eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (06/02/85)
< science may triumph, but it will take a hell of a long time!!! >
As a former Christian, I always find religion fascinating.
Religions, like languages and species, are constantly evolving
entities, adapting to new social and technological environments.
As always, the origins (first language, life from non life,
first religion, etc) are largely unknown, but natural processes
adequately explain subsequent events.
Religions, the primary antithesis of naturalism and scientific thought,
are themselves subject to the very processes they reject.
Ironic, isn't it?
Micro evolution can be seen in only a few generations.
Consider how easily the creationist re-interprets genesis, redefining 6 "days"
as 6 indefinite periods of time, permitting an old Earth.
Revelations now describes our technological implements of destruction,
and the impending battle of Armagedon.
Of course, verses describing the flat Earth
(and other blatantly wrong concepts) are simply metaphors.
A jewish state is formed, without waiting for the coming Messiah.
The Catholic church bends and squirms on womens' issues.
Even more interesting, I believe, is religious macro evolution.
The earliest religions used idols and graven images,
but these (primarily) did not last. Why not?
A neighboring tribe can always steal your idol, or distroy it.
The builder of the idol cannot believe in its deity for long.
As technology advances, idols, rocks, and trees, are no longer mysterious.
These environments enforced natural selection,
eliminating most "thing" worshiping religions.
The next class of religions involved "unexplainable" events.
A neighboring tribe cannot steal or distroy the sun.
The stars must surely form a perfect Ptolemaic universe, praise God.
The Greek Gods conveniently explained the weather, astronomical events, etc.
Unfortunately, science reared its ugly head again,
describing elliptical orbits and rainbows with remarkable precision.
The religions thriving today are the product of
thousands of years of natural selection.
They center around a hypothesized Deity, somewhere,
who cannot reveal himself, but demands your faith and devotion.
Science can never again distroy religion,
since today's religions center on faith, and produce no
physical affects that might be refuted. Nobody can prove there is no God.
By sweeping things into the afterlife, these religions avoid many
important moral questions: "All suffering will be rewarded later.
All suffering produces good things, as he wills." Romans 8 28
Also, these religions require a Devil, or human evil itself,
to explain the origin of such suffering and anguish. Genesis 3
Of course, there is more to evolution than survival.
The religion must reproduce. In other words, you must convert
people, especially the next generation.
It is therefore not surprising to see extreme intolerance,
and strong missionary doctrines in the surviving religions.
Mark 16 15 Until recently, any conversion tactic was acceptable anywhere,
leading inevitably to the Spanish inquisition, the crusades,
the tribal wars described so vividly in the old testament, etc.
As social morality advanced (and it has progressed considerably;
please don't spread any more bull shit about the good old days),
new conversion schemes were required.
These, primarily psychological, always existed,
but selection has made them stronger.
Heaven (Revelations 21), hell (Luke 16), and love ( 1 Cor 13),
are all powerful tools that convert the uneducated masses.
This is not always bad, since most religions are preferable to
drug/alcohol addiction or a life of crime.
However, I would never prescribe religion for the masses.
Clearly, micro evolution will continue to mold today's religions,
but can we expect any substantial changes in the next 2,000 years?
One possible selecting force is education. As more people are
exposed to biology, biochemistry, astronomy, and especially history,
a loving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God becomes harder to swallow.
Indeed, Godel may have dealt such a being a death blow already.
Yet, I believe, religions will always remain.
They may retreat, abandoning the flat Earth and creationism,
but the human mind seems to need them. I have personally known people
who depend on this mythical abstract concept for daily strength.
I would guess, that the Christian-like religions will survive,
with some attenuation as (if) education becomes ubiquitous.
Enough of *my* speculative ramblings.
Does anyone have any thoughts on the origin/evolution of religions?
I would like to hear them.
--
Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhadethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) (06/04/85)
[] > Does anyone have any thoughts on the origin/evolution of religions? > I would like to hear them. > > Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad Actually this strikes me as even less relevant to net.origins than the history of language. However, I couldn't resist a comment. Neanderthal remains have been found in which the skeleton has been prepared for burial by smearing the bones with a red ochre (presumably the flesh was cremated although other possibilities come to mind). Various artifacts were arranged around the body. This argues that the people who performed the burial had fairly specific ideas about the afterlife (personal belongings, substitute blood). Religion seems to be older than H. Sapiens Sapiens. -- "Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac Borrow his money." {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan Department of Astronomy University of Texas
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (06/06/85)
Amazing the things you learn here. Karl Dahlke says: > Religions, the primary antithesis of naturalism and scientific thought, are > themselves subject to the very processes they reject. Ironic, isn't it? Wow! And I thought the numerous references to the process of natural evolution in my religion's holy books were in some way evidence that religion doesn't reject evolution! I though the emphasis on skepticism, and on producing repeatable effects, was in some way compatible with the scientific method! Silly me! Seriously, Karl, you've obviously bought the usual false choice between dogmatism or atheism that is so prevalent in this society. Don't feel bad, I was there for several years myself. The point is that you should study a wider range of religions before you make this kind of generalization. > Even more interesting, I believe, is religious macro evolution. The > earliest religions used idols and graven images, but these (primarily) did > not last. Why not? A neighboring tribe can always steal your idol, or > distroy it. The builder of the idol cannot believe in its deity for long. > As technology advances, idols, rocks, and trees, are no longer mysterious. I hope I never reach a stage where I cannot see the deity and mystery of rocks, trees, and works of art ("idols"). That would be a very drab and limited world indeed! > The next class of religions involved "unexplainable" events. A neighboring > tribe cannot steal or distroy the sun. The stars must surely form a perfect > Ptolemaic universe, praise God. The Greek Gods conveniently explained the > weather, astronomical events, etc. Unfortunately, science reared its ugly > head again, describing elliptical orbits and rainbows with remarkable > precision. A common enough statement, but not supported by evidence. A member of a "primitive" religion of this sort does not think "It is thundering outside because Daddy Thunder is throwing bolts of lightning", but identifies the thundering with the deity. Conceptually this is quite different. It is a conception that each thing in the human sensorium partakes in some way of divine nature. Of course, there do exist systems of weather prediction and influence, medicine, and so on, that are based on pantheonic conceptions, but these never held the central position in religions that modern atheistic thought would like us to believe. The reason this is such a popular conception is because most atheists would prefer that science be considered to supercede religion. To this end, they pretend that religions did nothing more than what science does today, and did it wrong. A good example is alchemy, a meditative/ritual discipline that modern scientists seem to think was a primitive form of chemistry. In part, it was that, but that no more expresses the wholeness of alchemy than a description of computer science as "how to add lists of figures" expresses the wholeness of that field. In short, it is a self-serving reductionism that you put forth. > Of course, there is more to evolution than survival. The religion must > reproduce. In other words, you must convert people, especially the next > generation. It is therefore not surprising to see extreme intolerance, and > strong missionary doctrines in the surviving religions. Mark 16 15 Until > recently, any conversion tactic was acceptable anywhere, leading inevitably > to the Spanish inquisition, the crusades, the tribal wars described so > vividly in the old testament, etc. Finally I agree with you. Still, atheism is hardly exempt from this criticism, though it has rarely achieved the excesses of all the monotheistic religions. Your message itself could be considered an attempt to convert, you know, as could the reductionist models you are parroting. > Clearly, micro evolution will continue to mold today's religions, but can we > expect any substantial changes in the next 2,000 years? One possible > selecting force is education. As more people are exposed to biology, > biochemistry, astronomy, and especially history, a loving, omnipotent, > omniscient, omnipresent God becomes harder to swallow. Indeed, Godel may > have dealt such a being a death blow already. Actually, I consider Godel's work the death knell for absolute rationalism, not religion. Please explain. In any case, you should be aware that many religions do not require belief in a sentience that created the universe. My own feeling is that from certain perspectives large and complex systems such as ecosystems, galaxies, and universes can be considered sentient no less than small and complex systems like the human nervous system. They can also be considered non-sentient from other perspectives. It's not really that important an issue, though it can be mind-bending and is therefore a fun one to consider from time to time. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (06/07/85)
<> I am posting this to net.religion only, since, as pointed out by others, it does not belong in net.origins. My thanks to Tim Maroney, for posting an interesting, informed response. he has obviously given the matter quite a bit of thought, and has viewed religion from many different perspectives. > Seriously, Karl, you've obviously bought the usual false choice between > dogmatism or atheism that is so prevalent in this society. > The point is that you should study a > wider range of religions before you make this kind of generalization. Allow me to ask Tim (or anyone else) a couple questions. Primarily, what constitutes a religion? Without this common understanding, it is difficult to discuss concepts clearly. It is possible to define a religion as any belief system (e.g. Christianity, the scientific method, do unto others as you would have others do unto you, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die, etc). Let me restrict myself, for this discussion, to theistic (not necessarily dogmatic) religions. I should have made this clear in the original article. Is there any evidence for a deity(s), as described in any religion? > I hope I never reach a stage where I cannot see the deity and mystery of > rocks, trees, and works of art ("idols"). I see amazing and complex natural processes, especially in trees, but I don't see the deity. Where is it? Of course, another question, what is a deity? > > As more people are exposed to biology, > > biochemistry, astronomy, and especially history, a loving, omnipotent, > > omniscient, omnipresent God becomes harder to swallow. Indeed, Godel may > > have dealt such a being a death blow already. > Actually, I consider Godel's work the death knell for absolute rationalism, > not religion. Please explain. I agree in part. Not all religions are in jeopardy, only those postulating an omniscient or omnipotent deity. Let me consider a deity to be a sentient being, who can, in some way, affect our lives. Let me exclude existing biological creatures, since my boss certainly affects my life. Is there such a deity? > The reason this is such a popular conception is because most atheists would > prefer that science be considered to supercede religion. To this end, they > pretend that religions did nothing more than what science does today, and > did it wrong. I do recognize this, and I tried (unsuccessfully) to indicate this. The primary need for religion seems to be psychological, not scientific. That is why religions will always remain. Reread my article. I was only commenting on the mechanisms (specific religions) employed to fill this enormous psychological need. As long as you have to worship something, you better set up an invincible system, especially since your mind will be questioning it on a daily basis. Thus, religions relie on the unexplainable, but are not driven by it. Clearly, all theistic religions have been (and still are) shaped by social and technological forces. Since you provided no refutation, I shall continue. Since the various religions are shaped by these forces, I cannot believe any religion actually contains a true deity. Such a deity, if it exists, has not objectively affected anyone, not even the loyal followers of any religion. Doctrines, policies, and beliefs evolve and become extinct, driven solely by natural forces. > My own feeling is that from certain perspectives large and complex systems > such as ecosystems, galaxies, and universes can be considered sentient Well, these systems certainly affect us. Shall I call the deity some subset of the natural processes around us? At this point, religion simply becomes science, which is all right with me. This is not what I (and others) mean by deity. If you feel theistic religions have any validity, excluding the psychological benefits I have previously mentioned, can you explain why? Do you think the term "religion" includes atheistic belief systems? If so, perhaps we need a new term. If your religion consists of ethics, empathy, curiosity, etc, I sincerely hope it remains untarnished in the face of scientific and technological progress. I am an atheist; I don't know if I am religious or not. -- Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (06/10/85)
Amazing! Karl Dahlke actually appears to be a net.religion poster who has an open mind! I withdraw my former objections to the Resurrection: obviously miracles do happen. > Allow me to ask Tim (or anyone else) a couple questions. Primarily, what > constitutes a religion? Without this common understanding, it is difficult > to discuss concepts clearly. It is possible to define a religion as any > belief system (e.g. Christianity, the scientific method, do unto others as > you would have others do unto you, eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we > die, etc). Let me restrict myself, for this discussion, to theistic (not > necessarily dogmatic) religions. I should have made this clear in the > original article. It's a good question. I only wish I had a good answer. Truth to tell, I've been taken to task for calling Thelema a religion; other people would prefer to exclude Buddhism, Taoism, and so on because they are not particularly concerned with gods. I dunno. If you would like to restrict this discussion to religions that do use the concept of "deity" in some sense, fine with me. > Is there any evidence for a deity(s), as described in any religion? If you mean the incorporeal humanoid most monotheists believe in, no. People do report contact with the being, but their accounts are contradictory and can be explained as delusions of some sort. (I tend to think that many dogmatists do have genuine mystical experiences, but find them so upsetting to their normal perspective that they immediately slap them into some readily comprehensible, literalistic model afterwards.) Nor is there any reason to believe that there is any being, who is real in the same sense we are, who is Zeus or Indra or Aphrodite or Kali. On the other hand, if you consider deities simply symbols, as I do, then obviously they do exist; just go down to the library and you'll see a whole mess of 'em. This puts the discussion on another level: are they useful symbols? My empirical evidence (my own experiences in my "lab") show that a properly performed invocation, that is, an attempt to harmonize oneself with the nature of the deity, is effective in producing states of consciousness that cannot apparently be reached by other means. I consider this exploration of the potentials of my consciousness valuable, since it has become clear to me that most people confuse a single state of consciousness with "reality", failing to understand the observer-created nature of the universe. If someone else does not consider such work to be valuable, I have no argument with them, provided they do not seek to prevent me from following my own path. > > I hope I never reach a stage where I cannot see the deity and mystery of > > rocks, trees, and works of art ("idols"). > > I see amazing and complex natural processes, especially in trees, but I > don't see the deity. Where is it? > > Of course, another question, what is a deity? Hopefully my answer to the latter is somewhat more clear now; sorry for not giving a fuller explanation the first time around. As for the former, the deity is in the perception. On one level, deities are symbols of the pure forces of the human universe: for instance, beauty, life, death, and love. > The primary need for religion seems to be psychological, not scientific. > That is why religions will always remain. Reread my article. I was only > commenting on the mechanisms (specific religions) employed to fill this > enormous psychological need. As long as you have to worship something, you > better set up an invincible system, especially since your mind will be > questioning it on a daily basis. Thus, religions relie on the > unexplainable, but are not driven by it. > > Clearly, all theistic religions have been (and still are) shaped by social > and technological forces. Since you provided no refutation, I shall > continue. Well, I'm not in the habit of refuting things I think are accurate.... In large part I agree with your analysis of the forces that have shaped the modern religious scene. In particular, the reasons for the predominance of proselytizing religions and exclusivist religions. They make of humanity a resource, which must be divided between competing religions, and which each competitor tries to dominate. Thus evolutionary processes are given a field in which to operate. > > My own feeling is that from certain perspectives large and complex systems > > such as ecosystems, galaxies, and universes can be considered sentient > > Well, these systems certainly affect us. Shall I call the deity some subset > of the natural processes around us? At this point, religion simply becomes > science, which is all right with me. This is not what I (and others) mean > by deity. Many do mean exactly that; I believe Charley Martin recently said something of this sort on net.religion, for instance. As for me, I recognize "universal sentience" as a valid perspective and sometimes meditate on it, but it is not the concept I normally use in my invocations. I just don't consider it very important; this is purely a subjective judgment. I used to consider it fundamental, but that was back in my undergraduate days (seven years ago, was it? gad) when I still considered every new revelation to be THE TRUTH. For months after my meditation practice revealed this I was utterly convinced of its absolute validity. Insecurity is a terrible thing. > Do you think the term "religion" includes atheistic belief systems? If so, > perhaps we need a new term. If your religion consists of ethics, empathy, > curiosity, etc, I sincerely hope it remains untarnished in the face of > scientific and technological progress. I am an atheist; I don't know if I > am religious or not. I consider all such terms such as "religion", "truth", "table", "color", etc., to be labels we apply to things. I do not buy the idea that there is some essence of "religion-ness" or "table-ness" which the terms should be used in conformity with. Whether atheism is or isn't a religion depends on the definition in use. I tend to use the term in a sense that includes monotheism, polytheism, atheism, agnosticism, Taoism, eclecticism, etc., and excludes only the "don't care" attitude. If you would prefer to use a definition that excludes atheism, fine with me, so long as we can find some common ground for discussion. What a delight! A non-acrimonious, fun discussion on net.religion between two posters with different beliefs! If you'd like to continue it, Karl (or anyone else), I'm certainly game. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (06/10/85)
In article <446@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >> Is there any evidence for a deity(s), as described in any religion? > >If you mean the incorporeal humanoid most monotheists believe in, no. >People do report contact with the being, but their accounts are >contradictory and can be explained as delusions of some sort. (I tend to >think that many dogmatists do have genuine mystical experiences, but find >them so upsetting to their normal perspective that they immediately slap >them into some readily comprehensible, literalistic model afterwards.) Nor >is there any reason to believe that there is any being, who is real in the >same sense we are, who is Zeus or Indra or Aphrodite or Kali. Humanoid? Only in a sense so weak that christians and jews almost always choose "personal" instead. Besides, see the following argument from Tim. >On the other hand, if you consider deities simply symbols, as I do, then >obviously they do exist; just go down to the library and you'll see a whole >mess of 'em. This puts the discussion on another level: are they useful >symbols? My empirical evidence (my own experiences in my "lab") show that a >properly performed invocation, that is, an attempt to harmonize oneself with >the nature of the deity, is effective in producing states of consciousness >that cannot apparently be reached by other means. I consider this >exploration of the potentials of my consciousness valuable, since it has >become clear to me that most people confuse a single state of consciousness >with "reality", failing to understand the observer-created nature of the >universe. If someone else does not consider such work to be valuable, I >have no argument with them, provided they do not seek to prevent me from >following my own path. The problem with this argument, Tim, is it is the traditional monotheistic argument wrapped around Pantheism. Language about deities, as almost every religion has ever conceived of them, has to be purely symbolic and metaphoric in nature. Even the word "exist" takes on a symbolic meaning, since it is claimed of deities that they exist in a different framework than we do. As I understand it, Tim seems to be saying that, outside of being mental constructs, deities do not exist at all. I find Tim's evidence equally as problematic as he finds mine. Moreover, his evidence (as it is presented) fails to disprove the reality of the beings he seeks to invoke, in the sense that the language of the deities may be symbolic of supernatural order. In general, I find that the strongest conclusion I can draw from the mystical experience is that there is some supernatural order which shows some unification of the natural order. The problem with trying to go beyond that is that the language appears to be stretched to the limit just to get that far, making it very hard to generalize across the mystics. Furthermore, if there is person in the supernatural, then (assuming it matters what this "person" is like) an important dimension of the information must be revelatory. Consider the following exchange: >>> I hope I never reach a stage where I cannot see the deity and mystery of >>> rocks, trees, and works of art ("idols"). >> I see amazing and complex natural processes, especially in trees, but I >> don't see the deity. Where is it? Well, in Judaism and Christianity we have, by revelation, that the world is created, in correspondence with divine purpose. Therefore, one should be able to observe this purpose in the world. One level of this observation is in looking at nature, and natural order (such as physics, for instance); the other, and controversial part, (since it is the part that makes demands on us)is the historical revelatory claims made by Judaism, Christianity, adn a host of other religions. Obviously examining this is very difficult, not only because many of the ordinary assumptions of inquiry are questioned, but because it "matters" what the answer really is. >> The primary need for religion seems to be psychological, not scientific. >> That is why religions will always remain. Reread my article. I was only >> commenting on the mechanisms (specific religions) employed to fill this >> enormous psychological need. As long as you have to worship something, >> you >> better set up an invincible system, especially since your mind will be >> questioning it on a daily basis. Thus, religions relie on the >> unexplainable, but are not driven by it. >> >> Clearly, all theistic religions have been (and still are) shaped by social >> and technological forces. Since you provided no refutation, I shall >> continue. But so have all other systems of thought; if this discredits religions, it also discredits Marxism, the various humanisms, and all other atheistic religious systems. >Well, I'm not in the habit of refuting things I think are accurate.... In >large part I agree with your analysis of the forces that have shaped the >modern religious scene. In particular, the reasons for the predominance of >proselytizing religions and exclusivist religions. They make of humanity a >resource, which must be divided between competing religions, and which each >competitor tries to dominate. Thus evolutionary processes are given a field >in which to operate. Again, this argument applies equally well to atheistic systems. Marxism, for example, is an object case in point. Whether or not this is true, it has little to do with the truth or falsity of a system (something, I must add, that a lot of Christians tend to forget). >> Do you think the term "religion" includes atheistic belief systems? >> If so, >> perhaps we need a new term. If your religion consists of ethics, empathy, >> curiosity, etc, I sincerely hope it remains untarnished in the face of >> scientific and technological progress. I am an atheist; I don't know if I >> am religious or not. >I consider all such terms such as "religion", "truth", "table", "color", >etc., to be labels we apply to things. I do not buy the idea that there is >some essence of "religion-ness" or "table-ness" which the terms should be >used in conformity with. Whether atheism is or isn't a religion depends on >the definition in use. I tend to use the term in a sense that includes >monotheism, polytheism, atheism, agnosticism, Taoism, eclecticism, etc., and >excludes only the "don't care" attitude. If you would prefer to use a >definition that excludes atheism, fine with me, so long as we can find some >common ground for discussion. What's this? An esoteric existentialist? Actually, I agree completely with Tim on this. An important question then arises: given this list of members, is there anything that characterizes them? Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe "A veritable sage among limpets..." C. S. Lewis
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (06/12/85)
Scorecards! Getcha scorecards here! Can't tell the correspondents without a scorecard! Seriously, this is a response to a message from Charley Wingate, which responded to a message from me, which responded to a message from someone who hasn't been around long enough for me to remember his name. (People's names are probably the weakest part of my memory.) That was a response to a message from me that responded to a message of his. > >> Is there any evidence for a deity(s), as described in any religion? > > >If you mean the incorporeal humanoid most monotheists believe in, no. > >People do report contact with the being, but their accounts are > >contradictory and can be explained as delusions of some sort. (I tend to > >think that many dogmatists do have genuine mystical experiences, but find > >them so upsetting to their normal perspective that they immediately slap > >them into some readily comprehensible, literalistic model afterwards.) Nor > >is there any reason to believe that there is any being, who is real in the > >same sense we are, who is Zeus or Indra or Aphrodite or Kali. [Tim] > > Humanoid? Only in a sense so weak that christians and jews almost always > choose "personal" instead. [Charley] I suppose this is a subjective judgment. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic god seems so anthropomorphic to me that I feel justified in my statement. "He" (rarely "it", n.b.) has purposes, intelligence, personality; his actions are often described in terms of emotions; he is assumed able to communicate in human language; he is assumed capable of meaningful manifestation in human form; and so on. That's what I meant by "humanoid". > >On the other hand, if you consider deities simply symbols, as I do, then > >obviously they do exist; just go down to the library and you'll see a whole > >mess of 'em. This puts the discussion on another level: are they useful > >symbols? My empirical evidence (my own experiences in my "lab") show that a > >properly performed invocation, that is, an attempt to harmonize oneself with > >the nature of the deity, is effective in producing states of consciousness > >that cannot apparently be reached by other means. I consider this > >exploration of the potentials of my consciousness valuable, since it has > >become clear to me that most people confuse a single state of consciousness > >with "reality", failing to understand the observer-created nature of the > >universe. If someone else does not consider such work to be valuable, I > >have no argument with them, provided they do not seek to prevent me from > >following my own path. [Tim] > > The problem with this argument, Tim, is it is the traditional monotheistic > argument wrapped around Pantheism. Language about deities, as almost every > religion has ever conceived of them, has to be purely symbolic and > metaphoric in nature. Even the word "exist" takes on a symbolic meaning, > since it is claimed of deities that they exist in a different framework than > we do. As I understand it, Tim seems to be saying that, outside of being > mental constructs, deities do not exist at all. [Charley] It's not really intended as an argument, but as a simple statement of my position, without any attempt to convince anyone else of its absolute validity. I was answering the question of whether there is any evidence for the existence of any deity as conceived by any religion. My answer was, sure, look at the position that they are symbols. Your last sentence is tricky, since from one perspective nothing exists except "mental constructs"; from another, only the Tao exists. The question at hand is whether we should consider deities sentient in the same sense we consider humans sentient. That's the sort of judgment for which I usually require some sort of intellectually acceptable proof; for instance, if you were going to claim thast you have a friend named Tawny Shleppenschleppen who can type at 1000 words a minute, I would be skeptical, and I'd ask for some more evidence than your claims that you frequently speak with her. The point about "exist" taking on a different meaning is a good one. Even things which "do not exist" such as fur-lined bathtubs can be considered "real" in that they are a particular point within the Absolute. The same can be said for deities conceived in a literal sense. (In "Software", Rudy Rucker has extended the idea to include the afterlife in a very clever and pleasing sense.) Deities can be conceived of as symbols, as emergent properties of sentience resulting from large-scale organization of systems such as the Universe, or as "unrealities" in the sense of the preceding paragraph, as you will. The ideas are not equivalent, and will lead to different mystical experiences, but all stem from the idea of "deity". > I find Tim's evidence equally as problematic as he finds mine. Moreover, > his evidence (as it is presented) fails to disprove the reality of the > beings he seeks to invoke, in the sense that the language of the deities may > be symbolic of supernatural order. I guess you'tre referring to your claims that your personal mystical experiences of "Jesus" demonstrate the reality of that deity as a real person. Right? I'm not making any such strong claims from my experiences; I just say that well-performed invocations lead to certain unusual experiences of an apparently unique nature. As for the second sentence, true, but it is impossible to perform this sort of disproof short of finding a logical contradiction in the idea of their existence, and I haven't. The default position is to say they are unreal, because they are not obviously real, and to ask anyone who believes in them to provide evidence that they do exist. Basic burden of proof, you know the rule: the burden of proof is on the side I disagree with. Seriously, any claiming of personal reality for these beings is a strong positive assertion, placing the burden on the person making the assertion. > In general, I find that the strongest conclusion I can draw from the > mystical experience is that there is some supernatural order which shows > some unification of the natural order. The problem with trying to go beyond > that is that the language appears to be stretched to the limit just to get > that far, making it very hard to generalize across the mystics. [Charley] Well, I consider mystical experience to show that any attempts to formulate reality in such a literal and intellectual sense are fruitless. The flowing reality of the Universe is beyond all such attempts to represent it in a static sequence of symbols. Intellect is a useful tool for dealing with subsets of the Universe, but will never capture its totality. (In case it wasn't obvious, Taoism is my second favorite religion, after Thelema.) As usual, I have focused on disagreements rather than agreements, so I haven't commented on all of Charley's message. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (06/12/85)
> > Since the various theistic religions are shaped by natural forces, > > I cannot believe any religion actually contains a true deity. > > Such a deity, if it exists, has not objectively affected anyone, > > not even the loyal followers of any religion. Doctrines, policies, and > > beliefs evolve and become extinct, driven solely by natural forces. > But so have all other systems of thought; if this discredits religions, it > also discredits Marxism, the various humanisms, and all other atheistic > religious systems. Here I disagree. Atheistic belief systems (e.g. humanism) do not require a deity, or any divine intervention. It is not a threat to acknowledge their natural evolutionary origins. However, Christianity (for example) must, by its very doctrines, be more than a natural, evolving belief system. Yet, I claim it is not. Therefore, humanism may have objective validity, while Christianity, as it stands today, cannot. Is there any theistic religion that cannot be explained by natural evolutionary processes? If so, where do I sign up? -- Is it time to go home yet? Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/12/85)
In article <449@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) writes: >Scorecards! Getcha scorecards here! Can't tell the correspondents without >a scorecard! > >Seriously, this is a response to a message from Charley Wingate, which >responded to a message from me, which responded to a message from someone >who hasn't been around long enough for me to remember his name. (People's >names are probably the weakest part of my memory.) That was a response to a >message from me that responded to a message of his. > >> >> Is there any evidence for a deity(s), as described in any religion? >> >>>If you mean the incorporeal humanoid most monotheists believe in, no. >>>People do report contact with the being, but their accounts are >>>contradictory and can be explained as delusions of some sort. (I tend to >>>think that many dogmatists do have genuine mystical experiences, but find >>>them so upsetting to their normal perspective that they immediately slap >>>them into some readily comprehensible, literalistic model afterwards.) >>> Nor >>>is there any reason to believe that there is any being, who is real in the >>>same sense we are, who is Zeus or Indra or Aphrodite or Kali. [Tim] >> Humanoid? Only in a sense so weak that christians and jews almost always >> choose "personal" instead. [Charley] >I suppose this is a subjective judgment. The Judeo-Christian-Islamic god >seems so anthropomorphic to me that I feel justified in my statement. "He" >(rarely "it", n.b.) has purposes, intelligence, personality; his actions are >often described in terms of emotions; he is assumed able to communicate in >human language; he is assumed capable of meaningful manifestation in human >form; and so on. That's what I meant by "humanoid". Well, I'll certainly assent to your description of YHWH, at least on a purely linguistic level. But that word "humanoid" still bothers me, since it has generally been used to refer to human *physical* form. I think I'll stick with "personal", understanding that "humanoid"(tim)=="personal"(Charley). The fact that this is anthropomorphic is, according to Judaism, a direct result of divine purpose. Man is God-like; thus our perception of YHWH is precisely that of the "man-like" portion. And many theologians through the centuries have asserted that we should attach a "trans-" onto the front of each of those characteristics, to indicate that the human attributes they refer to are severely limited versions of the divine originals. >>>On the other hand, if you consider deities simply symbols, as I do, then >>>obviously they do exist; >>>just go down to the library and you'll see a whole >>>mess of 'em. This puts the discussion on another level: are they useful >>>symbols? >>> My empirical evidence (my own experiences in my "lab") show that a >>>properly performed invocation, >>> that is, an attempt to harmonize oneself with >>>the nature of the deity, is effective in producing states of consciousness >>>that cannot apparently be reached by other means. I consider this >>>exploration of the potentials of my consciousness valuable, since it has >>>become clear to me that most people confuse a single state of >>>consciousness with "reality", failing to understand the observer-created >>>nature of the universe. If someone else does not consider such work to >>>be valuable, I have no argument with them, provided they do not seek to >>>prevent me from following my own path. [Tim] >>The problem with this argument, Tim, is it is the traditional monotheistic >>argument wrapped around Pantheism. Language about deities, as almost every >>religion has ever conceived of them, has to be purely symbolic and >>metaphoric in nature. Even the word "exist" takes on a symbolic meaning, >>since it is claimed of deities that they exist in a different framework >>than we do. As I understand it, Tim seems to be saying that, outside of >>being mental constructs, deities do not exist at all. [Charley] >Your last sentence is tricky, since from one perspective nothing exists >except "mental constructs"; from another, only the Tao exists. The question >at hand is whether we should consider deities sentient in the same sense we >consider humans sentient. That's the sort of judgment for which I usually >require some sort of intellectually acceptable proof; for instance, if you >were going to claim thast you have a friend named Tawny Shleppenschleppen >who can type at 1000 words a minute, I would be skeptical, and I'd ask for >some more evidence than your claims that you frequently speak with her. How can a being which "exists out of time" be sentient in the same way that human being is? That's the whole problem; I can very vaguely conceive of a being existing out of time, but the images produced in my mind are clearly defective. I must ultimately admit that I have a very poor understanding of what "existing out of time" means. The heart of my argument is this, then: that this problem exists with almost any attribute of God one cares to name. Obviously, under such constraints a direct investigation is very difficult. >Deities can be conceived of as symbols, as emergent properties of sentience >resulting from large-scale organization of systems such as the Universe, or >as "unrealities" in the sense of the preceding paragraph, as you will. The >ideas are not equivalent, and will lead to different mystical experiences, >but all stem from the idea of "deity". From the literature, and from my own experience, my impression is that the mystical experience is "pre-" or "trans-conceptual"; therefore, the conceptual framework may change the interpretation of the experience, but I would contend that the experience itself is unchanged. >I guess you'tre referring to your claims that your personal mystical >experiences of "Jesus" demonstrate the reality of that deity as a real >person. Right? I'm not making any such strong claims from my experiences; >I just say that well-performed invocations lead to certain unusual >experiences of an apparently unique nature. Well, I have had two very different experiences, one of which I would not class as "mystical". The context and content of the latter made it clear to me that it was in fact YHWH; I recognized him. The other, however, was not invoked at all, and was, I think, an experience of a different order of existence. >As for the second sentence, true, but it is impossible to perform this sort >of disproof short of finding a logical contradiction in the idea of their >existence, and I haven't. The default position is to say they are unreal, >because they are not obviously real, and to ask anyone who believes in them >to provide evidence that they do exist. Basic burden of proof, you know the >rule: the burden of proof is on the side I disagree with. Seriously, any >claiming of personal reality for these beings is a strong positive >assertion, placing the burden on the person making the assertion. O.K., but all you've done is moved the evoker from an supernatural deity to the whole order of nature. In both cases something is posited; the question is not "is there a deity" but "what is its nature". I will not claim at all that I can offer anything other than anecdotal evidence; I will contend, however, that in view of the descriptive problem, saying that you can therefore DENY that a deity exists is a rather subjective evaluation. >> In general, I find that the strongest conclusion I can draw from the >> mystical experience is that there is some supernatural order which shows >> some unification of the natural order. The problem with trying to go >> beyond >> that is that the language appears to be stretched to the limit just to get >> that far, making it very hard to generalize across the mystics. [Charley] >Well, I consider mystical experience to show that any attempts to formulate >reality in such a literal and intellectual sense are fruitless. The flowing >reality of the Universe is beyond all such attempts to represent it in a >static sequence of symbols. Intellect is a useful tool for dealing with >subsets of the Universe, but will never capture its totality. (In case it >wasn't obvious, Taoism is my second favorite religion, after Thelema.) Is there not order in flow? I think the only point of disagreement is that Judaism and Christianity claim the historical existence of Revelations, and that these revelations are (in some unknown way) "better" representations of the supernatural order, and that some of these revelations refer to real concrete manifestations of the deity, rather than to such highly subjective material as mystical experience. Modern christian theology (and mine in particular) is much influenced by Taoism. What we have decided, however, is that, instead of abandoning deities in the face of the obvious linguistic problems, we will continue in faith, recognizing the great problems with the language and attempting to deal with them anyway. Charley Wingate
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (06/13/85)
>... Atheistic belief systems (e.g. humanism) >do not require a deity, or any divine intervention. >It is not a threat to acknowledge their natural evolutionary origins. >However, Christianity (for example) must, by its very doctrines, >be more than a natural, evolving belief system. >Yet, I claim it is not. >Therefore, humanism may have objective validity, >while Christianity, as it stands today, cannot. >Is there any theistic religion that cannot be explained by >natural evolutionary processes? If so, where do I sign up? How does the requirement that a belief system have no deity (Humanism isn't necessarily atheistic. I assume that you mean that Humanism may have objective validity *if* it is atheistic) insure that it may have objective validity? (The lack of a requirement can just as well be stated as a requirement here.) I doubt that there is anything that can't be *explained* by natural evolutionary processes. Whether or not they *are* the result of such is a different question, however--one that can only be answered with varying degrees of certainty by the one doing the explaining (no matter which side of the fence you're on). For my part, I'm not sure that "natural evoutionary procesess" really have the ability to produce everything that is explained by them. But it's no threat for me to acknowledge that. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/13/85)
> I find Tim's evidence equally as problematic as he finds mine. Moreover, > his evidence (as it is presented) fails to disprove the reality of the > beings he seeks to invoke, in the sense that the language of the deities may > be symbolic of supernatural order. > > In general, I find that the strongest conclusion I can draw from the > mystical experience is that there is some supernatural order which shows > some unification of the natural order. The problem with trying to go beyond > that is that the language appears to be stretched to the limit just to get > that far, making it very hard to generalize across the mystics. [Charley] Why does that sound like a conclusion you've already presumed in order to reach that conclusion? You speak of the limits of language. "Supernatural" is a word, a piece of language conceived and invoked by humans. What does it mean? From the structure of the word parts, and from the nature of the way the word is used, "beyond the natural" sounds like the intended meaning. How do we define natural? What are the limits of what is natural? Where are the boundaries between "natural" and "supernatural"? Are they anything more than arbitrary demarcations that facilitate the conclusions we want to draw about the universe and about the nature of the supernatural? Charley is not alone is not having answered these questions. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/13/85)
>>> Since the various theistic religions are shaped by natural forces, >>> I cannot believe any religion actually contains a true deity. >>> Such a deity, if it exists, has not objectively affected anyone, >>> not even the loyal followers of any religion. Doctrines, policies, and >>> beliefs evolve and become extinct, driven solely by natural forces. >> But so have all other systems of thought; if this discredits religions, it >> also discredits Marxism, the various humanisms, and all other atheistic >> religious systems. >Here I disagree. Atheistic belief systems (e.g. humanism) >do not require a deity, or any divine intervention. >It is not a threat to acknowledge their natural evolutionary origins. >However, Christianity (for example) must, by its very doctrines, >be more than a natural, evolving belief system. >Yet, I claim it is not. >Therefore, humanism may have objective validity, >while Christianity, as it stands today, cannot. >Is there any theistic religion that cannot be explained by >natural evolutionary processes? If so, where do I sign up? Well, if you are saying that they arise in response to their environment, then I withdraw my objection, but then the original objection does not apply; after all, Judaism (for example) claims that the environment includes a particular set of miracles. If, on the other hand, you are saying that they are CAUSED (i.e. they were forced to have been thought of), then my objection holds. The fact that christianity and judaism change signifies only that, since they are concerned with the relationship between man and God, the position of man has changed. One would not, after all, expect medeival man to be concerned with atomic warfare. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/15/85)
> The fact that this is anthropomorphic is, according to Judaism, a direct > result of divine purpose. Man is God-like; thus our perception of YHWH is > precisely that of the "man-like" portion. This makes perfect sense if you accept these descriptions of god ipso facto. Isn't it more likely that it's the other way around? "God is man-like, a direct result of anthropomorphic projection and anthropocentrism in general." -- "Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/15/85)
>>... Atheistic belief systems (e.g. humanism) >>do not require a deity, or any divine intervention. >>It is not a threat to acknowledge their natural evolutionary origins. >>However, Christianity (for example) must, by its very doctrines, >>be more than a natural, evolving belief system. >>Yet, I claim it is not. >>Therefore, humanism may have objective validity, >>while Christianity, as it stands today, cannot. >>Is there any theistic religion that cannot be explained by >>natural evolutionary processes? If so, where do I sign up? > How does the requirement that a belief system have no deity (Humanism > isn't necessarily atheistic. I assume that you mean that Humanism may > have objective validity *if* it is atheistic) insure that it may have > objective validity? [DUBUC] By refraining from speculative notions about deities that cannot be proven, a belief system sticks to the real world of real people and things. That simple. -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (06/18/85)
In article <1096@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) writes: >> How does the requirement that a belief system have no deity (Humanism >> isn't necessarily atheistic. I assume that you mean that Humanism may >> have objective validity *if* it is atheistic) insure that it may have >> objective validity? [DUBUC] >By refraining from speculative notions about deities that cannot be proven, >a belief system sticks to the real world of real people and things. That >simple. Since you've decided that you will not accept any evidence on the matter, Rich, this criticism carries no weight. The best you can justify on that basis is agnosticism. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (06/20/85)
>>> How does the requirement that a belief system have no deity (Humanism >>> isn't necessarily atheistic. I assume that you mean that Humanism may >>> have objective validity *if* it is atheistic) insure that it may have >>> objective validity? [DUBUC] >>By refraining from speculative notions about deities that cannot be proven, >>a belief system sticks to the real world of real people and things. That >>simple. [ROSEN] > Since you've decided that you will not accept any evidence on the matter, > Rich, this criticism carries no weight. The best you can justify on that > basis is agnosticism. [WINGATE] You're evading the original point in question. A belief system that DOES NOT engage in speculative presumptions of the nature I've described lends itself to stricter analysis (and less wishful thinking speculation) about the real world. -- "Ya dee apockety, rum fing f'doo. Ni, ni, ni, YOWWWWWWWWWW!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
buchbind@agrigene.UUCP (06/20/85)
Sorry, I can't find the origonal: > > The fact that this is anthropomorphic is, according to Judaism, a direct > > result of divine purpose. Man is God-like; thus our perception of YHWH is > > precisely that of the "man-like" portion. How about changing "according to Judaism" to "according to some Jews/some Jewish commentators". Humans may be God-like but God is infinite; comparisons become difficult (any set-theory experts out there to correct me? -:). As I understand it, the answer to the question "What does it me to be created in the the image of God?" fall in the area of midrash; Judaism does not require to acceptance of any particular midrashic view. (Midrash are stories about and (often ethical) exposition of biblical text; within limits, one is allowed to make up new midrash.) -- Barry Buchbinder Agrigenetics Corp. 5649 E. Buckeye Rd. Madison, WI 53716 USA (608)221-5000 {seismo,ihnp4,harpo}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!agrigene!buchbind
mmm@weitek.UUCP (Mark Thorson) (08/02/85)
An earlier discussion about the evolution of religious beliefs made
an analogy between the history of religion and Darwinian evolution
-- the point being that one could interpret the history of religion
as a process of adaptation to social neccessity.
I am interested in a tighter form of the analogy: is religion itself
an adaption of the human species? If people were raised in total isolation
from culture, would they form a belief in God? Is there a piece of brain
tissue with the function of promoting such belief?
As an aetheist, I've always found it remarkable how many people believe
in God. I consider the total lack of physical evidence for the super-
natural to be an overwhelming argument against belief in an all-
powerful, omnipresent, omniscient being. I think a system that included
a supreme being, billions of ghost-like "souls", and perhaps some angels,
demons, etc would have to have SOME physical manifestation.
So why do so many people believe in such things? Instead of atheism being
the default belief system among human societies, theism is. Atheism
is in fact rather rare.
I perceive two possibilities:
1. God, heaven, hell, etc exist and it just happens to be part of their
nature that they are undetectable, immeasurable, can't get there from
here, etc.
2. They don't exist, but the belief in their existance has survival value
so the human brain is organized for belief rather than non-belief.
Sociobiologically yours,
Mark Thorson (...!cae780!weitek!mmm)mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/15/85)
In article <242@weitek.UUCP> mmm@weitek.UUCP (Mark Thorson) writes: > An earlier discussion about the evolution of religious beliefs made > an analogy between the history of religion and Darwinian evolution > -- the point being that one could interpret the history of religion > as a process of adaptation to social neccessity. > > I am interested in a tighter form of the analogy: is religion itself > an adaption of the human species? If people were raised in total isolation > from culture, would they form a belief in God? Is there a piece of brain > tissue with the function of promoting such belief? I think so. The same way lying, stealing, cheating, and killing are adaptations, would arise spontaneously, and are behaviors whose capability is provided by our brains. > As an aetheist, I've always found it remarkable how many people believe > in God. I consider the total lack of physical evidence for the super- > natural to be an overwhelming argument against belief in an all- > powerful, omnipresent, omniscient being. I think a system that included > a supreme being, billions of ghost-like "souls", and perhaps some angels, > demons, etc would have to have SOME physical manifestation. > > So why do so many people believe in such things? Instead of atheism being > the default belief system among human societies, theism is. Atheism > is in fact rather rare. > > I perceive two possibilities: > > 1. God, heaven, hell, etc exist and it just happens to be part of their > nature that they are undetectable, immeasurable, can't get there from > here, etc. > > 2. They don't exist, but the belief in their existance has survival value > so the human brain is organized for belief rather than non-belief. Number 2 almost corresponds to my ideas. A certain amount of belief is adaptive, because the amount of useful information that must be transmitted is impractical to test. On the other hand, lies exist. We use many sorts of heuristics to decide what to believe. If we can test, we might. We can decide who we trust. And more abstractly still, we can identify untestable information. Religions specialize in the "untestable". (Untestable from the standpoint of their origin: as times change, tests might become possible, and so beliefs change.) Things like moral codes are heuristics that (for individuals) are essentially untestable. Myths are generally untestable. There can be survival value for believing some untestable things. So religions evolve and are selected for. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh