Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[drogulus]

     Whatever the truth of it may be, nothing doesn't appear to be an option. I think that was the point of some pre-Socratic speculation about an existent ground producing the various properties which are in opposition to each other but can't destroy each other. It sounds a little like the properties coming out of the expansion after the Big Bang. Stenger thinks that properties are intrinsic and simply are what is observed as things cool down and are allowed to differentiate by energy levels (I hope I have that right).

[The new erato]

71db and Guido,

Look, all I'm saying is that it is easier for me to accept the possibility of supernatural beings behind the creation of the universe rather than nothing.

Only if you posit that something has to be behind it. I can't see why it does. The university as we know it is not a necessity.

[Renfield]

Only if you posit that something has to be behind it. I can't see why it does. The university as we know it is not a necessity.

erato, have I mentioned how much I love you?

[drogulus]

Only if you posit that something has to be behind it. I can't see why it does. The university as we know it is not a necessity.

     Certainly not for everyone. 

     Yes, I agree with your point. It comes down to how you deal with this:

     There has to be an explanation!

     As a human psychological imperative this is true. We do have to explain things somehow. However, there is a problem with applying or possibly misapplying the notion of causality beyond the scope of its known efficacy, which is the relation of parts to a whole where we can observe the interactions. We have no idea if/how this concept is properly applied to a Universe. What is the Universe in relation with? And what is in relation to that? And so on and on down to the last elephant or turtle.

[c#minor]

I think Polyphony would be better for us. If fact i think Polytonal would be better.

[The new erato]

erato, have I mentioned how much I love you?

No, but it was high time! 

[drogulus]

I think Polyphony would be better for us. If fact i think Polytonal would be better.

     Why didn' I think of that? A solid state Universe! No wonder you can't find a Mullard ECC83 at a decent price!

     

     

[Elgarian]

It's not supernatural beings vs. nothing. Scientists seek for an explanation instead of nothing.

I don't think it's even 'versus'; I think the whole 'theism versus science' debate is based on a misconception. Science is a particular kind of process pursuing a particular kind of method, in the hope of producing more predictive models of a particular kind. Science has been so successful because it works so well, statistically speaking. It tends to make reliable predictions about certain kinds of events, and we like that; it works so much better than reading tea-leaves, or alchemy. But you can't get a viable philosophy out of it, I think, or use it to find 'meaning' in the shape of an alternative to a world view that includes the spiritual. At least, I can't.

Going back to the question - I'm not sure that the number of gods would make much difference, would it? As long as I remain so bemused about the concept of what a 'god' might be, wondering about how many there are doesn't seem to be my most pressing problem..

[drogulus]

I don't think it's even 'versus'; I think the whole 'theism versus science' debate is based on a misconception. Science is a particular kind of process pursuing a particular kind of method, in the hope of producing more predictive models of a particular kind. Science has been so successful because it works so well, statistically speaking. It tends to make reliable predictions about certain kinds of events, and we like that; it works so much better than reading tea-leaves, or alchemy. But you can't get a viable philosophy out of it, I think, or use it to find 'meaning' in the shape of an alternative to a world view that includes the spiritual. At least, I can't.

Going back to the question - I'm not sure that the number of gods would make much difference, would it? As long as I remain so bemused about the concept of what a 'god' might be, wondering about how many there are doesn't seem to be my most pressing problem..

     You can derive science from a viable philosophy, though. That's just as important. Science is philosophy, just not all of it. As far as methods go the so-called scientific method has never been precisely defined, and that's because it's an "open architecture" kind of thing. What constitutes verification of propositions is specific to what the propositions state, and even supposed limitations like "it must concern matter and energy" or "it presupposes materialism" are just assertions. If nothing shows up that defies our ever expanding categories about what might exist, then hooray! I said elsewhere that a sufficiently flexible classification system never needs to break. What we find will always be material so long as material is what we call what we find. And since we don't predetermine the contents of material theories this escapes the criticism that we only find what we look for. I think this is important, since the charge is so frequently made against scientists that they are blinkered in only considering the material. First, they don't and second, this misunderstands material.

[david johnson]

Why ?

Does the deathgrip that monotheism has had on Western culture for so many centuries not bother you ?

you are free to think they are not silly.  one is superstitioous, the other is convinced it is the only way...monoatheism.

deathgrip?  anyone on the board dying of monotheism?  of course not.  instead, several tend to wish to strangle it.

dj

[david johnson]

'Quote from: david johnson on Today at 04:16:24 AM
and equally sad to hear the non-believers echo such sentiments toward believers.

dj


Really? How should I react when someone say it's ok to ignore what scientists and intellectuals say?'
---------------------------------------------


you really don't know how people should act/react?

dj

[Elgarian]

What we find will always be material so long as material is what we call what we find.

I'm trying to persuade myself that this isn't a tautology, and I'm not sure that I'm managing to succeed - though I agree with what you say about the shifting definition of 'materialism', and the fact that it's accommodated by the system.

And since we don't predetermine the contents of material theories this escapes the criticism that we only find what we look for. I think this is important, since the charge is so frequently made against scientists that they are blinkered in only considering the material. First, they don't and second, this misunderstands material.

The blinkering (I'm uneasy about the word in this context) that troubles me is not so much about science and materialism; but about the restriction on the kinds of questions that can be asked of science; and therefore, potentially, on the kinds of answers we can get.

But I'm also concerned that I'm dragging this thread way off the topic proposed by the OP, so I'd better leave it there, I think.

[drogulus]

      Here I am watching this lovely PBS documentary on cheetahs and then the channel spontaneously changes to a 3 Stooges episode. And one without Curly at that!

     

I'm trying to persuade myself that this isn't a tautology, and I'm not sure that I'm managing to succeed - though I agree with what you say about the shifting definition of 'materialism', and the fact that it's accommodated by the system.

     It isn't. If you call what you find materialism you change what materialism encompasses. So the best way to think of it is that the way the term is used now is as an extensible category. If something fits into the system of definitions that are generally termed "materialism" it means that we've found it and know something about what it does, changing materialism in the process. It may not seem like what a 19th century philosopher would think of as materialism.

    So long as we insist on calling what we find material, as we have been doing for some time, it follows that the important arguments about what exists will occur within and not outside the boundaries. This should be easy to see, it follows from the curious history of how the growth of knowledge has been accommodated. This tends to defang the opposition, who have no point to make. Whatever is wrong with whatever constitutes a "material view" is remedied within and not outside the system. "Materialism" is the ultimate accordion file stretching to fit any concepts that might oppose it.

     Why am I thinking of Johnny LaRue and Polynesian Town?

     

[Homo Aestheticus]

I would say you are a person with a very strong attraction to various forms of absolutism.

True for the most part, yes.

Some people go shopping for one truth after another, all of them absolutely 100% guaranteed. I think it's the guarantee that is attractive, not so much what is being guaranteed, which is always a little fuzzy if it's discernible at all.

I can't argue with this point.

Eric, do you think that if a religion appeals to you it's more likely to be true?

No.

And I take your point.

Honestly, this whole idea of a supernatural being to me is, in the end, about terror.... The thought that there is no intelligent, protecting, benevolent deity behind the cause of the universe I find unspeakably bleak.

Religion is in that sense folk belief. Does it work? To some extent, it does, especially as a powerful tool of social organization, at times a rival to the nation state. Like the nation state ideologies have grown up to defend and promote it, and not everything stated on behalf of these institutions is necessarily false. I think it's a good idea to examine these package deals closely and try to separate out what can stand on its own.

What do you make of highly intelligent people who have gone through a rigorous liberal arts curriculum at university and been exposed to the 'best' that has ever been written and said (i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, James, Wittgenstein) and yet still fervently adhere to their organized religion ?

Do they, in the words of Bill Maher, have a type of "neurological disorder" ?

I think it's a good idea to examine these package deals closely and try to separate out what can stand on its own

Let's take Judaism for a moment since it's the mother religion... What are your thoughts on Zionism ?  Let's examine this logically: isn't that a mostly horrible, deluded and depressing movement ?

     

[drogulus]

What do you make of highly intelligent people who have gone through a rigorous liberal arts curriculum at university and been exposed to the 'best' that has ever been written and said (i.e. Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hume, Nietzsche, James, Wittgenstein) and yet still fervently adhere to their organized religion ?

Do they, in the words of Bill Maher, have a type of "neurological disorder"

     

     No, they are normal. It's normal to have some beliefs you examine and others you accept. Being in the minority is normal, too, so I'm normal. I can't say I'm more normal than you.

     

     

     

[greg]

Honestly, this whole idea of a supernatural being to me is, in the end, about terror.... The thought that there is no intelligent, protecting, benevolent deity behind the cause of the universe I find unspeakably bleak.

Yeah, but there are very good odds that this is true. The good thing about this is that at least nobody will have to ever go to hell, right? There's no soul who has ever lived that literally deserves to live in a lake of fire for all eternity. I'd say it would be justified if Hitler or Bin Laden would get the just amount of punishment- maybe spend an hour on fire once a week for 5 years, and then it'd be equal, or so.

[karlhenning]

If Eric wants to be a polytheist, it will at least have the advantage of spreading his worship around to more than one object.

[drogulus]

    My, this is a wide-ranging thread, isn't it? 

Let's take Judaism for a moment since it's the mother religion... What are your thoughts on Zionism ?  Let's examine this logically: isn't that a mostly horrible, deluded and depressing movement ?

     

     I think you may be evaluating Zionism on the wrong scale. The creation of the state of Israel was almost entirely a secular nationalist enterprise over the objection of the orthodox religious, who believed, it's said, that such an act could only be effected by the Messiah. Since the Zionists were mostly clueless about how this game is played and didn't want religious endorsement anyway it didn't occur to them to argue that the Messiah was acting through them, and that's how Messiahs work. The Zionists didn't have Bill Clinton to advise them about triangulation.

     So what is deluded about a nationalist movement that succeeded in creating the state that was its goal? And how much is Zionism to blame for the decades-long stalemate of the "peace process"?

     Here's my view: There comes a moment when a violent revolutionary national movement needs a leader who can go from stone cold killer to peacemaker and founder of a state. It's not an easy transition. Right now there is need of a Michael Collins on the Palestinian side, someone who is willing to fight the die-hards on his own side to establish a real state, however limited that state might be. Arafat couldn't do it. Abbas would like to, I think, but isn't strong enough. Only a strong leader can force the Israelis to confront the opportunism and zealotry on their side. Without such a figure it doesn't matter whether Zionism is an obstacle or not, since the problems on the other side are so great we never get to find out.

     _* 

[Josquin des Prez]

Only a strong leader can force the Israelis to confront the opportunism and zealotry on their side. Without such a figure it doesn't matter whether Zionism is an obstacle or not, since the problems on the other side are so great we never get to find out.
_* 

Norman Finkelstein says Israel should receive a major defeat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyDrP2EsYGo

Perhaps he's right, too bad it won't happen. I predict the state of Palestine will cease to exist very soon, and that will be the mere starting point.

[Bulldog]

Let's take Judaism for a moment since it's the mother religion... What are your thoughts on Zionism ?  Let's examine this logically: isn't that a mostly horrible, deluded and depressing movement ?

None of the above.