On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Terren Suydam <[email protected]> wrote: > This exchange between you and Brent is brilliant, thank you. <munches more > popcorn>
Hi Terren, you have some weird tastes in entertainment, but thanks :) > 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. -- 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.
