On Sunday, October 5, 2014 4:08:37 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Oct 2014, at 19:20, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: > > > > *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [ > mailto:ever...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *Bruno > Marchal > *Sent:* Friday, October 03, 2014 9:07 AM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: generalizations_of_islam > > > On 02 Oct 2014, at 20:41, meekerdb wrote: > > > On 10/2/2014 8:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Religion and spirituality are not barbaric, like medication are not > dangerous. > > > But the distinction between spirituality and religion is that spirituality > is personal, while it is part of the definition of religion that it "binds > together". > > I agree. > > > > > One "belongs to" a religion. > > > Only because we have mix it with politics. It was natural at the start, > and the first big civilisation were based on religion, if only as a mean > for identity, and providing some sense to life. > > The usual idea is that our ancestors were good, and if things are mess up, > it is because we have forgotten the lesson, and so this can create a > struggle between different traditions. > > Be it a lodge, a sect, an "official" religion, or a counter-religion, you > belong to it when your parents belong to it, most usually. You belong to > your histories. > > Now if you look at them, "religion" is NOT the factor of violence. > Violence is a human factor, and usually, like the insults, come from people > having some identity problem, and they can be dangerous, as usually they > develop hate, and disrespect for the discussions. > > > > > A religion is defined by a set of dogma. > > >>No. That is a pseudo-religion. > > Isn’t that semantic? > > > > I have put my card on the table. A religion is defined by a conception or > reality. A pseudo-religion is the same, after being institutionalized. > > I define God by that conception of reality, that is God is truth, with an > understanding and emphasis on its transcendent "beyond us" aspect (that is > with our admission of ignorance, inability to name god, etc...). It is > roughly the definition of the greek platonists. > > In the ideal case of sound (correct) machine, basically the logic of > science is given by G and its intensional variant, and the logic of > religion is the whole G* and its intensional variant. Then it is a theorem > that we can study the religion of simpler machine than us, and lift it, > with some perils, to ourself. We get inconsistent if we don't put the > interrogation marks (for example we cannot know that we are correct > machine, but we can hope for it). > > > > > > For has not every organized religion throughout all history imposed a core > set of dogmas on the masses of individual people who believe? > > > > Yes, but that is true for atheism too, and can be false for some buddhism, > or taoism, etc... All good idea, when institutionalized, becomes > pseudo-religious. No problem for anyone who study a bit of theology, and > see that atheism is a variant of christianism. (by atheism, I always mean > the "strong" one, as the word lost his meaning if we enlarge it to > agnosticism, which is the only option is the canonical simple religion of > correct machines). > > > > > > Hasn’t every religion in all cases been what you call pseudo-religion. > > > It happens very often. Look at atheism in the USSR (or at ULB). But it > happens for some reason, and is not a fatality. In fact it is dues to the > lack of faith. Only people lacking faith in their God (be it Matter, Jesus, > whatever) will impose it to others with coercion, which itself can take > many shape. > > > > I see why you say this, but I would argue you are mixing personal > spiritual revelation.. > > > Just math and logic. > > > > the intimate deep experience of self-revealed connection with the very > different animal of organized religion. > > > It is a problem with the lack of faith of the human, not with the content > of the possible theologies, or theories of everything. > > It means that science has not yet begun. We can't still question the gods, > like matter in the USSR (or at ULB), or god in many places, but not all. > > > > > > > The dogma can be God, or the Universe, or even Comp (although comp > explains in detail that the comp dogma is inconsistent if comp is true, but > some people can miss the proofs and makes it into a dogma), or even the > natural numbers. > > >>So let us do science instead, keeping our private feeling for us, and > working with the interrogation point, always. This, at the meta-level > identifies the beliefs with the theories, which are the things which we can > revised. > > >>Why not adopt that attitude in all fields. > > That would be a beautiful thing; > > > It is the natural one. Only when people lie do they need argument per > violence. No ne has been burned alive when saying something like 2+2=5. It > is only when people says that 2+2=4. > > > > however I would argue that faith by its nature tends to produce > organizations rooted in dogma and upon the imposition of some dogma. > > > The lack of faith. if you have faith in something, you let the other learn > by themselves. Especially in the religious (transcendent) field. I guess > you mean the kind of blind faith that some institution asks for. Then you > are coorect: blind faith needs army and polices to enforce, as nobody can > really have it. It is no more religion, it is the usual barbary. > > > > > > Faith is something that transcends questioning and questioning faith is > often viewed as apostasy and can become very dangerous for those who engage > in it. Faith – that powerful “known” feeling of certainty, that something > is right… the right path, the right mind state… arrives in the mind like a > tsunami…. It is pre-informed (by its own internal logic) and the individual > “receives” their faith. > Faith is only quite rarely arrived at through meditated means after deep > thought and consideration of all possible paths. Especially after the > advent of recorded culture, faith has arrived transmitted down through the > generations by the process of enculturation. By the time the child is old > enough to begin thinking for themselves they are already securely locked up > in the dogma of their particular sub-culture. > > > Yes, like the faith in the danger of drugs. It is brainwashing. It exists > because we don't allow doubt in the fundamentals, or in the important like > health. It is not a fatality, and I am pretty sure we will lack this type > of brainwashed "bad faith", but it will still take some time. It is > partially Darwinian. Insects have blind faith, but the atom of doubt rises > already in spider, is much bigger in mammals, and with the neotony, it > develops greatly in the humans. It asks some courage, as you need to be > able to say "we don't know, here is our beliefs/hypothesis". > > of course, that very idea, I have to doubt it, if only to remain > consistent. So do I. I can only communicate something like IF that theory > is correct, then blind faith will eventually disappears. > > Some people cannot doubt the existence of the physical universe, and that > is in part because that type of blind faith is preprogrammed, and is useful > and even locally true. Just fundamentally false, perhaps. The brain has not > been eveloved to look at itself below its substitution level. > > > > > > Fundamentalism and violence in religion (and in health) comes from the > fact that apparently we are not mature enough to let theology (or just to > listen to the people) coming back to reason in academy (the worst system > except for the others). > > >>Religion is when spiritual people exchange their experience. It leads > to binding and bonding, but the more serious we are in that affair, the > more we can bind with different people, or animals or plants or even > relative numbers. > > Perhaps, in an ideal sense this is what it would be, however in practice > it is a far different beast. > > > > Yes. But I am a theorician, and I believe the practice will evolve if we > get a better understanding of the possible theories, including the fact > that theories are always interrogation, questions, never knowledge known as > such. > > > > > > > >>By preventing reason in theology, we favor the fundamentalists, the > fairy tales, the superstitions, which are all things which can be used to > propagate hate and the unjust irreligious power. > > But, isn’t it theology itself (or at the very least the powers that > control the institutions of religion) that act – and often act powerfully > and violently – to prevent reasoned discourse on the core tenets of some > particular dogma? > > > This will continue as long as we tolerate the argument-per-authority in it. > > But eaxtly like few christian today believe in the bilble literally, when > theology will come back to reason, they will not take anything literally, > but they will enrich their interpretation thanks to the constraints of > consistency and lucidity. Science will not give the answer. The theological > science do not suggest a definite answers, but shows which beliefs are > consistent with which beliefs. Like we know perhaps now that the god > Primary Matter is not consistent with the religious belief in the digital > and technological reincarnation (comp). > > The worst problem is that by separating science from religion, not only we > get madness in the religious domain, but we get wrongness on the very idea > of what science is. Some believes that the existence of a primary moon is a > fact, but that is not a scientific fact. > > Nobody can't have a religion. We all believe in some reality, with some > conception of it. As working in that very filed, I call that a theology. > All machines have a theology. When a machine says that she has no theology, > only science, that machine impose its theology to others. Saying I have no > religion is in fact an argument per authority in disguise. > > > > >>Christians have been radical too, but today are less radical that some > atheists (in my experience), > > Come visit the USA – we have our very own American Taliban and they are as > scary as their Muslim brothers (in spirit – for they both espouse > fundamentalist violence and cultish blind adherence to absurd fairy tales). > We have plenty of very radical Christian sects here, who seek to impose > their Dominionist theology on every person. > > > OK. I was thinking to the european christians, among intellectuals and > people genuinely interested in the domain. But some years ago, the > extreme-left was like you describe above. They were threatening and easily > violent (even with bombs) those doubting their idea. > > Influence by logic and machines, I tend to find obvious that in the > religious field, all attempt to convince some others is a symptom of lack > of faith. truth needs no army, and win all war in the limit, but *we* can > make quite big detours, too. > > > > > >>and the problem is not which religion if true, or is the problem, > because the problem is only the idea that we tolerate total lack of rigor > in what is (for my understanding, close to greeks and indians) the theory > of everything. That includes or is equal to theology, even if it is only to > disprove the existence of this or that sort of gods when assuming this or > that hypotheses about how connecting our measurement results. > > The problem is not the notional ideas themselves – even the ridiculous > fairy tales found in all religions are not a problem (they could be just > interesting cultural artifacts). > > > Even medication, like the good fairy tales we read to a child to help > him/her sleep. The key is that they are fiction stories, they illustrate > possible ideas or hopes. > > > > > The problem is – IMO – that organized culturally recorded and transmitted > religious systems have been able to get a stranglehold over the minds of a > vast number of people in all ages of recorded history. > > > It is a bit natural. But we are at the time of the perverse effect, and > the greeks show the way, and we have get back to the idea in the > "Enlightened period" except that one field did not go through (the > everything field, which needs to be theology as everything has to be > concerned to the transcendental (even for saying it does not exist, which > might be the case if computationalism is false). >
God has spoken to me...3 times. The first time was just a comment about smoking....said he couldn't do anything about the smoking. I have since quit smoking. Anyway...human beings, Science, the Enlightenment....it evolved by fierce, exponentially loading natural selection. Other futures don't work out. So there's a crush back to this kind of world and our kind of being. The reason...the source of the powerful force of selection....is that the universe...reality...runs into problems ahead....that it cannot solve. We're here to solve the problems. But there have been problems with us too. We don't get it. We just don't get it frequently enough...on the little duplicate worlds. So there's a crisis in reality. It can die. And it is doing to die unless the human 'thing' can break through in time and work it all out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
