The implications of considering religious choice to be subjective
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
You're the one having issues separating the two
You're the one implying to be omniscient.
You're the one implying to be omniscient.
Being able to accurately seperate the two does not imply omniscience.
My attitude toward religion is that it tells us where we came from and is therefore a part of human history. It also gives hints into how the human mind functioned in different times in history. If you don't learn from history you will repeat the same mistakes.
Symbolism, which religious writings are full of, should not to be taken literally but need to be interpretted symbolically. If Christ said the kingdom of God is like the mustard seed, it does not mean heaven is literally tiny like a mustard seed. That would be irrational. The symbol is describing something that starts out tiny and grows quickly into the largest plant in the garden. Microsoft was like a mustard seed. If this was taken literally, I would look like an irrational thing to say. But if you understand how symbols work it describe the reality well.
If you look at the story of Adam and Eve, they had two son's Cain and Abel. Cain was the tiller of soil and Abel the herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel that symbolically tells us about the transition when farming supersedes nomadic herdering allowing civilization to follow. The question becomes why not just say that, why be ambiguous with symbolism? Using the mustard seed example, the symbol allows a data compression. To explain it you need 5X more words.
Picture if there were no books and nobody could read. How do you pass traditions over thousands of years, accurately; word of mouth. However, there are limits as to how much data you can pass down verbally, accurately. You can not pass down complex analysis, verbally. Most would go in one ear and out the other. Try this at school for a month; no reading to help you study, just the lectures. Certain things will stick better others will be altered by time and some just memory dumped.
To make it easier so information can be passed down, when people can not read/write to study, you need to compress the data into song or story. Even a child will remember the story of three little pigs, but will not remember the substance of the debt debate. The brain will erase the debt debate in days, if we didn't have transcripts to refresh the data. The story would change in a week into how you wished it happened. But the three little pigs story will last a lifetime even after one story lesson. Later the young adult may learn what the symbols means, in terms of this fable's life lesson. This is where the simple data gets decompressed. You may forget that lesson but the symbol of the three pigs will remain. This has to do with the type of data the unconscious mind uses.
Symbolic compression into stories was the most efficient way to store and transfer data in an accurate way. Even thousands of years later, the original stories would be there. Even before the priniting press, the stories were told and could be passed down without study materials. It is up to the modern person, in the adulthood of humanity, to decompress the files.
To the literal minded, Cain and Abel is literally about two son's who fight and one kills the other out of jealousy. The atheists sees this literal lesson as a stupid story without relavence today. The symbolists who can decompress sees the transition into farming. The ancients, who lived this history had eye witness account. They also learn to preserved this data in the form of symbolic compression.
I am not a theists, nor am I an atheist, either. I am more of a rationalist and symbolist who tries to decompress the ancient symbols. The atheist hate this because it all of nothing to them. If you even touch the bible that is taboo in that religion. The fundamentalists don't like decompression either because they like the literal traditions; preservation. The idea of farming superseding nomadic herding it not the best method for symbolic perservation. Opening king tuts tomb sort of causes deterioration unless an alterate perservation method is achieved.
Symbolism, which religious writings are full of, should not to be taken literally but need to be interpretted symbolically. If Christ said the kingdom of God is like the mustard seed, it does not mean heaven is literally tiny like a mustard seed. That would be irrational. The symbol is describing something that starts out tiny and grows quickly into the largest plant in the garden. Microsoft was like a mustard seed. If this was taken literally, I would look like an irrational thing to say. But if you understand how symbols work it describe the reality well.
If you look at the story of Adam and Eve, they had two son's Cain and Abel. Cain was the tiller of soil and Abel the herder of animals. When Cain kills Abel that symbolically tells us about the transition when farming supersedes nomadic herdering allowing civilization to follow. The question becomes why not just say that, why be ambiguous with symbolism? Using the mustard seed example, the symbol allows a data compression. To explain it you need 5X more words.
Picture if there were no books and nobody could read. How do you pass traditions over thousands of years, accurately; word of mouth. However, there are limits as to how much data you can pass down verbally, accurately. You can not pass down complex analysis, verbally. Most would go in one ear and out the other. Try this at school for a month; no reading to help you study, just the lectures. Certain things will stick better others will be altered by time and some just memory dumped.
To make it easier so information can be passed down, when people can not read/write to study, you need to compress the data into song or story. Even a child will remember the story of three little pigs, but will not remember the substance of the debt debate. The brain will erase the debt debate in days, if we didn't have transcripts to refresh the data. The story would change in a week into how you wished it happened. But the three little pigs story will last a lifetime even after one story lesson. Later the young adult may learn what the symbols means, in terms of this fable's life lesson. This is where the simple data gets decompressed. You may forget that lesson but the symbol of the three pigs will remain. This has to do with the type of data the unconscious mind uses.
Symbolic compression into stories was the most efficient way to store and transfer data in an accurate way. Even thousands of years later, the original stories would be there. Even before the priniting press, the stories were told and could be passed down without study materials. It is up to the modern person, in the adulthood of humanity, to decompress the files.
To the literal minded, Cain and Abel is literally about two son's who fight and one kills the other out of jealousy. The atheists sees this literal lesson as a stupid story without relavence today. The symbolists who can decompress sees the transition into farming. The ancients, who lived this history had eye witness account. They also learn to preserved this data in the form of symbolic compression.
I am not a theists, nor am I an atheist, either. I am more of a rationalist and symbolist who tries to decompress the ancient symbols. The atheist hate this because it all of nothing to them. If you even touch the bible that is taboo in that religion. The fundamentalists don't like decompression either because they like the literal traditions; preservation. The idea of farming superseding nomadic herding it not the best method for symbolic perservation. Opening king tuts tomb sort of causes deterioration unless an alterate perservation method is achieved.
here is a thought..
although it is accepted that a human cannot be omniscient,(all knowing)
to me there is a possibility that a human can know all things..at least all things that are known by humans..(i know lots who think they do..)
IOW what is the threshold that a human can no longer learn anything new?
although it is accepted that a human cannot be omniscient,(all knowing)
to me there is a possibility that a human can know all things..at least all things that are known by humans..(i know lots who think they do..)
IOW what is the threshold that a human can no longer learn anything new?
I don't think an answer to this is presently available.