Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

[Write4U]

yeah its just like medicine and health..

One guys wants to poke you with a needle. The next one is suggesting diet, and someone else is in favor of massage.

That is a straw man, among competent physicians treatment for medical conditions is pretty well established, based on clinical results.

Strangely enough, fairy tales are usually told with a particular moral in mind.... all of which require abstract and symbolic thinking

Yes, as is the bible a compilation of fairytales with specific moral messages, but that does not make the stories true, just the symbolic moral message. But that is not proof of anything except the function of the mirror neural network in humans.

Given that probably well over 99% of what is important to us does not belong in physics (even psychiatry for that matter) you shouldn't have too much to worry about ...

IMO, it is religion which is 99% supernatural (as seperate from and incompatible with meta-physical). In psychiatry this is a clinical condition.

Wiki

The same syndrome shared by more than two people may be called folie à trois, folie à quatre, folie en famille or even folie à plusieurs ("madness of many"). Recent psychiatric classifications refer to the syndrome as shared psychotic disorder (DSM-IV) (297.3) and induced delusional disorder (F.24) in the ICD-10, although the research literature largely uses the original name. The disorder was first conceptualized in 19th century French psychiatry by Charles Lasègue and Jean-Pierre Falret and so also known as Lasègue-Falret Syndrome

Care to explain your conclusion that 99% of what is important to us is not physical or mental and, if true, why that should not worry me?

 

[lightgigantic]

That is a straw man, among competent physicians treatment for medical conditions is pretty well established, based on clinical results.

that says absolutely nothing about reconciling the conflict between different procedures

Yes, as is the bible a compilation of fairytales with specific moral messages, but that does not make the stories true, just the symbolic moral message. But that is not proof of anything except the function of the mirror neural network in humans.

I'm simply pointing out how abstract thinking is a prerequisite for any sort of moral learning ... or even straight out learning for that matter ... so its unclear how abstract thinking automatically becomes lesser in your books, regardless of your opinions on whether the subject matter is contrived or not.

IMO, it is religion which is 99% supernatural (as seperate from and incompatible with meta-physical). In psychiatry this is a clinical condition.

Wiki


Care to explain your conclusion that 99% of what is important to us is not physical or mental and, if true, why that should not worry me?

not sure with what all this has to do with well over 99% of what is important to us standing outside of the purview of physics ....

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't know which conflicts you're referring to, but in regards to the medical field we're not talking about conflicting truths, simply conflicting opinions.

so if a doctor suggests we take some medicine, thats simply an opinion ... and if a theist suggests all homosexuals will burn in hell for eternity, thats a truth ???

And it's entirely possible that there are different solutions to the same problem (ie needles, diet, massage)

anyone who has come within 10 ft of a scriptural commentary could probably tell you the same thing

But in religion, we're not talking about opinions, we're talking about truths. When they conflict, one must be untrue.

No more than it is the case in medical fields.
Some are true.
Some are incomplete.
Some are wrong

And there's no way to measure the "effectiveness" of a religion, so it that sense it can't be compared to the medical field.

well thats kind of funny since you can literally encounter miles of texts in libraries that deal with this exact question.
:scratchin:

 

[Balerion]

so if a doctor suggests we take some medicine, thats simply an opinion ... and if a theist suggests all homosexuals will burn in hell for eternity, thats a truth ???

In their individual contexts, yes. Medicine is a practice, whereas religious injunctions are, at least purported to be, the word of God.

anyone who has come within 10 ft of a scriptural commentary could probably tell you the same thing

Not as it pertains to conflicting scriptural truths.

No more than it is the case in medical fields.

Incorrect. Two opinions can contradict each other and both be right, but truths can't. Not objective truths, anyway, which is what the Abrahamic faiths lay claim to.

Also, when a doctor is wrong, his or her field of medicine isn't invalidated. But when scripture is wrong...

:shrug:

well thats kind of funny since you can literally encounter miles of texts in libraries that deal with this exact question.
:scratchin:

Which question is that? The effectiveness of religion? By that, I don't mean how many people a religion can trick into believing it, I mean how effective it is in accomplishing the things it sets out to do, such as getting people into heaven, making them pure of soul, etc.. I mean, we already know it doesn't make people behave better, so by that measure religion fails miserably. I was thinking more about its spiritual claims.

 

[wynn]

I'd like to see how you reply to LG's replies to you.

Why? What's your motivation?

To make this conversation more succint, as he is bringing up topics that I would too.

So you can't think of any actual examples of automatic things, according to your own definition? I thought as much.

My example would be God, but I refrained from mentioning this, because you've already said in an earlier reply here that God is not an example you'd like to consider.

Yes. I'm interested because if it can be shown that God is necessary then I will have to alter my current worldview. Presumably, if that God is also concerned with human affairs and that is associated with the ideas of heaven and hell we're all told about, I might need to take into account my chances of a good afterlife etc. etc.

So, can you give me an answer now?

That will take some elaboration, beginning below:

What if the universe was caused by a collision between two branes in a multiverse that is entirely natural and without a god? What does that do to your tradition?

The problem with defining theism as "belief in God, god or gods" is that such a definition assumes that these three are all the same in nature - that belief in God, belief in a god, and belief in gods all entail the same things, just that the object of the belief happens to be different (whether it is God, a god, or gods).

But as long as we work with the proper omnimax definition of "God" (ie. God is the First Being; Cause of all other causes; omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) then the above definition of "theism" is misleading.

I have tried to explain to you that the question of whether there is or is not a god is a question of evidence.

That turns every discussion into a meta-discussion. Rather than having the discussion, you'd rather talk about why we would want to have the discussion. And that is a separate topic.

When it comes to matters of God, these two ideas above miss the point, though.

Because as LG has already been explaining to you, although you haven't replied, God is defined as the one being that contextualizes all other beings and their activities.
Which means that when you reflect about the topic of God, then, as long as you work with a proper omnimax definition of "God", you have to bear in mind that your very efforts to reflect on the topic of God, are made possible by God.
Which is why you cannt hope to find any evidence of God, as long as you take the standard empirical approach.

The best that the standard empirical approach may be able to evidence, is whether there exists an old man with a beard in the sky, or the FSM, but not God.


And as you yourself have noted about an idea such as equality of some human rights -

I have tried to explain to you that the question of whether there is or is not a god is a question of evidence. In contrast, the Declaration of Human Rights is an agenda - a picture of an ideal that the signatory nations say they would like to see realised.

I do not believe all humans have equal rights under the laws of nations, but that does nothing to dissuade me from the opinion that working towards such a state of affairs would be a Good Thing.

The same line of reasoning can be applied to matters of God: even though one doesn't have ordinary evidence of God's existence, given the proper omnimax defintion of God, there is nothing to dissuade one from efforts to approach life with this definition and its implications in mind.

 

[wynn]

But is that not the crux of the matter? There are so many religions that no religion can claim exclusive truth without being in conflict with another religion. There are so many gods that it is impossible to pick a god without being in conflict of other gods. There are so many scriptures that no scripture can claim perfection without being in conflict with other scripture.

Discussing religion is like discussing the relative moral messages contained in fables and fairytales. There is no provable truth and the messages is wholly abstract and symbolic and inherently contradictory.

That will depend on the definition of "God" that you already operate with. Chances are that you might not even be aware of the particular definition you operate with.

What reasoning underlies the fear or concern that you might not pick the right religion?

IMO, religion belongs in the discipline of psychiatry more so even than philosophy and certainly does not belong in physics.

On principle, religion contextualizes both phsychiatry and philosophy, and other fields of knowledge, so it indeed doesn't belong to them - they belong to it.

 

[lightgigantic]

In their individual contexts, yes. Medicine is a practice, whereas religious injunctions are, at least purported to be, the word of God.

but in the example we have a theist speaking, not god

Not as it pertains to conflicting scriptural truths.

as I said, its the prime subject of a scriptural commentary.

Incorrect. Two opinions can contradict each other and both be right, but truths can't.

the problem at the moment is that you have just arbitrarily designated anything a theist says as "truth" and anything a doctor says as "opinion"

Much discourse (whether it be in medicine or in religion) is about the truth of given opinions.

This is why I said anyone who has come within 10ft of a scriptural commentary can tell you the same thing

Also, when a doctor is wrong, his or her field of medicine isn't invalidated. But when scripture is wrong...

:shrug:

then what?
I guess you were thinking of an answer other than "henological discussion ensues"

Which question is that? The effectiveness of religion? By that, I don't mean how many people a religion can trick into believing it, I mean how effective it is in accomplishing the things it sets out to do, such as getting people into heaven, making them pure of soul, etc.. I mean, we already know it doesn't make people behave better, so by that measure religion fails miserably. I was thinking more about its spiritual claims.

which is why I said it was funny because you can literally encounter miles of texts dealing with this question.

 

[wynn]

The difference, obviously, is that the medical profession doesn't claim to be revealed truth, and as such doesn't contradict itself when two different remedies are prescribed for the same diagnosis.

As was already discussed in the thread on absolute morality, there is the explanation that absolute morality exists, but is differently expressed in different cultures, over different time periods, in different cirmcumstances.

For example, thieves are not praised or rewarded, they are punished. The form of punishment varies accross cultures and times and depending on how severe the crime of theft is considered: from fines, imprisonment, to cutting off fingers, hands, to death.
That principle of not tolerating theft is the same accross cultures, the particular expression of this intolerance varies.

In a similar manner, we can understand that revealed truth varies, according to whom, where, when, in what circumstances it is revealed to.

You, on the other hand, want to completely decontextualize scriptural claims. (Something that is typical for fundamentalists. )

 

[Write4U]

That will depend on the definition of "God" that you already operate with. Chances are that you might not even be aware of the particular definition you operate with.

What reasoning underlies the fear or concern that you might not pick the right religion?

I am an atheist operating from the standpoint that God has been never been sufficiently explained or defined as anything different from the truth contained in the word Potential.

On principle, religion contextualizes both phsychiatry and philosophy, and other fields of knowledge, so it indeed doesn't belong to them - they belong to it.

Belonging to which It again? Or is that dependent on the definition of god you operate with? Sounds like relativism to me.

In the end, even God (in any form of existence) would have to be preceded by potential.

 

[Balerion]

As was already discussed in the thread on absolute morality, there is the explanation that absolute morality exists, but is differently expressed in different cultures, over different time periods, in different cirmcumstances.

For example, thieves are not praised or rewarded, they are punished. The form of punishment varies accross cultures and times and depending on how severe the crime of theft is considered: from fines, imprisonment, to cutting off fingers, hands, to death.
That principle of not tolerating theft is the same accross cultures, the particular expression of this intolerance varies.

But some thieves are rewarded. Spies, for example, earn medals and honors and promotions. So right there the concept of absolute morality is debunked, at least as it pertains to your example.

And is it even moral considerations that drive this common practice of punishing thieves, or is it more likely that without such a practice, there is chaos? It seems to be that punishing thieves is a practice derived from practical concerns, not moral ones. It's like how we all build dwellings regardless of the culture. That's not suggestive of universal morality, it's suggestive that shelter is probably a necessity. And in any case, your example is one of homogeneous principals (ie Thieves should be punished) with varying degrees of expression; what we're talking about are contradictory truths, such as the sacredness of the cow in one culture but not another, or the swinophobia of Islam and Judaism that isn't present in, say, Sumerian religion.

In a similar manner, we can understand that revealed truth varies, according to whom, where, when, in what circumstances it is revealed to.

Not objective truth, which is what these faiths purport themselves to be. Jesus, for example, makes it clear that he's the one and only path to heaven. There's no equivocation, no qualification, only declaration. You'd know this if you had ever read any of the scriptures, but since you haven't, it's tasked to us to educate you.

You, on the other hand, want to completely decontextualize scriptural claims. (Something that is typical for fundamentalists. )

Can I have an example of a fundamentalist decontextualizing a scriptural claim?

 

[Balerion]

but in the example we have a theist speaking, not god

We can quote scripture, if you'd rather.

as I said, its the prime subject of a scriptural commentary.

I'm not particularly concerned with apologetics.

the problem at the moment is that you have just arbitrarily designated anything a theist says as "truth" and anything a doctor says as "opinion"

No, I'm pointing out that scripture designates itself as truth.

Much discourse (whether it be in medicine or in religion) is about the truth of given opinions.

Obviously, but there can't be contradictory truths in medicine, there can only be contradictory opinions. Religion, meanwhile, offers countless contradictory truths.

This is why I said anyone who has come within 10ft of a scriptural commentary can tell you the same thing

You keep missing the point, so rather than repeating myself, I'll just refer you back to the points I've already made. Maybe one of these times it will stick?

then what?
I guess you were thinking of an answer other than "henological discussion ensues"

Then that scripture is invalidated.

which is why I said it was funny because you can literally encounter miles of texts dealing with this question.

How many answers do we have so far?

 

[lightgigantic]

We can quote scripture, if you'd rather.

we can also quote medical texts too ....

I'm not particularly concerned with apologetics.

that shouldn't be a problem

No, I'm pointing out that scripture designates itself as truth.

and I an pointing out how medical texts do the same

Obviously, but there can't be contradictory truths in medicine, there can only be contradictory opinions. Religion, meanwhile, offers countless contradictory truths.

and as I said, for as long as one is bereft of the knowledge of what the goal is (like say "improved health" in the case of medicine), you can say that about practically anything

You keep missing the point, so rather than repeating myself, I'll just refer you back to the points I've already made. Maybe one of these times it will stick?

If you think that scriptural commentaries don't address the questions of reconciling/contextualizing/ highlighting as primary/secondary scriptural statements (particularly as they apply to practice) you must be one of those people who have never come within 10ft of them
:shrug:

Then that scripture is invalidated.

what makes you think henological discourse requires that it be invalidated?

How many answers do we have so far?

probably a comparable number to the number of answers medicine could give for some generic ailment

 

[Balerion]

and I an pointing out how medical texts do the same

There are a few differences. For one, the "truths" depicted in medical texts are based on clinical studies, whereas the truths in scripture are based on revelation--hence "revealed knowledge." You comparing the bible to a medical text is like comparing a novel to a biography.

and as I said, for as long as one is bereft of the knowledge of what the goal is (like say "improved health" in the case of medicine), you can say that about practically anything

You didn't say anything about anyone being bereft of the knowledge of what the goal is, so I don't know where that's coming from. I also don't know what it has to do with things other than religion offering contradictory truths.

If you think that scriptural commentaries don't address the questions of reconciling/contextualizing/ highlighting as primary/secondary scriptural statements (particularly as they apply to practice) you must be one of those people who have never come within 10ft of them
:shrug:

I'm sure they do. My point is that I'm not concerned with apologetics. Unless one of the parties trying to explain away the contradictions is God, then I have no use for it.

what makes you think henological discourse requires that it be invalidated?

I said nothing of henological discourse. I said that an error in scripture invalidates it.

probably a comparable number to the number of answers medicine could give for some generic ailment

...?

 

[wynn]

What if the universe was caused by a collision between two branes in a multiverse that is entirely natural and without a god? What does that do to your tradition?

It does nothing to my tradition, as I don't have one. I'm not a theist. At some point in the past, I figured that if I am going to be an agnostic or an atheist, then I'd better be agnostic or atheistic about the real article, and not about some caricature parroted around by some people (whether they call themselves theists or atheists) in the name of God. Hence my efforts in this direction. At this point, this is a philosophical exercise for me.

 

[wynn]

I am an atheist operating from the standpoint that God has been never been sufficiently explained or defined as anything different from the truth contained in the word Potential.

That depends on the definition of "God" that you operate with.

On principle, religion contextualizes both phsychiatry and philosophy, and other fields of knowledge, so it indeed doesn't belong to them - they belong to it.

Belonging to which It again?

On principle, religion contextualizes both phsychiatry and philosophy, and other fields of knowledge, so religion indeed doesn't belong to phsychiatry and philosophy, and other fields of knowledge - phsychiatry and philosophy, and other fields of knowledge belong to religion.

Or is that dependent on the definition of god you operate with? Sounds like relativism to me.

Indeed, it is a kind of relativism.

Except that we are neither numb nor dumb, and we can introspect as to what intentions we have when thinking about this or that; and real consequences can follow from such introspection.
For example, for a person, there may be a feeling of shame or embarrassment or compunction or joy when thinking about something in a particular way; this is their own private reality and they can and do work from there.

In the end, even God (in any form of existence) would have to be preceded by potential.

Again, that depends on the definition of "God" one works with.
What you say applies for inferior notions of god.

 

[gmilam]

At some point in the past, I figured that if I am going to be an agnostic or an atheist, then I'd better be agnostic or atheistic about the real article, and not about some caricature parroted around by some people (whether they call themselves theists or atheists) in the name of God.

That's funny!

 

[wynn]

But some thieves are rewarded. Spies, for example, earn medals and honors and promotions. So right there the concept of absolute morality is debunked, at least as it pertains to your example.

What spies do isn't automatically considered theft by those who hire them and reward them. Some of the activities of spies are rewarded, some are not.

As is evidenced by the severe punishments that double agents and such get for betrayal of their homeland (ie. death), even in the culture that endorses spying, there is still a code about punishing theft.

Spies, for example, earn medals and honors and promotions.

Certainly not from those they stole from.

And is it even moral considerations that drive this common practice of punishing thieves, or is it more likely that without such a practice, there is chaos? It seems to be that punishing thieves is a practice derived from practical concerns, not moral ones.

Practical and moral concerns go hand in hand.

It's like how we all build dwellings regardless of the culture. That's not suggestive of universal morality, it's suggestive that shelter is probably a necessity. And in any case, your example is one of homogeneous principals (ie Thieves should be punished) with varying degrees of expression; what we're talking about are contradictory truths, such as the sacredness of the cow in one culture but not another, or the swinophobia of Islam and Judaism that isn't present in, say, Sumerian religion.

In different cultures / societies / times, different things or living beings are considered sacred.
What they all have in common is that some phenomena are considered sacred.

In a similar manner, we can understand that revealed truth varies, according to whom, where, when, in what circumstances it is revealed to.

Not objective truth, which is what these faiths purport themselves to be.

Fundie meets fundies ...

Jesus, for example, makes it clear that he's the one and only path to heaven. There's no equivocation, no qualification, only declaration.

So?

Someone makes a claim and that means you have to throw your brain and your life away?

You'd know this if you had ever read any of the scriptures, but since you haven't, it's tasked to us to educate you.

You wish.

Can I have an example of a fundamentalist decontextualizing a scriptural claim?

"Jesus is the one and only path to salvation, for all people and in all times."

 

[wynn]

I'm sure they do. My point is that I'm not concerned with apologetics. Unless one of the parties trying to explain away the contradictions is God, then I have no use for it.

Clearly then you understand now that God is the one you should turn to for explanations.

 

[lightgigantic]

There are a few differences. For one, the "truths" depicted in medical texts are based on clinical studies, whereas the truths in scripture are based on revelation--hence "revealed knowledge." You comparing the bible to a medical text is like comparing a novel to a biography.

How you imagine scripture to be an imagination is a separate argument of yours.

At the moment you are trying to make clear how the appearance of multiple POV's to a topic (whether it be religion or medicine) somehow magically renders all POV's incorrect,/some POV's incorrect ... or something like that

You didn't say anything about anyone being bereft of the knowledge of what the goal is, so I don't know where that's coming from.

If someone was playing the numerous different approaches to treating headaches (by medicine) as somehow magically contradictory or irrevocably incompatible or whatever I thought it would be pretty clear where it came from

I also don't know what it has to do with things other than religion offering contradictory truths.

as I said, take comprehension of the goal out of the picture and you could talk about the contradictory truths of practically anything one cares to mention

I'm sure they do. My point is that I'm not concerned with apologetics.

as I said, that shouldn't be a problem then

Unless one of the parties trying to explain away the contradictions is God, then I have no use for it.

hence my suspicion you have never come within 10ft of them ....

I said nothing of henological discourse. I said that an error in scripture invalidates it.

henological discourse tends to suggest otherwise

\..?

so many remedies for headaches and all of them telling us they are true - can only mean they are all wrong, huh?

 

[Balerion]

What spies do isn't automatically considered theft by those who hire them and reward them.

Of course it is! It's just state-sanctioned because it serves their best interests.

Some of the activities of spies are rewarded, some are not.

Right. The thieving part is rewarded, banging hot women like 007 is a reward of its own.

As is evidenced by the severe punishments that double agents and such get for betrayal of their homeland (ie. death), even in the culture that endorses spying, there is still a code about punishing theft.

Right, but that wasn't the point you raised. You said thieving is always punished, it's just to varying degrees. You used this as an example of objective morality. The example of the spy shows that not all theft is punished, and it is in fact rewarded in certain circumstances.

Certainly not from those they stole from.

Obviously, but that wasn't the point.

Practical and moral concerns go hand in hand.

I don't think that's true at all, particularly in the case of religious morals. Things like homosexuality and eating pork are considered immoral, and neither of those injunctions serve any practical purpose. Anyway, the point was to demonstrate that even if everyone agreed that thievery was awesome and fun, in order to maintain a civil society, it needs to be outlawed.

In different cultures / societies / times, different things or living beings are considered sacred.

That's not an answer. It doesn't explain why Hinduism and Islam--which co-exist in both region and era--have contradictory claims of sanctity.

What they all have in common is that some phenomena are considered sacred.

Again, that's like saying these cultures have shelter in common. The injunctions aren't to keep something sacred, they are to keep something specific sacred.

Fundie meets fundies ...

More like, "educated meets uneducated."

Try again after you've actually read the source material.

So?

Someone makes a claim and that means you have to throw your brain away?

Someone here threw their brain away, that's for sure...

Do I really need to hold your hand and walk you back through this conversation to see what point I was making with that comment? Really, wynn?

You wish.

You're right, it's a pipe dream to think you're either willing to or capable of retaining anything you read here. But we try!

"Jesus is the one and only path to salvation, for all people and in all times."

Again, this is something you wouldn't say if you'd read the bible.