge."

Better than clarify, you should first try to understand the word. The Greek word "pisteo" that serves as its root means trust or believe. It is this word that the Bible uses most commonly when talking about believing. Epistemology is the ordered study of how truth claims can be justified, or how do we really "know" what we know?

The attempt to contrast faith with knowledge and derogate faith as a willful, superstitious "substitution" for knowledge betrays an amateurish (and malicious) misunderstanding of both words.

No knowledge is absolutely certain. Empiricists trust their senses and the instruments that extend their capacity for sensory observation beyond their immediate human physical limitations. They also trust in their abilty to derive sensible patterns from their obsevations. Thus, empiricism itself requires faith.

Everyone trusts in documentary, forensic, and historical evidence, although they weigh the evidence differently according to prior experience and predispositions. Most things we claim to know are based on this sort of evidence. Our names, dates of birth, diplomas, driver's licenses, and the books we read do not give us first hand empirical data. Yet we accept this sort of evidence willingly and regard the information as factual. We really have no choice.

Everyone brings presuppositions, often without awareness, that frame their essential understanding and influences how they weigh evidence. An epistemologically aware and honest person will attempt to identify their presuppositions and account for the possibility that they might skew his or her observations.

There is a great deal of historical evidence and personal experience that substantiate my Christian belief. There is little beyond a smug and supercilious self regard that entitles the modern secularist to regard him or her self as the apex of rational and scientific thought, the inheritors of modern Enlightenment thinking, the epigones of Descarte, Kant, and Voltaire, the thralls of August Comte, while looking down their noses at the silly superstitious people of antiquity who engineered cities, built pyramids, constructed calendars, created art and music, cradled modern science, and bequeathed to us the Holy Word of God.

Timmy

I guess you didn't get my point.

The Bible is almost a thousand pages long. There are really only 3 citations in the Bible that anti-gay people refer to. Combined, these citations would total up to about one-tenth of one page.

I just meant that compared to the vast length of the Bible, these citations would hardly be noticable, unless someone pointed them out to you.

Studying along with the likes of Professors Crossan, Borg, Fredriksen and Pagels (On Faith panelists), one develops a synopsis for the flaws and errors of Christianity.

To wit: (for those eyes that have not seen)

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Current crises:

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

3. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley, Roger Williams et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

Current crises:

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology.

Timmy

I guess you didn't get my point.

The Bible is almost a thousand pages long. There are really only 3 citations in the Bible that anti-gay people refer to. Combined, these citations would total up to about one-tenth of one page.

I just meant that compared to the vast length of the Bible, these citations would hardly be noticable, unless someone pointed them out to you.

Atheism, at least, has no Board of Sacred Poohbahs "

Drat, So I just wasted my time filing for a seat on the board?

counterww: "It's sad that people think that they are so important that God must "prove" himself to them"

You don't understand atheism.. we are not asking God, Zeus, or Aquaman to come forward to prove their existence. We simply find no reason whatsoever to think they do exist. If we do not believe in god, how foolish would it be for us to ask anything of him? Do you ask Loki to prove himself? Or Ra?

"He reveals himself in the scriptures and in Christ."
Not always.. I've read the scriptures a lot, I grew up with them... sorry, I've got nothing...

"thinking human kind came from nothing is lame, "
You don't even understand your own belief system. Your god allegedly came from nothing. Wouldn't your omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent god, because he is just too complex to have come from nothing, have to have been created? I mean if humankind is too complex to have risen up from the dust without a magic touch, how much more unlikely is it that your god just evolved from thin air?

The Bible was a difficult read for me. I had to read every verse twice and in some cases more than twice to understand what was being said. I could have used some help to be sure, but not the biased help of clergy. A historian a linguist and an anthropologist would have been best kind of help for finding the true meaning of such a document.

DANIELINTHELIONSDEN

YOU WROTE: "If a man were given a Bible to read alone, a man who had never before heard of Christianity, nor the Bible, such a man would read, and read, and read, for a whole life time, and never realize that Jesus hates gay people"

He would certainly know that God considers gay people to be abominations and condemns them to death. He would see no retraction of this from Jesus who apparently IS God. This man you describe, Daniel, if he believed that the God he just read about is real, would come away from that book with the impression that Gay people were abominations and deserved to be put to death, or at the very least, that they are going to Hell.

ColinNicholas,

So, would you find fault with Ms. Jacoby's assertion that "Atheism, at least, has no Board of Sacred Poohbahs dedicated to telling the members of the congregation what they should read, how they should read, and whether they should reach their conclusions by themselves or be guided by their betters"?

Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" has to be my kind of sacred book, as is his "Descent of Man."
The bible is just some old old book of gruesome fairy tales written by ignorant and superstitious ancients.

I like what Thomas Paine says about the bible;

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/thomas_paine/age_of_reason/

That's another sacred book, Paine's "The Age of Reason". Everyone should read it.

And lest we forget, Martin Luther believed that he had found the Truth in Scripture. He tended to be *very* critical of people who found a different Truth in those same pages...

Ms. Jacoby wrote:

"Catholicism's claim that religious truth was to be determined by the church hierarchy, culminating in the infallible pope, ran counter to dissident religions that emphasized the primacy of individual conscience.

Many religions, like Judaism and Islam, have a long tradition of collegial scholarship and disputation."

Sadly, Ms. Jacoby's anti-Catholic tendencies are showing again. She forgets that the first Western universities were established by the Church as centers of "collegial scholarship and disputation". Witness, for example, the disputes of the thirteenth century regarding the use of Aristotle involving (among many others) St. Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventura of Bagnareggio.

Of course, the entire point of medieval theological disputation was to arrive at the Truth...

I should clarify my comment on epistemology - knowing versus believing. Faith, the name of this column - is the attempt to substitute unsubstantiated belief [superstition] for knowledge.

If you have trouble understanding or pronouncing archaic English or a foreign language, I recommend audiobooks. You can get them for free these days on the Internet.

To study Shakespeare, opera, bunraku puppets or other dramatic works, you need to see a performance, preferably on DVD. By the same token, I suppose it would help to understand the Bible in context to heard someone preaching it. I'd rather not. It's embarrassing, like Italian opera.

Once you start believing - in magic and magic books, then secret hidden codes, Jesus face pancakes, etc. etc. etc. - all follow. Next is: Would everyone that believes in Tinkerbell clap your hands?

There is no end to delusional behavior. There really is a difference between knowing and believing.

Of course there some lofty phrases in scripture and dealing with classic human themes - but the same can be said for Shakespeare. As a matter of fact, many people confuse quotes of Shakespeare with biblical quotes.

If a man were given a Bible to read alone, a man who had never before heard of Christianity, nor the Bible, such a man would read, and read, and read, for a whole life time, and never realize that Jesus hates gay people.

He would have to join a Bible study group and have some red-white-and blue apple-cheeked heart-land American type with jewelry in the shape of a cross, to point this out to him. Then, he would know it.

I have no interest in studying the Bible, Koran or other "sacred" book. But if I did . . .

These books are difficult to understand, and they are about ancient societies very different from our own. They allude to long-vanished customs, technology and so on. So if you are seriously interesting in them, and you don't mind group study, it might not be a bad idea to join a discussion group (live or on-line), a college course or -- if you believe these texts are actually sacred -- a church.

The same goes for Shakespeare's plays.

Plan B is to buy an annotated version which tells you what a "main-course" is in "The Tempest." (It is the mainsail.)

Studying along with Father Edward Schillebeeckx, from his book, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians (and others?) must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" .

"Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices.

Therefore the historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

I think great novels like "The Brothers Karamazov" or "The Fountainhead" are sublime also.

I can't think of a good universal definition for "sacred" either.

I do enjoy reading the Bible, the Upanishads, and other "sacred" texts.

I think these books were written to glipse the fire within, to tame the wild beast, to bring on the contemplation of existance, to tell the ancient stories, to bind groups of people together, and to suggest a way to live life.

What is sacred in the text.

The Books of Judaism, christianity and Islam are sacred as they contain blessings and message for the whole mankind from its Creator.
It shows the sublimity of a human soul,that he is able to receive and pass the blessings of God to the rest of the humanity.

Can you imagine a complex machine in the market without manufacturers manual or instructions on the use of this machine.

The text is sacred because in it is salvation for all of us.

Denying the Creator, changes our whole perception about our actions and our lives.

This is where atheism and SJ miss the boat. Since she does not believe in a creator that inspired the Bible, how could she?

It's sad that people think that they are so important that God must "prove" himself to them.

He reveals himself in the scriptures and in Christ.

Seek and ye shall find..... seeking your own selfish desires and thinking human kind came from nothing is lame, and the lack of really factually looking at what the ancients had to say in the scriptures is an excuse to just do your own thing.