This exchange between you and Brent is brilliant, thank you. <munches more popcorn>
On Dec 10, 2016 7:31 AM, "Telmo Menezes" <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 12/9/2016 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 12/8/2016 3:52 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker < > [email protected]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker > >>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker > >>>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage. There was a > group > >>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church > and > >>>>>>>>>>> claimed > >>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>> be a religion for tax purposes. They defined "God" to be > >>>>>>>>>>> whatever > >>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>> good > >>>>>>>>>>> in the world. The IRS disallowed their claim. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly > authority > >>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>> such a matter is a joke, right? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> But they are as good an authority as any. Unlike theologians > they > >>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>> make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word > >>>>>>>>> salad. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion > about > >>>>>>>> the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it > >>>>>>>> falls > >>>>>>>> under anthropology and history. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god" > >>>>>>> doesn't > >>>>>>> not refer to a person/agent. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native > >>>>>> Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern > >>>>>> judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> But they don't use the word "god". It's an abuse of language it say > >>>>> that > >>>>> "god" means "whatever one's religion worships". Paul Tillich tried > >>>>> that > >>>>> maneuver in the '60s. He said "god" meant whatever one valued most: > >>>>> money, > >>>>> fame, power,... If you cut a word lose from common usage then, as > the > >>>>> Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you want. > >>>> > >>>> So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian style > >>>> deities. > >>> > >>> > >>> It's not "reserved"; it, like any word, is defined by usage, and the > >>> usage > >>> overwhelmingly denotes a being who is immortal, has supernatural powers > >>> and > >>> knowledge and should be obeyed and worshipped or placated. It includes > >>> the > >>> gods and godesses of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, Scandnavia, > >>> Mayan, > >>> Aztec,... > >> > >> I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time. Don't > >> you? > > > > > > No, I don't. But if I did, I'd take it as metaphor, "I worship > nature." I > > hear people say, "Time is money." and "Valentino Rossi is a motorcycle > god." > > but I don't take them literally. > > > >> > >> I was raised a catholic and had to go through 6 years of Sunday school > >> until my father put an end to it (I'm forever grateful to him). Even > >> there, I could tell that some people were more literalists while > >> others saw god as "more of a concept". I have the impression that more > >> educated people had a more abstract and less interventionist > >> conception of god. Many did not believe in heaven or hell or miracles. > >> Or that the universe as 6000 years old or any of that nonsense. > > > > > > And some of those believed in a god, a deist god perhaps. But those who > > believed in an impersonal order or force didn't believe in a god - > because > > "god" refers to a person. It's just a matter of not distorting language. > > > >> > >>> Noun 1. God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and > >>> omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the > >>> object > >>> of worship in monotheistic religions > >>> 2. god - any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some > >>> part > >>> of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a > >>> force > >>> > >>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/God > >> > >> Well if you go here you get a different picture: > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God > > > > > > It's not really different. It equivocates on "god" as "sometimes > described" > > as abstract. But all the examples are of persons and agents. > > > >> > >> I am not trying to cut the religious any slack, by the way. I think we > >> agree on a lot of things. > > > > > > But isn't it obvious to you that the concept of god was invented as a > > personalization of forces like storms and volcanoes and light. That's why > > early religions were animist; there was a deer spirit and a wind spirit > and > > mountain spirit... > > I agree that this is a very compelling hypothesis, and I would be > surprised if it didn't in fact play a large role in the origin or > religion. > > I think however that this explanation misses the big picture. Yes, the > "miracles" of nature are used as evidence that something transcendent > is happening, and if you can point at a specific "miracle" then maybe > you can convince other people you are particularly in tune with it, > and that you know what god wants and so on. This is the mechanism, but > it is not the payoff. The payoff is two-fold: freeing people from > existential crises and enabling civilisation by resolving prisoner > dilemma scenarios (e.g. fear of hell). > > People don't lose sleep at night because they don't know how the wind > works, they lose sleep because they feel that they are unimportant or > that their lives are meaningless. If you can provide some solution for > this, that is what people will really mean by "god", not the > ridiculous wind-person itself. That is why anthropologists and other > social scientists argue that things like money and fame play the role > of god, are in fact "gods" in a deep cultural sense. In that sense > this is not just playing silly word games, it is an attempt at a > deeper understanding of what if really going on. > > Militant atheists, who are actively trying to free the world of > religion, need a non-fuzzy target to hit. So they get really annoyed > when one enters into such nuanced discussions of what people mean by > "god". They get annoyed because they think that such understanding of > human nature is of secondary importance compared to the more urgent > goal of ridding the world of silly bronze-age superstitions that are > impeding progress. The irony of the situation is that they are > thinking in exactly the same way that priesthood classes always did: > what people need is to take the correct actions, the rest is not that > important. If they need to believe that the statue of the dog-god of > Alpha Centauri bleeds from the eyes every full moon, let them. If this > is what they need to not choose "defect" when confronted with prisoner > dilemmas, it's not a high price to pay. Militant atheists play the > same game with culture. > > This is all human nature and I don't find it particularly important. I > was a militant atheist myself, until I managed to forgive organised > religion for intellectually bullying me when I was a kid. I guess it > just became a bit boring to hate them. Will I resist if they try to > force me or others to live a certain way? Of course. > > What I won't do is pretend that religion was not evolutionarily > selected *because it helps the species survive*. We still have the > same fundamental problems to solve that we always had, even now that > wind gods and dog gods are dead: meaning and cooperation. We are > possibly witnessing the early stages of collapse of western > civilisation because too many people find no meaning in their lives, > no sense of belonging to anything at all and no reason to cooperate. > It seems to turn out that a society can't run on money- and status- > seeking alone. We are so smart that we figured out that the gods are > bullshit, but unfortunately not smart enough to solve that one... > > > As civilization developed it seemed that humans were > > superior and dominant over all animals and even over some of inanimate > > nature - so the concept of god shifted to a great, superhuman person, a > > great leader and law giver - especially one who led his worshippers to > > victory in war. And of course there must be one greatest leader (who > > happens to be the one we believe in). It is only because science in the > > broadest sense has shown these ideas to be parochial and contradictory > and > > incoherent that theologians have been forced to retreat into abstractions > > and poetic circumlocutions; while still currying support from the hoi > polloi > > with images of a stern father or loving mother god. As Bertrand Russell > > notes they don't want to speak plainly of an abstract order, which might > as > > well be Noether's theorem, because their prestige and influence depends > on > > the idea of a personal god, a concept that people can understand because > > He's like them. He's vain, He loves worship and He gets angry and He > > demands good behavior and He saves them from death. So the modern > > theologians use of the word "god" is basically dishonest. They are > using it > > as a diversion and they know it. If someone wants to study or speculate > > about the foundation of the world or morals or purpose; that's great. > But > > if they can't show it has personal, human attributes, it's just fraud to > > refer to it as "god". > > > > I highly recommend the little book, "The Religion Virus" by Craig A. > James. > > > > Brent > > You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns > out > > that God hates all the same people you do. > > - Anne Lamott > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Everything List" group. > > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > > email to [email protected]. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
