BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Dec 07 - 11:55 AM

Ringinslinger, to allow any religious view to dominate public policy or to elect candidates
is in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Faith-based iniatives
that take public money are in violation also.

If there is to be any tolerance for religion in the US, the Constitution has to be scrupulously followed and honored.

Putting creches or bibles in public statehouses or promoting religion politically such as what Romney did is in violation of the US Constitution.

If non-believers are not allowed to express their opinions and are castigated for their views there can be no resolution of the problems of religious animosity.

The litmus test of religion as a qualification for being elected to public office in itself is in violation of the Constitution. What don't those Supreme Court justices understand about that?

Those who accuse non-believers as formulating a fundamentalist religion are promoting
a religious war in this country. They are claiming a religious high ground.

I hope everyone will go and see The Golden Compass. It's a classic on the order of
Wizard of Oz.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Dec 07 - 01:41 PM

Frank - I'll make a point of seeing "The Golden Compass."
And I agree with everything you've written in the above post. But if ordinary folks are paying taxes, and religious organizations are not, it seems to me like us ordinary people are supporting them.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 26 Dec 07 - 06:31 PM

Hi folks - just flying by and I thought I'd throw a little poetry into the gutter ...;-)

According to religion, God is infinite ...

According to the laws of mathematics Infinity is impossible ...


therefore














God is not governed by the laws of mathematics




See yez next time around


lox

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 09:04 AM

That really does add up!

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 10:33 AM

no, it doesn't 'add up'...no matter what you believe or what is ultimately true, that is bad logic and shady math....it is mostly semantic quibbling.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 10:40 AM

BillD...I guess you didn't see the joke.....Mathematical...adding up........

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 10:43 AM

Bill, add up, mathematics. Get it? Is Shady Math that white rapper bloke? And Bad Logic the two-tone sca band from the 70's? Never heard either of them do any semantic quibling. There is a bloke down the pub I go to plays Klezmer accordian though...

D.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 10:51 AM

Samanthic Quibling is a renowned hostess whose lawn parties are world-famous for several reasons. One is the wide array of apparantly otherwise sane people who attend; the other is that the parties reportedly go on forever; and finally, they are famous for their complete lack of nutrition.


A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 10:58 AM

I saw the attempt at joke *grin*....weak joke, too. (sorry) In MY former life in college, I had to teach kids who used 'logic' like that seriously, so it set off bells for me.

Carry on.


And I'd have no idea what any rappers are named.....but I wouldn't be surprised at anything.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 11:43 AM

The topic is so potentially divisive that people can't even see, much less appreciate, one anothers' jokes. THAT is a concern! :~)

I've been pondering, as our people went through the more peaceful parts of Christmastide as our denom observes it, that there is another fundamental dividing line.

I've said many times that anti-religioinsts are so often "proselytizing" for whatever belief system they espouse, as much and as unpleasantly as the Xians they abhor. I've also said many times that there is a fundie lack of respect in how many people approach the topic. These statements on my part have not brought the clarity or wake-up call I had hoped they would bring, and only fanned the divisiveness (and led me to mix metaphors).

So I'm going to offer another way of looking at that divisiveness.

And that is, (1) there are some nonbelievers who can discuss this topic in a nonviolent-communication mode. Stringsinger is a fine, recent example. I don't think he does it casually-- I think he has to work at it. I recognize it from some of the same semi-formal, self-conscious/self-aware writing manner I adopt when I am trying MY best to communicate with people of another culture, when I am trying very hard to write or speak with intentionality and not passionate upset. So that's one kinda human bean there.

And (2), there are some who can discuss this topic in a socially-respectful manner that doesn't preclude friendship, while stating their own beliefs as positively and logically as possible. My example there is BillD, who has been working at that one for a long time, and again, I see a lot of effort and intentionality involved.

Plainspeak:
Then (3), we have some who have a way of discussing the topic that equates to inciting a hate-crime. That is a strong term. I doubt that the people who write that way really MEAN to be inciting a hate crime, but ya know what? Their manner of expression does just that. It's not just that I find it offensive, as I have written about before. It's.... it's DANGEROUS, as dangerous as the rhetoric that propels suicide bombers. And it's scarier because it's used by some of the very same people who I think would junmp in to help if they ran up on a hate crime against someone of a minority skin tone or gender identification, in real life.


Now, to those of you who are offended by that last paragraph-- I ask you, as a respectful friend in music, to think about my words. Think about whther your upset may be that little twinge of defensiveness that comes from rueful self-recognition. You have here two wonderful role models who have shown the ability to conduct multi-religion-cultural friendships and alliances.

And I ask Stringsinger and BillD to consider doing what I have done-- I've extended the hand of friendship and leadership to religionists in an effort to help them soften their behavior to make more peaceful relationships possible. Consider extending your leadership to the haters. Please.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 03:17 PM

What Susan said. Amen (if I may use such and expression here).

I heard quite an interesting hour-long discussion on my local NPR affiliate a couple of days ago. The interviewees used a couple of terms that I hadn't heard before (although they have apparently been around for awhile). I found them rather usefully descriptive.

Religious totalitarians:   religious sects or individuals who will not tolerate or countenance any views other than their own.

Religious pluralists:   religious sects or individuals who, although they may attempt to persuade others to their viewpoint, value discussion and comparison of different views and find such exchanges enriching.

What makes itself immediately obvious is that totalitarianism or pluralism are characteristics of the believers, not necessarily of the beliefs per se. And it's also obvious that the characteristics of totalitarianism or pluralism apply to non-believers and atheists as well. For proof, simply read some of the posts above.

Religion is full of mystery. In fact, that's what it's all about. But mystery makes some folks very uncomfortable, and they need to have everything spelled out and cast in concrete.

Mystery doesn't bother me. It's one of the things that keeps life from getting dull. If we already knew everything, there would be nothing left to learn, and that would make for a fairly dismal existence, in my opinion. In fact, I tend to agree with this little lady:   CLICKY.   (Besides, check out the dimples!)

God is a verb.
          –Buckminster Fuller

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Amos
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 03:42 PM

Don,

Thanks so much for that link. I do believe I am in love. OooooF!!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 03:44 PM

workin' on it, Susan.

I wish there were clearer 'lines' ...but it's kind of a gray area where obviously mean & unyielding posts (from EITHER side) are mixed with merely strong opinions from caring folks.

Obviously, the current world situation - added to the religious issues in the upcoming US elections - has exacerbated the divisions. We surely need as much moderation as we can manage from all sides these days.

I often despair about how to practice moderation when beset by extreme provocation...........I'll tell everyone frankly that the assassination in Pakistan today caused me to instantly run thru a series of logical generalizations that make it hard to cope with much less serious issues.


...but...still trying.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 04:20 PM

I listened to Iris sing about letting the mystery be. I'm not wondering where we came from. It's called Evolution and was articulated to a great degree in the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin and verified by leading reputable scientists in the world.

I am happy to not discuss the issue of religion if it can't be done in a rational and constructive way but I don't think that religion should be a taboo subject. I think it
deserves all the scrutiny that science and dialogue can give it.

I welcome any wholesome discussion of religion as long as it doesn't degenerate into name-calling or posturing. Rather than let this mystery be I think it serves humanity to know as much as we can about this subject. I think it needs furthur investigation and empirical testing to evaluate its use in society.

If religion were free of prejudice and bigotry and served society without bloodshed and tribalism then I think it would be OK to let it be, but as long as killing, hatred,
and ignorance is practiced in its name, then I think it needs to be looked at.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 04:21 PM

Don Firth - I've been trying to figure out the mystery of that lady's voice for a very long time.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 05:10 PM

I definitely agree, Frank. But by "letting the mystery be," I'm thinking, not so much of not examining it. But it's pretty certain that we will never solve all of the mysteries of the Cosmos and, come hell or high water, that's the way it's always going to be. Lots of folks refuse to accept that uncomfortable fact and try to leap-frog, via religious dogma, to Final Answers. And it could very well be that there just ain't no such.

Darwin described pretty much how we got here. That works for me. I know too much about science and have been an astronomy and cosmology nut for far too long not to snort at the idea that everything was created no more than 6,000 years ago, as some "religious totalitarians" insist, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But it also works for a number of fairly religious people I know who find no quarrel between science and the creation myth in the Bible, which they do not take as historical fact.

An acquaintance of mine once remarked that "The nature of some people's religious beliefs is that if scientists were to discover that there actually is a God, and find that God is knowable—well, that would be a marvelous thing for many religious folks. However, there are other religious people who, should the findings of the scientists disagree with some of their fondly held beliefs, would then find it necessary to invent 'SuperGod!'"

And yet, these are the very people who are the most uncomfortable with mystery.

Examine it, by all means. The more we do, the more we learn. But don't expect to find any Final Answers.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Wesley S
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 05:26 PM

I thought the Final Answer was 26.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 06:07 PM

"Lots of folks refuse to accept that uncomfortable fact and try to leap-frog, via religious dogma, to Final Answers."

I cannot emphasize enough how important that is and what the implications are.
I had professors in the Dept. of Philosophy drill into my head years ago the concept that:

"From false premises, anything follows."

This is not simply some arcane, irrelevant bit of logical trivia to trip up students....it MEANS something. That is, IF any of the basic premises of some belief system are false, THEN all the conclusions drawn from them are ......no, not necessarily 'false', but suspect & unproven. Yes, likewise, if all premises are TRUE, then we need to pay attention!
Now, what we have is a number of beliefs systems which cannot possibly ALL be true because they contain mutually exclusive claims. Yes...one of them 'might' be true, but choosing among them, cannot, by definition, be done by any known infallible test. (You simply don't test certain concepts the way you test scientific theories).
Therefore, .....and here's the crux.....the MOST extreme and outlandish religious idea has as much chance of being 'true' as the milder ones. Most of us find it easy to reject snake handlers and doomsday prophets....but logically, one can ask..."Why are those seemimgly weird answers not the 'true' ones?" Because they don't get the most votes? Being a minority doesn't seem to bother THEM! They **believe**. Maybe they are are right....and maybe NO ONE yet is right.

Yes, I know...a lot of this is hard to take in, and when I venture into this area, I get the "oh, so you 'believe' in a different system than I do...but my way of thinking is just as valid as your 'logical' one..."......and all I can do is *sigh*. In a way, my point is being demonstrated....*IF* their notion that their way of thinking is as valid as mine is flawed, then so is their conclusion.

So? I can explain all this until I'm blue in the face, and I still have deal with what Don Firth notes....that many people just cannot deal with uncertainty, and MUST have "Final Answers", even if they have to 'choose among the unchooseable' to have them.

For whatever reason...maybe just psychological....I am comfortable with 'not knowing' some things. We learn more every year about the Universe, but I sure don't see any way to 'run around behind it' and see what made it....and if we could, it would only push the Big Question back one step.

In the meantime, I am trapped in a world where some of the 'choosers' are willing to kill other 'choosers' to 'defend' their own version of 'truth'.

.........but still, I must try to coexist..........

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Janie
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 06:32 PM

Bill,

It sounds like your assumption is that people who ascribe to a system of religious beliefs are uncomfortable with not knowing and believe they have the "final answer." Is that your premise, or am I reading something into your post that is not there, or is unintended?

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 07:46 PM

"It sounds like your assumption is that people who ascribe to a system of religious beliefs are uncomfortable with not knowing and believe they have the "final answer." Is that your premise, or am I reading something into your post that is not there, or is unintended?"


Janie...that's a delicate line to walk. It is not something *I* can prove or test. When you make suppositions about folk's internal motivations or presume to guess what they are thinking, you always tread on thin ice.
   I am though, willing to compare my own assiduously analyzed attitude (for about 35-40 years) of NOT needing "final answers" with apparently different needs in others....and, I have heard some say specifically say that they "can't imagine" a universe without a 1st 'cause'.(This is a major premise in the 'intelligent design' community). I therefore conclude that it is at least common attitude, even if not always the one presented.
   Is it possible that some may have an alternative basis for their basic beliefs? Sure..some simply rely on authority, some on certain aspects of 'history' which they feel has been tested...others make claims about personal experience, (which, of course, I cannot confirm OR deny)....etc.

I guess the only answer is that I know there can be several possible reasons for any individual's beliefs...perhaps a combination.
All I can say is that because there are so many variables, I would bet that a totally neutral analysis (as in reducing the claims to symbols and letting a computer rate the internal consistency), would show no good reason for picking one over another.

Not an easy answer, huh? And that's part OF my point. Any time it looks obvious, it's time to be suspicious and examine just what the hidden premises and assumptions are.

....and as I typed that, I realized that I was paraphrasing a famous aphorism/saying by Alfred North Whitehead. "Strive for simplicity, but learn to mistrust it!"
...and he followed his own dictum by some extremely complex and arcane theories about what must be done to even approach a reasonable analysis of the nature of reality. (my master's thesis was to be on Whitehead's Metaphysics as the only possible type of approach to certain questions...I wish I had managed to finish my OWN thought processes on all that in detail).

Is that enough too much? *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Janie
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 10:25 PM

Frank,

If any social institution of society "... were free of prejudice and bigotry and served society without bloodshed and tribalism...." that would be a fine and wonderful thing. But any review of the sociological and anthropological literature of societies and the institutions of society will make clear that none of the 5 social institutions common to all societies (political, economic, educational, religious - and I'm blanking on the 5th right now), are free of those negative attributes you listed.

All of our social institutions reflect human behavior - all that is 'good', and all that is 'bad.' In addition, what is 'good' in one context, setting, situation, etc., is 'bad' in another. That is because we are both individual and social. From an evolutionary and biological perspective, tribalism has functional value, for example.

Don, I continue to find myself nodding in agreement as I read your posts.

China and the Soviet Union did eliminate the social institution of religion. I see no indication their societies improved as the result, nor have I read anything to lead me to believe they were able to irradicate religious or spiritual beliefs of some sort from much of their population in the process. Nor were they able to educate people out of existential questions and concerns. These questions and concerns go with the big brain of the human being.   What was quite apparent, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, (think Serbia for only one example) was that through rigid and totalitarian methods of social control some of the more atrocious aspects of tribalism were contained. So which is rationally better? The totalitarian, repressive regime of the Soviet Union, or the freedom to exercise tribalism? (And I haven't really been able to decide this one, myself,) Tribalism seems to be inherent in the human being. Religion functions to reinforce and constrain human behavior in equal measure.

Religion fills many psychological and sociological functions.   Riginslinger, what social institutions would you design to fill those functions when religion is eliminated? Rationalism? Problem is, humans are not inherently and exclusively rational. Not designed to be. Emotions are not rational. Instinctive behaviors are not rational.

Here is something I ponder: I think it likely that if the human species is going to be able to survive (And I mean survive) the results of our own expansion and impact on the earth by the collective choices we have made (I'm excluding otherwise naturally occurring evolutionary changes such as the sun burning out, or the next major asteroid impact,) it is going to require very serious and rapid changes in human behavior across the globe. It will require a rapid reduction in human population. It will require radical reduction in the use of natural resources. It will mean that some must die so that others might live. My rational mind tells me that the best chances of the human race surviving is going to be if a radical and totalitarian world government with a fixed ideological focus on human survival is in control and stripping you and me of many of our choices and freedoms. Left to our own devices, there is no indication that as individuals or as 'tribes' we are going to make the choices in interest of the species as a whole that threaten us individually or in smaller social units such as tribe or country, or world region. This would be much more possible, and much more psychologically palatable if it were backed up by strong, religious belief (including and reinforced by the social institution of religion) that would make and reinforce reverence for the earth which sustains us such a compelling part of humankind's belief system as to make the terrible individual and smaller social unit sacrifices meaningful, and therefore tolerable to the majority of humans on earth.   With globalization, we now, in many respects, have a world-wide society. Only not quite. The larger the social unit, the less cohesion the unit has.

Who, metaphorically speaking, are the sacrificial lambs? What criteria gets chosen? Who gets to decide? And how much am I willing to sacrifice? In terms of my life style, my material well-being, my ability to provide the best possible launching into adulthood of my son? The survival of my species? The survival of my culture? The survival of my tribe? The survival of my family?

My life? My son's life? The potential future generations of my line?   How do I value possibilities of the survival of myself, my family, my tribe, vs. the possibilities of survival of other lines, other tribes? The realization that some must live, and some must die is rational. But when it get down to who we put our first foot down into the realm of the irrational.

Whether it be by virtue of a God, a transcendent consciousness, or the laws of nature, including evolution, we humans are endowed with the capacity to choose, to consider choice, and to ponder the possible implications of choice well beyond any other species on this earth. We are, however, sans crystal balls. Before a choice is made, there are many, many choices; Sometimes infinite choices. But once a choice is made, as Philip Pullman notes a number of times in the "His Dark Materials" trilogy (The Golden Compass, referred to by Frank, is the first book,) all the other choices slam shut like doors. Sans that Crystal Ball, few of those choices are ever completely rational, and if they are, their effect can not be guaranteed. There is room, and there is human need, for we humans to make meaning out of choices, rational and irrational, and the unforeseen effects of those choices. Religious beliefs and the social institution of religion are often central to meeting that essential individual and social need.

Suggest you read some Durkheim for more on the function of the social institution of religion.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Janie
Date: 27 Dec 07 - 10:40 PM

Bill, I'll get back to you. spent the last too many minutes (hours) on that previous post, which has nothing to do with yours, or my question to you.

g'night all.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 09:27 AM

*smile*...fine, Janie. Your post shows how long you spent on it. You certainly don't avoid the hard questions. I was surprised to see some ideas ventured in it that I thought I was about the only one here who held them. (not grammatical, but I guess it tracks)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 01:02 PM

Excellent points, Janie. Thank you!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 01:05 PM

the "universal answer" is 42.... But what are the correct units?

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 01:56 PM

But the question was "What does 6 x 9 equal?"

As I recall Arther Dent saying, "I always thought there was something fundamentally wrong with the universe. . . ."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 01:59 PM

Hey! It just occurred to me!

Could that be an argument for "Intelligent" Design?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 02:54 PM

phooey! Black holes and killer comets and colliding galaxies and cosmic rays...all making it difficult for we mortals to have a million years in a series to grow and move out and take our rightful place as Masters of the Cosmos!
Does that sound like "Intelligent Design" to you? Why it's ......ummmm...wait a minute. Maybe I'd better think this over...

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:21 PM

If this is supposed to be "Intelligent Design," I have a few quibbles with the Designer. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:26 PM

There is an intelligent design - it's called evolution.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 03:59 PM

Why is it that the ones who push "Intelligent design" are (mostly) opposed to genetic modification ( ie, "intelligent ( by Man) design" of life?)

And why are they NOT against "breeding", which has the same effect- to manipulate the genetic structure of the animals and plants that Man uses?

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:19 PM

"Why is it that the ones who push "Intelligent design" are (mostly) opposed to genetic modification ( ie, "intelligent ( by Man) design" of life?)"

Probably because the bible doesn't tell them to "go forth and modify genes".

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 04:41 PM

"There is an intelligent design - it's called evolution."



                      But who's in charge? That's what I want to know.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 05:10 PM

Who on Earth started evolution?

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 05:17 PM

An ambitious amoeba?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 05:58 PM

Sorry, but if evolution is so damn clever how come we still have to wipe our arses? Surely after all these millenia the body would have come up with something more hygeninic...

:D

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Janie
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 06:25 PM

Family is the 5th institution. (smacking forehead with palm of hand.)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: wysiwyg
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 06:32 PM

Don't DO that, Janie-- have a V8 instead! :~)

I'm posting out of sequence, so I'm claiming #800.

At that Cavalcade of Bad Nativities site, I saw a T-shirt for thinking Christians. Mudcat fundraiser?
SHIRTS, MUGS, BUTTONS, STICKERS On the back: He died to take away your sins. Not your mind.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Janie
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 07:09 PM

The following is lifted from the Wiki discussion on Culture.

Religion and other belief systems are often integral to a culture. Religion, from the Latin religare, meaning "to bind fast", is a feature of cultures throughout human history. The Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion defines religion in the following way:
... an institution with a recognized body of communicants who gather together regularly for worship, and accept a set of doctrines offering some means of relating the individual to what is taken to be the ultimate nature of reality.

I would go further and say that religion also always includes some means of relating individuals to other individuals, and to the social group.

I will also say, as did Don Firth, that I think it unlikely that human beings have the native capability to ever discover the "ultimate nature of reality."   

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: bobad
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 07:15 PM

"Sorry, but if evolution is so damn clever how come we still have to wipe our arses? Surely after all these millenia the body would have come up with something more hygeninic..."

It has, it's called the bidet.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 08:43 PM

Oh, sure,,,the bidet! Makes sense....but tell me, how do they get those to soldiers in the field and porta-potties at the festival?

(Rabelais said "the neck of a goose") seems like that would be 'slightly' easier to transport...and no plumbing.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 08:51 PM

goose necks and lesser tools

(Yes...thread drift. But this thread has many byways. Perhaps 'finding something better than toilet paper' IS a religious experience)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Janie
Date: 28 Dec 07 - 10:20 PM

Bill,

I think most religions embrace mystery at their core. I think one of the prime psychological functions of religion is to provide avenues by which humans can come to acceptance that it is not possible for our species to fully discover and rationally know and understand 'ultimate reality.' Our senses are not sufficiently sensitive, and our big brains are not big enough. One very important aspect of all religion is that it provides a means to come to terms with the unknowable -not to know the unknowable, but to live in the knowledge that we do not know, so that we are not paralyzed by the anxiety of all that we do not know.

Among the monotheistic faiths, I think it would be very rare for a believer (regardless of the depth of their sense of spirituality) to claim that God is small enough to be truly comprehensible in all ways. By definition within the Abrahamic faiths, God is ultimately ineffable. I don't know enough about the major Eastern religions and philosophies to make the same definitive statement, but I would be very surprised if the same were not true.

Every culture, whether one is speaking of a social unit as small as a marital dyad, or something as big as "Western Culture" or "Eastern Culture", incorporates rites, rituals and/or sacraments which serve to both endow individual and social meaning, and to cement social connection. And they always incorporate the mysterious, they always express some mystical sensibility.

What we humans do have the capacity to know, sense, and understand, unlike any other earthly species (at least as far as we have determined thus far) is that existence is, at some level or another, other than what our senses tell us it is.

If one has any rational understanding of human beings, one can not rationally come to the conclusion that is possible to eliminate religion, or faith, or the notion of spirituality from the human species through any means. Let me re-emphasize that these are often (though not always) related, but not synonymous concepts. It is not possible to eliminate 'belief.' We can not as individuals operate in the world without beliefs. There is simply too much information for our brains to handle, process and function if every action, every functional operation must first be examined and determined to be 'real' or 'functional,' examined for it's rational basis, by each individual. Rationality is one part of who we are, what we are capable of, how we operate. Rationality is one tool, skill, attribute, of the human species. But the irrational is just as important to our survival.    It is irrational to deny the operational reality of irrationality as inherent and and it's functionality as essential to the continuation of life.

Education always includes indoctrination. ALWAYS. Because as a species, we are interdependent, we are social. Our young can not survive on their own without assistance from other humans for a lengthy period of time. Hypothetically, a human being may possibly have developed enough both cognitively and physically to have the potential to feed, cloth and shelter themselves in the absence another human in a natural environment endowed with sufficient raw resources by, what, age 9? (assuming they have been trained in the basic skills and knowledge of how to identify and utilize the materials in a sufficiently similar natural environment for the purposes of survival.)   

Other species are also social and at least as interdependent as are we humans. Where we are different, as far as we can thus far determine, is in our capacity to contemplate our individual and collective actions. Our ability to consciously construct or conceptualize notions of morality, notions of values. Guilt (not shame) seems to be unique to humans on this earth.

I have values that I treat as inherent, but from a purely rational perspective, values are not inherent. Values are learned. And values vary from culture to culture. From a rational pov, they each represent different possible configurations to potentiate the probabilities of the continued existence of the individual, the genetic line, the social group. Considered as a whole, the very variety ought to maximize the odds of species survival. And for awhile that was true. Now, however, the mix of the very attributes that have promoted our survival may lead to our demise.   Just how adaptive are some of us?

The personal qualities and attributes that result in me contemplating these issues may not be the same attributes that would allow me, my genetic line, my social group,or my culture to endure, or to effect the radical changes in human behavior that might maximize the likelihood that the species will endure.   I am interdependent in terms of survival. Our species, like any other, is terribly dependent on diversity for our survival. The paradox is this: That diversity could also prove to be our demise.   

In either event, I have a need to make meaning, as does any human. Given my nature as a human being, that meaning will be both individual and social. It will incorporate choice. And the choice(s) I make will incorporate both the rational and the irrational.

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Janie
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 10:11 AM

Oops. Sorry for the redundancy in that last post. I'm wordy enough without it:>)

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 10:15 AM

I was just this minute beginning to read it....more later.
(It reminds me of many of my own posts...and the oft-quoted mantra of college students.."I don't have TIME to write a short paper!")

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Don Firth
Date: 29 Dec 07 - 12:56 PM

Good, Janie. Indeed, excellent!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: john f weldon
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 07:16 PM

no fair!

god cannot die so easily!

refresh!

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 07:30 PM

It wasn't lost...I have been composing some thoughts in a word processor program. Just haven't had time to get 'em polished. Maybe next year.. ☺/big>

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 07:32 PM

Just to prove it, here's my intro

      Janie. There's only a small amount of redundancy in the post, and it is 'clarifying', not confusing.

Where to start? As I contemplate a reply, I find myself musing that it is much easier to whale away at something one disagrees with than to analyze and comment sagely on something one mostly agrees with.....and you have pretty well laid out not only many of the parameters that we, as humans, must confront in our interactions with others AND our own consciousness, but you also have noted the often 'automatic' (hard-wired?) ways we seem to respond to some of the seemingly contradictory conceptual needs in our psycho-social interactions.
   (now I tell ya'..THAT sentence could use some editing

Subject: RE: BS: There aren't any Gods (not even Jesus)
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Dec 07 - 07:33 PM

and what a nice excuse to get #800!