Charles Darwin's Religiousness [Archive]

scameter

8th June 2005, 09:14 PM

Thanks, Tom.

Well, i think it is relevent because everyone, especially Christians, are constantly down playing Darwinian science and evolutionary theory as an anti-Christian theory, which i think is invalid.To me, science, religion, mythology, and philosophy should not be seperate academics, as they were not in cultures such as the Japanese or Native Americans. Because, they are merely two fields of study, two styles, that should be in balance for one to understand the Great Mystery.And, science and math are noble pursuits, but our beliefs are what truly make us human in my opinion; that and language. because, an animal such as a monkey can do some simple math, but none of them can grasp the concept of a God or a spiritual plane of existence other than this. even the most acclaimed scientists of this world, i think, were not able to grasp spirituality and so turned from their spiritual ignorance into a life of empirical science and math. and, alas, math and science have become almost like a religion, as have many political philosophies, which i find to be a sad attempt by the spiritually numb and ignorant to find belief in something. i think science and math are tools required for existence, but they are not what make us Human, and i find it very disheartening how we have begun to shun the things that do make us Human.

abba

8th June 2005, 10:48 PM

Perhaps the fundamentalist Baptists in Georgia that you have complained about are anti-Darwin, but the entire population of Christians is not so anti-Darwin or anti-Science.

But I agree with the essence of your post.

The primary reason that the education/training in the different scholastic areas are so segregated is the need to make a living. Being a poet or philosopher or an artist does not pay as much (or anything) as being an engineer or a doctor or a scientist. And it is not a case of "well then, learn both" - becoming sufficiently educated to hold a good-paying job simply doesn't leave the time to study both adequately in college. Universities recognize the problem, and insist that all Science/Engineering programs include some mandatory Humanities electives in their curriculum..... thus assuring that all scientists/engineers are equally "handicapped" with non-science study time. I took Shakespeare, History of Religion, and American Humorists as my electives.

Students selecting to enter the Humanities are not so handicapped - they are allowed to take any courses they choose (almost... I think some schools require a low-grade math course in humanities). I had a friend in the Navy who took Greek language as his major. He said he was going to remain in the Navy because he couldn't get a job on the outside. I didn't ask him "why" he took Greek language.... I didn't want to hear the answer.

Students who take the technical courses needed to make a living are not condemned to a life of philosophical mediocrity; there is a lifetime of study time available after college for self-study for those who have an interest.

scameter

8th June 2005, 10:58 PM

And that is why i despise economics and money in general, as well as politics. I think money shouldn't exist, because it emits too much of a handicap on people, even if it does give people a system to live by, if it didn't exist, and people did things purely for the betterement of Humanity and Nature, then we wouldn't need money. that may sound odd, because most likely it has not been uttered usually because it chalenges the power of those with money that are afraid to give it up, even if them giving it up could mean the further progression of Humanity. because jobs in fields relating to things such as a language, philosophy, religion, history, or most ofther Arts or Humanities are very rare, and the ones that are there are very spare economically, the fields are greatly declining, and we are losing, as i said in my last post, the things that make us truly Human: our spirituality and language affinity, with a substitute of something that should be merely a tool, math and science, but particularly math.

Thomas Knierim

9th June 2005, 12:09 PM

scameter: everyone, especially Christians, are constantly down playing Darwinian science and evolutionary theory as an anti-Christian theory

I think abba is right here. It takes a pretty hardcore fundamentalist stance to deny evolution. Either that or the fruitcake option, i.e. the perfect blend of an exuberant imagination with lacking education. In both cases, denying evolution is a form of denying reality, so it's basically a psychological problem.

scameter: ...an animal such as a monkey can do some simple math, but none of them can grasp the concept of a God...

Are you sure about that? My dog seems to think that I am God. I am the giver of dog food, I can make dog biscuits appear and disappear, I am able to move that huge piece of metal with rubber wheels, I can confine its leeway or unleash it at will, I am all powerful. Ahh, dogs are such an ego booster. :lol:

scameter: even the most acclaimed scientists of this world, i think, were not able to grasp spirituality and so turned from their spiritual ignorance into a life of empirical science and math

That's definitely a cliché. Science and spirituality do not preclude each other. There is no lack of scientists with interest in spirituality and/or religion. However, it is true that scientists are people who rely chiefly on their intellect. They are used to subject their ideas to rigid testing, and hence, they are less prone to gullibility and dogmatic beliefs.

scameter: i find it very disheartening how we have begun to shun the things that do make us Human

I am not sure if I understand you. What exactly do you wish to shun?

abba: Being a poet or philosopher or an artist does not pay as much (or anything) as being an engineer or a doctor or a scientist.

Unfortunately that is true and it reflects the imbalance that presently exists in our society, which is very unhealthy. Philosophers, artists and other "humanties people" provide services to society which are in no way inferior to those of an engineer or a doctor. Unfortunately, they are not as recognised and valued. This is a problem of our culture. We have been taught to believe that external wealth is more important than inner wealth. In other words, it is more important to own a big car, a big house, and many sophisticated technical toys than to be educated, caring, wise, loving, happy and sharing.

scameter: And that is why i despise economics and money in general, as well as politics.

Despising economics and politics is not the solution. If you don't like the way things are, then try to change it. It is in your power.

scameter: the things that make us truly Human: our spirituality and language affinity, with a substitute of something that should be merely a tool, math and science, but particularly math.

This is a great misunderstanding. There are no things that "make us truly human". We are human by birth and that's it - we don't need anything to get there. Philosophy and math, art and engineering, they are all the same. They are all just tools.

Cheers, Thomas

scameter

9th June 2005, 09:13 PM

Thomas:Unfortunately that is true and it reflects the imbalance that presently exists in our society, which is very unhealthy. Philosophers, artists and other "humanties people" provide services to society which are in no way inferior to those of an engineer or a doctor. Unfortunately, they are not as recognised and valued. This is a problem of our culture. We have been taught to believe that external wealth is more important than inner wealth. In other words, it is more important to own a big car, a big house, and many sophisticated technical toys than to be educated, caring, wise, loving, happy and sharing.

That's what i meant by what we shun that make us truly human; philosophy, religion, and other 'humanities'. and, i also meant that we shun them in favor of something that is empirical, such as science and math, completely usually. and, you have to admit that there are many scientists that are something like scientologists or atheists that possess no spirituality what so ever.

Thomas:Are you sure about that? My dog seems to think that I am God. I am the giver of dog food, I can make dog biscuits appear and disappear, I am able to move that huge piece of metal with rubber wheels, I can confine its leeway or unleash it at will, I am all powerful. Ahh, dogs are such an ego booster.

:lol: you hopefully know that's not what i meant.

Thomas:That's definitely a cliché. Science and spirituality do not preclude each other. There is no lack of scientists with interest in spirituality and/or religion. However, it is true that scientists are people who rely chiefly on their intellect. They are used to subject their ideas to rigid testing, and hence, they are less prone to gullibility and dogmatic beliefs.

they shouldn't preclude each other, true, and should not be mutually exclusive to one another because each of them is just a different way for humans to explore this existence, one being merely empirical and one being internal. but, usually they are mutually exclusive, and that is very unfortunate, because they are merely two opposites that should be in balance(yin and yang of the search for truth).

Thomas:I am not sure if I understand you. What exactly do you wish to shun?

I do not wish to shun anything, i wish both logic and spirituality to be in balance, as i said above. but, usually they are exclusive to one another and it is also the usual case that science is favored above spirituality. and, to me it is our ability to grasp a concept of a higher being, like a God or an Ultimate Power, that makes us truly differentiated from the other animals. note, i didn't say above, as i also belive we are inferior.

Thomas:Despising economics and politics is not the solution. If you don't like the way things are, then try to change it. It is in your power.

It is? <_<

Thomas:This is a great misunderstanding. There are no things that "make us truly human". We are human by birth and that's it - we don't need anything to get there. Philosophy and math, art and engineering, they are all the same. They are all just tools.

I disagree. an ape can use a tool, such as a stick to crack a coconut, and many animals can do simple math, but none of them, no matter your story about your dog :D , can grasp a concept of a higher power beyond us.and, even though we are born as humans, everything we know and do we learn, and that makes us individuals and a characteristic that is solely human.

Truthbearer

9th June 2005, 09:44 PM

Sorry Scameter - I have to disagree with your opinion of Nature and God..
I think all Nature is not just a reflection of god (just as we are .. but got a bit lost along the way).
But I also think Nature is PURE spirit, in nature form.

And in saying that - their whole purpose is spiritual - to be Earths energy movers.. all in very specific ways.
To understand this, you would have to understand Crows.. and their purpose.
All birds, all have a purpose.
All animals, all have a purpose.
Insects, trees, plants, minerals - elements .. all have a purpose - not just physical, but spiritual.
It is humanity that has lost theirs.

To understand Nature, is to understand the Spirit in all things, is a start to understanding God (in my opinion).
So one cannot say 'animals have no concept of God' .. when one has no concept of the spirit in animals.
... because they are driven purely by spirit.

And I agree Thomas in your reasoning why scientists, even tho' some are extremely spiritual.. still cannot move from left brain activity.
- I guess 'intuition' wouldnt make a great scientist.

xx Pat.

scameter

9th June 2005, 09:56 PM

I never said it was only a reflection of God. i actually think Nature was created by God, and that God is imperfect but made nature to be perfect because he wasn't, if that makes sense. but then, he realized that nature could not understand or have a relationship with God. so, he made us, imperfect in his likeness. but, that is just my belief.and yes, all of nature has a perfect. and, to be honest i believe that purpose is to just be what they are: perfect.to function, almost like a machine, prefectionately.and, i do not think humanity has lost their purpose. forgotten it maybe, but not all of us have. i haven't. i think our purpose is to grow into a personal relationship with God/The Ultimate Spirit, or what ever you want to call It.and actually, if cientists were to rely solely on their intuition, or wu wei by Taoists and satori by Japanese Zen, they would actually do all they do, but better, and with a more intune relationship to their surroundings and so possessing an affinity to commune mutually with it in it's functions. but, that intuition-driven state of mind wouldn't gain them power or prestige, so they do not want it.

sonrisa

10th June 2005, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by scameter Jun 8 2005@ 11:58 AM

And that is why i despise economics and money in general, as well as politics. I think money shouldn't exist, because it emits too much of a handicap on people, even if it does give people a system to live by, if it didn't exist, and people did things purely for the betterement of Humanity and Nature, then we wouldn't need money.

not to worry Scameter! They say by the end of this century money will be obsolete & we'll all be living on plastic! Well, those of us who will still be living that is :D

Thomas Knierim

10th June 2005, 11:09 AM

scameter: ...and, you have to admit that there are many scientists that are something like scientologists or atheists that possess no spirituality what so ever.

Yes, there sure are people like that. But I have the feeling you are mixing things up. Spirituality and theism are different things, therefore an a-theist is not necessarily a-spiritual. Neither are scientists necessarily a-spiritual. That is -as I already said- a cliché created by the Judeo-Christian tradition and reinforced by the media and by Hollywood style theatre. The Christian Church has fought a 500-year long battle with science. As a consequence, the image of the scientists is that of a heretic, disbeliever, blasphemist, atheist, in brief an aspiritual nerd trying to play God. But, this image is quite simply a fabrication. Science and spirituality are two different modes of interacting with the world. They exist independently of each other. The problem of the Christian Church with science is that Christian doctrines are unscientific. In other religions, Hinduism and Buddhism for example, this conflict does not exist and therefore there is no friction between science and these religions. I have tried to make this clear in the Buddhism and Spacetime sections of thebigview.com.

Thomas:It is in your power.

scameter: It is? dry.gif

Yes, it is. The world that you experience is completely in your hand. It's scameter at the controls. :) That's what Seneca and Marcus Aurelius tell us. I think they are right.

an ape can use a tool, such as a stick to crack a coconut, and many animals can do simple math, but none of them, no matter your story about your dog biggrin.gif , can grasp a concept of a higher power beyond us.

What animal can do math?

Using tools requires dexterity and abstraction. Doing math requires an even greater level of abstraction. Numbers are concepts. When you use numbers you using completely abstract concepts. When you use the word God, you also use an abstract concept. There is no difference. Both, the ability of operating with numbers and the ability to imagine God are simply consequences of the sophistication of the human mind. Since we are presently the only species on this planet whose brain has these properties, it might instill us with a sense of pride. But this pride is rather uncalled for, because 1. there are a number of other species whose neuronal wiring is fairly close to us, and 2. we haven't yet learned to employ our special capabilities to the benefit of the planet.

Cheers, Thomas

abba

10th June 2005, 09:08 PM

Well said, Thomas.

scameter

10th June 2005, 09:33 PM

Thomas:Yes, there sure are people like that. But I have the feeling you are mixing things up. Spirituality and theism are different things, therefore an a-theist is not necessarily a-spiritual. Neither are scientists necessarily a-spiritual. That is -as I already said- a cliché created by the Judeo-Christian tradition and reinforced by the media and by Hollywood style theatre. The Christian Church has fought a 500-year long battle with science. As a consequence, the image of the scientists is that of a heretic, disbeliever, blasphemist, atheist, in brief an aspiritual nerd trying to play God. But, this image is quite simply a fabrication. Science and spirituality are two different modes of interacting with the world. They exist independently of each other. The problem of the Christian Church with science is that Christian doctrines are unscientific. In other religions, Hinduism and Buddhism for example, this conflict does not exist and therefore there is no friction between science and these religions. I have tried to make this clear in the Buddhism and Spacetime sections of thebigview.com.

true. and, i do find it sad that such an exclusion is made in Christianity, because if they were not so blind they could realize that is all science is doing, essentially, is describing this universe in which God created.

Thomas:Yes, it is. The world that you experience is completely in your hand. It's scameter at the controls. That's what Seneca and Marcus Aurelius tell us. I think they are right.

Just curious, but what exactly is Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. i know that the names are Roman, but not of who these people are. sounds interesting. :)

Thomas:What animal can do math?

I have seen many animals do math. i've seen a horse do it, monkeys and apes most definitely, and dolphins.

Thomas:Using tools requires dexterity and abstraction. Doing math requires an even greater level of abstraction. Numbers are concepts. When you use numbers you using completely abstract concepts. When you use the word God, you also use an abstract concept. There is no difference. Both, the ability of operating with numbers and the ability to imagine God are simply consequences of the sophistication of the human mind. Since we are presently the only species on this planet whose brain has these properties, it might instill us with a sense of pride. But this pride is rather uncalled for, because 1. there are a number of other species whose neuronal wiring is fairly close to us, and 2. we haven't yet learned to employ our special capabilities to the benefit of the planet.

How does using tools require a level of abstraction? creativity and logic maybe, but what abstraction? and yes, numbers and maths are merely concepts and symbols, but they do hold fact in life. 1 apple+1 apple=2 apples, for instance. that may be a concept, but it is hard empirical evidence of truth, be it material. but, God, or a concept of God rather, requires something different from just hard logic and even pure abstraction. it requires thinking on a different level, being able to have faith in something not empirical, which is something math is absent of. William James classified inquiry relating to things here or ideas as exestential judgement, such as what is the nature of it? how did it come about? what is its constitution, origin, and history? Then, there is the question of its religious propensities and a proposition of its value, such as what is its importance, meaning, or signifigance, now that it is once here? And, he said something requires a balanced amount of inquiry in both ways.and, the proposition of its value is too often shunned, or vise versa.

Thomas:2. we haven't yet learned to employ our special capabilities to the benefit of the planet.

now, i do agree with that.

Thomas Knierim

13th June 2005, 10:33 AM

scameter: Just curious, but what exactly is Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. i know that the names are Roman, but not of who these people are. sounds interesting.

Seneca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger) and Marcus Aurelius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius) are two Roman stoic philosophers. Seneca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seneca_the_Younger) the younger was a writer and a political figure at the time of Caligula and Nero, and Marcus Aurelius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius) was Roman Emperor from 161 to 180. Why don't you google them, or click on the Wikipedia links in here?

scameter: I have seen many animals do math. i've seen a horse do it, monkeys and apes most definitely, and dolphins.

I don't know what you have seen, but I think it was animals performing learned tricks. Animals can't really do math like humans do, but some of them can count, and this can be used to make them appear solving arithmetic questions.

scameter: How does using tools require a level of abstraction?

The brain must perform a number of abstract tasks when using and handling tools, such as tool selection, spatial coordination, applying the right forces, not to mention figuring out the particular advantage of tool use in the first place.

scameter: but, God, or a concept of God rather, requires something different from just hard logic

God is an abstract concept and as such not much different from other abstract concepts.

It is possible to find concrete examples of duality (two apples), trinity (three apples), quadrity (four apples) and so on. Human can perceive plurality of lower numbers -say up to nine- directly, and from this derives the art of counting, but anything above that is just multiplicity. Nobody can for instance say how many twigs there are on a given tree without counting them. There is no intuitive concept of 12,732-ness, for example. So, the number 12,732 is an abstract concept. It is derived from the Peano axioms.

God is also a derived concept. Human perceive themselves as agents in nature, entities that perform purposeful acts. These acts are associated with physical change. Therefore, when humans observe physical change in nature, they infer deliberate agency. But, there are some phenomena which cannot be attributed to human agency, thunder and lighting for example, or the creation of the world. Therefore humans infer superhuman agency and that is how the God concept comes into being.

Cheers, Thomas

abba

13th June 2005, 11:14 AM

scameter: You live in a wonderful age for acquiring information. In the "bad old days" people had to read books to acquire knowledge - whether in school or from a public library. Today, many of the classic books containing history & wisdom are available free on the internet at the few touches of a keyboard (usually along with commentaries & scholarly critiques). Not only that, there are these amazing search engines (like Google) that will find whatever topic might interest you.

Some of the questions you are asking indicate that you need to become more questing for knowledge through your own reading - rather than asking opinions of others. When you have read for yourself, the opinions of others will become more meaningful to you. As it is, if Richie says "Plato's Republic" is a wonderful book & vicente says it's trash, where are you left?

But (to quote somebody) "There's no free lunch!" - knowledge requires the investment of personal time.

Thomas: Isn't there a pinned topic somewhere with recommended reading?? (or maybe I'm thinking of a different forum)

sonrisa

13th June 2005, 11:18 AM

but is there a God-entity?

ps, thanx for posting that link Thomas. I thought the Seneca were one of the 6 Haudenosaunee Nations. Well actually they are, what I mean is I didn't know there was also a person called Seneca. Thanx for enlightening me! :)

re: apes & tools- there is an ape called Koko (http://www.beanblossom.in.us/larryy/KokoChapter.html) who is computer literate. Which is more than can be said for some homo sapiens. I don't know if Koko does math on it, however. She uses it mainly to communicate. She can also use sign language to communicate.

scameter

13th June 2005, 10:50 PM

Thomas:The brain must perform a number of abstract tasks when using and handling tools, such as tool selection, spatial coordination, applying the right forces, not to mention figuring out the particular advantage of tool use in the first place.

But, i have seen apes use tools, and they do not seem to be thinking about it when they are doing it; they merely pick up a tool and begin to use it, usually very efficiently.

Thomas:It is possible to find concrete examples of duality (two apples), trinity (three apples), quadrity (four apples) and so on. Human can perceive plurality of lower numbers -say up to nine- directly, and from this derives the art of counting, but anything above that is just multiplicity. Nobody can for instance say how many twigs there are on a given tree without counting them. There is no intuitive concept of 12,732-ness, for example. So, the number 12,732 is an abstract concept. It is derived from the Peano axioms.

What does that have to do with a God/Spiritual force?

Thomas:God is also a derived concept. Human perceive themselves as agents in nature, entities that perform purposeful acts. These acts are associated with physical change. Therefore, when humans observe physical change in nature, they infer deliberate agency. But, there are some phenomena which cannot be attributed to human agency, thunder and lighting for example, or the creation of the world. Therefore humans infer superhuman agency and that is how the God concept comes into being.

So, are you saying that when there is a change in Nature, that Humans conceive agency over that change deliberately as being from their own means?And, how can the Human inference of superhumanity apon themselves be representative of a God/Spiritual force?

abba:You live in a wonderful age for acquiring information. In the "bad old days" people had to read books to acquire knowledge - whether in school or from a public library. Today, many of the classic books containing history & wisdom are available free on the internet at the few touches of a keyboard (usually along with commentaries & scholarly critiques). Not only that, there are these amazing search engines (like Google) that will find whatever topic might interest you.

Books are my life. i read all the time, and about a greatly varying array of topics, especially philosophy and religion. i am not lacking in the reading department, and i am highly motivated to read. i do not rely solely, by far, on the internet. i barely even look on it. Books are my primary source of information, that and the people i talk to, both superficially and on here.

abba:Some of the questions you are asking indicate that you need to become more questing for knowledge through your own reading - rather than asking opinions of others. When you have read for yourself, the opinions of others will become more meaningful to you. As it is, if Richie says "Plato's Republic" is a wonderful book & vicente says it's trash, where are you left?

i'm sorry that you don't know me better, because if you did that statement would have never come into being. reading, the acquiring of knowledge, and questioning are the main characteristics of my life, especially through personal reading and discussion with those close to me.and, i do not rely solely on the opinions of others on things. i am curious of their thoughts, but if there is something i do not know about that you people on here are discussing or pose to me i look into it.

abba:But (to quote somebody) "There's no free lunch!" - knowledge requires the investment of personal time.

every day of my life is that personal secular investment, as will be my life.i do not accept laziness in my quest to learn.

sonrisa:but is there a God-entity?

good job, sonrisa. you are doing exactly what i have been expressing as the characteristic of Humanity that differentiates us, not makes us above, from nature.so, continue asking that question.

sonrisa: re: apes & tools- there is an ape called Koko who is computer literate. Which is more than can be said for some homo sapiens. I don't know if Koko does math on it, however. She uses it mainly to communicate. She can also use sign language to communicate.

thanks. that's proof of that i was saying. :thumbsup: :)

Thomas Knierim

14th June 2005, 11:11 AM

scameter: But, i have seen apes use tools, and they do not seem to be thinking about it when they are doing it; they merely pick up a tool and begin to use it, usually very efficiently.

Appearances are deceiving. That is probably because the apes (or monkeys?) have already learned how to use the tool. In this case they are making use of preformed concepts. It is a bit like humans pick up a pen and start writing and the writing appears effortless. However, before people are able to write, they need to form concepts about characters, words, and how to put the pen to the paper. Monkeys cannot write, but they can form concepts of words and they can use sign language. They are able to express compound concepts by using simpler signs. For example: there was a monkey that used the signs "water" and "food" to describe melons (can't remember whether it was Koko or not). All of this seems to indicate that capability for conceptual thought runs in the Hominidae family to which also humans belong.

scameter: So, are you saying that when there is a change in Nature, that Humans conceive agency over that change deliberately as being from their own means?And, how can the Human inference of superhumanity apon themselves be representative of a God/Spiritual force?

I am not sure what you mean. Let me explain it again. Humans perceive themselves as beings that perform purposeful acts in the world. They also perceive other humans and animals as agents. By observing interaction with the physical environment, the concept of wilful causation is formed. For example, there is smoke because someone made a fire. There is a house because someone has built it. There are tracks because someone walked down a path. There is danger because there are hostile forces, and so on. In this manner humans learn to identify phenomena with agency. It is a naive form of conceptual identification, which is common in mammals.

Now there are many phenomena in nature that lack an observable agent. We observe the effect, but we don't observe the cause, as in the case of lightning and thunder. Because humans are used to think in causal patterns and because they experience agency in other cases, they apply the concept of agency to natural phenomena through inference and posit an agent. Thus animism arises. Animism is the belief that all objects and phenomena are inhabited by beings or souls. It is a primitive belief which we share with other mammals. For example, my dog is quick to suspect agency when the curtain moves in the wind.

Animism is closely related to shamanism. These are belief patterns which were common in ancient humanity when more insightful explanations of natural phenomena were not available. Polytheism was in turn developed out of animism. The crucial difference between animism and polytheism is that there is a smaller number of entities controlling the world, a concentration of power so to speak. These entities were much like humans, but they had superhuman powers. Zeus, for example was made responsible for thunder and lightning, but he was also the ruler of the Olymp and all other gods in Greek mythology. Around 600 BC humanity began to step out of the mythological age in Europe and Asia. In Europe this led to the advent of monotheism, which is basically a continuation of the transition from animism to polytheism.

In short, what I am saying is that the God concept is nothing but a sophisticated "supernatural agency" concept with mythological beginnings. It has its roots in animistic beliefs that we share with other mammals. There is nothing specifically human about it, except the degree of sophistication and complexity afforded by our language ability.

Cheers, Thomas

scameter

14th June 2005, 08:12 PM

Oh, ok. Now I understand what you're saying, my friend Thomas. but, i am sorry if i do not agree with your sentiments about a God/Spirit. i think there is more to it than just superhuman agency in causation. because, not all religions/spiritual traditions are based around something that has a spiritual force as the superhuman cause of something. for instance, in philosophical Taoism, my particular path, is not only about the causal effects of the Tao. it is more about their inner nature, their actions(non-actions really more than their actions), and their lifestyle and behavior, which to me could possibly negate the causality of your view og a God/spiritual force.

Thomas Knierim

15th June 2005, 10:45 AM

scameter: because, not all religions/spiritual traditions are based around something that has a spiritual force as the superhuman cause of something.

Yes, there is a difference between theistic and non-theistic religions. Your statement about "grasping God" applies chiefly to theistic religions. Theistic religions have a God concept and non-theistic religions, like Taoism, don't have one. I might appear a little fastidious by putting so much emphasis on this difference, but I think it is inappropriate to mix up theism and spirituality.

Thus as a Taoist you are a non-theist (not an a-theist) and the question whether animals have the capability to "grasp God" is transformed into the question whether animals have "spiritual capabilities".

Cheers, Thomas

vicente

15th June 2005, 12:52 PM

but is there a God-entity?

There either is, or there is not. If you believe in a god, without proof, the bottom line is that you're being dishonest ( "prove all things" 1 Thess 5:21 ). A dishonest person cannot realize enlightenment.

A fellow named Larry posted to me:

"Regarding the burden of proof...

In my arguments with theists, my favorite rebuttal to the "prove to me that god does not exist" line is to shift the burden of proof to them. My proof is simple: god does not exist, and that simple statement, that naked fact, can never be disproved. It is the law of ungod, immutable and fixed. A trillion people voting for the existance of god does not mean god exists. Opinions don't count when you must prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Theists must prove to me that god exists, much like our legal system which requires the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused (the existance of a thing, the positive). Until then, the accused is not guilty (the negative, non-existance of a thing). The defense never has to prove lack of guilt; the entire burden is on the prosecution.

This stops theists cold because you're presenting an argument they will never be able to win, and they know it. They inevitably fall back on their only defense, which is the weakest argument of all, faith. Imagine the prosecution saying to the jury, doggonit, I know this person is guilty. I can't prove it but I just know it he did it! You must convict him!"

For myself, I rather prove no god exists,...and have uncovered substantial and irrefutable evidence that a God, as defined in English language dictionaries, in fact, does not exist,...As I've eluded to in various posts on thebigview.

Vicente

abba

15th June 2005, 08:47 PM

A more complete quotation (NRSV):Rejoice always, pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil.
In context, it is seen that the "prove/test" precaution is directed at the possible fallibility of the words of Prophets; it is not meant as an injunction to prove one's faith in God as implied by Vicente.

scameter

15th June 2005, 10:45 PM

Thomas:Yes, there is a difference between theistic and non-theistic religions. Your statement about "grasping God" applies chiefly to theistic religions. Theistic religions have a God concept and non-theistic religions, like Taoism, don't have one. I might appear a little fastidious by putting so much emphasis on this difference, but I think it is inappropriate to mix up theism and spirituality.

No, that differentiation between theistic and non-theistic religions is what i was trying to make evident.

Thomas:Thus as a Taoist you are a non-theist (not an a-theist) and the question whether animals have the capability to "grasp God" is transformed into the question whether animals have "spiritual capabilities".

Well, to be honest i think animals, as well as everything else in nature, being perfect as they are, have a natural spiritual aspect to them, which exemplifies their perfection. because, scientifically how odd is it for something to be perfect? extremely odd. so, to me that is evidence of a spiritual application. of course, that stems from my own particular spiritual/religious beliefs.

vincente:There either is, or there is not. If you believe in a god, without proof, the bottom line is that you're being dishonest ( "prove all things" 1 Thess 5:21 ). A dishonest person cannot realize enlightenment.

i do not believe that to be true, because it is the aspect of spirituality/theism that admits no proof but is still existant that makes it supernatural. proof is too scientific and empirical.

but, regarding proof and testing of something's existment, i prefer this quote from Buddha:"Do not completely believe anything, but do not completely disbelieve anything either."

vicente

16th June 2005, 12:44 AM

( "prove all things" 1 Thess 5:21 ). A dishonest person cannot realize enlightenment.

i do not believe that to be true

There is no proof,...not an artifact, a piece of carpentry, a reliable eye-witness account of the existence of a god. God's are only known through faith,...and faith is always dishonest.

What is faith? Even the Bible shows that faith is dishonest.

"faith is the substance of things hoped for" Heb 11:1

Is there a more dishonest word than hope?

hope n. from ME. hopa, an expectation. 1. expectation of something desired; anticipation of some future event. 2. a guess or belief. 3. that which gives hope; a substance or object hoped for; an
expected payoff.

No matter what level we wish to view it from, hope is false. Hope is an anticipation of the future; thus it must arise from a predisposition,...an attachment to the past. Hope implies lack,...how else could we possibly define it? Hope is for something we think we don't possess.

How could hope ever be expressed through an Open-Heart? The belief of hope is a barrier which obscures the Heart's inherent unconditional preferencelessness. The Heart of our Essence would not express lack or need, nor see positive or negative as good or bad.

If our attention is on seeking hope, how are we to ever experience immediacy,...the Now? If we seek hope, our overall frequency pattern will be one of projecting a self-manifested incompleteness, and thus can only attract to itself, that incompleteness. It is no different than a mirror in ones bathroom; if you look into the mirror with a frown, it will not reflect back a smile. In other words, our hope will never be realized as long as we hope; just like joy is never actualized if we are looking for it.

Hope is a condition,...Love is Unconditional. Hope can never enter Love, because a condition cannot enter the Unconditional. Thus, if there is one action in the world which could precipitate a tremendum of Collective metanoic proportions, it would be the deletion of the word hope from our vocabulary.

Vicente Marco
:)

scameter

16th June 2005, 01:10 AM

actually, love is not always unconditional, and sometimes hope can be unconditional. but, i have to agree with you my friend, hope is very dishonest, as is faith. and, that is why they are vitally important to our humanity. they show that humans can believe in something, think that it exists, even if there is no definite proof. it requires a balance, as i said in my last post, of empirical science and dishonest faith for something to be examined and completely incorporated into humanity.and, concerning the Now as you explain, my own philosophical religion, Taoism, is centered on the Now, Present-Moment Living being one of it's primary tenets, as is patience. if hope or faith were deleted from our vocabulary, humanity would be lacking one of it's most human characteristics.

abba

16th June 2005, 04:13 AM

Since Vicente doesn't disagree with my correction of his scriptural quote to show a different meaning when in the correct context, perhaps he would offer whether his original statement was made simply in ignorance or if it was a deceitful attempt. If deceitful, it would seem that Vicente is not one to be teaching us youngsters about honesty & dishonesty.

However.....

From Merriam-Webster, faith is:1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefsThe most appropriate to the discussion is 2b(1) belief without proof... some dictionaries say "belief without evidence", which is a bit more demanding, since one might have evidence without having "proof".

Be that as it may, to characterize faith as "dishonest" is a bit aggressive unless it is in response to someone trying to get someone else to logically accept the belief. I would certainly agree that faith has no evidence - that faith has no proof - and that faith is not logical; but I do not ask anyone to accept my belief through evidence or proof or logic. In fact, I would join you in asking anyone who does that - please show me the evidence, proof, logic, so that I might become more knowledgable and enlightened.

But usually, people of faith are quite open; there is nothing deceitful or hidden about their beliefs. They believe for reasons of their own - mostly emotional reasons, not logical reasons.

I admit that my faithful belief may not meet the desired parameters of your "Open-Heart" - because I don't know what your words mean. You could say that I am unenlightened as to your belief. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

vicente

16th June 2005, 04:46 AM

Since Vicente doesn't disagree with my correction of his scriptural quote to show a different meaning when in the correct context, perhaps he would offer whether his original statement was made simply in ignorance or if it was a deceitful attempt

I am aware of the fuller context of "prove all things", which you say DOESN"T REALLY MEAN "prove all things", just:

In context, it is seen that the "prove/test" precaution is directed at the possible fallibility of the words of Prophets; it is not meant as an injunction to prove one's faith in God as implied by Vicente.

In other words,...in your context, "prove all things" means just those things that are not of the Abrahamic persuasion,...but NEVER CHALLENGE anything to do with the Abrahamic god, for that is all to be believed unquestioningly through faith.

Yes,...that makes sense to me. Right out of the Christian Meme handbook:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/meme.html
http://www.christianitymeme.org/

Vicente

vicente

16th June 2005, 04:48 AM

You could say that I am unenlightened as to your belief. Perhaps you could enlighten me

http://www.nobeliefs.com/beliefs.htm

abba

16th June 2005, 07:18 AM

Thank you. A difference in interpretations... I had interpreted "prophets" to mean Christian prophets, not "non-Abrahamic" prophets..... because I didn't envision the Christians of that time even listening to "non-Abrahamic" prophets.

Also, thank you for the link - I'll take a look at it.

edit: I've read Mr. Walker's essay. It is quite well-written and substantive. Despite the obvious bias against religion, he has some extremely truthful (in my judgement) things to say. I wish that every person could read his essay with an open mind... but sadly, I know of too many of my fellowmen (religious or not) whose minds are not open.

I could offer dispute against the more obvious of his biased statements, but those are trivial in the light of his message of scientific thinking - & I don't choose to denigrate such a fine offering by doing so.

The "problem" with Mr. Walker's essay is that it is not meant for me; a person who already has the emotional "limbic condition" that he describes is not likely to be effected by a non-emotional plea of it's falsity. I readily admit that my belief (in God) is not logical; and Mr. Walker's excellent logical essay does not remove the "truth value" of my faith. My "irrationality" has not been cancelled by my reading/thinking about his writing.

Much of the essay's thrust was inapplicable to me because I am a trained scientist/engineer, and my mode of thinking about the physical universe already corresponds to the lessons that he is trying to teach. My non-logical belief only applies to the unprovable, non-evidential spiritual/supernatural realm of God.

Thank you for this link, Vicente; I've added it to my list of Favorites.