It isn't possible to write the full opus here Tony. You say 'always', yet the shamans went out to the hunt and shared the ordinary work. I suppose we look for evidence of clergy economic rent on society and what, if anything, is received in return. Original claims involved special connections with the divine The solution in every chiefdom and early state society - from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, Polynesian Hawaii to the Incas was to proclaim an organised religion with the chief or king related to the gods - then various very similar control of resources, public works, storehouses, work organisation, armies and education form.
The evidence we look at is human development and organisation. Differences between gods look rather unimportant in this context of historical and anthropological evidence. Underlying the search is some kind of faith that truth can lead to a new form of consciousness and living together. We don't know what this faith is. Skepticism is very hard to ground and one needs faith to believe there can be knowledge or devote oneself to a life of inquiry. This is hardly new. The pre-Socratics noted gods were suspiciously anthropomorphic (a culture's gods looked like the culture) and Socrates said something like; Socrates raises the challenge that it might be truly bad (for one's life, for the state of one's soul, and so on) to base one's actions on unexamined beliefs. For all one knows, these beliefs could be false, and without investigation, one does not even aim to rid oneself of false belief, which is admittedly a bad thing for one's soul. Only an examined life is worth living. Once we take this challenge seriously, as the ancient skeptics do, we embark on a kind of investigation that is seen as directly relevant to our lives. Our beliefs are assumed, at this pre-skeptical phase, to be guiding our actions. Confidence in unexamined views seems misplaced. Others regularly disagree with us. With respect to even the most basic questions, such as whether there is movement, or whether there are good and bad things, we face conflicting views. In favor of each view, some arguments can be adduced, some practices invoked, some experiences cited. These conflicting arguments, practices and experiences need to be examined. But that just raises further views that are in conflict. As a consequence, suspension of judgment on every such question looks rationally mandatory. But it is also rational to persist in investigation. The skeptic is committed to a search for the truth, on virtually all questions, even if this search repeatedly and predictably leads to suspension of judgment. Faith can look like the opposite of evidence-based action. I don't believe this. Something emergent comes from inquiry, there is feedback and faith to act from suspended judgement. This is not the kind of faith that can lead one to be indistinguishable from a zealot moron. On Thursday, 19 February 2015 23:57:16 UTC, facilitator wrote: > > "Atheism is an evidence-based faith." > > Evidence of what? > > "In this we reject the comforting aspects of religion, seeing them as > materially achievable." > > Opulence and status of Clergy vs laity has always been problematic. > > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
