Would Polytheism Be Better For Us ?

[Fëanor]

... Today, we have to deal with intellectual lightweights like Richard Dawkins as if they really had anything interesting to say that anybody with an IQ higher then room temperature hasn't thought about it on his own a million times before.

Right on, Jos.

You hit the nail on the head then.  I for one, upon reading The God Delusion, found that there was no siginificant point of Dawkins' that I hadn't thought of and agreed with, decades before.  And I make no intellectual pretense.

[Guido]

Well we all see things differently - I guess that there is snideness from both sides, but I notice it a damned shade more when it comes from the Christians, as it's not very 'Christian' of them. It's not a point I want to labour, but it does amuse me. (And yes, its obviously not all the Christians.) I'm not aware of the OP poster ever being particularly hateful, though I may very well be wrong.

[greg]

I think Eric suffers more from selective listening than hatefulness...

[karlhenning]

Well we all see things differently - I guess that there is snideness from both sides, but I notice it a damned shade more when it comes from the Christians, as it's not very 'Christian' of them. It's not a point I want to labour, but it does amuse me. (And yes, its obviously not all the Christians.) I'm not aware of the OP poster ever being particularly hateful, though I may very well be wrong.

Well, when he goes on one of his "How can any sentient being really believe" so-&-so riffs, I guess it's a fine point whether there is hatred in there. Don has a good point with the OP's being muddled.

[Guido]

Well, when he goes on one of his "How can any sentient being really believe" so-&-so riffs, I guess it's a fine point whether there is hatred in there. Don has a good point with the OP's being muddled.

Quite - I read that as being perplexed, rather than as an intended insult.

[DavidRoss]

Nah, it's textbook passive-aggressive hatefulness.

[Xenophanes]

Neither do I. It doesn't have a bearing on what I was saying.
It doesn't matter what the labels are. Choose different ones (as I invited). The key point is still that no progress can be made by demanding that insights dependent upon one world view must be transposable into another. I repeat: "You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blueness, you have to see it (if it exists)." The reality of the colour blue may indeed be a mere fantasy, but the issue can't be resolved by talking about it. The same goes for 'the extension of consciousness into the ether'. As I explained, I can form some kind of understanding of what he may mean by that metaphorical expression; but he, like Blake, would insist that truly to understand it, one needs to experience it.

Catholic: how's that? 

Well, if getting beyond the ether can't be understood without  the experience, how does one gain the experience? According to you, one can't explain what is meant anymore than one can explain sight to who can't see at all. This brings us to Wittgenstein:

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." 

You and Josquin have talked yourself into a quandary.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Gurn,

I think there is a certain amount of smugness in the very title of this thread. Where do you get the "us" from? No system of beliefs is right for "us", although any number of them may be right for "you" (singular).

Correct, it should be 'me' not 'we'...  Duly noted.   

That statement has griped my cookies since you first started this thread, and now I have got it off my chest

And I know you've been recuperating too....      My apologies.... 

[Homo Aestheticus]

Xenophanes,

What does he know about it?

Just enough to be able to argue about it, yes ? 

Richard Dawkins isn't in a position to take Father Coyne on either scientifically (astronomy is not his field of expertise) or theologically. Or do you think he is just being polite to the old guy?

But when has theology ever been right ?  Sometimes it seems that theologians 'play games' with us.

[Homo Aestheticus]

Josquin and Feanor,

Boring.

The intellectual sophistication of western society has been reduced to journalistic mediocrities like Richard Dawkins and all the other second rate hacks favored by the media. To think there was a time when a genius like Otto Weininger was a wildfire best seller. Today, we have to deal with intellectual lightweights like Richard Dawkins as if they really had anything interesting to say that anybody with an IQ higher then room temperature hasn't thought about it on his own a million times before.

O.k. perhaps Voltaire was wittier and more sophisticated than all of these these guys on this topic but if I remember correctly Dawkins wrote The God Delusion for the general public, specifically those who still questioned the religion of their upbringing and were still sort of 'on the fence' ..... It wasn't written for academics.

By the way, do you consider Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens second rate hacks as well ?

Either way, I find what they've done refreshing... I think that some vigorous questioning of religious beliefs in our culture is a bit overdue.

What do you propose be done instead ?

[Gurn Blanston]

Gurn,

Correct, it should be 'me' not 'we'...  Duly noted.   

And I know you've been recuperating too....      My apologies.... 

(Accepted)

You really need to leave the Christians alone. Unless you were sent as a test for them. If you have been, then it is interesting to see that many have passed with flying colors. The remainder have some opportunities.  0:)




----------------
Listening to:
Royal PO / Previn  Ax - Bia 337 Op 37 Concerto #3 in c for Piano 2nd mvmt - Largo

[Josquin des Prez]

as it's not very 'Christian' of them.

Why do people think Christianity = Gandhi? "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword".

[Egebedieff]

Why do people think Christianity = Gandhi? "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword".

"...and the sword was God."'

[Elgarian]

You and Josquin have talked yourself into a quandary.

No, the quandary is not mine. I'm merely observing two people failing to communicate and exploring why that might be happening.

Well, if getting beyond the ether can't be understood without  the experience, how does one gain the experience?

How one gains the experience is a separate issue. That isn't what we were talking about.

However, we mustn't distort Josquin de Pres's metaphor while attempting to understand it; I can form some understanding of what he means when he speaks of 'consciousness stretched towards the ether', or 'projecting your mind into the ether' (based on my acquaintance with the concept of 'ether' in physics, as I explained previously); but to speak of 'getting beyond the ether', as you misquote it, would be incomprehensible even to me. If we're going to discuss the issue at all, we need to discuss what he said, not what we mistakenly think he said.

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." 

You're right to quote Wittgenstein at this point, though I fancy we almost certainly have different notions of what he meant by his famous statement, and what its implications are for this discussion. But that's another story, and life is short.

[Guido]

Why do people think Christianity = Gandhi? "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword".

because Christ's example teaches compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, not to be judgemental etc.

"...and the sword was God."'

You're a genius! 

[Egebedieff]

You're a genius! 

I appreciate the irony of that comment, given the fascination that some folks here have with that concept. '

[Guido]

It's all that matters (so I'm told).

[Homo Aestheticus]

Xenophanes,

What does he know about it?  

Richard Dawkins isn't in a position to take Father Coyne on either scientifically (astronomy is not his field of expertise) or theologically.

Btw, here is a concise, humorous and wonderful reply from Dawkins when questioned on perhaps being wrong about the Judao-Christian God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&feature=related

[Xenophanes]

Neither do I. It doesn't have a bearing on what I was saying.
It doesn't matter what the labels are. Choose different ones (as I invited). The key point is still that no progress can be made by demanding that insights dependent upon one world view must be transposable into another. I repeat: "You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blueness, you have to see it (if it exists)." The reality of the colour blue may indeed be a mere fantasy, but the issue can't be resolved by talking about it. The same goes for 'the extension of consciousness into the ether'. As I explained, I can form some kind of understanding of what he may mean by that metaphorical expression; but he, like Blake, would insist that truly to understand it, one needs to experience it.

OK, so you just offer this comparison as part of your interpretation of what Josquin said.

You can't get across an adequate conception of the colour blue to someone who keeps his eyes closed all the time and questions the existence of colours because what he's been told about them sounds like nonsense. To understand blue, you have to see it (if it exists).

OK.  So you propose that somehow that the experience is open to those who keep their eyes open (another metaphor), so that somehow not experiencing  "the extension of consciousness into the ether" is somehow their own fault. Now, you also propose of the phrase that:

it conveys the idea of consciousness receiving information through an undetectable medium reasonably well.

Therefore, my formulation (not a quote) of getting beyond the ether makes sense, since the ether in the interpretation you propose (but don't say you accept) is only a medium through which one might learn something besides itself.  Neither, however, makes sense if we don't know what 'ether' means and Josquin isn't saying.

However, those who do not have the alleged experience may find it strange that people blame them for not having it, along with some particular interpretation of it.  It seems rather insulting and I can hardly blame people for objecting to it.  Not the way to make friends and influence people. 

[Xenophanes]

Xenophanes,

Btw, here is a concise, humorous and wonderful reply from Dawkins when questioned on perhaps being wrong about the Judao-Christian God:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg&feature=related

You keep changing the ground.  But in any case, Dawkins stated a fairly obvious truth.  What makes you think theologians, religious historians, and sociologists of religions don't know that?  The questioner deserved the answer she got. Who is she to make theological threats?