Hi Bruno Marchal  

Am I wrong ? I don't think that "complexity" and Platonism 
(top-down being) suit each other. Complexity seems to arise from bottom-up 
being as sets of miracles that happen when the Aristotelian
intellect gets stuck. 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/9/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Bruno Marchal  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-09, 05:37:48 
Subject: Re: Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism. 




On 08 Jan 2013, at 21:25, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 


Le me add some meat here 


We can not reduce the concept of God to a boring principle that we need to put 
somewhere. Like a ugly furniture inherited from the grand-parents which for its 
sentimental value we have to keep and locate somewhere, so that the familly 
visits show that you are a well educated and respectful person. God is like the 
refligerator. if you drop the old one, you need another. Why? because religion 
-or an extended notion of religion and divinity- is deeply embedded in human 
nature. An objective study of God includes an explanation of the subjective 
reality or the resulting description is incomplete. if the reality is overall, 
mental and divinity a neccesity, then the divinity is part of reality 


For reasons that I detail below, God must be the absolute source of meaning in 
all aspects. therefore it embodies the causation and direction of what is 
"physical" as well as what is mental, personal or moral and any else. 
Therefore, for the believer, God must  be personal, among other things, or 
else, the believer lacks a foundation for the aspects that God does not 
includes. 


As I tried to show in robotic Truth, religion is a neccesity for the operation 
of social beings.  


For all machines, actually. Even when isolated. the "robotic truth" can be 
approached by introspection when the machine complexity is above the L?ian 
threshold. 






If there is no agreed meaning, that is, goals, there is no  inequivocal rules 
for social action. if there are no inequivocal rules for social coordination, 
descoordination and internal decomposition of the group follows. For that 
matter religion is the core social instinct. it is as deeply embedded in social 
nature as is other unique human traits, like the white in the eyes, another 
social adaptation (facilitates the reading of the emotional states and 
intentions of others).  


Probably the first religion was a cult of the person of the recently dead 
leader of the tribe that was an example and a guide to all the other members by 
emulation. That's why by history and by neccesity a god, must be personal .  


A society with a impersonal Principle is full of smalller personal gods in 
conflict, sometimes violent. Philosophers, Demagoges, scientis, rock stars, 
Soccer clubs. This politheism becomes salient and agressive when there is no 
personal God, or, at least, no Cesar or Zeus that make clear who is the 
ultimate authority. A dialectic materialist society need a Lenin and a Stalin 
because its impersonal Principle is not personal. The abstract and 
incognoscible Allah need a  ruthless political Mahoma. 


The cult to the blood, the leader and the territory. These are the almost 
mathematically inexorable traits of the primitive tribal religion that we have 
by default in the genes. In the origin, the cult to the leader, the public 
rites, The bloody sacrifices, All are devoted to strengthen coordination and 
ensure collaboration, and mutual recognition between the members. And the sharp 
distinction between us and the others.  


A  membrane separates the entity from the outside and defines an living unit 
that perdures in time, be it a cell or a society, in the latter case, the 
membrane is created by religion, the physical territory and the blood ties.  In 
this sense, primitive religion may be exigent, very exigent and dangerous. The 
bloody mesoamerican religions, which grew unchallenged during centuries, with 
his pyramids of skulls illustrate how a primitive religion evolves in itself 
when not absorbed or conquered by a superior civilization.  


Hmm... 








That? why the belief in a all transcendent God that created all men at its 
image and dignity and incarnated in a person, Christ to imitate, is the best 
use of this unavoidable and necessary part of us called religion. In this 
sense, Christianity free us from the obedience to the dictatorial earthly 
leaders, the bloody sacrifices, the cult to the lebensraung (vital space) of 
the tribe , or the supertribe, with its psycopathic treatment to "the others". 


Because nihilism is unbearable except as a self-steem booster by means of a 
self-exhibition of strength for a certain time, as the young russians did in 
the early XX century.  If hihilism would not be painful it would not be a 
matter of exhibition. Sooner or later the nihilist has to choose between the 
suicide, that has a perfect evolutionary sense, since someone isolated, with no 
guide to help others in society is a social burden, and suicide is the social 
apoptosis, by means of which the social body re-absorb the useless. 




Or else the , guided by its simple instints and devoid of the experience and 
traditions of the past, and therefore with no vaccine for the recurrent errors 
of humanity, the unbeliever will reinvent again and again the primitive cults 
to the earth the tiranic leader and the blood. Of course with the fashionable 
decorations of our time;  Probably some  eco-globalist-aborto-eugenesist cult  
with a greath leader that would suspend our rights, for the good of humanity 
and the planet, of course. 


I agree partially. But the Christian have politicized religion, where the 
greeks have succeeded in making it into a science, and today we have not yet 
come back to the scientific attitude in those matter. There is a strong 
resistance from fundamentalist atheists, more numerous than I thought possible. 
European atheism seems different than american atheism (which is often just 
agnosticism). 


Bruno 











2013/1/8 John Clark  

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 



>Whoever invented the word "God" invented atheism. 


Yes, I agree with that, one clearly had to come before the other. Before some 
human invented God there was no need for another human to invent atheism. 

  John K Clark 

  


  



--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 






--  
Alberto.  


--  
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group. 
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. 
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to