On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > On 12/9/2016 2:51 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 12/8/2016 3:52 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 12:38 AM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 12/8/2016 3:31 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 12/8/2016 3:29 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 12/5/2016 1:31 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 3:38 AM, Brent Meeker >>>>>>>>>> <meeke...@verizon.net> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/4/2016 10:45 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Brent Meeker >>>>>>>>>>>> <meeke...@verizon.net> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and by doing so you drag in a lot of baggage. There was a group >>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>> atheists in the Dallas area which for a time formed a church and >>>>>>>>>>> claimed >>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>> be a religion for tax purposes. They defined "God" to be >>>>>>>>>>> whatever >>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>> good >>>>>>>>>>> in the world. The IRS disallowed their claim. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I assume that evoking the American IRS as a a scholarly authority >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> such a matter is a joke, right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But they are as good an authority as any. Unlike theologians they >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>> make decisions that have real consequences - not just mix word >>>>>>>>> salad. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But this is not a discussion about theology, it's a discussion about >>>>>>>> the historical and cultural variations of concepts of god -- it >>>>>>>> falls >>>>>>>> under anthropology and history. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> OK, tell me about a historical or cultural variation in which "god" >>>>>>> doesn't >>>>>>> not refer to a person/agent. >>>>>> >>>>>> Anything pantheistic. Taoism, several gnostic cults, certain native >>>>>> Americans I think, sufi mysticism, certain denominations of modern >>>>>> judaism... Ah and the force in Star Wars. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> But they don't use the word "god". It's an abuse of language it say >>>>> that >>>>> "god" means "whatever one's religion worships". Paul Tillich tried >>>>> that >>>>> maneuver in the '60s. He said "god" meant whatever one valued most: >>>>> money, >>>>> fame, power,... If you cut a word lose from common usage then, as the >>>>> Caterpillar said to Alice, you can make it mean anything you want. >>>> >>>> So you are saying that "god" is reserved for judaic-christian style >>>> deities. >>> >>> >>> It's not "reserved"; it, like any word, is defined by usage, and the >>> usage >>> overwhelmingly denotes a being who is immortal, has supernatural powers >>> and >>> knowledge and should be obeyed and worshipped or placated. It includes >>> the >>> gods and godesses of Egypt, Greece, Mesopotamia, India, Scandnavia, >>> Mayan, >>> Aztec,... >> >> I hear people say stuff like "God for me is Nature" all the time. Don't >> you? > > > No, I don't. But if I did, I'd take it as metaphor, "I worship nature." I > hear people say, "Time is money." and "Valentino Rossi is a motorcycle god." > but I don't take them literally. > >> >> I was raised a catholic and had to go through 6 years of Sunday school >> until my father put an end to it (I'm forever grateful to him). Even >> there, I could tell that some people were more literalists while >> others saw god as "more of a concept". I have the impression that more >> educated people had a more abstract and less interventionist >> conception of god. Many did not believe in heaven or hell or miracles. >> Or that the universe as 6000 years old or any of that nonsense. > > > And some of those believed in a god, a deist god perhaps. But those who > believed in an impersonal order or force didn't believe in a god - because > "god" refers to a person. It's just a matter of not distorting language. > >> >>> Noun 1. God - the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and >>> omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the >>> object >>> of worship in monotheistic religions >>> 2. god - any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some >>> part >>> of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a >>> force >>> >>> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/God >> >> Well if you go here you get a different picture: >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God > > > It's not really different. It equivocates on "god" as "sometimes described" > as abstract. But all the examples are of persons and agents. > >> >> I am not trying to cut the religious any slack, by the way. I think we >> agree on a lot of things. > > > But isn't it obvious to you that the concept of god was invented as a > personalization of forces like storms and volcanoes and light. That's why > early religions were animist; there was a deer spirit and a wind spirit and > mountain spirit...
I agree that this is a very compelling hypothesis, and I would be surprised if it didn't in fact play a large role in the origin or religion. I think however that this explanation misses the big picture. Yes, the "miracles" of nature are used as evidence that something transcendent is happening, and if you can point at a specific "miracle" then maybe you can convince other people you are particularly in tune with it, and that you know what god wants and so on. This is the mechanism, but it is not the payoff. The payoff is two-fold: freeing people from existential crises and enabling civilisation by resolving prisoner dilemma scenarios (e.g. fear of hell). People don't lose sleep at night because they don't know how the wind works, they lose sleep because they feel that they are unimportant or that their lives are meaningless. If you can provide some solution for this, that is what people will really mean by "god", not the ridiculous wind-person itself. That is why anthropologists and other social scientists argue that things like money and fame play the role of god, are in fact "gods" in a deep cultural sense. In that sense this is not just playing silly word games, it is an attempt at a deeper understanding of what if really going on. Militant atheists, who are actively trying to free the world of religion, need a non-fuzzy target to hit. So they get really annoyed when one enters into such nuanced discussions of what people mean by "god". They get annoyed because they think that such understanding of human nature is of secondary importance compared to the more urgent goal of ridding the world of silly bronze-age superstitions that are impeding progress. The irony of the situation is that they are thinking in exactly the same way that priesthood classes always did: what people need is to take the correct actions, the rest is not that important. If they need to believe that the statue of the dog-god of Alpha Centauri bleeds from the eyes every full moon, let them. If this is what they need to not choose "defect" when confronted with prisoner dilemmas, it's not a high price to pay. Militant atheists play the same game with culture. This is all human nature and I don't find it particularly important. I was a militant atheist myself, until I managed to forgive organised religion for intellectually bullying me when I was a kid. I guess it just became a bit boring to hate them. Will I resist if they try to force me or others to live a certain way? Of course. What I won't do is pretend that religion was not evolutionarily selected *because it helps the species survive*. We still have the same fundamental problems to solve that we always had, even now that wind gods and dog gods are dead: meaning and cooperation. We are possibly witnessing the early stages of collapse of western civilisation because too many people find no meaning in their lives, no sense of belonging to anything at all and no reason to cooperate. It seems to turn out that a society can't run on money- and status- seeking alone. We are so smart that we figured out that the gods are bullshit, but unfortunately not smart enough to solve that one... > As civilization developed it seemed that humans were > superior and dominant over all animals and even over some of inanimate > nature - so the concept of god shifted to a great, superhuman person, a > great leader and law giver - especially one who led his worshippers to > victory in war. And of course there must be one greatest leader (who > happens to be the one we believe in). It is only because science in the > broadest sense has shown these ideas to be parochial and contradictory and > incoherent that theologians have been forced to retreat into abstractions > and poetic circumlocutions; while still currying support from the hoi polloi > with images of a stern father or loving mother god. As Bertrand Russell > notes they don't want to speak plainly of an abstract order, which might as > well be Noether's theorem, because their prestige and influence depends on > the idea of a personal god, a concept that people can understand because > He's like them. He's vain, He loves worship and He gets angry and He > demands good behavior and He saves them from death. So the modern > theologians use of the word "god" is basically dishonest. They are using it > as a diversion and they know it. If someone wants to study or speculate > about the foundation of the world or morals or purpose; that's great. But > if they can't show it has personal, human attributes, it's just fraud to > refer to it as "god". > > I highly recommend the little book, "The Religion Virus" by Craig A. James. > > Brent > You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out > that God hates all the same people you do. > - Anne Lamott > > > -- > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
